Dear Wikimedia community,
I am posting this to multiple lists, as I believe it is relevant to each of them (more on that below).
For years, we have been using the term "free content" to refer to our projects. However, what exactly is free content? Does it include the right to make commercial use? Does it allow derivative works? A year ago, Anthere, one of our elected trustees, noted that the English Wikipedia article [[free content]] is confused and contains no clear definition. This is no surprise, as the term has evolved purely through its usage. One year on, the article doesn't look much better and still doesn't contain a single reference.
It is clear that we need a definition. With the help of feedback from the likes of Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, and an increasing number of collaborators, I have drafted up a first version of such a definition, called the "Free Content and Expression Definition":
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition
You can also use the URLs http://freedomdefinition.org/ or http://freedomdefined.org/. Please use the URL
http://freecontentdefinition.org/static/ (with trailing slash)
when submitting this link to high traffic sites.
Licenses covered by this definition must grant the following freedoms:
* the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it * the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression * the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies
The essence of these freedoms is not negotiable. However, in order to best express, interpret and elaborate on these freedoms, I would like to announce an open editing phase to push this Definition to a 1.0 version. There is a stable, protected version of the definition and an unstable, openly editable one. The openly editable one, which may already differ significantly from the one above by the time you read this, can be found at:
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition/Unstable
You can suggest changes on the talk page, or be bold and make them directly. The change process will be consensus-based. In order to decide when a consensus has been reached on a change, I have appointed three moderators besides myself:
* Benjamin Mako Hill. Mako is a co-initiator of the definition and a prolific figure in the free software community. To quote Wikipedia, he "is a Debian hacker and author of the Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 Bible (...). He currently works in the electronic publishing group of the MIT Media Lab, and is on the boards of Software in the Public Interest, Software Freedom International (the organization that organizes Software Freedom Day) and the Ubuntu Foundation." * Angela Beesley. You may be familiar with her. ;-) She's the other of the two elected trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and also the Vice President of Community Relations at Wikia, Inc. * Mia Garlick. General Counsel at Creative Commons, and an expert on IP law. Creative Commons is, of course, the project which offers many easy-to-use licenses to authors and artists, some of which are free content licenses and some of which are not.
None of them is acting here in an official capacity related to their affiliations. Please treat their comments as personal opinion unless otherwise noted. See http://freecontentdefinition.org/Authoring_process for details on the authoring process and http://freecontentdefinition.org/Moderators for more about moderation.
The Creative Commons project has welcomed the effort to clearly classify existing groups of licenses, and will work to supplement this definition with one which covers a larger class of licenses and works.
In addition to changes to the definition itself, we invite you to submit logos that can be attached to works or licenses which are free under this definition:
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Logo_contest
Why is this relevant to the projects I am alerting about it?
Wikipedia
Has the most significant problems distinguishing between free and non-free materials simply because of the sheer amount of uploads and user-submitted content. The English Wikipedia, for instance, allows limited "fair use" in addition to free content uploads, but prohibits licenses which forbid commercial use. This definition allows us to state clearly: "An uploaded work must either be free content, or fair use. If it is fair use, strong restrictions apply, and your upload may be deleted or replaced at any time."
The definition also contains remarks about interoperability with other licenses. This is a problem that concerns us at the moment when it comes to importing texts under licenses which are philosophically similar, but legally incompatible with the GFDL. If the definition gets widely adopted, we can push for changes to licenses to make them more compatible with each other.
Wikimedia Commons
Commons was launched as a free content repository. We have effectively followed the terms of the definition in the licenses we allow and prohibit for uploaded files; however, the discussions about whether to allow, for example, pictures which cannot be used commercially keep coming up. Clearly labeling the repository as a free content archive under this definition will help to avoid that.
Wikinews
I've seen some uploaded photo galleries that were under licenses which forbid derivative works. If we limit Wikimedia projects to free content, that would explicitly not be allowed. This is an example of "non-free content creep" that may be observed on other projects as well.
Wiktionary
The definition contains recommendations about license complexity. Wiktionary as a resource for terminological and lexicological data does not benefit from the highly complex terms of the GFDL, which require, for example, reprinting the entire license text when copying a single page.
Wikimedia
The definition makes it easy to resolve the question of which licenses to allow or disallow across projects. For example, a Wikimedia-wide policy could be that: "All content in all projects must be free content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, with the exception of works which are used under exemptions granted by national copyright laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. These exemptions are defined on a per-project and per-language basis."
Outside Wikimedia, the definition will make it easier for us to communicate. For instance, many people use the very vague terms "open access" or "open content", or simply talk about "a Creative Commons license" when describing licensing of their work. The term "free content" has an existing usage in the sense described herein. With the additional support of this definition, it is a powerful and simple way to determine whether a work is usable in the context of the Wikimedia projects.
One note on the choice of name. Not all people will be happy to label their works "content", as it is also a term that is heavily used in commerce. This is why Mako and I have compromised on the name "Free Content and Expression Definition" for the definition itself. We are suggesting "Free Expression" as an alternative term that may lend itself particularly to usage in the context of artistic works. However, we remain open on discussing the issue of naming, and invite your feedback in this regard.
All that being said, I hope that you will join the open editing phase or the logo contest. Even if there will be very little feedback, I hope we will be able to release a 1.0 version of this definition fairly soon.
You will find a general announcement that you can copy and paste to other places at:
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Announcement
Please leave a quick note in the log when distributing it. As a final note, if you create an account on the wiki, I would appreciate it if you could use your real name as your user name.
Thanks for your time,
Erik
On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
It is clear that we need a definition. With the help of feedback from the likes of Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, and an increasing number of collaborators, I have drafted up a first version of such a definition, called the "Free Content and Expression Definition":
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition
A somewhat off topic question, but I wanted to make sure this was clear.
Is Erik authorized to speak to other groups (such as the FSF) as a representative of the Wikimedia foundation?
In the past I've encountered confusion when speaking to folks at the FSF whom thought they'd been told something official by the foundation but they hadn't. I think we need to keep track of who is speaking for us today, and make sure that they aren't saying things which are inconsistent with the work in various areas that other people have been working on.
Thanks.
On 5/1/06, Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote:
Is Erik authorized to speak to other groups (such as the FSF) as a representative of the Wikimedia foundation?
To also make that clear, I have not spoken to anyone as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Erik
On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote:
Is Erik authorized to speak to other groups (such as the FSF) as a representative of the Wikimedia foundation?
The announcement does say "None of them is acting here in an official capacity related to their affiliations."
My involvement with this is my own. I made it clear I wasn't talking for Wikimedia, and I've no doubt Erik did the same.
Angela.
--- Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
Wikimedia
The definition makes it easy to resolve the question of which licenses to allow or disallow across projects. For example, a Wikimedia-wide policy could be that: "All content in all projects must be free content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, with the exception of works which are used under exemptions granted by national copyright laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. These exemptions are defined on a per-project and per-language basis."
