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:
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:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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>