Hi everyone.
Some might remember the 2019 recast of the EU PSI Directive (which is now
also called Open Data Directive) which has a nice round number EU/2019/1024
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj). As a directive, it has
been transposed in EU member states and is also transposed/about to be
transposed into the EFTA states.
I was involved in the 2019 recast as a member of the staff of MEP Felix
Reda who wrote the opinion in the IMCO committee of the European Parliament
(the leading committee was ITRE:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0438_EN.html#_sectio…
)
The Directive has both a general principle on the reuse of content but also
paragraph about how to process requests for re-use.
Germany transposed the PSI-OD-Directive into the "Datennutzungsgesetz" in
2021 but left out the processing part for requests for re-use. I spoke to a
civil servant in the responsible ministry who was involved in the drafting
process and she stated that this was by design. Since the "general
principle" on re-use applies, there would be no use for requests any more.
This idea has been rejected by academic literature which still claims that
the possibility for requests remain embedded in the law
Long story short: After reading the literature, the directive and the law,
I believe that Germany has introduced a law that would allow liberating
content for re-use under license terms compatible with Wikimedia projects.
For a few weeks now, I have put this theory to the test and I have applied
for usage rights for various government documents, pictures etc. This has
been largely successful, but not without hickups. People in the
administration are usually confused by these requests and it takes them a
while to process them.
I would be interested to learn if anyone else in any other EU/EFTA state
has ever used the PSI-OD-Directive (and the transposed law) to force
government entities to release content under a free license.
This was the most concise way of describing this for me. I left out many
details in order to not turn this into a long paper. I am happy to
elaborate on details if requested.
Mathias
(there are some exceptions in the directive. GLAM institutions are not
fully within the scope of all parts of the directive and it is not as
simple to simply go to a museum or a library and tell them to give you a
license for stuff they own. Public broadcasting it also out of scope)
Dear all,
The date and time for our next quarterly call has been set; thank you all
for filling out the Doodle poll.
The call will take place on Friday, April 4 @ 14:30 - 16:00 UTC (check your
local time <https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1743777000>). The specific
agenda will be set collaboratively ahead of time. Full details below. If
you would like a calendar hold, please respond to this email saying so.
*Call access: *
*🗓️ *Call Time: Friday, April 4 @ 14:30 - 16:00 UTC (check your local time
<https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1743777000>)
*📍 *Zoom link:
https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/89377506720?pwd=BCMElRbsqzxa9l60I8YGlJmBE2X5z4.1
*🔑 *Meeting ID: *893 7750 6720* Passcode: *838895*
*Call details:*
The purpose of these calls is to collaborate on priorities for the year,
and to ensure that members of our movement can share learnings and hone our
outreach, advocacy, and impact on policy efforts. The specific agenda will
be set collaboratively ahead of time.
Our 2025 working groups are currently the following:
- Copyright
- Shared definitions of key terms and concept
- Policy Position Primers
We use this etherpad for notes:
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Agenda_%26_Notes,_Global_Advocacy_Conversa…
Best,
Ziski
Franziska Putz (she/her)
Senior Movement Advocacy Manager
Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
Fputz(a)wikimedia.org
UTC Timezone
Dear Friends,
We are excited to announce the formation of the Wikimedia Network Advocacy
- Copyright Group and invite passionate community members to join us!
This group will serve as a collaborative space to:
- Engage in copyright advocacy relevant to the Wikimedia movement
- Stay informed about global and local copyright policies affecting open
knowledge
- Share insights and resources to support free and accessible information
- Collaborate on initiatives that promote knowledge equity and legal
frameworks beneficial to Wikimedia projects
If you are interested in shaping discussions around copyright and open
knowledge, we would love to have you on board!
Join us now via Telegram:
https://t.me/+kbduAhZWM7ZmNTE0
Looking forward to working together!
Best,
Olushola
For the Wikimedia Network Advocate-Copyright Group.