I have a problem with Wikimedia adopting this proposal as Wikisource certainly has a place for documents availble under licences forbidding modification. I do not have specific examples in mind, but we already have policy of protecting all works from modification once they have been proofread to a certain degree. I wonder if your awarenes of this issue was behind the reason Wikisource was excluded from your breakdown of the ramications of the definition on each project. I can understand why you would want to define "free content" in this way, however I am strongly against Wikimedia adopting this definition as policy across projects.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
I have a problem with Wikimedia adopting this proposal as Wikisource certainly has a place for documents availble under licences forbidding modification. I do not have specific examples in mind, but we already have policy of protecting all works from modification once they have been proofread to a certain degree.
These are completely separate statements. Protecting a page from editing is entirely different from using legal powers to stop others from distributing a modified version of that page. Page protection is a policy matter, forbidding derivatives is a matter of law. I feel that documents which cannot legally be distributed in altered form have no place on Wikisource. But that is exactly the discussion we need to have, especially on the Board level.
Erik
--- Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
I have a problem with Wikimedia adopting this
proposal
as Wikisource certainly has a place for documents availble under licences forbidding modification.
I do
not have specific examples in mind, but we already have policy of protecting all works from
modification
once they have been proofread to a certain degree.
These are completely separate statements. Protecting a page from editing is entirely different from using legal powers to stop others from distributing a modified version of that page. Page protection is a policy matter, forbidding derivatives is a matter of law. I feel that documents which cannot legally be distributed in altered form have no place on Wikisource. But that is exactly the discussion we need to have, especially on the Board level.
Erik
Yes I realize they are seperate issues, I just mentioned that to show the culture of Wikisource currently supports not modifing documents since I could not name any legal examples. I am sure there are many documents availble under the terms of no modification that Wikisource would love to have. I do not know why you think such works would have no place simply beacuse they cannot be modified. I see no value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the Constitution of Singapore. In all honesty I see think this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource. I do not know what works we would have to exclude by adopting such a policy, but I am certain that they are works which do have a place on Wikisource.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
I see no value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the Constitution of Singapore. In all honesty I see think this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource. I do not know what works we would have to exclude by adopting such a policy, but I am certain that they are works which do have a place on Wikisource.
The Creative Commons CC-BY-ND license defines "derivative works" (which are forbidden) as follows:
- - - - - "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode
- - - - -
I'm sure you will agree that derivative works, as per this meaning, are useful and essential to Wikisource. Translations, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and so forth, are all made impossible under licenses which forbid derivatives.
Erik
--- Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
I see no value whatsoever in being able to modify the works
of
Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the Constitution of Singapore. In all honesty I see
think
this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource. I
do
not know what works we would have to exclude by adopting such a policy, but I am certain that they
are
works which do have a place on Wikisource.
The Creative Commons CC-BY-ND license defines "derivative works" (which are forbidden) as follows:
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode
I'm sure you will agree that derivative works, as per this meaning, are useful and essential to Wikisource. Translations, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and so forth, are all made impossible under licenses which forbid derivatives.
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected]
Derivative works are by no means essential for Wikisource. The fact that we cannot translate a work for the French Wikisource does not lessen the value to the English Wikisource. There is already a policy in place which allows the works of French writers to treated as public domain in the English Wikisource yet forbidden the French Wikisource per disscusion on this very list. I see this situation as much less problematic. We are not going to be dealing with fictional works under this license, but rather the sort of documents that can be misrepresented by modifications. These are works which if unavailable to Wikisource will be irreplaceable. This is not at all like Wikipedia. If WP has an image of a butterfly that is under a license you do not like, then you can go take your own picture and release under GFDL. If Wikisource cannot host a Constitution or treaty, we cannot simply make our own version released under the GFDL. You said before these works have no place at Wikisource, but I do not think you have a real understanding of what Wikisource is trying to be well enough to make such a judgment. If you simply want Wikisource to be a dumping ground for the material you cannot get enough votes to delete from Wikipedia but would otherwise would fit WP's goald then you would be right. However if you expect Wikisource to be it's own project, with self-determined goals, you must let us judge what has a place within those goals. The ability to modify material is for the most part not a concern at Wikisource; it is not a concern to anyone who comes to find things at Wikisource, and it not a concern of the editors adding material.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
Derivative works are by no means essential for Wikisource.
I disagree. A document that cannot legally be translated, for instance, cannot be called a free document. Wikisource is, by definition and philosophy, a repository of free works, similar to what Commons provides for non-textual materials. If you use the logic "but the document is important", you are on a slippery slope of changing Wikisource into a repository for materials under _any_ license which allows free downloads, including "permission granted to Wikimedia" and similar non-free arrangement.
The fact that we cannot translate a work for the French Wikisource does not lessen the value to the English Wikisource. There is already a policy in place which allows the works of French writers to treated as public domain in the English Wikisource yet forbidden the French Wikisource per disscusion on this very list.
That's interesting. Could you point me to this policy? I recall the discussion, but not the conclusion.
Erik
--- Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
Derivative works are by no means essential for Wikisource.
I disagree. A document that cannot legally be translated, for instance, cannot be called a free document. Wikisource is, by definition and philosophy, a repository of free works, similar to what Commons provides for non-textual materials. If you use the logic "but the document is important", you are on a slippery slope of changing Wikisource into a repository for materials under _any_ license which allows free downloads, including "permission granted to Wikimedia" and similar non-free arrangement.
That is not the case whatsoever. We are commited to hosting freely distributable works. Please not put words in my mouth. You are trying to define "free" in way to exclude such documents, that does not make them non-free in general. In all truth no matter how you limit the licenses, the material of Wikimedia will not be universally free everywhere. Such a blanket guarantee is not possible, so we must do our best to keep things both as free and available as possible. It is a balancing act not a black and white line. Why else is there an exception for fair use?
The fact that we cannot translate a work for the French Wikisource does not lessen the
value to
the English Wikisource. There is already a policy
in
place which allows the works of French writers to treated as public domain in the English Wikisource
yet
forbidden the French Wikisource per disscusion on
this
very list.
That's interesting. Could you point me to this policy? I recall the discussion, but not the conclusion.
Erik
We do not have any sorts of crosslanguage policy, but that was the end result. Yann was told that the French Wikisource must remove the works while some of them have always been available on the English Wikisource in translation and have never violated the enWS copyright policy. There now exists a soft fork of Wikisource. I will not try to pin this on any one decision over these matters, but I understand the frustrations which the editors must have felt lead them to such action.
BirgitteSB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
That is not the case whatsoever. We are commited to hosting freely distributable works.
The frontpage of en.wikisource.org states:
"Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors."
Even before the free content definition, the [[free content]] article Wikisource links to has stated:
"Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content."
Given this, it can be said that en.wikisource itself disagrees with you that "freely distributable" is sufficient. I believe it is crucial that Wikimedia projects follow a consistently high standard of freedom for the works they host. This gives users certainty about the freedoms they have, and compels those who wish to contribute content to choose a permissive model rather than the least permissive which is still acceptable.
Your argument for allowing non-free materials is a short term argument. It is based on the consideration that there are texts which are currently not available under free terms. If we follow your advice, we will host those materials, but give the people who hold rights over them no incentive to relax those restrictions. If we remain steadfast in our convictions, we can build upon the works which are currently accessible to us -- more than enough to grow a community -- and use our influence to compel more and more people to share our definition of freedom.
