I am very pleased to announce that at our annual general meeting on
Saturday 25 July the members of Wikimedia UK elected three new trustees
to the board from a very strong slate of candidates.
Please join me in offering a very warm welcome to Doug Taylor, Nick
Poole and Josie Fraser.
Doug Taylor will be well known to many readers as a long-standing active
Wikimedia volunteer and Lead Trainer for WMUK. He previously served on
the board during 2012-13. Doug is a retired teacher and IT professional.
Nick Poole is the Chief Executive Officer of the Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals. His previous roles include
serving as CEO of the Collections Trust and Chair of the Europeana
Network. He brings extensive knowledge of and influence in the
international GLAM community, and has strong connections to policymakers
and funders in the UK and Europe.
Josie Fraser has for the past five years worked in local government as
the strategic technology lead of one of the country's largest and most
accelerated school building programmes. She is an expert in the
relationship between education and technology and a vocal advocate for
free and open knowledge.
Existing trustees Greyham Dawes (treasurer) and myself (chair) were
re-elected.
Three trustees have stepped down from the board: Alastair McCapra, Saad
Choudri and Joseph Seddon. We thank them for their exceptional
expertise, commitment and diligence, and we wish them well for the future.
With these changes, the new board is as follows:
Michael Maggs (board chair, and chair of governance committee)
Simon Knight (vice chair)
Greyham Dawes (treasurer, governance committee, audit and risk committee)
Chris Keating (audit and risk committee)
Carol Campbell (chair of audit and risk committee)
Kate West (governance committee, audit and risk committee)
Gill Hamilton
Doug Taylor
Nick Poole
Josie Fraser
The new board will formally meet for the first time on Saturday 12
Septemberat the Bodleian Library, Oxford, where officer roles will be
reviewed.
Please join me in welcoming the new board.
Michael Maggs
Chair, Wikimedia UK
Dear all,
Creative Commons has started an interesting project proposal at
Kickstarter, Made with Creative Commons: A book on open business models
<https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/creativecommons/made-with-creative-com…>.
The book will be under a license compatible with the Open Definition,
CC-by-SA.
*Project description*
With your help, we are going to identify and select a diverse group of two
dozen businesses, creators, and organizations from around the world
succeeding with business models made with Creative Commons. Then we're
going to dig deep into how they work to show how using Creative Commons can
produce economic and social value.
Our goal is not to identify a formula for business models that utilize CC,
but instead to gather fresh ideas and dynamic examples that will help spark
new, innovative models that build on what is already working.
We want to spread this knowledge far and wide to inspire others to use what
works for them. At the end of the process, we'll publish an ebook that puts
together everything we learn and create an interactive online tool to help
others build their own CC-made business models.
*Goal*
50,000 USD
*Days left from today*16
Please, share
<https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/creativecommons/made-with-creative-com…>
.
Tom
Open Knowledge Brazil
I don't know whether this is a mistranslation in the title thread, but if this wikimedian is "advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users" that would seem to me a different thing to taking images for himself but releasing a CC-BY-SA version on Wikimedia Commons. That wouldn't make any difference if he was taking photos of mountains or wildlife, but if he is using the foundation's name to get access to celebrities then that would be different. Taking photos for himself but releasing a copy on Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA is slightly different and someone who speaks his language might need to suggest that to him.
I would also be interested to know whether he is suing people who are taking the same interpretation of the CC licenses that Wikipedia uses, or only those who are not following the reuse guidelines in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.
It isn't clear to me at present whether he is:
1 insisting on his undisputed licence rights
2 strictly enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one Wikimedia project and don't ourselves breach as a movement
3 enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one Wikimedia project but breach on another.
I and perhaps others whose German skills are like mine barely adequate to order a beer, would be grateful if a German speaker on this list could clarify this.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
Please send announcements to the *WikimediaAnnounce-l *list; they will be
automatically sent to to this list.
See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Wikimedia_Announce for
guidelines as to what is appropriate.
Discussions based on the announcements should be posted here.
Thanks and regards, Richard.
Hello,
Wikimedia Nederland has an annual conference, the WCN. As usual, it is
scheduled for November, this time Saturday the 28th.