*Olaniyan Ishola Olushola*
*CEO. Data Access Systems LtdChairman Local Organizing Committee
(WikiIndaba2019)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiIndaba_conference_2019/Team>Co-Producer,
Wikipedia
Campaign in Nigeria
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=AUBPd3PTas0> ( Winner of
the Best NGO in Africa ( African Excellence Award 2018)
<https://af-pr.excellence-awards.com/winnerlist/best-of-2018/>) Dublin,
Republic of Ireland. Co-Producer , Wiki Women Radio
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Women_Radio_Program>President, Wikimedia
Nigeria <https://wikimedia.org.ng/>Treasurer, FOSSFAMember, Affiliates
Committee ( Wikimedia Foundation)*
*Administrator, Wikimedia Programs & Events Dashboard*
*MD, Olbims ConsultingPhone: +2348167352512E: olaniyanshola15(a)gmail.com
<E%3Aolaniyanshola15(a)gmail.com>E: shola(a)wikimedia.ng.org
<E%3Ashola(a)wikimedia.ng.org>Facebook:Olaniyan
SholaTwitter:oluwanishola73Wiki User Name: Olaniyan Olushola*
* Wikipedia Campagn in Nigeria featuring Emmanuela *
* One-on-One with Olushola Olaniyan ( TV Plus Africa)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGp_YqdOJzY&feature=youtu.be>*
* https://youtu.be/DwTUGVv6Qng <https://youtu.be/DwTUGVv6Qng>*
Hello!
This month’s read is quite heavy on child protection, but we also have
AI/copyright and geo-blocking for you. As an overall tendency, we can
observe that the Commission is looking into simplification ideas, while the
European Parliament is dealing with non-legislative debates.
Dimi & Michele
=== Child Protection - Age Verification ===
The European Commission is working on its guidelines on the protection of
minors under the Digital Services Act. They are expected in the coming
weeks. The Wikimedia Foundation has provided public feedback
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>.
As different platforms and member states are currently working on various
aspects of this, fragmentation or even contradicting rules are a risk. It
is expected that the Commission will determine some types of content are
too harmful for children and hence require age checks. How they draw the
line and whether guidelines can stop fragmentation remain open questions.
—
Meanwhile the European Parliament is working on an own-initiative report
<https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/da/procedure-file?reference=202…>
on the topic. The work is led by the Internal Market and Consumer
Protection committee (IMCO). Own-initiative reports don’t carry legislative
weight and are often a long list of general recommendations. However, the
process helps map interested members and their respective positions. It is
also a good pretext for reaching out. The committee is planning a hearing
on 7 April. The report is expected on 25-26 June.
—
Member States are really jockeying each other on this. Greece has presented
a “kids wallet” with age verification and parental control functions.
Spain, Germany and France are working on their own age verification
solutions. Other countries, especially the Nordics, are also working on
various initiatives. This all builds pressure on the European Commission to
deliver both clear rules and a universal technical solution.
—
On the side of the platforms there are several notable insights to share.
Almost everyone is rolling out some sort of either parental control or
other child protection initiatives. Almost everyone is worried that we
might end up with many different rules and systems across the continent.
One thing where stakeholders disagree is on what level age checks should be
performed: On the OS/device level or on the app level?
—
Why it matters for Wikimedia:We would not be OK if age verification for
access to Wikimedia projects was mandated.
=== Child Protection - CSAM ===
Refresher: The European Commission has years ago proposed an act to combat
Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0209>.
The Council still can’t reach one, as member states are deadlocked about
whether instant messages should be scanned for abuse material. The
parliament has a position which would allow such scanning only for specific
accounts and only after a judicial order.
—
The Polish Presidency of the Council has proposed
<https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/CM-1756-2025-INIT/en/pdf> to
leave it up to the platforms to decide, in an attempt to break the
deadlock. There will be a Council meeting on 8 April to attempt to achieve
progress. But the finish line is still far away.
—
Why it matters for Wikimedia: We do care about child protection. And while
we don’t offer any interpersonal communication services, we do (both
community and WMF) have procedures to check and remove such material. It
doesn’t look like our current procedures would be changed by the new
legislation, if it ever passes, but we do have an interest nonetheless. The
Wikimedia Foundation has also provided public feedback
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>
.
=== GDPR Overhaul? ===
It might be getting real: There are ongoing discussions about whether the
GDPR needs updates. Commissioner McGrath shared at various events that the
Commission is looking at this as part of its digital simplification
package. One thing they are focused on is simplifying or removing
recordkeeping by small firms and organizations with “fewer than 500
people”. Of course, different people within the Commission have different
ideas. Still very much in flux.