I find it hard to believe that you would even seriously make the argument that Wikisource should host texts which cannot be translated into other Wikisources. The ability to create useful derivative works such as translations is exactly one of the key benefits a project like Wikisource can provide over traditional web sites such as Project Gutenberg.
the material of Wikimedia will not be universally free everywhere.
There are local laws which can impede the freedom of content we host. This typically applies to the question of when content enters the public domain. I believe that we should follow the laws of the country where the content originates, except in cases where these laws deviate heavily from internationally prevalent standards.
Regarding the fr.wikisource.org example, I believe the text should either be removed from all projects, or none.
Why else is there an exception for fair use?
Fair use images are treated very differently from any free content. 1) It has always been policy on en.wikipedia.org that an article can never consist of fair use materials alone. All articles are at most enriched with fair use content, but their basis must always be free content. Material copied straight from the web is deleted immediately, and all the text must be licensed under the GFDL or more permissive terms. 2) Fair use images can be deleted when orphaned, replaced when a free alternative is found, removed when the fair use argument is questioned or a copyright holder complains. They are essentially "allowed on parole".
We can further develop this distinction if we are clear and consistent about only allowing two classes of material, free content and limited fair use to enrich that content.
Erik
--- Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
That is not the case whatsoever. We are commited
to
hosting freely distributable works.
The frontpage of en.wikisource.org states:
"Wikisource The Free Library is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors."
Even before the free content definition, the [[free content]] article Wikisource links to has stated:
"Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content."
Given this, it can be said that en.wikisource itself disagrees with you that "freely distributable" is sufficient. I believe it is crucial that Wikimedia projects follow a consistently high standard of freedom for the works they host. This gives users certainty about the freedoms they have, and compels those who wish to contribute content to choose a permissive model rather than the least permissive which is still acceptable.
Your argument for allowing non-free materials is a short term argument. It is based on the consideration that there are texts which are currently not available under free terms. If we follow your advice, we will host those materials, but give the people who hold rights over them no incentive to relax those restrictions. If we remain steadfast in our convictions, we can build upon the works which are currently accessible to us -- more than enough to grow a community -- and use our influence to compel more and more people to share our definition of freedom.
I find it hard to believe that you would even seriously make the argument that Wikisource should host texts which cannot be translated into other Wikisources.
Please pay me the compliment of believing what I say, however it stretches your credulity or however you would like to interpret the Main Page. Here is a link to most recent dissucion which took place on the most active and prominent page on enWS. Not single person spoke out against accepting the ND license.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Non_commercial_texts
<snip>
Why else is there an exception for fair use?
Fair use images are treated very differently from any free content.
- It has always been policy on en.wikipedia.org
that an article can never consist of fair use materials alone. All articles are at most enriched with fair use content, but their basis must always be free content. Material copied straight from the web is deleted immediately, and all the text must be licensed under the GFDL or more permissive terms. 2) Fair use images can be deleted when orphaned, replaced when a free alternative is found, removed when the fair use argument is questioned or a copyright holder complains. They are essentially "allowed on parole".
We can further develop this distinction if we are clear and consistent about only allowing two classes of material, free content and limited fair use to enrich that content.
Erik
When you have managed to limit fair use materials, I will examine the limits and re-evaluate my opiion. Currently enWP has pretty much any fair use material they can get away with. If the Foundation is willing to be that flexible there should be room for other limited licenses especially where the marterial is most valuable without modifications. I do not believe ND licences should be adopted on Wikipedia or other projects. Wikisource is in a uniquie situation where our content is desired in a fixed form without modifications. We have only the smallest number of articles that have even begun to be translated by editors and there a no active projects of translations. We should not exclude works simply because they cannot be translated, when it is highly unlikely there would even be such an interest. I am unconvinced that anything is gained by excluding ND licenses from Wikisource. As I said before if the Foundation wishes to follow the strictest principles of "free content" they should forbid fair use as well as non-derivative. However as long as these descisions continue to be arbitrary, I will fight to see that they are made so that Wikisource can be the best site possible with a balance of freedom and availabilty.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
Please pay me the compliment of believing what I say,
I am not disputing your comments, I am simply pointing out the contradiction to the way Wikisource defines itself. It is clear that ND and NC materials have slipped through the cracks in a few projects and languages.
however it stretches your credulity or however you would like to interpret the Main Page. Here is a link to most recent dissucion which took place on the most active and prominent page on enWS. Not single person spoke out against accepting the ND license.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Non_commercial_texts
What I see is a single comment from you on this matter, and a single response to that. This is not the broad discussion about these issues which we need.
When you have managed to limit fair use materials, I will examine the limits and re-evaluate my opiion. Currently enWP has pretty much any fair use material they can get away with.
The situation has much improved in recent years (though the overall quantity of materials uploaded has grown, of course). Fair use images are quickly deleted when orphaned, and the policy that they can be replaced even with inferior free versions seems to be accepted now (this was not always the case). We have a well-defined list of acceptable circumstances of fair use.
Most importantly, fair use material is subject to very different conditions than other content, and governed by its own policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
It is this distinction between two classes of content which is essential. You, on the other hand, want to put ND content on equal footing with other materials. This erodes the distinction, reduces the incentive to contribute free content, and contradicts the definition and mission of Wikisource.
Erik
On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote: [snip]
It is this distinction between two classes of content which is essential. You, on the other hand, want to put ND content on equal footing with other materials. This erodes the distinction, reduces the incentive to contribute free content, and contradicts the definition and mission of Wikisource.
I think this point of Erik's is the most important.
The reason that ND content should not be broadly accepted on any Wikimedia project is that the only cases where we are able to obtain an ND grant are cases where we also have a high probaiblity of getting a free grant.
Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than content you can use but not distribute. Both are without cost, both deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright, and both go far beyond the limited restrictions required to keep content free and far beyond what is needed to avoid people being confused by content degraded by later editors.
When we accept kinda-free works it is at the cost of actually free works.
There are many sites out there which are happy to distribute free-of-cost content, Wikimedia doesn't need to yet another.
If someone can really make the case that there are works which could never be free but can instead be ND, then make it... And expect the counter argument "But what if I went to the copyright holder and overed him $100,000 USD to free his work"? Because thats a perfectly valid counter argument.
--- Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote:
On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote: [snip]
It is this distinction between two classes of
content which is
essential. You, on the other hand, want to put ND
content on equal
footing with other materials. This erodes the
distinction, reduces the
incentive to contribute free content, and
contradicts the definition
and mission of Wikisource.
I think this point of Erik's is the most important.
The reason that ND content should not be broadly accepted on any Wikimedia project is that the only cases where we are able to obtain an ND grant are cases where we also have a high probaiblity of getting a free grant.
Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than content you can use but not distribute. Both are without cost, both deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright, and both go far beyond the limited restrictions required to keep content free and far beyond what is needed to avoid people being confused by content degraded by later editors.
When we accept kinda-free works it is at the cost of actually free works.
There are many sites out there which are happy to distribute free-of-cost content, Wikimedia doesn't need to yet another.
