Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Books & Bytes – Issue 27, February...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata]...

WereSpielChequers

5 Apr 2018 5 Apr '18

9:47 a.m.

Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to comply. If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case. But I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do so. As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons: Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community. The community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new wikimedians, and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for them to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project and hence to the WMF. Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I feel good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to me. If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions as effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen if it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation. Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back to Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating wikipedia et al as CC0. WSC On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hi, On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:

I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share alike" and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.

Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself) are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. Unless you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) -- Legoktm

Show replies by date

Anthony Cole

5 Apr 5 Apr

10:22 a.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March: "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office, Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute any sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ... *Smart assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to leveraging that information base.*"[1] That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief Revenue Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation to meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights attached. If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is based on. 1. https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-use-wikipedia-givin… Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi, On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share

alike"

and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Anthony Cole

15 Apr 15 Apr

11:53 p.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant employees when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies using our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging with no word from the WMF for six months. Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March: "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office, Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute any sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ... *Smart assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to leveraging that information base.*"[1] That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief Revenue Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation to meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights attached. If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is based on. 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that- use-wikipedia-giving-back/ Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share

alike"

and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Rob Speer

16 Apr 16 Apr

5:23 a.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

Right, this worries me too. I know that Wikimedia doesn't enforce the copyright on the content themselves, because they don't hold the relevant copyrights, the authors do. But there seems to be no guidance for what _anyone_ can do to address and correct large-scale violations. The guides on Wikipedia meta-pages are about "here's what to do if someone copies content without following the license", but not "here's what to do if someone copies _all_ the content without following the license". Asking for takedowns of particular pages that I was directly involved in, one at a time, would be silly and less than effective. Here I'm thinking of things more brazen than the Google Knowledge Graph -- projects that combine multiple CC-By-SA resources together, claim ownership over the content, and sell it. I'm not asking Wikimedia to do all the work. But I'd at least like to hear what has worked and what hasn't worked in enforcing copyright on Wikimedia projects. If the answer is "nothing works", that doesn't bode well for Creative Commons data. On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 19:53 Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

any

sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ...

*Smart

assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to leveraging that information base.*"[1] That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief

Revenue

Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation

meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights

attached.

If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is

based

on. 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that- use-wikipedia-giving-back/ Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our > content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to > comply. > > If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more > contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case.

But

> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do

so.

> > As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons: > > Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a > crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community.

The

> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new

wikimedians,

> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for > them > to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content > being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project

and

> hence to the WMF. > > Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For > some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I

feel

> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to > me. > If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions

> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our > community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly > gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen > if > it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation. > > Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking > for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back > to > Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating > wikipedia et al as CC0. > > > WSC > > On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share > alike" > > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights. > > > > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself) > > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't.

Unless

you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) -- Legoktm

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

geni

18 Apr 18 Apr

1:35 p.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

On 16 April 2018 at 06:23, Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:

...

Because is you know enough about copyright law to be able to do anything you can already answer that question. So here goes: *1 be reasonably wealthy or otherwise have access to significant amounts of money for legal costs *2 Be American. While you can sue for copyright infringement from overseas it greatly complicates matter *3 Be prepared to use your real name. *4 Make sure you have registered your work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Not strictly required but it makes things more straightforward and allows you to go for statutory damages *5 Chose a case where you are pretty much the sole author of the article or image in question. Got all those ducks in a row? The good news is that most smaller companies will settle at the first threatening letter although you may suffer a certain amount of reputational damage from suing small businesses. If a small company decides to fight and its a fairly straightforward case you are looking at costs of over $100K. More complicated case against a big company? Millions. -- geni

Gerard Meijssen

16 Apr 16 Apr

5:41 a.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

Hoi, Maybe you know, but Katherine Mayer gave a talk at the CC conference The subject was big companies using our content (it is not just writing) and making a profit giving nothing / not much in return. The issue she raised is that it may interfere with our collaboration model. People will associate our content with the company that profits in this way and not contribute their knowledge their expertise with us. So no word from the WMF, far from it. When you want the WMF to sue.. There is wonder if the effect it will have is really what we want. For me it is first and foremost that people are properly informed and I prefer a YouTube a Facebook to use our data over them not to do so over license issues. Remember the days when Wikipedia was young; it was a wide held belief. Thanks, GerardM On 16 April 2018 at 01:53, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

any

*Smart

assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to leveraging that information base.*"[1] That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief

Revenue

Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation

meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights

attached.

If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is

based

But

> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do

so.

The

> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new

wikimedians,

and

> hence to the WMF. > > Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For > some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I

feel

> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to > me. > If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions

Unless

you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) -- Legoktm

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

James Heilman

18 Apr 18 Apr

9:57 a.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

Agree with Gerard. We WANT Youtube, Facebook, and others to use our content. That is one reason why we have released it under an open license and I believe one reason why we have been so successful. We of course also want them to provide appropriate attribution. I think this would be better achieved by reaching out and discussing it with these groups directly rather than initially by legal means. In my experience most reputable organizations are happy to attribute when asked. With respect to intermediation and them providing financial or direct technical support Google, Apple, and Microsoft are listed here as major beneficiaries as is the Brin Wojcicki Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors Would the WMF be happy with greater support? Yes I imagine so. James Please note that this is written in a personal capacity and does not represent an official position of anyone but myself. On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant

employees

when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies using our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging

with

no word from the WMF for six months. Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

any > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an

API

> to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s

all

> well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter,

the

CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ...

