Mailing List Archive

We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed
changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort.
I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil
manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities.

The Terms of Use/Licensing Policy recommendation
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9>
is
more broad than the addition of NC and ND licensing.
"we assume that it would be necessary to *modify the “Terms of Use”
especially to address community health, foster diversity and address
systemic biases.*"
This would be a clear statement of the Foundation's future purpose,
therefore I strongly agree with it.

Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a
very welcome change.
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html>,2
<https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418>)
that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.

Aron


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
> particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
> material that may be important to minority communities, such as
> traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
> those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
> tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
> change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
> educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
> academic papers, academic books etc.
>
> The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
> the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
> * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
> * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
> community.
> This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
>
>

?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ziko and others - please, please provide your feedback to all of the
working groups on all of the ideas. Please tell us when you see a draft
recommendation that seems to be right. Please tell us when you see a draft
recommendation that you think is unreasonable - and tell us what causes
your concern. Some of the draft recommendations are likely to sound like
good ideas (or even "this is what we do now!") while others will seem to be
pretty radical. If you see a draft recommendation that you think is really
going "too far", it would be really helpful to hear from you as community
members what you'd consider to be a reasonable alternative, or a middle
ground that you think would be acceptable.

I'm on the Roles & Responsibilities working group, and I am seeing several
recommendations from other groups that I plan to comment upon, too; some of
them seem like really good ideas to me, but there are ones that I don't
really think are a great idea, too.

Risker/Anne


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 12:25, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
>
> > Dear all,.
>
>
>
> > As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
>
>
> Hello Nicole,
> For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would
> such a feedback be welcome? Or would it be dismissed as not "constructive"
> and not "solution-oriented"?
> Maybe you can explain to me what the actual problem is that is supposed to
> be solved by ND and NC content?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
> > > specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the
> underlying
> > > facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> > > Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> > > without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> > under
> > > an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> > for
> > > it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But
> even
> > > then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
> what
> > > one does.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> > philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> > > You're
> > > > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> > > >
> > > > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> > > incorporate
> > > > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the
> current
> > > > licensing scheme?
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.

I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but
as I understand there are two key messages:

*To distribute  many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is
most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get
more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural
development as out organisation mature over time

*To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement
in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly
atmosphere  where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is
long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.

I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.

 Anders



Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
> Dear all,
>
> We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations
> over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are
> eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> individuals.
>
> Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration,
> offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a
> process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
>> incorporate
>> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
>> licensing scheme?"
>>
>> We can't and no one can.
>>
>> Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
>> specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
>> facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
>> Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
>> without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under
>> an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for
>> it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
>> then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what
>> one does.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
>> You're
>>> the only one telling people to shut up here.
>>>
>>> And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
>> incorporate
>>> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
>>> licensing scheme?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Andy,

the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they
are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in
time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final
recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific
visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.

Best,
Philip

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 18:53, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
>
> Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
>
> Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
>
> All change has negative connotations to some members of the community
>
> to be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant
> risks?
>
> As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor
> indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of
> collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly
> argue that it is any of those things.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello Aron,

Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Aron Manning <
aronmanning5@gmail.com>:

>
> Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
> that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
> possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a
> very welcome change.
>


The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
as "free". See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf



> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html>,2
> <
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
> >)
> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
>
>
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
long in the Public Domain.

Kind regards
Ziko





> Aron
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
> > particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
> > material that may be important to minority communities, such as
> > traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
> > those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
> > tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
> > change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
> > educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
> > academic papers, academic books etc.
> >
> > The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
> > the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
> > * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
> > * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
> > community.
> > This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
> >
> >
>
> ?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:43, Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> wrote:

> these are still rather talking points than specific
> visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.

Beyond what I have already said, I do not see any merit in discussing
glib statements like "All change has negative connotations to some
members of the community", whether as "talking points" or anything
else

I would be happy to understand the thought process behind the working
group's proposals, and to discuss that, if they care to explain it by
giving a sensible and considered set of answers to the question "Could
this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?".

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:

The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".