If someone can really make the case that there are works which could never be free but can instead be ND, then make it... And expect the counter argument "But what if I went to the copyright holder and overed him $100,000 USD to free his work"? Because thats a perfectly valid counter argument.
The works I see us dealing with here are religous works, goverment works, and manifestos of political groups etc. These sorts of works forbid modifiction because the authors do not want to be misrepresented not because they want to profit from the work. This situation is not comparable to un-free works on Wikipedia. It does not prevent free works from being created in the same way at all. Excluding these works will not make anything more free. I am not putting ND works on the same footing as PD works; the works themselves are not comparable. This is not like a picture of a butterfly. It is not the that ND work is better quality than some PD work; each work is unique. If we realy did have a high probability of getting a free license on these works I would agree with you but I so not belive it is possible. I should really come up with some concrete examples before continuing this which will require some research, but I am for now quite unconvinced.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
The works I see us dealing with here are religous works, goverment works, and manifestos of political groups etc.
Again, these works can be protected through policy, while at the same time permitting, by policy, legitimate derivative works such as translations. There's no need to forbid derivative works by law. In any case, the authorship history of the original work must be maintained under common licenses such as the GFDL and CC-BY. This is the message we have to communicate to the authors of these documents.
Erik
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
The works I see us dealing with here are religous works, goverment works, and manifestos of political groups etc.
[snip]
Repeat after me. ND licenses do not prevent misrepresentation. ND licenses do not prevent misrepresentation. ND licenses do not prevent misrepresentation.
If you are relaxing copyright holders fears of misrepresentation by suggesting ND licenses, you are lying to yourself and possibly to them.
It is acceptable in a free license (under any common definition) to require that works be correctly attributed and not fraudulently mislabeled.
If someone is going to edit the words of another in an effort to misrepresent the original speaker, they will still do so no matter what license the work is under.
Here you are just making another argument to reject ND licenses: they are often preferred by people with unrealistic expectations, and whom are thus likely to cause problems when those unrealistic expectations are shattered.
Birgitte SB wrote:
The works I see us dealing with here are religous works, goverment works, and manifestos of political groups etc. These sorts of works forbid modifiction because the authors do not want to be misrepresented not because they want to profit from the work. This
The Creative Commons has licenses that require attribution (-BY) and those that don't require attribution. But I don't think they have one that forbids attribution. It seems appropriate to link attribution to derivate works in a non-misrepresentation (NM) license clause, that would allow greater freedom than today's ND. Have they tried anything like that?
For whole recorded songs or films, the CC Sampling license strikes a similar balance between the CC-SA freedom to reuse in parts and the CC-NC prohibition of wholesale commercial copying, http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than content you can use but not distribute. Both are without cost, both deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright,
The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing lists, for example this one. Is that free contents? Should I be allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?
Suppose Google's big Usenet archive or the site Gmane.org had to close down, and the Wikimedia Foundation could take over the contents. That's where I think a CC-ND license could make sense.
Recently I've been looking into MusicBrainz.org, where the core database of CD albums, tracks, and artists is released into the public domain ("the product"), but data relating to the user community ("the factory") is released under a Creative Commons license that only allows non-commercial (NC) use.
This makes me wonder if Wikipedia user and talk pages really need to be released under exactly the same license as the main article namespace. I don't remember that this was analyzed. User pages were just introduced (in 2002) without talks of licensing. And I don't think anybody discussed the licensing for the mailing list archives, which are indeed very close to user page discussions.
This also reminds me of Erik Möller's Kuro5hin posting "Creative Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful", http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 where some of the reader comments made me realize that there can be cases where NC makes sense, and other cases where it is harmful. Maybe the same goes for ND.
Are we trying to force every foot into the same shoe here?
On 5/2/06, Lars Aronsson [email protected] wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Content which forbids derivied works is not anymore free content than content you can use but not distribute. Both are without cost, both deny you what would be considered natural rights without copyright,
The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing lists, for example this one. Is that free contents? Should I be allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?
I certainly don't consider my mailing list posts to be free content. I've given permission for Wikimedia to distribute copies via email to everyone on the list. That's it. Any other use is not permitted via license, though it might fall under fair use or some other exception to copyright law.
Anthony
On 5/2/06, Lars Aronsson [email protected] wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation maintains archives of its own mailing lists, for example this one. Is that free contents? Should I be allowed to modify and distribute the record of what you said?
Is it? No. Could it be? Sure.
I think you're making a fallacious appeal to emotion when you say "Should I be allowed to modify the record of what you said?"
So, let's get something straight: When you talk about 'modifying the record of what I said', you're not talking about anything related to copyright infringement, you're talking about fraud.
No I don't want you to modify the 'record of what I said' because that would be deceptive. Do I care if you take my words and spread them widely? No. Do I care if you alter them and make it clear that they don't necessarily reflect my views, then spread them widely? No.
People don't communicate in public forums what they wish to keep secret. Yes they sometimes desire limitations, but those are grounded in ethics, in respect, and in honesty. Copyright is too blunt a tool to try to achieve those things.
Suppose Google's big Usenet archive or the site Gmane.org had to close down, and the Wikimedia Foundation could take over the contents. That's where I think a CC-ND license could make sense.
Can you explain what you are talking about? The usenet posts are copyrighted by their posters. Their works are not licensed under CC-ND. Do you suggest that we contact all prior usenet posters, both living and dead, and ask them to replease their works under CC-ND?
Recently I've been looking into MusicBrainz.org, where the core database of CD albums, tracks, and artists is released into the public domain ("the product"), but data relating to the user community ("the factory") is released under a Creative Commons license that only allows non-commercial (NC) use.
Musicbrainz isn't a group commit ed to free content, that their output is free is as much of a response to the massive abuse of the public that the CDDB folks committed so many years ago as it is anything else.
What would be interesting here is not a mention that they license a certain way, but *why* they license a certain way.
This makes me wonder if Wikipedia user and talk pages really need to be released under exactly the same license as the main article namespace. I don't remember that this was analyzed. User pages were just introduced (in 2002) without talks of licensing. And I don't think anybody discussed the licensing for the mailing list archives, which are indeed very close to user page discussions.
When we to start permitting userpages to contain non-free content, I think that it would be clear at that point that the project had forgotten it's goals. Wikimedia websites are not myspace.
If you don't want to distribute your userpage as free content you are using it for something for which it is not intended.
I'm not sure if it was analyzed at the time, but it's certainly been analyzed since then.
This also reminds me of Erik Möller's Kuro5hin posting "Creative Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful", http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 where some of the reader comments made me realize that there can be cases where NC makes sense, and other cases where it is harmful. Maybe the same goes for ND.
Are we trying to force every foot into the same shoe here?
Name a licensing scheme and there is some situation that someone can come up with that makes sense... I don't think that anyone is claiming otherwise.
A great many licensing schemes, including ND and NC, are not what any sane person who has considered the issue would consider free licenses.
Wikimedia is dedicate to free content. There are many other organizations out there which are dedicated to no-cost content. Those other organizations will likely find NC and ND licenses quite attactive, while Wikimedia finds them generally unacceptable. This isn't trying to force every foot into the same shoe, it's just a result of having a purpose.
Freedom has tremendous advantages, it also has significant costs. There is a place in the world for free content. This is what wikimedia is for, and this is why you get so much objections when you wish to introduce things which look and smell somewhat free but are not.
Birgitte SB wrote:
I am sure there are many documents availble under the terms of no modification that Wikisource would love to have. I do not know why you think such works would have no place simply beacuse they cannot be modified.
This has always been our policy everywhere. If there are documents under Wikisource which are under nonfree licenses, and I am not aware that there are, they should be deleted immediately.
I see no value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the Constitution of Singapore. In all honesty I see think this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource.
I can absolutely see many reasons to modify each of those. Not *on* wikisource, mind you.
1. Charles Dickens - perhaps I want to write an updated version, modernizing the tale to deal with contemporary issues... I would find the public domain text perhaps an excellent starting point.
2. Paris Peace Accords - imagine that I am writing historical fiction, and I want to explore how some minor change in the provisions of a treaty might radically impact history... I might want to include a modified version of the Paris Peace Accords in an appendix of my novel.
3. Constitution of Singapore - perhaps I am a free speech advocate seeking to persuade people that Singapore's constitution needs to be modified in various ways to contribute to a healthier society.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Birgitte SB wrote:
I am sure there are many documents availble under the terms of no modification that Wikisource would love to have. I do not know why you think such works would have no place simply beacuse they cannot be modified.
This has always been our policy everywhere. If there are documents under Wikisource which are under nonfree licenses, and I am not aware that there are, they should be deleted immediately.
I see no value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the Constitution of Singapore. In all honesty I see think this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource.
I can absolutely see many reasons to modify each of those. Not *on* wikisource, mind you.
- Charles Dickens - perhaps I want to write an updated version,
modernizing the tale to deal with contemporary issues... I would find the public domain text perhaps an excellent starting point.
- Paris Peace Accords - imagine that I am writing historical fiction,
and I want to explore how some minor change in the provisions of a treaty might radically impact history... I might want to include a modified version of the Paris Peace Accords in an appendix of my novel.
- Constitution of Singapore - perhaps I am a free speech advocate
seeking to persuade people that Singapore's constitution needs to be modified in various ways to contribute to a healthier society.
--Jimbo
Yes. Birgitte, you may be confusing the *licence* under which the texts are available to the public, and the *policy* of non-modification of these original texts on wikisource.
Wikisource does not modify the texts itself, but it should seek to make modification possible for those who will use the texts later.
Ant
Anthere wrote:
Yes. Birgitte, you may be confusing the *licence* under which the texts are available to the public, and the *policy* of non-modification of these original texts on wikisource.
Wikisource does not modify the texts itself, but it should seek to make modification possible for those who will use the texts later.
This is a beautiful expression of what I was trying to say, yes.
--- Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
--- Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
Wikimedia
The definition makes it easy to resolve the
question
of which licenses to allow or disallow across projects. For example,
a
Wikimedia-wide policy could be that: "All content in all projects must be free content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0,
with
the exception of works which are used under exemptions granted by national copyright laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States.
These
exemptions are defined on a per-project and per-language basis."
I would like to appeal to everyone to re-read the above paragraph. If Wikimedia wants to take the high road and stick to the strictest principles regarding "free content", the exception allowing fair use must be removed from that statement. If Wikimedia wishes to be more flexible, then each project should be allowed to draft it's own exceptions. The English Wikisource does not allow anything under fair use at all, the English Wikipedia allows anything legally allowed in regards to US fair use. Such material is much less free than the any non-derivatives existing on enWS. Also fair use is pervasive thoughout enWP, where any ND at enWS could be clearly marked and compartmentalized. This is how I feel on the matter and I will strongly oppose policy being enacted with wording given above.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
the English Wikipedia allows anything legally allowed in regards to US fair use. Such material is much less free than the any non-derivatives existing on enWS.
Just a nit: you're incorrect about English Wikipedia.
On English wikipedia what we allow is more complex. There are two broad classes: 1) Things we 'allow' because no one who cares has noticed yet. (Including things which are outright illegal for us to distribute) 2) Things we intend to allow.
Class (1) is most likely larger than class (2) right now, but it's not interesting to discuss so I won't mention it any more. It is important to mention because if you don't know it you'll think that you can determine what is permitted by looking at what is there.... You can't.
In the case the things we permit, Obviously GFDLed (and other similarly licensed) content is permitted. The way I explain it, Wikipedia is intended to be the "Free (content) encyclopedia". Here we mean free content in much the same sense that Erik describes, including unlimited redistribution for any purpose and derivative works. You can break the goal of the project this into two primary parts: "Produce an encyclopedia" "which is free content."
It is the widespread belief on the English Wikipedia that in order to really fulfil our goal of producing a free encyclopedia which is useful and competitive in all subject areas we '''must''' be able to excerpt from copyrighted works. Examples would include things like using part of a famous painting to illustrate text describing how he draws flowers. We can do this because the the US has fairuse which is specifically intended for this application, and many other English speaking countries have fair dealings type precedents which affirm that a copyright holder's monopoly on distribution does not extend far enough to stop academic discourse.
We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Thus, being legal in the US is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion of non-freely licensed works in English wikipedia.
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that you are of the opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?
As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself? Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the license of the license reads:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
ND, in other words.
-- Andre Engels, [email protected] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that you are of the opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most) text. As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't apply to most images. The same applies, although to a lesser extent, for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as it should allow "fair use images". That is, much less than fair use is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.
Anthony
On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most) text.
I don't. Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.
As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't apply to most images.
Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't the only valid alteration of an image. Derrived works are made frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can send you dozens of examples off list.
The same applies, although to a lesser extent, for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as it should allow "fair use images". That is, much less than fair use is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.
You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation where we'd get "ND images or no other choice". All I've ever seen on this front is the example of fat-ego photographers who want to pretend to contribute to Wikipedia while simultaniously damaging the freedom of the content that defines the project... and even in these cases, we're not in a position where no other image is possible.
On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote:
On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most) text.
I don't. Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.
Well, I went on to explain the difference...
As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't apply to most images.
Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't the only valid alteration of an image. Derrived works are made frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can send you dozens of examples off list.
No, that's not necessary. I can show you examples of public domain content which was used without attribution. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should rely solely on public domain.
The question is whether or not something which *doesn't* allow for unlimited modification should be allowed. That something which *does* allow unlimited modification is better is undisputed.
The same applies, although to a lesser extent, for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as it should allow "fair use images". That is, much less than fair use is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.
You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation where we'd get "ND images or no other choice".
What about a corporate logo released under the ND license, and only the ND license? What about a cartoon character released under the ND license, and only the ND licence? What about a movie poster, or a magazine cover, or a painting, or a clip from a DVD? Pretty much any image under the ND license, when you are talking about that image itself, and not the thing depicted by the image.
Anyway, we should be talking about principles here, not specific examples. The ND license itself isn't even the point, as it's only an example.
Anthony
On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
What about a corporate logo released under the ND license, and only the ND license? What about a cartoon character released under the ND license, and only the ND licence? What about a movie poster, or a magazine cover, or a painting, or a clip from a DVD? Pretty much any image under the ND license, when you are talking about that image itself, and not the thing depicted by the image.
