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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 7:33 PM The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Would love for an update. Wikipedia license doesn't just call for
> attribution, but for copyleft to be preserved.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Adele and Yongmin. I'll ask Barbara to clarify next time we
> chat.
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 at 12:49 am, Yongmin H. <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I tried quite a lot (around 10 times) and succeded to get one saying
> > > ‘here’s something I found from Wikipedia.’ I have it recorded, but
> > > uploading it fails... Will try later.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yongmin
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > https://wp.revi.blog
> > > Text licensed under CC BY ND 2.0 KR
> > > Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing
> > > list mails will be treated as spam.
> > > Please use
> https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a
> > .
> > >
> > > 2017. 9. 22. 01:27, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> 작성:
> > >
> > > > I was speaking with Barbara Page last night (Barbara's highlighting
> of
> > > this
> > > > issue in a Wikipediocracy blog post
> > > > http://wikipediocracy.com/2017/07/24/alexa/ prompted Andreas to open
> > > this
> > > > discussion) last night and she told me when she asks Alexa about
> > ovarian
> > > > cancer these days, Alexa begins with "According to Wikipedia..." Can
> > > anyone
> > > > else with Alexa confirm this?
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 3:55 am, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I checked in with Adele today, to ask about progress on the Amazon
> > Echo
> > > >> licensing issue, and whether she had a rough idea when she'd be able
> > to
> > > >> report back to us.
> > > >>
> > > >> Adele was happy for me to pass on here that we're unlikely to hear
> > > anything
> > > >> further about this until September, as Wikimania is looming, and she
> > > will
> > > >> be off on a much-needed holiday after that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Adele added that the timeline really depends on the Amazon staff
> they
> > > >> contacted. While she will let us know as soon as she hears from
> them,
> > > the
> > > >> call required for this type of outreach will probably only happen in
> > > >> September.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Andreas
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Adele Vrana <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hello,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the
> > Foundation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions
> > > raised
> > > >> on
> > > >>> this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have
> an
> > > >>> update.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> All the best,
> > > >>> Adele
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article
> > version
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>> matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to
> assume
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>> this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had
> > gone
> > > >>> by
> > > >>>>> the time the video was uploaded to YouTube.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The current (full) answer is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional
> > former
> > > >>>> CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified
> > > >>>> information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.'
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now obviously there could be -lots- going on behind the scenes,
> for
> > > >>>> example long term caching of search results (difficult to believe
> > that
> > > >>>> Bing would allow that if it is really from them, but who knows)
> and
> > so
> > > >>> on.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Simon
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> > unsubscribe>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> *Adele Vrana*
> > > >>> *Strategic Partnerships - Global Reach*
> > > >>> Wikimedia Foundation
> > > >>> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6773
> > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> > in
> > > >> the
> > > >>> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> > > >>> <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Kunal Mehta
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/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anthony Cole
We're not at that point yet. I would like to know whether an informal
conversation between WMF and Amazon on this topic has begun, though.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Kunal Mehta <[hidden email]> 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/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
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, <[hidden email]> 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/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anthony Cole
 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 <
[hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]> 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/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anthony Cole
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]>
>> 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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Rob Speer-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]>
> >> 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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]>
> >> 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: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

jmh649
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anthony Cole
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]>
> > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

James Salsman-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > 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 <
>> > > > [hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]>
>> > > >> 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: [hidden email]
>> > > >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > ,
>> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
>> ?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: [hidden email]
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

geni
In reply to this post by Rob Speer-2
On 16 April 2018 at 06:23, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.


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

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>