*Smart > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes

leveraging that information base.*"[1] That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief

Revenue > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give

back." I

> want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their

obligation

meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights

attached.

If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is

based

But

> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do

so. >> >> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons: >> >> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires

> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community.

The

> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new

wikimedians, >> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for >> them >> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our

content

> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project

and >> hence to the WMF. >> >> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations.

For

> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I

feel >> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed

> me. > If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions

as >> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our >> community. I'm also active on another site where every member

regularly

>> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would

happen

>> if >> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation. >> >> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by

asking

>> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution

back

>> to >> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating >> wikipedia et al as CC0. >> >> >> WSC >> >> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: >> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share >> alike" >> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights. >> > >> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like

yourself)

> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't.

Unless >> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other

license

>> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action

for

>> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) >> > >> > -- Legoktm >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik

>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> i/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Anthony Cole

12:23 p.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

This is off-topic (I presume) but the idea of the WMF increasing its dependence on large corporate donors is beginning to trouble me. I want the WMF to answer to our readers and volunteers not Bezos, Brin and Zuckerberg. I say I presume this is off-topic because I presume the WMF isn’t, even subconsciously, soft-peddling our share-alike right and right to effective attribution from these re-users in exchange for dollars from these re-users. On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 5:58 pm, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

There

is wonder if the effect it will have is really what we want. For me it is first and foremost that people are properly informed and I prefer a

YouTube

a Facebook to use our data over them not to do so over license issues. Remember the days when Wikipedia was young; it was a wide held belief. Thanks, GerardM On 16 April 2018 at 01:53, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant

employees > when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies

using

our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging

with

no word from the WMF for six months. Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March: > > > > "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue

Office,

> > Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t

constitute

any > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an

API

> to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s

all

> well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter,

the > > CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships

...

> *Smart > > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it

comes

leveraging that information base.*"[1] That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief

Revenue > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give

back." I

> want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their

obligation > to > > meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights > attached. > > If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not > > breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is > based > > on. > > > > 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that- > > use-wikipedia-giving-back/ > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers < > > werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our > >> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to > >> comply. > >> > >> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more > >> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the

case.

> But > >> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to

> so. > >> > >> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons: > >> > >> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing

requires

a > >> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a

community.

> The > >> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new > wikimedians, > >> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is

for

>> them >> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our

content > >> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the

project

and >> hence to the WMF. >> >> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations.

For > >> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally

feel >> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed

to > >> me. > >> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer

contributions

as >> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our >> community. I'm also active on another site where every member

regularly

>> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would

happen > >> if > >> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued

participation.

>> >> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by

asking

>> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution

back > >> to > >> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating > >> wikipedia et al as CC0. > >> > >> > >> WSC > >> > >> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > >> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution,

>> alike" >> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights. >> > >> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like

yourself)

> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't.

Unless >> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other

license

>> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action

for

>> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) >> > >> > -- Legoktm >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > >> i/Wikimedia-l > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Anthony Cole

James Salsman

12:29 p.m.

New subject: Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

Anthony, it is not off topic at all, and some of the related Annual Plan effects are very troubling in their present manifestation. Please see: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Ubi1v8gwsq09bzjp On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

There

is wonder if the effect it will have is really what we want. For me it is first and foremost that people are properly informed and I prefer a

YouTube

Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant

employees > when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies

using

our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging

with

no word from the WMF for six months. Anthony Cole On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March: > > > > "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue

Office,

> > Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t

constitute

any > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an

API

> to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s

all

> well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter,

the > > CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships

...

> *Smart > > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it

comes

> leveraging that information base.*"[1] > > That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief Revenue > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give

back." I

> want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their

case.

> But > >> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to

> so. > >> > >> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons: > >> > >> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing

requires

a > >> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a

community.

> The > >> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new > wikimedians, > >> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is

for

>> them >> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our

content > >> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the

project

and >> hence to the WMF. >> >> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations.

For > >> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally

feel >> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed

to > >> me. > >> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer

contributions

as >> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our >> community. I'm also active on another site where every member

regularly

>> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would

happen > >> if > >> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued

participation.

>> >> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by

asking

>> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution

>> alike" >> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights. >> > >> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like

yourself)

>> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. Unless >> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other

license

>> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action

for

>> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) >> > >> > -- Legoktm >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > >> i/Wikimedia-l > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

>> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

2206

days inactive

2219

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

8 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Anthony Cole
geni
Gerard Meijssen
James Heilman
James Salsman
Rob Speer
WereSpielChequers