Anyway, we should be talking about principles here, not specific examples. The ND license itself isn't even the point, as it's only an example.
Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but the prospect of getting a free license are zero, show me cases where accepting an ND license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free license.
Until then you're just blowing smoke.
2006/5/2, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but the prospect of getting a free license are zero, show me cases where accepting an ND license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free license.
I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are themselves under an ND license.
-- Andre Engels, [email protected] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
--- Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
2006/5/2, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but
the prospect of
getting a free license are zero, show me cases
where accepting an ND
license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free
license.
I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are themselves under an ND license.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
2006/5/2, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but
the prospect of
getting a free license are zero, show me cases
where accepting an ND
license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free
license.
I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are themselves under an ND license.
I agree this is a good example. Most all the cases I have seen are not any of a release under CC-by-ND, but more in the line of a notice stating "the copyright holder permits distribution of this document without modifications so long as this notice remains intact." Wikisource does not often deal with documents from places which are involved with the "free culture" movement. So we have next to nothing that is released under Creative Commons or GFDL besides the work of our editors. But I will try to compile a list of conrete works that this disscussion involves soon.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are themselves under an ND license.
The GFDL is a legal document which is essential to the operation of the site. Similarly, the Creative Commons logos are non-free, trademarked and coyprighted symbols used to identify Creative Commons texts. We use these documents and buttons where we need them, e.g., the logos are allowed to stay on Wikimedia Commons even though they are non-free.
If Wikisource allows other licenses than the GFDL, it should also host their license texts, no matter what terms they are available under. That is a matter of common sense.
Erik
2006/5/2, Erik Moeller [email protected]:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are themselves under an ND license.
The GFDL is a legal document which is essential to the operation of the site. Similarly, the Creative Commons logos are non-free, trademarked and coyprighted symbols used to identify Creative Commons texts. We use these documents and buttons where we need them, e.g., the logos are allowed to stay on Wikimedia Commons even though they are non-free.
If Wikisource allows other licenses than the GFDL, it should also host their license texts, no matter what terms they are available under. That is a matter of common sense.
But might it not be a good idea to have the text of a license like the GPL even if we don't have any material under it? Would not that be well under the purpose of Wikisource?
-- Andre Engels, [email protected] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote:
Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but the prospect of getting a free license are zero
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archeon/139198283/
show me cases where accepting an ND license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free license.
I don't understand this request (or the relevance, for that matter).
Anthony
unsubscribe - mailing list
Gregory Maxwell [email protected] wrote: On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most) text.
I don't. Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.
As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't apply to most images.
Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't the only valid alteration of an image. Derrived works are made frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can send you dozens of examples off list.
The same applies, although to a lesser extent, for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as it should allow "fair use images". That is, much less than fair use is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.
You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation where we'd get "ND images or no other choice". All I've ever seen on this front is the example of fat-ego photographers who want to pretend to contribute to Wikipedia while simultaniously damaging the freedom of the content that defines the project... and even in these cases, we're not in a position where no other image is possible. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mumbai is the 5th largest city in the World. Mumbai is the Commercial capital of India. Mumbai`s business language is English. Mumbai is Money, and Money is Mumbai. If interested [in money], please contact: Sunder Thadani [Your Man In Mumbai] Phone:91.22.2445 9165. Mailto:[email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------.
--------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
--- Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
We recognize that the inclusion of this content
is a violation of the
other half the goal of the project. As a result
it is only permitted
to include fair use in English wikipedia where
doing so compromises
our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid
compromising their
ability to be a source of original texts, you do
not want to allow
them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that
you are of the
opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not
allow fair use in
any form whatsoever, is not a quality
encyclopedia?
I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most) text. As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't apply to most images. The same applies, although to a lesser extent, for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
Here is where I really am not understanding this policy. Wikisource does not allow fair use claims, but if we did allow something under fair use derivative works would be forbidden. We would not be able to allow translations of something under fair use and fair use *is* about more than images. So I just do not see the rational reasoning in this at all. It seems to me like fair use is being allowed simply because people do not want to have to delete "unfree" material that they have gotten used to having. Because it would hamstring Wikipedia. I understand that but I do not understand why such reasoning cannot be applied to other projects.
Obviously we want to have as many things be as free as possible, but it is not always possible which this policy concedes. When Wikisource contains giant gaps in the coverage of certain categories it fails to be useful in those areas at all. If the overriding goal of WMF is to focus on solely on "free content" by this definition, then Wikisource can focus its enerigies in other areas and change it's scope a bit. And let us see Wikipedia also prove how much can be done with "free content" alone. But if being successful is truly half of our goal, allow Wiksource to work towards that with an equal amount of the flexibility that is afforded to Wikipedia.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/4/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
If the overriding goal of WMF is to focus on solely on "free content" by this definition, then Wikisource can focus its enerigies in other areas and change it's scope a bit.
Yes, that is the goal. As the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws state the "Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content ... under a free documentation license ..."
But if being successful is truly half of our goal...
We can be successful while still maintaining our focus on providing free content. If Wikisource is becoming something that requires non-free content, then it should certainly change its scope so it can return to its original mission.
Angela.
--- Angela [email protected] wrote:
We can be successful while still maintaining our focus on providing free content.
I can accept this sentiment. We should remove the exception for non-free content being allowed under fair use.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/3/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
--- Angela [email protected] wrote:
We can be successful while still maintaining our focus on providing free content.
I can accept this sentiment. We should remove the exception for non-free content being allowed under fair use.
Birgitte SB
Sure, but at the same time we should acknowledge that an encyclopedia article that is legal to copy, distribute, improve, and translate, for any purpose (including commercial ones), in the vast majority of the world, is "free enough", even if the pictures can't be cut out and put in your car commercial. IOW, some fair use can be allowed while the work remains free.
Anthony
Sure, but at the same time we should acknowledge that an encyclopedia article that is legal to copy, distribute, improve, and translate, for any purpose (including commercial ones), in the vast majority of the world, is "free enough", even if the pictures can't be cut out and put in your car commercial. IOW, some fair use can be allowed while the work remains free. Anthony
The same can be said about "educational use only" images, which in my opinion are much better than dubious "fair use".
On 5/3/06, Paweł Dembowski [email protected] wrote:
Sure, but at the same time we should acknowledge that an encyclopedia article that is legal to copy, distribute, improve, and translate, for any purpose (including commercial ones), in the vast majority of the world, is "free enough", even if the pictures can't be cut out and put in your car commercial. IOW, some fair use can be allowed while the work remains free.
The same can be said about "educational use only" images, which in my opinion are much better than dubious "fair use".
Yep. Hopefully this new definition will resolve that discrepancy.
Anthony
Hoi, Remembering previous conversations, you conveniently forget what to do about logos of companies and similar info. For the English language Wikipedia it is "not a problem" because the problem is hidden under their "fair use". It is however really powerful information. People KNOW organisations by their logos and it does make sense to have a way to include these using a license that does allow for inclusion.
Also we have to consider what has the highest priority; informing people or the information being free in all aspects. I agree with Andre that there is a lot of information that is valid, that is informative that makes a difference that we will not have as Free as you would like.
Being dogmatic about it, denies you the opportunity of doing what we aim to do and what should have priority in my opinion.
Thanks, GerardM
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that you are of the opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?
As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself? Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the license of the license reads:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
ND, in other words.
-- Andre Engels, [email protected] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/2/06, GerardM [email protected] wrote:
Hoi, Remembering previous conversations, you conveniently forget what to do about logos of companies and similar info. For the English language Wikipedia it is "not a problem" because the problem is hidden under their "fair use". It is however really powerful information. People KNOW organisations by their logos and it does make sense to have a way to include these using a license that does allow for inclusion.
While en.wp has initially been extremely liberal in its application of "fair use", a few other Wikipedias prohibit it entirely. I think it's time that we work towards fair use / fair dealing policies on all Wikimedia projects. This is going to be a bit tricky as we have to distinguish between the law that applies to the uploader of the work, and the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation which is hosting the work.
I would appreciate a legal opinion on how to best achieve this - my own feeling is that the fair use policies of a project like de.wp or nl.wp should explain the legal situation in countries where these languages are predominantly spoken, while allowing the freedoms granted under U.S. law.
When each project has very limited fair use, pictures like logos or screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As I've argued before, there are going to be very, very few cases where a company will agree to license their logo under something like CC-ND. Imagine such a proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like to use your logo, could you please license it under Creative Commons No-Derivatives"? Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization; seeing no benefit in such an arrangement, most of them would flat our reject the idea, I think.
The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be dangerous as it could prevent us from looking for a better solution. I don't think there's any court in this world who would find copyright infringement if we add the logo of a company to an encyclopedia article. Our policies just need to allow making use of these exemptions to copyright law.
Erik
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
When each project has very limited fair use, pictures like logos or screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As I've argued before, there are going to be very, very few cases where a company will agree to license their logo under something like CC-ND. Imagine such a proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like to use your logo, could you please license it under Creative Commons No-Derivatives"? Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization; seeing no benefit in such an arrangement, most of them would flat our reject the idea, I think.
The benefit would be that they get their logo in the Wikipedia article on Nike. For logos, though, companies would probably insist on some sort of "educational use only" restriction. CC-ND is just an example.
Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia decided not to use their image if they didn't give permission. So there'd be a risk there, but personally I don't think the Nike article would be any worse without a picture of that swoosh.
The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be dangerous as it could prevent us from looking for a better solution.
How would it do that? And what better solution is available now?
I don't think there's any court in this world who would find copyright infringement if we add the logo of a company to an encyclopedia article.
I'd like to hear from some actual lawyers as to whether or not they think that's true. I find it to be an incredibly bold statement. There are lots of jurisdictions in the world, and it's my intuition that at least one of them must have some law against copying and distributing a copyrighted logo in an encyclopedia. But hey, I guess I could be wrong about that.
Our policies just need to allow making use of these exemptions to copyright law.
Erik
Absolutely. Whatever the "Free Content and Expression Definition" is, it should certainly include Wikipedia (i.e. the entire content of each article in the main namespace).
Anthony
--- Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
When each project has very limited fair use,
pictures like logos or
screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As
I've argued before,
there are going to be very, very few cases where a
company will agree
to license their logo under something like CC-ND.
Imagine such a
proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like
to use your logo,
could you please license it under Creative Commons
No-Derivatives"?
Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization;
seeing no benefit
in such an arrangement, most of them would flat
our reject the idea, I
think.
The benefit would be that they get their logo in the Wikipedia article on Nike. For logos, though, companies would probably insist on some sort of "educational use only" restriction. CC-ND is just an example.
Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia decided not to use their image if they didn't give permission. So there'd be a risk there, but personally I don't think the Nike article would be any worse without a picture of that swoosh.
The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be
dangerous as it could
prevent us from looking for a better solution.
How would it do that? And what better solution is available now?
Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign outside a company's headquarters? I don't see why we have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we can show it used in context and under GFDL. I have not followed this issue before so forgive me if this has already been throughly discussed.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/2/06, Birgitte SB [email protected] wrote:
Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign outside a company's headquarters? I don't see why we have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we can show it used in context and under GFDL. I have not followed this issue before so forgive me if this has already been throughly discussed.
This is what is done on Dewiki.
It sounds good at first blush, but it's somewhat bogus from a legal perspective... Just like bringing a camcorder into a movie theater doesn't create a free movie, nor does aiming a still camera at a copyrighted graphic create a truly free illustration.
The same argument can be applied many of the 'free' illustrations in dewiki which are fair use in enwiki, from microsoft logos to pokemon dolls. Jamesday made this argument to me about a year ago, and it is what convinced me that fair use images have place in a free encyclopedia. ... or rather, that we have no choice but to include at least some legally complex material if we wish to be complete.
Not that the dewiki approach doesn't have any merit: a copyright holder would look rather foolish in court trying to control your distribution of a photograph an editor took from public property of a sign outside their facilities... And in parts of the world without the equivalent of fair use, this might be the only defense you have for using their copyrighted artwork.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/2/06, GerardM [email protected] wrote:
Hoi, Remembering previous conversations, you conveniently forget what to do about logos of companies and similar info. For the English language Wikipedia it is "not a problem" because the problem is hidden under their "fair use". It is however really powerful information. People KNOW organisations by their logos and it does make sense to have a way to include these using a license that does allow for inclusion.
While en.wp has initially been extremely liberal in its application of "fair use", a few other Wikipedias prohibit it entirely. I think it's time that we work towards fair use / fair dealing policies on all Wikimedia projects. This is going to be a bit tricky as we have to distinguish between the law that applies to the uploader of the work, and the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation which is hosting the work.
I would appreciate a legal opinion on how to best achieve this - my own feeling is that the fair use policies of a project like de.wp or nl.wp should explain the legal situation in countries where these languages are predominantly spoken, while allowing the freedoms granted under U.S. law.
When each project has very limited fair use, pictures like logos or screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As I've argued before, there are going to be very, very few cases where a company will agree to license their logo under something like CC-ND. Imagine such a proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like to use your logo, could you please license it under Creative Commons No-Derivatives"? Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization; seeing no benefit in such an arrangement, most of them would flat our reject the idea, I think.
The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be dangerous as it could prevent us from looking for a better solution. I don't think there's any court in this world who would find copyright infringement if we add the logo of a company to an encyclopedia article. Our policies just need to allow making use of these exemptions to copyright law.
Erik
Hoi, Well, CC-ND would indeed not be acceptable to companies for their TM material. They need to protect their trademark and as such CC-ND does not fit the requirements. This too is for us an old argument. In my opinion there is a need for a license that acknowledges the TM status of TM material and allows the use of such material in the kind of content that we as a Foundation produce.. that is not only but also encyclopaedic articles.
Looking for a better solution, well really, we have had some five years to think of it and we have friendly organisations willing to provide us with such material but cannot for legal reasons. Oh yes, it is trademark law not copyright law that is the issue so we still seem to confuse the issue.
