Re: [Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution
This is definitively a wrong approach. Just because part of their content violate our license does not mean that ALL their content are under CC-SA-BY. No court will ever follow such a logic. Greetings Ting On 25.04.2011 08:45, wrote Joan Goma: As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other way around. I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without going to court. They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet existing in Chinese wikipedia. Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice? Message: 5 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:18:51 -0700 From: Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to Baidu and press release Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution draft To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID:4db4a1cb@telus.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 04/24/11 9:35 AM, David Gerard wrote: Baidu Baike clearly have a considerable potential liability in terms of violation of copyright, including under Chinese law (assuming CC by-sa holds up). If they're traded on the stock market in Hong Kong (or anywhere else) - have they filed appropriate notices with the relevant financial oversight bodies noting this outstanding potential liability? If not, why not, and could they be in danger of penalties for not having done so? Reading through this thread only reveals how thoroughly fucked up copyright law really is! The Baidu situation does point to a prima facie case of copyright infringement and blatant plagiarism, but we can do no better than the inhabitants of Flatland after their world was struck by a three-dimensional object. In theory the writers of collaborative material have a right of action against the infringers, or against those who violate the moral right of attribution. In practical terms, if the owner can be identified the costs prosecuting violations on the other side of the world are so far out of proportion to any potential maximum penalty as to turn any such action into a fool's errand, even in a class action. Nevertheless, when we apply the law to ourselves it's with such exactitude that we put ourselves in an immediate disadvantage. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ting Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other way around. I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without going to court. They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. I disagree. The license doesn't make derived works CCSA, it makes it illegal to publish them unless under CCSA terms. You can't just go from you were not allowed to do X without my permission, I gave you my permission provided you did Y and you did X to you did Y. Also, think of the effect that this would have on the rights of other people who submitted material to Baidu Baike. They have never agreed with the CCSA or even knowingly had anything to do with it, yet their material is brought under that license. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution
On 04/24/11 11:45 PM, Joan Goma wrote: As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other way around. I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without going to court. They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet existing in Chinese wikipedia. Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice? Getting a legal opinion that what they are doing is illegal would be the easy part. The challenge is what can you do with that opinion once you have it. Copyright, and least in common law countries, is primarily an economic right. In that context courts would be more concerned with the measure of economic damage. How do you put a dollar figure on the damages suffered when the original authors weren't seeking to make money from it? Whoever starts the fight still needs to fund prosecuting the battle, and that could be very expensive. Ray Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:18:51 -0700 From: Ray Saintonge On 04/24/11 9:35 AM, David Gerard wrote: Baidu Baike clearly have a considerable potential liability in terms of violation of copyright, including under Chinese law (assuming CC by-sa holds up). If they're traded on the stock market in Hong Kong (or anywhere else) - have they filed appropriate notices with the relevant financial oversight bodies noting this outstanding potential liability? If not, why not, and could they be in danger of penalties for not having done so? Reading through this thread only reveals how thoroughly fucked up copyright law really is! The Baidu situation does point to a prima facie case of copyright infringement and blatant plagiarism, but we can do no better than the inhabitants of Flatland after their world was struck by a three-dimensional object. In theory the writers of collaborative material have a right of action against the infringers, or against those who violate the moral right of attribution. In practical terms, if the owner can be identified the costs prosecuting violations on the other side of the world are so far out of proportion to any potential maximum penalty as to turn any such action into a fool's errand, even in a class action. Nevertheless, when we apply the law to ourselves it's with such exactitude that we put ourselves in an immediate disadvantage. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution
On 25 April 2011 07:45, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one This is true. and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. No, this is absolutely not the case. The licence is a permission, not a viral infection (despite the confusion engendered by the licences being termed viral in another context). That you licence your work as CC by-sa does not make a further derivative automatically CC by-sa. It means that if they distribute it further (as they have) without obeying your licence (as they have not) and without releasing their changes as CC-by-sa (as they have not), then they are in violation (as they are). *But* this *still* does not automatically relicence their work - it just means they are in violation until they choose to do so. You can't forcibly relicence someone else's work without a court order, even if they are grossly violating your licence. You just can't. It doesn't work like that. What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet existing in Chinese wikipedia. This is a terrible idea and you should not do it. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or not. My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have previously written. How do they put a dollar figure on the damages suffered if the income they get from that content is obtained from my work they have translated without my permission? They only have my permission to publish derived works under same license. Then I have the right to copy the derived works back. So any damage they could claim is exactly the same damage I suffer for not being able to do those copies. Message: 5 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:11:25 -0700 From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4db52cad.8010...@telus.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 04/24/11 11:45 PM, Joan Goma wrote: As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other way around. I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without going to court. They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet existing in Chinese wikipedia. Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice? Getting a legal opinion that what they are doing is illegal would be the easy part. The challenge is what can you do with that opinion once you have it. Copyright, and least in common law countries, is primarily an economic right. In that context courts would be more concerned with the measure of economic damage. How do you put a dollar figure on the damages suffered when the original authors weren't seeking to make money from it? Whoever starts the fight still needs to fund prosecuting the battle, and that could be very expensive. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A designer? (was: Better user experience and retention through e-mail notifications)
On Apr 19, 2011 8:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 19/04/11 19:38, Milos Rancic wrote: MZMcBride's email about emails reminded me that every automated email from Wikimedia servers looks like a bunch of programming code. The first idea was that it would be better to have some better formatted emails with some more information (for example, I would like to see diff inside of my email when I get notification about changing my talk page). The main problem is that they are plain text instead of HTML. This is most certainly /not/ a problem. What would be a problem would be if MediaWiki chose to jump on the bandwagon of embedding huge external images in emails to users. Bandwidth? Tracking? Smaller screens (mobile)? Text interfaces? --Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
In a message dated 4/25/2011 9:34:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jrg...@gmail.com writes: My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or not. My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have previously written. How do they put a dollar figure on the damages suffered if the income they get from that content is obtained from my work they have translated without my permission? They only have my permission to publish derived works under same license. Then I have the right to copy the derived works back. So any damage they could claim is exactly the same damage I suffer for not being able to do those copies. I don't believe you could make the case that individual contributors have any standing to sue for copyright violations. Similarly, when you contribute to the project, you are intrinsically giving up any rights you may think you possess in what you have written. Your permission is a non-existent entity in the case of what you give to Wikipedia. Will Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A designer? (was: Better user experience and retention through e-mail notifications)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Dan Collins en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 19, 2011 8:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 19/04/11 19:38, Milos Rancic wrote: MZMcBride's email about emails reminded me that every automated email from Wikimedia servers looks like a bunch of programming code. The first idea was that it would be better to have some better formatted emails with some more information (for example, I would like to see diff inside of my email when I get notification about changing my talk page). The main problem is that they are plain text instead of HTML. This is most certainly /not/ a problem. What would be a problem would be if MediaWiki chose to jump on the bandwagon of embedding huge external images in emails to users. Bandwidth? Tracking? Smaller screens (mobile)? Text interfaces? Every HTML email should come with an embedded plaintext version which will display in the event the HTML is unrenderable. Explanation here: http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/why-bother-with-plain-text-emails/ Looking at my most recent email from LinkedIn, it provides a list of updates from the people I know, each illustrated with a thumbnail picture of them, along with new connections which have been made in my network and posts people have made. The marketing reason for this is to get people to interact with the site by telling them interesting things that have happened. That is actually almost identical to a selection of changes to watched pages, new pages, and watched talk pages. We also have quite a powerful reason to remind people to get involved with our projects - we know new editors are unlikely to come back. So should we take a leaf from LinkedIn's book here? Chris (User:The Land) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
On 04/25/11 10:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I don't believe you could make the case that individual contributors have any standing to sue for copyright violations. Similarly, when you contribute to the project, you are intrinsically giving up any rights you may think you possess in what you have written. Your permission is a non-existent entity in the case of what you give to Wikipedia. If the individual contributors don't have the standing to sue than nobody can! If contributing implies giving up intrinsic rights, why even bother with the mention of licences? If I understand it correctly Wikimedia has consistently refused even an assignment of the right to sue for infringement lest it jeopardize its status as an ISP. The WMF has no standing of its own on which to base an infringement suit. One's permission may still legally not amount to much, but that's not the same as it's non-existence. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