We will not dramatically change the concept but are a little bit more
conscious about these points:
* The primary goal of the conference is for people to meet and connect, not
the pure transmission of information. So the sessions tend to be shorter
and have a dedicated part for discussions.
* We try to make use of the conference for the goals of the association,
e.g. by showing more what WMNL does (and whom you can contact for what). At
the same time it remains a platform for community members to show what they
are doing at the moment (e.g. in Wikipedia or Wikidata).
* Everytime there should be, if possible, one session in English, although
the general language of the conference still is Dutch.
Therefore we have a Call for Speakers also in English:
http://www.wikimedia.nl/projectpagina/programma
So, if you have something to communicate and want to meet people in the Low
Countries, with regard to Wikipedia, free knowledge and our other topics:
the WCN might be a very suitable conference for you. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk
programme coordinator
hi,
may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from
commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.
there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
states "comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=pre…
"komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"
harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
attributing in mouseover:
http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-…
what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?
to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
should either fix the software, or the license.
best,
rupert
It looks to me like Harald Bischoff is making Money with this. If you google his Name,
you find a lot of Blogposts related his "Abmahnungen [1]".
According to jurablogs he is also sending such "Abmahnungen" when a link to the license text itself is missing [2].
Bischoff is sending the Abmahnungen though an Attorney which is asking the affected persons to sign a cease and desist letter. Apart from that the affected person is requested to pay for damages and attorneys fees[2].
The complains are all over the web, this is imho a very bad reputation for wiki(p/m)edia.
I am wondering if his behavior is violating the terms of use.
Regards,
Steinsplitter
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung
[2] http://www.jurablogs.com/2015/04/28/abmahnung-wegen-unberechtigter-bildnutz…
[3] https://www.betterplace.org/de/fundraising-events/freiheitsliebe-abmahnung-…
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner at gmail.com>
wrote:
> hi,
>
> may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
> case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from
> commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.
>
> there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
> states "comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
> here:
>
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=pre…
> "komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
> andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"
>
> harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
> and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
> who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
> attributing in mouseover:
>
> http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-…
>
> what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
> i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
> website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
> differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
> only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
> link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
> cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?
>
> to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
> does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
> should either fix the software, or the license.
>
> best,
> rupert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Dear Wikimedia Colleagues:
We are pleased to announce initial eligibility of applicants submitting a
Letter of Intent for 2015-2016 Round 1 of the Annual Plan Grants / FDC
process. Only applicants confirmed as eligible by 15 September 2015 may
submit proposals to the Funds Dissemination Committee by the 1 October 2015
proposal deadline. We have published the initial eligibility checklist
here, so that applicants may review eligibility before it is confirmed on
15 September 2015:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Eligibility/2015-2016_round1.
Of the eighteen organizations submitting Letters of Intent, thirteen are
already considered eligible provided they continue to meet eligibility
requirements throughout the duration of the FDC process, and three could be
considered eligible if all eligibility gaps listed in this table are met by
the 15 September 2015 deadline. Two organizations are not eligible to
submit applications in the upcoming round.
During the next two months, FDC staff will work with all potential
applicants to make sure eligibility requirements are clear and to form
plans together to meet these requirements by the confirmation deadline.
Once applicants are confirmed by WMF staff as eligible, they must continue
to meet these requirements throughout the duration of the Annual Plan
Grants / FDC process.
Please expect another update once eligibility is finally confirmed on 15
September 2015, leading up to the 1 October 2015 proposal deadline.
Proposal forms will be available by 1 September 2015.
Here is a breakdown of upcoming milestones for 2015-2016 Round 1, which you
may also find here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar.
* Eligibility confirmed: 15 September 2015
* Proposals due: by 1 October 2015
* Community review: 1 October 2015 - 30 October 2015
* Staff assessments published: by 8 November 2015
* FDC deliberations: middle of November 2015
* FDC recommendation published: by 1 December 2015
* Board decision: by 1 January 2016
* Start of new grant terms: 1 January 2016
We welcome your questions or comments about the Annual Plan Grants / FDC
process at any time: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Comments.
Feel free also to reach out to us over email at FDCstaff(a)wikimedia.org. We
would be happy to speak with any organization about specific questions they
may have about eligibility.
Best regards from FDC staff!
Winifred Olliff
Program Officer
Wikimedia Foundation