I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
content converted to "unfree":

- Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
successfully.
- At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
Internet-in-a-Box).
- If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
encyclopedia.
- If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content
is available with free license.
- If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent
with reverse-image search.
- After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these
licenses when it's truly necessary.



> See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf


Thank you, it's really excellent.


> I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
>
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> long in the Public Domain.
>

My bad. 1st article
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html> is
about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
2nd article
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf>
is
about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
well as public ire."

It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.


Aron
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
intact without misappropriation, etc."

The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.

Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]

I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
Wikisource volunteers.

To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
compelling argument.

Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.

-Pete
--
Pete Forsyth
Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
Commons, and Meta Wiki.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
?
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy



On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:41 PM Aron Manning <aronmanning5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> > uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> > as "free".
>
>
> I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
> uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
> the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
> think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
> do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
> in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.
>
> There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
> content converted to "unfree":
>
> - Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
> choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
> successfully.
> - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
> limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
> Internet-in-a-Box).
> - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
> negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
> encyclopedia.
> - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
> be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar
> content
> is available with free license.
> - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
> and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an
> extent
> with reverse-image search.
> - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
> understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses
> these
> licenses when it's truly necessary.
>
>
>
> > See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf
>
>
> Thank you, it's really excellent.
>
>
> > I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
> >
> interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> > long in the Public Domain.
> >
>
> My bad. 1st article
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html> is
> about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
> images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
> using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
> 2nd article
> <
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf
> >
> is
> about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
> examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
> significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
> wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
> ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
> and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
> attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
> well as public ire."
>
> It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
> such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.
>
>
> Aron
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
> section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
> text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
> use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
> project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
> including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
> intact without misappropriation, etc."
>
> The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
> awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
> resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
> archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
>
> Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
> called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
> policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
>
> I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
> Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
> English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
> Wikisource volunteers.
>
> To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
> demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
> policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
> for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
> an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
> implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
> compelling argument.
>
> Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
>
> -Pete
> --
> Pete Forsyth
> Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
> Commons, and Meta Wiki.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
> ?
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
> [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
>
>
>
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the
autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission
and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that
the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that
the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be
adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND
content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a
different starting policy foundation?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:18 PM Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
> movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
> movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities.


I think that idea does come up pretty often, and is usually, and
appropriately, viewed with some skepticism.

An idea I think is too little discussed is that, when you've had great
success at assembling hundreds of thousands of people to work on something,
it is a very risky proposition to make fundamental changes to that
"something" without first undergoing a deliberate and comprehensive
approach to building buy-in throughout that community. (See "Spanish Fork")

-Pete
--
Pete Forsyth
User:Peteforsyth on (primarily) English Wikipedia, English Wikisource,
Wikidata, Commons, and Meta Wiki.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Thanks for the update, Nicole.

As I have been reading portions of the recommendations, I am finding it
helpful to remind myself that these proposals are drafts, and to assume
good faith when reading them. I have a variety of thoughts regarding
proposals, including "I completely agree", "This is less ambitious than I
think it should be", "That is impractical", "That is an interesting idea
that we should consider in more detail", "I agree that there is problem X
but this proposal would lead to more harm than good".

I suggest that the strategy team and working groups develop these drafts
into thoughtful and deep documents with extensive supporting references
where possible, so that we can have a more informed discussion about the
merits of the ideas. I would like to encourage working group members to
keep their minds open to the possibility that proposals may be good to
modify, enhance, diminish, or withdraw based on the additional research and
their discussions with the broader community. Collegial and thoughtful
discussions will probably be fruitful in the long term.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )




On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 11:37 Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> future of our movement.
>
> Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
>
> The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> future we want to create together.
>
> The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> support the strategic direction.
>
> There are a few ways to do this:
> * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> directly on Meta. [2]
> * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
>
> Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
>
> If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

If that is so, then what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Again
By now we should be getting used to it.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating
Sent: 12 August 2019 18:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hi Yaroslav,


> No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
> decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
> the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
> listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
> accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
>
>
And that is why, even a year into this working group process, a number of
the recommendations are *still* phrased as suggestions that the Wikimedia
movement collectively should develop principles for such-and-such an area.

I think many people are reading these draft recommendations as something
they are not.

