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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe