Hi, I am Yoni, sysop on the Hebrew Wikipedia. en:user:Danny turned to our village pump last week and updated us regarding licenses that are prohibited by the foundation (i.e. non-commercial and educational only licenses). We have been working to comply with his request ever since.
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this image for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
From the point of view of the foundation, Is this license OK for usage in
Wikipedia and her sisters?
Thanks, Yoni he:user:Yonidebest
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this image for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
Sounds more like CC-ND to me, unfortunately. :( The image is not modifiable, is it?
Regards, Jerome
2007/1/10, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
image
for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Siedlecki
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Even though usage must be given for free? i.e the pictures cannot be sold commercially? Does this mean cc-by-sa doesn't allow to sell the images as well? Yoni
On 1/10/07, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
image
for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Siedlecki
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
cc-by-sa and cc-nd allows commecial use. cc-nc and cc-nc-nd do not.
Neither cc-nc, cc-nd nor cc-nd-nc are supposed to be used has they iether can't be used commercially or can't be modified, so are not "free" in the freedom meaning.
cc-by-sa, as far as I know, is fine here (but I am not sure your license is a cc-by-sa...).
Regards, Jerome
2007/1/10, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
Even though usage must be given for free? i.e the pictures cannot be sold commercially? Does this mean cc-by-sa doesn't allow to sell the images as well? Yoni
On 1/10/07, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created
along
time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
image
for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free
of
charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Siedlecki
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
cc-by-sa only says give credit to owner (by) and keep the license same (sa or share alike). It does not limit the type of usage. But in this case there are some limitations.
You cannot limit type of usage. i.e. you cannot say non-comercial or comercial but free of charge, or educational only etc. You just shouldt care where it will be used and how it will be used. Only things you can request is attribution and keeping the license same, which means keep the image free.
Non-commercial use does not only mean selling the picture but also using the picture in a commercial material.
To understand it I can give an example. Lets say I write a book and use an image from wikipedia which has one of the proper free licenses. I can sell this book and make money. This is allowed. But I must say in my book that this picture has this free license. So anyone can use that image from my book, anywhere, without asking me or paying money to me. And it will be all legal. So that image will have still that freedom to be used freely. Person A will copy from Person B. C will copy from B. D from C. That image will serve to people as long as it exists.
So idea is, you let the picture coppied as much as it needed and keep it stii be coppied to forever.
So your license is like cc-by-sa with some more limitations. You should eliminate those additional limitations.
Dbl2010
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Even though usage must be given for free? i.e the pictures cannot be sold commercially? Does this mean cc-by-sa doesn't allow to sell the images as well? Yoni
On 1/10/07, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created
along
time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
image
for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free
of
charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Siedlecki
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Even though usage must be given for free? i.e the pictures cannot be sold commercially? Does this mean cc-by-sa doesn't allow to sell the images as well?
Yes, and no.
As I understand it, CC-BY-SA allows you to use the images to make a product (book, CD, DVD whatever) that you can sell. => Commercial use.
However, the image must be "shared alike", ie. released under the same license. Which means that if I make a book with your image, I must be able to provide the source free of charge if you ask for it.
So the real question about your phraseology is, what do you "really" mean with "allow commercial usage"?
As *I* understand it, to allow commercial usage means that I can take your image and use it in a book and make money with it (with the book, not the image - really, what's the point of selling an image as stand alone if it's free elsewhere?)
My take is that this license is indeed very close to CC-BY-SA. Anyone can use it on their commercial website, on their commercial brochure etc.
The trick is if someone takes all those images and makes them into a CD and sells the CD. However, you could argue that you're making the people pay for the CD itself and the work that was put into gathering the images, not for the images themselves.
Delphine
The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead of *much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of disturbing.
On 1/10/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Even though usage must be given for free? i.e the pictures cannot be
sold
commercially? Does this mean cc-by-sa doesn't allow to sell the images
as
well?
Yes, and no.
As I understand it, CC-BY-SA allows you to use the images to make a product (book, CD, DVD whatever) that you can sell. => Commercial use.
However, the image must be "shared alike", ie. released under the same license. Which means that if I make a book with your image, I must be able to provide the source free of charge if you ask for it.
So the real question about your phraseology is, what do you "really" mean with "allow commercial usage"?