Hi there, look guys someone deleted my pages promoting our work in Kosovo and Albania from my user page saying they are of no use to the wikipedia can someone please comment on that? Gerard was at the event in Albania that was supposedly not helping the wikipedia to talk about wikipedia there. Milos was at the event in 2009 to talk about wikipedia as well. I think many of you might have heard about the work I have been doing to promote wikipedia, and now all my user pages on those topics have been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Mdupont/AgimRamadani - User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunitieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunitiesaction=editredlink=1 - WP:WEBHOST http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEBHOST - Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia thank, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
Hi there, look guys someone deleted my pages promoting our work in Kosovo and Albania from my user page saying they are of no use to the wikipedia can someone please comment on that? Gerard was at the event in Albania that was supposedly not helping the wikipedia to talk about wikipedia there. Milos was at the event in 2009 to talk about wikipedia as well. I think many of you might have heard about the work I have been doing to promote wikipedia, and now all my user pages on those topics have been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Mdupont/AgimRamadani - User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunitieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunitiesaction=editredlink=1 - WP:WEBHOST http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEBHOST - Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia thank, mike How would people from Kosovo or Albania find all those user pages? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote: My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or not. My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have previously written. The translation would give rise to a new copyright *in addition* to yours. You would be infringing their copyright. This all assumes that it was a human translation. If it was a machine translation the argument could be made that as a mechanical process it lacked the originality needed to acquire copyright. How do they put a dollar figure on the damages suffered if the income they get from that content is obtained from my work they have translated without my permission? In principle damages are evaluated on the basis of market activity. If the quantum of damages is the issue the burden of proof is on the person seeking damages. They only have my permission to publish derived works under same license. Then I have the right to copy the derived works back. So any damage they could claim is exactly the same damage I suffer for not being able to do those copies. No, because the translation is not identical to the work you produced. This still does not account for how different jurisdictions will handle the matter. At first glance it would seem more convenient for them to have the case heard in a Chinese court and for you in a Spanish court. Ray Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:11:25 -0700 From: Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net On 04/24/11 11:45 PM, Joan Goma wrote: As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other way around. I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without going to court. They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet existing in Chinese wikipedia. Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice? Getting a legal opinion that what they are doing is illegal would be the easy part. The challenge is what can you do with that opinion once you have it. Copyright, and least in common law countries, is primarily an economic right. In that context courts would be more concerned with the measure of economic damage. How do you put a dollar figure on the damages suffered when the original authors weren't seeking to make money from it? Whoever starts the fight still needs to fund prosecuting the battle, and that could be very expensive. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
Hoi, Mike is a well know activist who promotes Open Source and Wikipedia in Albania and Kosovo. People do know him and will find the information he provides. Thanks, GerardM On 25 April 2011 22:55, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Hi there, look guys someone deleted my pages promoting our work in Kosovo and Albania from my user page saying they are of no use to the wikipedia can someone please comment on that? Gerard was at the event in Albania that was supposedly not helping the wikipedia to talk about wikipedia there. Milos was at the event in 2009 to talk about wikipedia as well. I think many of you might have heard about the work I have been doing to promote wikipedia, and now all my user pages on those topics have been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Mdupont/AgimRamadani - User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunities http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunitiesaction=editredlink=1 - WP:WEBHOST http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEBHOST - Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia thank, mike How would people from Kosovo or Albania find all those user pages? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Mike is a well know activist who promotes Open Source and Wikipedia in Albania and Kosovo. People do know him and will find the information he provides. I have restored a subset of these pages. Some of them would be better on the Meta or outreach wikis. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
