to wikinl-l (please moderate my post if it does not go through :-)) cc wikipedia-l

Hello,

I have been informed by the nl moderators of the copyright issues related to the website Izynews.

I was told about three issues * replacement in the website of the word wikipedia by the word encyclopedia, with as a result inappropriate citation of the source in some areas (such as the copyright page) and a totally stupid article on "wikipedia" itself. * total lack of source and copyright mention in images for the nl part of the website * errors in the copyright mention for images (for example cc-by images are tagged gfdl)

I do feel Izynews is acting in good faith here, as the second point (lack of source and copyright mention) was only a problem in the dutch part of the website. In the french part of it, all images are missing. In the german part of it, tags are correct. This second point has actually been resolved overnight, and the website now properly report Wikipedia as the source of images. So, I tend to believe they were in the process of fixing the issue. To be fair, I would even go as far as saying as generally, they are particularly well compliant with regards to our copyrights, since they point to wikipedia, point to the foundation, point to the history, put the GFDL copyright tag, and added a small wikipedia logo on top.

Two issues are still pending * the replacement of the term "wikipedia" by "encyclopedie" in many pages * the errors in the image tagging.

I wrote them a letter yesterday to mention them the two issues and ask them to fix it as soon as possible. You may find a copy of this mail here : http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/039822.html If necessary, I will write to them again in a little while, and if no improvement is visible, I will talk about it to our legal team on juriwiki-l mailing list. But I am quite confident it will not be necessary. I feel they are acting in good faith here and will fix the problem.

The replacement of the term wikipedia should be easy for them to fix.

The issue of tag mistake is more problematic. We do not ourselves provide proper information for website to respect the licence, in particular when the images are displayed in the encyclopedia, but are hosted in wikicommons, as the image information is not so easily reachable. It might be that the issue has to be discussed on wikitech-l.

I hope the two moderators on "strike" will have the patience to give them time to react and fix all this.

I will repeat what I said, cheer up :-)

Aside from this, I would like to discuss a couple of things.

1) I understood that some of you are deeply unhappy with the fact some websites use our content to make cash :

It is perfectly normal that websites use our content, as it is the goal of our project to first build the resource, and second make the information widely available. The license allow use of the content aside with advertisements; It is also possible to make books with partial or full content from Wikipedia, to sell them and make cash with them. I fully understand it might be painful to see some people are making money with the work you are providing for free, but this is just necessary with our goal. I will give you an example of why it is important : hosting information on a website does not cost much money, so most people with internet access can get the information for free. However, in other countries, with minimal net access, information is also necessary and will have to be provided via cd rom, dvd, books, wikireaders etc... All those cost money to "publish" and to "distribute". So no one will make them if their costs are not at least covered. That means they must have the possibility to "sell" them, at least to cover their costs, or possibly to make money on them. So, our content, our images should be useable by anyone, even for commercial reasons. If you forbid use for commercial reasons, no content, no images will ever be available to all those who can not access the website.

Second, it must be available for commercialization, because we want people to be able to use bits of our content in other works, which might be for sale.

2) I understood that a template has been created, to be used on images, with a label "For Wikipedia use only"

If images or content are under a restriction of use (ie, if editors put them under a licence which restrict use to wikipedia only), no one else than us will ever be able to use our content. We'll create a monopoly. Just like Microsoft. This is not what most of us want to do. We want the information to be free to use by anyone, this is our mission. The mission is not to create a monopoly, nor to create content under copyright restricting usage.

Putting images under a "for wikipedia use only" has a name. It is called a "copyright". So, in creating a tag "for wikipedia use only" to tag your pictures, you are specifically putting copyrighted content in Wikipedia. This is not alright as our goal is to provide "free" content.

Some wikipedia projects have chosen to entirely ban all non-free pictures from their site. Others have chosen to accept copyrighted images under fair-use, but try to restrict their use to situations where there is no other choice than using a copyrighted pictures (for example movie poster). Generally, the recommandation is "avoid using copyrighted images, and only do if there is NO free image possible." As Walter indicated... if the "image for wikipedia use" exist when there is no images available otherwise, well, yes, I suppose it is better than nothing :-)

But, while we sometimes have to use copyright images, I do not think it is a good idea that wikipedians themselves contribute in releasing their own images under a copyright. I think it is diverting our goal. If images of the sort stay a very limited number, I do not see the problem. If it is generalized, I think it will be a major issue. I suppose that one day you will make a cd rom of nl content, and it is likely it will be commercialised by an external provider, and this will lead to the distribution of a very poorly illustrated product, as nl will have to remove all these pictures. I think this is unfortunate.

Since somebody asked, yes, I presume that any image with a "for Wikipedia use only" will be deleted from Wikicommons. Wikicommons is a free content repository, not a copyrighted content repository.

3) Last. A moderator mentionned he was not happy to see some websites use the content to make cash, when he, as a contributor is severely lacking money for his own survival.

I of course feel empathy toward you. I am sorry to hear about your misfortune. It is indeed a fact that volunteer work is only possible for those who have already satisfied their basic needs (shelter, food, warmth and love). Those have to struggle to get this, and will not be able to help do charitable work. This is our choice to help do this. And I am sure many wikipedians amongst us are also on the verge of not satisfying their basic needs.

It is also a fact that some have always made profit of others work. Yes, even when you try to gather and ship medicine for people after a earthquake, there are always some assholes to steal part of the merchandise and make cash with it and let die people in needs. We have to live up with this.

But I have two suggestions to offer to you my friend :

* why not contacting these websites owners... and tell them simply "hi, we are happy you mirror our content. I think your business would benefit from us providing a good content, and benefit from you helping us providing good content. Would you possibly consider helping us and making a small donation to help our charitable goals ?". Perhaps they would.... some mirrors are already doing this. In some countries, in particular some arab ones, Islam requires that one gives 10% of his income to charitable institutions. If you do not do it, you are a bad muslim. Donation is one of the pillar of the religion. It is even included in the income tax forms in Maroco :-) You can select some charitable institutions you want to give to. Well, try to reach for people Karma. Make them feel good in giving us a bit of cash. If you succeed to do this with an "ads mirror", I will personally push so that your trip to come to Wikimania is paid by the Foundation :-)

* second idea if you have enough free time. Other wikipedians already tried it. I am not sure they really were successful though. Be yourself a distributor of Wikipedia content, and make a bit of cash on it yourself. Be kind with other contributors, redistribute part of your benefits if you make some. But keep a bit for yourself to be well fed, well dressed, and keep your girl friend happy. If I had to choose, I think it would be best that wikireaders or books or specialized websites using our content or advertised mirrors, benefits our own contributors rather than benefiting people we just do not know.

...might be a controversial idea... but I stick to it :-)

Anthere

--------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!