Thanks, GerardM
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
While en.wp has initially been extremely liberal in its application of "fair use", a few other Wikipedias prohibit it entirely. I think it's time that we work towards fair use / fair dealing policies on all Wikimedia projects. This is going to be a bit tricky as we have to distinguish between the law that applies to the uploader of the work, and the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation which is hosting the work.
I would appreciate a legal opinion on how to best achieve this - my own feeling is that the fair use policies of a project like de.wp or nl.wp should explain the legal situation in countries where these languages are predominantly spoken, while allowing the freedoms granted under U.S. law.
Until we have an answer to "are the authors or is the Foundation ultimately responsible for the content of the Wikimedia projects?" - which I believe we will only ever get if we go to court, I do not believe there is a clear answer, legal or not, to the question.
My take on this is:
-FL law comes first -You must respect whichever local law is yours (country of residence) when you edit Wikimedia projects.
In any case, (and maybe unfortunately) editing Wikimedia projects which are physically based in Florida *does not* grant you *more* rights than those you have in your own country.
Internet is not a lawless zone.
Delphine
-- ~notafish
On 5/4/06, Delphine Ménard [email protected] wrote:
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
While en.wp has initially been extremely liberal in its application of "fair use", a few other Wikipedias prohibit it entirely. I think it's time that we work towards fair use / fair dealing policies on all Wikimedia projects. This is going to be a bit tricky as we have to distinguish between the law that applies to the uploader of the work, and the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation which is hosting the work.
I would appreciate a legal opinion on how to best achieve this - my own feeling is that the fair use policies of a project like de.wp or nl.wp should explain the legal situation in countries where these languages are predominantly spoken, while allowing the freedoms granted under U.S. law.
Until we have an answer to "are the authors or is the Foundation ultimately responsible for the content of the Wikimedia projects?" - which I believe we will only ever get if we go to court, I do not believe there is a clear answer, legal or not, to the question.
My take on this is:
-FL law comes first -You must respect whichever local law is yours (country of residence) when you edit Wikimedia projects.
In any case, (and maybe unfortunately) editing Wikimedia projects which are physically based in Florida *does not* grant you *more* rights than those you have in your own country.
Internet is not a lawless zone.
Delphine
-- ~notafish
Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. provides some guidance about this issue. If you're distributing copyrighted material to residents of France, then the French courts can find you liable for copyright infringement. As long as you never go to France or have any assets there though, that ruling is meaningless unless someone can convince a judge in your country of residence (or somewhere you have assets) to enforce the ruling. According to the Berne Convention countries are supposed to enforce rulings from other jurisdictions which are members, however for example in the United States they won't do so if that ruling violates the Constitution. Fair Use is a Constitutional requirement in the United States.
I really think the question has to be defined more specifically though. What is Wikipedia trying to accomplish? Are they trying to obey the laws of the countries they operate in, or are they willing to break those laws if they can get away with it? Is it enough to protect contributors identities so that they can get away with breaking the laws of their country, or does Wikipedia insist that everything a contributor does must be legal? Finally, though it wasn't mentioned, what about redistributors, including redistributors in other countries?
It'd be nice to just say that Wikipedia should be legal everywhere, and maybe that can be accomplished wrt copyright law, but go outside of copyright law (and consider China, for instance), and it's obvious that Wikipedia should not attempt to follow the law of every single jurisdiction in the world.
Anthony
On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
I really think the question has to be defined more specifically though. What is Wikipedia trying to accomplish? Are they trying to obey the laws of the countries they operate in, or are they willing to break those laws if they can get away with it?
I think we need to distinguish three possible outcomes: a) A court rules against the Foundation b) A court rules against the local chapter c) A court rules against an individual contributor
And at least four risk factors: 1) copyright infringement 2) libel 3) pornography 4) other illegal content.
A careful evaluation of the combination of these factors, in addition to the gravity of the case and its consequences for the encyclopedia and our other projects, is what any response should be based on. For instance, I think that outcome b) is absolutely unacceptable and must be fought at almost any cost. Even in a trivial case, it makes sense to go through the courts if the alternative is a precedent of chapter liability.
We might ignore a national law that defines nudity as pornography, fight a ruling which finds public domain reproductions to be copyrightable, or accept a special case, like the copyright claim on the Eiffel Tower light decorations, because it's not worth fighting. Hopefully, our case by case answers will over time evolve into reasonably general policies. That process can perhaps be sped up through legal expert opinion, paid for if necessary.
Erik
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels [email protected] wrote:
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell [email protected]:
We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow them to do so?
I see a lot of handwaving in this regard, but I don't see a lot of solid argument. What content are we going to get under ND which we can't get under a free license?
Also, does this statement mean that you are of the opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?
I have a three part reply:
First, the argument I posted about english Wikipedia is not entirely my own. Personally, I'd prefer the quality loss to liberate ourselves entirely from the licensing complexities of non-free, and even non-wikipedian, created content. That said, until we get control over what is being uploaded .. it's moot point. But yes, I do believe that the exclusion of excerpts of copyrighted works reduces the quality of the encyclopedia... and the DE editors appear to agree through their actions.
Secondly, de wiki *does* contain fair use images, although not that many. They are mistakenly (or dishonestly) mislabled as public domain. PD tagged content on enwiki which claims to have come from DE wiki is a red flag, unless it is wikipedian created it is usually copyvio.
Finally, DE wiki exists in a different market place than enwiki. Perhaps things are different there, but here we have encarta and other electronic encyclopedias with extensive collections of licensed content. Users are often surprised by our unwillingness to accept content, when the Enwiki behavior is quite permissive compared to dewiki.
As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself? Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the license of the license reads:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
ND, in other words.
Our current distribution of it is as metacontent, not a part of our projects. The wikimedia logos are also unfree.
And no, I don't see any problem with this... I'm not waging a holy war against unfree content. We've drawn a bright line which declares the purposes of the projects, and it makes sense to uphold those purposes.
On 5/1/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
Dear Wikimedia community,
I am posting this to multiple lists, as I believe it is relevant to each of them (more on that below).
For years, we have been using the term "free content" to refer to our projects. However, what exactly is free content? Does it include the right to make commercial use? Does it allow derivative works? A year ago, Anthere, one of our elected trustees, noted that the English Wikipedia article [[free content]] is confused and contains no clear definition. This is no surprise, as the term has evolved purely through its usage. One year on, the article doesn't look much better and still doesn't contain a single reference.
Wow, that's awesome. Is Jimbo in on this? I remember talking to him over a year ago about it and the discussion started like this:
---- Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The root of the problem is that we haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.
I don't have any idea why you think this. There has never been any question about this at all. -----
8/21/04, if you'd like to look at the archives yourself.
Anthony
On 5/1/06, Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
Wow, that's awesome. Is Jimbo in on this?
Jimmy is aware of this effort, but apparently hasn't had time to look into it any further yet. I certainly hope that he will participate in the debates of the coming weeks.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/1/06, Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
Wow, that's awesome. Is Jimbo in on this?
Jimmy is aware of this effort, but apparently hasn't had time to look into it any further yet. I certainly hope that he will participate in the debates of the coming weeks.
I will do what I can. I am of the opinion that free content / free knowledge is easy to define, so I don't see much to debate about. :) But I support the effort and I am glad Erik is taking the initiative on it.