—
Simultaneously the European Data Protection Board will look into the “right
to be forgotten”. Throughout 2025, 32 data protection authorities in Europe
will investigate
<https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/cef-2025-launch-coordinated-enfor…>
how requests for erasure from data subjects are being handled as part of an
initiative to better coordinate processes.
—
Why it matters for Wikimedia: Some GDPR aspects that are relevant to our
operations include first party cookies (bots, A/B testing), right to
erasure and bureaucratic obligations.
=== Geo-Blocking ===
The Geo-blocking Regulation
<https://wikimedia.brussels/geo-blocking-audiovisual-content-why-we-need-to-…>
was adopted in 2018 and prohibits any forms of discrimination based on
customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within
the EU. It however excludes from its scope audiovisual content and
copyrighted material. In this regard, there is a review clause that obliges
the Commission to evaluate the enlargement of the scope to include
copyright-protected works and audiovisual content.
—
The Commission hence opened a call for evidence
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>
to gather input from stakeholders. Wikimedia Europe submitted its feedback
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>,
focusing on why audiovisual services and copyrighted content should be
included in the scope.
—
Why it matters for Wikimedia: Some sources that we cite are accessible in
one country, but not another (e.g. documentary by a public broadcaster).
=== AI & Copyright ===
In France the Ministry of Culture is hosting a roundtable on Copyright & AI
with only collecting societies. Wikimédia France was not amused and published
an open letter
<https://actualitte.com/article/122564/tribunes/discuter-de-l-ia-et-du-droit…>,
together with like minded organisations, about being included.
—
The European Commission is continuing its work on the Code of Practice
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-practice> on AI.
It is unclear whether this will ever be taken up by large parts of the
industry, but regarding copyright we can read that operators should “make
reasonable efforts to exclude from their web-crawling Internet domains that
make available to the public copyright-infringing content on a commercial
scale and have no substantial legitimate uses”.
—
Wikimedia UK has provided feedback to the UK government’s consultation on
copyright and AI
<https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intell…>
.
—
Why it matters for Wikimedia: Love it, hate it, AI will have an impact on
the limits of copyright and will heavily influence future copyright
reforms. In the USA the open question is how far fair use goes. In the EU
the text and data mining exceptions are being tested in real life.
===END===
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Dear Public Policy Wikimedians,
As we mark 20 years of Wikimania, we are thrilled to invite you to contribute to this milestone conference happening in Nairobi, Kenya, from August 6-9, 2025, with a pre-conference on August 5. The theme for this year is Wikimania at 20: Inclusivity. Impact. Sustainability.
We are currently accepting program proposals, and we believe your insights and expertise in public policy are pivotal to this year's theme. Proposals can take any format—whether you're presenting remotely from the comfort of your home or workplace, providing a pre-recorded presentation, or joining us onsite in Nairobi as a live presenter.
To help spark ideas, here are a few topics that may align with the conference theme:
● The intersection of public policy and the sustainability of open knowledge projects.
● Policies shaping inclusivity and accessibility in the Wikimedia ecosystem.
● Case studies on impactful knowledge-sharing policies from around the globe.
● Innovative strategies for ensuring equitable and sustainable access to knowledge.
The submission deadline is March 31, 2025, and we encourage you to submit your proposals at the program submission site at https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025:Program
For inquiries, comments, or assistance with your proposal, please email wikimania(a)wikimedia.org. Our team of dedicated volunteers will be happy to guide you.
Additionally, to support you in developing your proposals, the Programme Subcommittee will host a consultation hour: 📅 Today, Thursday, 20 March 🕐 13:00 UTC (Find your local time at https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1742475600) 🌐 Video Call Link: https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/84172058297 💬 Live Interpretation Available in Arabic, French, and Swahili
Your contribution to Wikimania 2025 can help shape a more inclusive, impactful, and sustainable future for knowledge sharing. We eagerly look forward to seeing your submissions and ideas.
