The reasons put forward on why images must be allowed to be profited
from can be summarized thus:
(1) "Maybe you should explain WHY you have the policy of not allowing
people to "get rich" off your work first. There's nothing wrong with
commerce. In fact, in today's society commerce is pretty much required
for survival."
In answer to that; I can only say that this seems to be the very
antithesis of what I thought Wikipedia to be; people providing free
material, for a free resource. How does Wikipedia justify its policy
on not getting rich quick? I am not proposing a shutdown of western
society (although given how the planet is going as a result, dredging
sandworms for fuel, clearcutting the amazon for profit, one could go
that way); I'm arguing that there should be a space for those who wish
to contribute out of the good of their hearts, for a better, freer,
society.
I thought Wikipedia stood for this; apparently I was wrong, as also
evidenced by reason (2):
(2) "On the other hand, have you considered getting rich off ours?... I
hear that running Google ads on well-formatted copies of Wikipedia can
be quite lucrative." and "commercial re-use of Wikipedia isn't limited
to certain people, you can take part too."
My purchase price, I'm afraid, is a little higher than that.
----------------------
Having dismissed the most objectionable objections, we come to more
reasonable ones.
(3) "The goal of Wikipedia is "to create and provide a freely licensed
and high quality encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in
his or her own language....In order to achieve that goal...This
necessarily includes... for-profit ... uses"
I realize this has other implications, in terms of funding, but I'll
deal with that later. First, I wish to disabuse the notion that
"freedom" cant be gained unless and until everyone has made a buck from
something freely given. Is love only truly free when someone pays for
it? There is a perfectly acceptable, CC-nc designation, which means
that everyone - including Bill Gates - can use the material as they
wish. They are just prevented, for now, for all time, from buying out
Wikipedia and copyrighting it. I'll come back to that.
(4) "However, allowing for-profit uses can make the information even
more widely available; for example, it encourages people to make
derivative works that build on it, or to make and sell hard copies to
other people."
This becomes even more reasonable. However, at what price does
accessibility come? A quick look around the web shows whats happening;
commercial sites like
About.com are encouraged to derivatize Wikipedia
by loading the page with ads, as suggested by one of our
commercially-minded contributers above. Does it REALLY help people to
have a copy available on Ebay for $5? How about someone selling links
to the site to gullible buyers at $1 a pop? I'm not convinced that any
for-profit body has materially benefitted Wikipedia by having been
derivatized, or sold as hard copies.
(5) "if there are parts that have more restrictive licences (for
example, no commercial use), a commercial redistributor would have to
go through the entire encyclopedia checking the licence of every single
illustration. "
Looking at the wonderful system that is Wikipedia, and all the coding
that went into it; it strikes me as strange that no filter can be
written, such that a user cannot simply tick a checkbox, yielding a
version of Wikipedia for his/her perusal consistent with any of the
copyright classifications available. If a user ticks "not nc", for
example, he would be able to see/download/pilfer everything which is
"not nc" in wikipedia. It doesnt seem insurmountable.
Which brings us to our last, most reasonable proposition
(6) "And our commercial mirrors bring in new business, make donations
and have helped pay wages for Wikipedia employees."
"put on DVD, and sold for ten euros(?). A large swathe of this went
back to the Foundation"
I have no objection to any use of the images, for non-profit use. That
is, if Wikipedia makes money from selling disks to people, I'm fine by
that, provided that the money is used to fund wikipedia. I *do* have a
problem if someone -say a newspaper - lifts one of my images from
Wikipedia, and uses it instead of paying for their own photography, and
makes a profit therefrom. Now I'm not the legal expert here that most
are, and I suppose "non-profit" use may not cover the generation of
money by non-profit organizations. In which case, I dare say, the same
people could find a way to write this and include it in the Wiki
License. The sole remaining objection to me appears to be that people
like me arent ponying up to donate cash to provide whats required to
run Wikipedia. And that is, I guess, true. So we need to turn to
Satan, and prostitute ourselves, so that some people will have access
to free material.
And in response to those who ask me to consider the profit enterprises
as only american-as-apple-pie patriots, Let me just respond that there
are already many for-profit encyclopedias in existence. If Wikipedia
becomes just another way for a corporation to make money, it will not
improve over the already excellent content provided by these worthy
capitalists.
Let's be clear about the danger of consorting with the enemy (because
like it or hate it, those who would fence in the commons are always at
odds with those who would free resources to all); that Danger is seen
in how Bill Gates has bought the rights to the digitial reproduction of
huge amounts of Art that is (or should be) public domain. Bill Gates
has seen to it that Java has become a little part of Windows. Private
enterprises now own the right to use turmeric as a medicine; and are
patenting life forms. Yes, it is unfortunately true that anywhere one
CAN make a buck, someone WILL be trying to capture it. "I hear that
running Google ads on well-formatted copies of Wikipedia can be quite
lucrative." What happens when Bill Gates, or Larry Ellison, or
someone else builds a new and better gizmo, which makes the Internet
obsolete? Or whatever; just say that the experience of Wikipedia
becomes a thousand times better on it, than as it is at present. But
the new format is proprietary. Sure the CONTENT is free - but the
licensing of the new technology is not. And say that this fictitious
company adds new material, such that wikipedia-old becomes obsolete?
Who will use the free version anymore? What if Google generates a
superpedia; in which it uses Wikipedia as a base, but adds on vast new
access to its own-sourced info? Who will use Wikipedia then? Embrace
and Extend has killed off more than one open-source before. One of the
most significant protections against this is the prohibition against
for-profit use.
I would encourage people to consider other possibilities, other than
engaging in or with the for-profiteers. One suggestion would be to
sell and widely distribute DVDs, by some of the wikipedia wage-earners,
all profits going back to pay for the system. Make it $20 for all I
care. I dont even mind policies whereby other non-profits can use the
free material.
But embracing embrace and extend, is a dangerous gamble.
postscript. I may contribute some images, I'll have to consider the
matter more deeply now. Perhaps some images that no commercial company
would want to use; or perhaps a resolution unsuited to commercial
useage. I'll continue to contribute information; but the idea that
someday some Mogul might squeeze Wikipedia out of existence, and
incorporate its assets, just as surely as Netscape was lost to
AOL-Time-Warner, will probably have an affect on my desire to help
create something new. A world asset which was never saleable to the
highest bidder.