Also, I find it very ironic that many people are reacting to these strategy
process as if it was some method of the WMF inflicting its will on everyone
else, when actually many of the recommendations would result in very
significant changes to the WMF as an organisation.

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:40, Aron Manning <aronmanning5@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1st article
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html> is
> about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
> images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
> using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."

You're quoting out of context. The words you quote are proceeded by
"The lawsuit says that...". So it's no more than an allegation, which
may well prove to be false. No argument is made, that an "NC" licence
could be applied to images that were taken "almost 170 years " ago and
whose copyright has therefore almost certainly expired. If such images
were published by a GLAM under an NC licence, we'd likely ignore it
and treat them as PD.

> 2nd article
> <https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf>
> is
> about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
> examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
> significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
> wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
> ’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
> and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
> attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
> well as public ire."

The original is paywalled for me, but from what you quote, none of
those case studies concerns the use of media which could have been
released under an NC licence, and no argument is made that such a
licence could be applied to anything which would prevent such cultural
appropriation.

> It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
> such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.

I see no basis for concluding that NC or ND address the probelm to
which you refer. Perhaps you would care to
elaborate on your reasoning, with examples?



--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not be stored on Commons.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning
Sent: 13 August 2019 00:41
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:

The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".


I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
content converted to "unfree":

- Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
successfully.
- At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
Internet-in-a-Box).
- If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
encyclopedia.
- If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content
is available with free license.
- If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent
with reverse-image search.
- After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these
licenses when it's truly necessary.



> See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf


Thank you, it's really excellent.


> I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
>
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> long in the Public Domain.
>

My bad. 1st article
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html> is
about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
2nd article
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/10a84c6c-538e-41d6-816e-f61460946a79.pdf>
is
about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
well as public ire."

It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.


Aron
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

See bottom for reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: 13 August 2019 01:18
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
> section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
> text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
> use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
> project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
> including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
> intact without misappropriation, etc."
>
> The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
> awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
> resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
> archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
>
> Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
> called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
> policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
>
> I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
> Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
> English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
> Wikisource volunteers.
>
> To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
> demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
> policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
> for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
> an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
> implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
> compelling argument.
>
> Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
>
> -Pete
> --
> Pete Forsyth
> Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
> Commons, and Meta Wiki.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
> ?
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
> [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
>
>
>
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the
autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission
and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that
the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that
the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be
adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND
content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a
different starting policy foundation?

Response:
If the movement as a whole considers it desirable to host a repository for NC/ND content, then they should indeed create a new project where it would be welcome, and not push it where it is not welcome, because the volunteers who have is foisted on them are likely to leave if they don’t like it. If there is enough support for the content, there should be enough volunteers to deal with the content. If there are not enough volunteers, then the people who think the content is important enough can pay for people to curate it. If it succeeds, fine. If it fails, also fine, as it would not destroy anything else while failing.
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC
and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want
media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's
suggestion is good.

A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on Wikipedias, where
the media could get a lot of visibility but also cause additional licensing
complexity beyond what we already have with the English Wikipedia fair use
exception. This issue would need some deliberation, but any outcome
wouldn't be a blocker to a new repository for hosting NC and ND media.

I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and
I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals.
I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed,
nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I
would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to
do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
cool might be good before engaging.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work
now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global
South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories
from San Francisco to Dhaka because wages are much lower there, while
parading it as moving towards "diversity" and "inclusion".

Paulo

Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se> escreveu no dia segunda,
12/08/2019 à(s) 18:31:

> I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
>
> I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but
> as I understand there are two key messages:
>
> *To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
> locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is
> most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get
> more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural
> development as out organisation mature over time
>
> *To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement
> in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly
> atmosphere where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is
> long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
>
> I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> > Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> > They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> > thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> > important for our movement’s future. They are the product of
> conversations
> > over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups
> are
> > eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> > complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> > wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> > recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> > reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> > individuals.
> >
> > Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> > the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> > of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> > the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> > questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial
> collaboration,
> > offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is
> a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> >> incorporate
> >> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> >> licensing scheme?"
> >>
> >> We can't and no one can.
> >>
> >> Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
> >> specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> >> facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> >> Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> >> without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> under
> >> an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> for
> >> it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
> >> then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
> what
> >> one does.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopetzky@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> >> You're
> >>> the only one telling people to shut up here.
> >>>
> >>> And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> >> incorporate
> >>> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> >>> licensing scheme?
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

" I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually
dismissed" - Don't worry, it is not "their ideas. As Nicole Ebber
explained, those recommendations resulted from a lot of different inputs,
and none of them is supposed to be the brainchild of anyone inside the WGs.
If they are nonsense, don't be afraid to go there and tell/write what you
think.