Warm regards,
Butch Bustria
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025:Organisers
Hi all,
The DFRLab is part of the US think tank the Atlantic Council
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council>. It recently published a
study called "Russia-linked Pravda network cited on Wikipedia, LLMs, and X
<https://dfrlab.org/2025/03/12/pravda-network-wikipedia-llm-x/>".
This was shared on Politico Europe's Morning Tech newsletter, where I
picked it up. The title of the paragraph was "Infecting Wikipedia", which I
think is not the most accurate way of describing the study.
I am not suggesting any particular action, I am just sharing for awareness.
Cheers,
Dimi
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Hi all!
I'm Jeremy from WMF, I'm supporting Ziski's work with this great group.
It's time to kickstart collaborations among the advocacy network for this
year. Save the date and join us for the kickoff call that Cataline from WM
Chile has been alluding to!
The ⚡ *2025 Advocacy Network Launch Call *⚡ will take place virtually on
Zoom. This call is an opportunity to select priorities that the group wants
to work on for this year, and to form working groups that will be
responsible for each of those topics. It is a great opportunity for members
of our movement to connect, brainstorm, and hone our outreach, advocacy,
and policy efforts in 2025 and beyond.
*Key info:*
🗓️ Call Time: February 19 @ 12:00 - 13:30 UTC (check your local time
<https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1739966400>)
📍Zoom Link:
https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/84828522106?pwd=XUsakITXwMPjvxxZg4OQHm84L8FMvl.1
🔑 Passcode: 385358
In case of any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me (
jbernick-ctr(a)wikimedia.org) or Ziski (fputz(a)wikimedia.org)!
We can't wait to see you there! 😀
Jeremy Bernick (they/them)
Legal Fellow
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
jbernick-ctr(a)wikimedia.org
NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only
serve as a legal fellow for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not
give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members,
volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.
Hello everybody,
I could not help but fall into a series of rabbit holes over the past
weeks. The question this time: Are trained models (of the connectionist
AI flavour) actually protected by IP legislation? And if so: Why?
I stumbled across this through a semirelated question that made me
realize: I had read a lot about TDM exceptions and whether they apply
for training connectionist models. And on the output side of things,
there is ongoing discussion on whether the outputs of generative systems
deserve IP protection.
However, what I had to dig into and found just a bit of discussion, was
the question of IP protection of the trained models themselves. Or, in
other terms, if providers slap some license on a model they trained: On
what basis can they even constrain the way in which they can be re-used?
I am certainly not the first person to stumble over this, so I will be
very glad about any pointers towards articles on the topic.
What I found so far was a paper by the IPO from 2020 that laments the
supposed lack of sui generis protection for trained models:
<https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SG-model-rights-committee-paper-…>.
In Section III A they argue that trained models as machine-created works
might not be subject to (US) copyright law, at least if no human
creative input or at least interaction is involved.
It could be argued that RLHF would constitute a human involvement
(albeit mostly outsourced to clickworkers in the global south) –
provided the feedback fulfills the minimum threshold of creativity and
is not merely a human in the loop that acts on predetermined rules that
leave no leeway for individual expression.
However, even this argument would fall flat whenever reinforcement
learning is based on synthetic input, e.g. a model being trained through
RL by another trained model.
After looking at patents and trade secrets, the IPO looks longingly at
existing sui generis rights, namely the European SGDR and asks for
similar SGR for trained connectionist AI models.
Nuno Sousa e Silva argues in
<https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/01/18/are-ai-models-weights-prot…>
(after stumbling over the very same question I had) that SGDR could be
applied out-of-the-box at least to the weights of a connectionist model,
checking pretty much all of the boxes.
So, generally:
a) yay, another case for the consequences of SGDR
b) did I miss stuff? Had you come across arguments that trained models
check some other category for IP protection?
bb) If not: what even is the legal basis for any license at least
outside the EU?
Any thoughts are highly appreciated!
regards,
-stk
--
Stefan Kaufmann (er)
Referent Politik und öffentlicher Sektor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23–24 | 10963 Berlin |
Tel. +49 (0)30-577 11 62-0 | <https://wikimedia.de>
Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende
Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im
Newsletter: <https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/>
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Charlottenburg, VR
23855. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften
I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. Geschäftsführende Vorstände:
Franziska Heine, Dr. Christian Humborg.