Here's an email I got from the Business Development associate at VNU Media:
Please tell the appropriate person at Wikepedia to contact me as soon as possible. As Sam noted, the current use of our content on your site is not permissible without a licensing agreement. Therefore we would like to resolve the issue quickly. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
Best, Ben
Ben French Associate, Business Development VNU eMedia, Inc. 770 Broadway, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10003 Phone: (646) 654-5593 / Fax: (646) 654-5589
Not sure how far they can take this. Surely we can say "X reached number 4 in the Billboard Hot 100 in November, 2002". Some of those lovingly crafted chronological tabulations are going to have to go.
I think that this is exactly right, and also implies that we may want to be proactive about other long lists of data or magazine rankings that we are keeping on Wikipedia at the moment. I believe there is some conversation at the Village Pump about the larger magazine-published list concern.
Jkelly
Quoting Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com:
Not sure how far they can take this. Surely we can say "X reached number 4 in the Billboard Hot 100 in November, 2002". Some of those lovingly crafted chronological tabulations are going to have to go.
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep, and he says he's willing to work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete anything at all.
On 11/16/05, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that this is exactly right, and also implies that we may want to be proactive about other long lists of data or magazine rankings that we are keeping on Wikipedia at the moment. I believe there is some conversation at the Village Pump about the larger magazine-published list concern.
Jkelly
Quoting Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com:
Not sure how far they can take this. Surely we can say "X reached number 4 in the Billboard Hot 100 in November, 2002". Some of those lovingly crafted chronological tabulations are going to have to go.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brandon Cordy wrote:
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep, and he says he's willing to work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete anything at all.
Don't forget that GFDL means that printed versions must be allowed, as well as derived versions of WP on sites that don't "send them traffic". Free licenses are not usually compatible with explicit quid pro quo arrangements.
Stan
On 11/16/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep, and he says he's willing to work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete anything at all.
Such a license would be unacceptable to Wikipedia.
Kelly
On 11/16/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep, and he says he's willing to work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete anything at all.
Such a license would be unacceptable to Wikipedia.
What if it were simply an agreement that Billboard would not sue so long as they were cited as a source? That isn't a content licence, just an agreement to cite sources.
Which we do anyway.
This seems like more of Billboard's way of saving face than what could be considered a licence agreement.
Naturally, as normal, IANAL. Thank goodness.
Sam
On 16 Nov 2005, at 23:56, Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/16/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep, and he says he's willing to work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete anything at all.
Such a license would be unacceptable to Wikipedia.
What if it were simply an agreement that Billboard would not sue so long as they were cited as a source? That isn't a content licence, just an agreement to cite sources.
Which we do anyway.
This seems like more of Billboard's way of saving face than what could be considered a licence agreement.
Someone could just delete the citation though.
Also who would sign off on it on wikimedias side?
It depends on the wording. If we agree to link Billboard to an article we write on Billboard it might be ok. I would be interested to know what they might accept, but I cant think of much we would really accept. Other than them saying that they dont really own it. Would rather delete stuff.
Justinc
On 11/17/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Someone could just delete the citation though.
Also who would sign off on it on wikimedias side?
Since the use of this data seems to be fair use, it's not likely we'd have to sign anything. However, Jimmy has said on the legal mailing list ([[m:juriwiki]]), where this was also being discussed, that he intends to contact VNU Media about this.
Angela.
On 11/17/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I kept talking to the Billboard rep, and he says he's willing to work out a cashless deal if we can send them traffic (which, as far as I know, we already do through the external links). We may not have to delete anything at all.
Such a license would be unacceptable to Wikipedia.
What if it were simply an agreement that Billboard would not sue so long as they were cited as a source? That isn't a content licence, just an agreement to cite sources.
Which we do anyway.
This seems like more of Billboard's way of saving face than what could be considered a licence agreement.
Naturally, as normal, IANAL. Thank goodness.
We don't need any agreement. We just need to use the content in ways that are not violating copyright. If we say "this song reached X on the Billboard Hot 100 chart [link]" then there's no way that their copyright is being infringed.
What we can't do is have large segments of a chart. Unless Billboard is willing to release large segments under the GFDL, then we can't use it, and there's no point making any agreement.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com