Paulo

Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> escreveu no dia terça, 13/08/2019 à(s) 22:09:

> I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC
> and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want
> media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's
> suggestion is good.
>
> A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on Wikipedias, where
> the media could get a lot of visibility but also cause additional licensing
> complexity beyond what we already have with the English Wikipedia fair use
> exception. This issue would need some deliberation, but any outcome
> wouldn't be a blocker to a new repository for hosting NC and ND media.
>
> I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and
> I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals.
> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed,
> nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I
> would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to
> do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> cool might be good before engaging.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed

I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually
dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative
connotations to some members of the community".

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

>
>
> I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and
> I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals.
> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed,
> nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community. I
> would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best to
> do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> cool might be good before engaging.


Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will
definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the
recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than
angry ones, of course :)

(I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond
promptly, though!)

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning <aronmanning5@gmail.com> wrote:
.
> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html>,2
> <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418>)
> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
>
> Aron

1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal
image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd
parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the
infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it
freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because
some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim
that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.

Paulo

geni <geniice@gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning <aronmanning5@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
> > The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html>,2
> > <
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
> >)
> > that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> > benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
> >
> > Aron
>
> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same
legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must
admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to
share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any
problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo
than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be
written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure
their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process
first, with uncertain outcome.

(I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft,
so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.)

Cheers,
Lucas

On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
> certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
> licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
> concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
> produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal
> image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
> logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd
> parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
> That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the
> infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
> their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
> get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it
> freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because
> some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim
> that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
>
> Paulo
>
> geni <geniice@gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning <aronmanning5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> .
>>> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html>,2
>>> <
>> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
>>> )
>>> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
>>> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
>>>
>>> Aron
>>
>> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
>> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
>> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
>> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
>> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Also, keep in mind that feedback on what recommendations you wanted /
expected to see but did not find is just as much worth as criticism (or
praise) of the existing ones.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 21:31 Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> >
> > I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals
> and
> > I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those
> proposals.
> > I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually
> dismissed,
> > nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community.
> I
> > would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best
> to
> > do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> > cool might be good before engaging.
>
>
> Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will
> definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the
> recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than
> angry ones, of course :)
>
> (I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond
> promptly, though!)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for
the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and
commercializes it anyway.

If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons,
in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of
the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at
the same time. If it is notable, we may try to accommodate it in some
projects that allow that kind of content under an exception policy.

In any case, I don't believe it is in Wikimedia scope to worry about the
possible misuses people can do of the content we provide, and much less to
subvert our license policy in order to avoid stuff we should not be worried
with in first place.

Best,
Paulo


A quarta, 14 de ago de 2019, 23:27, Lucas Werkmeister <
mail@lucaswerkmeister.de> escreveu:

> I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same
> legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must
> admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to
> share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any
> problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo
> than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be
> written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure
> their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process
> first, with uncertain outcome.
>
> (I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft,
> so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.)
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> > All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
> > certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
> > licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
> > concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
> > produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as
> personal
> > image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
> > logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by
> 3rd
> > parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
> > That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue
> the
> > infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
> > their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
> > get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do
> it
> > freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just
> because
> > some other people, which have not any legal right over that content,
> claim
> > that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > geni <geniice@gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning <aronmanning5@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> .
> >>> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> >>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html
> >,2
> >>> <
> >>
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418
> >>> )
> >>> that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show
> the
> >>> benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
> >>>
> >>> Aron
> >>
> >> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
> >> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
> >> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
> >> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
> >> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>