Andreas, Helpful questions and observations, thank you. My replies inline:
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pete, > > <snip> > > Is anyone arguing that Google are in fact breaking CC > BY-SA by restricting their attribution to a link to Wikipedia? Because if > not, we can lay that one to rest. > No, I think we agree there. Now, if that works for Wikipedia, why can't we have the same for Wikidata? I'd say the better question, is "what legal or moral right would we call upon to *insist* on having the same for Wikidata?" If we had a clear answer to that one, it would really move forward; but I don't think we do, or if we do, it's not yet clear to me. > > > Requiring that reusers credit the *web site* would be new in the > Wikimedia > > world, and I don't see the advantage. (-Pete) > > > > The advantage is transparency about data provenance, as well as creating a > path to Wikidata where users can contest, correct and refine the > information. > > This is a benefit to the end user, and in line with Foundation values like > transparency and user engagement. Do you disagree? > No, and I should have been clearer -- I do see the general advantage in a site providing information about the source of information (of course). What I don't see is the advantage of requiring them to do so in a certain way. > > > > > Certainly, serious reusers who wish > > to establish credibility should be transparent about the source of their > > data; (-Pete) > > > > I have never seen Google credit Freebase (Bing does, probably because > Freebase is a Google property), and I think neither Google nor Bing will > credit Wikidata either. > I don't think Google or Bing aspires to having the highest standard of credibility. If they are useful, their business interests have been served, and I would hope that no student or academic would be able to cite the Google Knowledge Graph in a formal paper, any more than they could cite Wikipedia. (caveat emptor) > > > > > but it's not our proper role to compel them to do so. (-Pete) > > > Could you explain why in your view it is not out proper role to do so? > I believe in the agency of multiple people and entities in curating knowledge. Individuals, and individual information projects, should have the ability to make their own judgment about how much, and what kind, of citation is required for their purposes. I don't believe that information curation can be perfected by anticipating all needs in policy and legal documents. If our users have a moral or legal right that needs to be defended, we should do so. But I don't see one in this case (perhaps a clear hypothetical example could help?) > Attribution requirements in CC licenses are about crediting the *copyright > > holders*. > > > > Andreas, I realize this has been much discussed in this thread, but I > don't > > think I've seen this angle addressed directly: In order for any copyright > > license to apply, somebody has to hold the copyright. Who do you imagine > > has a legitimate claim to copyright over the emergent database that grows > > as multiple individuals and automated processes add individual, > > non-copyrightable claims/statements/facts? (-Pete) > > > > > See > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights#The_legal_definition_of_.E2.80.9Cdatabase.E2.80.9D > > <snip quotes> So according to that page, created by Wikimedia legal staff, databases may > be protected even by US copyright law as "compilations". In the EU (is > Wikidata currently based in the EU, given that it's a Wikimedia Deutschland > project?) the protections are still more stringent. As I understand it, the > community as a whole holds the copyright, but you'd have to check with > Foundation legal staff or some other lawyer to be sure. Helpful link, thank you. My eye is drawn to the word "may." If databases MAY be protected, what conditions need to pertain in order for that to happen? I'd be very interested in hearing from a legal expert about that. My best guess is that a "database" like an edited compilation of papers about biology, or a compilation of Christmas songs, would be protected by copyright -- the people or organizations who curated the collection would hold the copyright to the collection, while the individual authors/artists would hold the copyright to the individual papers or songs. But the phone book would not carry copyright, because there was no editorial or creative judgment in assembling the list. "The Wikimedia community as a whole" is certainly not a legal entity, and I'm skeptical that it's an entity at all. How can something that is not a legal entity hold a copyright? Whose rights do you wish to protect? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