As *I* understand it, to allow commercial usage means that I can take your image and use it in a book and make money with it (with the book, not the image - really, what's the point of selling an image as stand alone if it's free elsewhere?)
My take is that this license is indeed very close to CC-BY-SA. Anyone can use it on their commercial website, on their commercial brochure etc.
The trick is if someone takes all those images and makes them into a CD and sells the CD. However, you could argue that you're making the people pay for the CD itself and the work that was put into gathering the images, not for the images themselves.
Delphine
-- ~notafish NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/10/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead of *much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of disturbing.
Most projects don't appear to pay to much attention to copyright in their early stages although I think commons is tending to reduce this.
And en.wikipedia still has quite a few NC images on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images
On 1/11/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead of *much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of disturbing.
James - we heard of the letter that Jimbo released, but we decided that this was a local policy of en Wikipedia rather that a binding policy to all Wikimedia projects due to the fact that his letter was published on the en mailing list only.
On 1/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead
of
*much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of
disturbing.
Most projects don't appear to pay to much attention to copyright in their early stages although I think commons is tending to reduce this.
And en.wikipedia still has quite a few NC images on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images
geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-)
When did it become Wikimedia-wide policy?
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/11/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead
of
*much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of
disturbing.
James - we heard of the letter that Jimbo released, but we decided that this was a local policy of en Wikipedia rather that a binding policy to all Wikimedia projects due to the fact that his letter was published on the en mailing list only.
On 1/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead
of
*much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of
disturbing.
Most projects don't appear to pay to much attention to copyright in their early stages although I think commons is tending to reduce this.
And en.wikipedia still has quite a few NC images on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images
geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/11/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
When did it become Wikimedia-wide policy?
errr What? Are you saying that this: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html is *not* an official Wikimedia policy? i.e. can the Hebrew Wiki's upload non-commercial images? O_o Yoni
Well, you mentioned when the new broke about non-commercial images, it was only an English Wikipedia policy because it was posted on WikiEN-l. However, apparently Danny informed the community that it's now a foundation-wide policy. When did it become Foundation-wide?
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/11/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
When did it become Wikimedia-wide policy?
errr What? Are you saying that this: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html is *not* an official Wikimedia policy? i.e. can the Hebrew Wiki's upload non-commercial images? O_o Yoni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, that's something Danny will need to answer... or perhaps someone else on the board... Yoni
On 1/11/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you mentioned when the new broke about non-commercial images, it was only an English Wikipedia policy because it was posted on WikiEN-l. However, apparently Danny informed the community that it's now a foundation-wide policy. When did it become Foundation-wide?
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/11/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
When did it become Wikimedia-wide policy?
errr What? Are you saying that this: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html is *not* an official Wikimedia policy? i.e. can the Hebrew Wiki's upload non-commercial images? O_o Yoni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-)
No you are now moveing into the stage when you start to worry about copyright (incerdentaly you don't have [[special:statistics]] set up to show the number of images any chance of a fix?)
special:statistics does work: *20,843* images (and I am proud to say we have deleted 800+ images in the past week). Yoni
On 1/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-)
No you are now moveing into the stage when you start to worry about copyright (incerdentaly you don't have [[special:statistics]] set up to show the number of images any chance of a fix?)
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/10/07, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
image
for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
-- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Siedlecki
No, CC-BY-SA's only restrictions on reuse is that it requires attribution (the SA is a restriction on derivatives). This is a weird in-between thing between free licenses that exist and NC, as this DOES allow use if the product they're making money on is making money but not from the user (ie, supported by ads), but DOESN'T allow people to use it in something that's being sold to make money, which CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc, do allow.
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along time ago.
Arrrrrrrgg. There are enough free lisences:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
"This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this image for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
From the point of view of the foundation, Is this license OK for usage in Wikipedia and her sisters?
The line "if the usage is given for free of charge" would appear to conflict with past statements by the foundation figues and by en standards at least make the lisence non free.
geni wrote:
The line "if the usage is given for free of charge" would appear to conflict with past statements by the foundation figues and by en standards at least make the lisence non free.
Not to mention that it would conflict with our tagline, "Wikipedia, the Free encyclopedia", especially in the languages that have a separate word for free-as-in-freedom, since no definition of Free content I know of includes non-commercial-only licenses.
-Mark
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org