Agree with Andy here, the WMF cant sue as the copyright holder, but they do have leverage and direct connections to Google to remind them of their obligations as a reuser to follow the copyright licensing and at the very least acknowledge the work from a Wikipedia. You'd think this would attribution requirment be built into the Wikimedia Enterprise agreements anyway with some form of assurance or penalty for failing to acknowledge a location where in the movement a fact came from.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 20:40, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 10:18, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
If I understand the CC-by-sa licence correctly, Wikipedia and WMF
themselves do not
own the copyright, it is owned by the contributors who created the text.
They can take
this up with Google,
All of the above is true.
the WMF cannot
That is not true. The WMF cannot sue Google as a copyright holder. However, there is nothing stopping WM from raising the issue with Google, and gently reminding them of their obligations. Indeed, that would probably be more effective than individual editors doing so.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org