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