On 25 April 2011 23:30, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: So I see the things this way You asked if it was a good idea and your understanding was correct. So far no-one's agreed your understanding is correct and no-one's agreed your plan of action is a good idea. You appear to insist on doing it anyway, but don't think anyone's going to tell you a bad idea is a good one or endorse it. (Note that in several jurisdictions, copyleft licenses on software have in fact been enforced just as the licence says, and never mind the lack of exchange of cash involved, so commenters claiming that no money means no enforceability are simply incorrect. That said, bringing a case also costs money.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 7, Issue 17 – 25 April 2011
News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/News_and_notes In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/In_the_news WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/WikiProject_report Features and admins: The best of the week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/Features_and_admins Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/Arbitration_report Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25 -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
On 04/25/2011 11:53 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: I have restored a subset of these pages. Some of them would be better on the Meta or outreach wikis. Thanks, John! Mike, you should ask for help before conclusion of deletion. Discussion about deletion was small and was a typical example of systemic trolling because of lack of interest. (BTW, related to that, may folk from en.wp raise requirements for so called consensus related to page deletion? Something like at least five users with at least 500 edits would save many useful material from systemic trolling.) If no one notified you about deletion process, you should complain on wiki. Also, as John said, it is useful to keep organizational pages on Meta, not on English Wikipedia. If you need content to be recovered and moved to Meta, please let us know about your plan. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
I always thought that translations were considered wholely derivative, that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating. In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote: My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or not. My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have previously written. The translation would give rise to a new copyright *in addition* to yours. You would be infringing their copyright. This all assumes that it was a human translation. If it was a machine translation the argument could be made that as a mechanical process it lacked the originality needed to acquire copyright. How do they put a dollar figure on the damages suffered if the income they get from that content is obtained from my work they have translated without my permission? In principle damages are evaluated on the basis of market activity. If the quantum of damages is the issue the burden of proof is on the person seeking damages. They only have my permission to publish derived works under same license. Then I have the right to copy the derived works back. So any damage they could claim is exactly the same damage I suffer for not being able to do those copies. No, because the translation is not identical to the work you produced. This still does not account for how different jurisdictions will handle the matter. At first glance it would seem more convenient for them to have the case heard in a Chinese court and for you in a Spanish court. Ray Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:11:25 -0700 From: Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net On 04/24/11 11:45 PM, Joan Goma wrote: As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other way around. I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without going to court. They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what they say. What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet existing in Chinese wikipedia. Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice? Getting a legal opinion that what they are doing is illegal would be the easy part. The challenge is what can you do with that opinion once you have it. Copyright, and least in common law countries, is primarily an economic right. In that context courts would be more concerned with the measure of economic damage. How do you put a dollar figure on the damages suffered when the original authors weren't seeking to make money from it? Whoever starts the fight still needs to fund prosecuting the battle, and that could be very expensive. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:56 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/25/2011 11:53 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: I have restored a subset of these pages. Some of them would be better on the Meta or outreach wikis. Thanks, John! Mike, you should ask for help before conclusion of deletion. Discussion about deletion was small and was a typical example of systemic trolling because of lack of interest. (BTW, related to that, may folk from en.wp raise requirements for so called consensus related to page deletion? Something like at least five users with at least 500 edits would save many useful material from systemic trolling.) Do any other wikis have similar thresholds? If no one notified you about deletion process, you should complain on wiki. Mike was given an automated notification about one page, which he probably didnt care about, but the deletion covered lots of other pages as well. I have not gotten emails at all from wikipedia in a while, but the mails from commons work. Hmm, it seems that I overlooked the page on my talk, it was there. Silly me. Anyway, thanks alot for the restore. mike -- John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Hi there, look guys someone deleted my pages promoting our work in Kosovo and Albania from my user page saying they are of no use to the wikipedia can someone please comment on that? Gerard was at the event in Albania that was supposedly not helping the wikipedia to talk about wikipedia there. Milos was at the event in 2009 to talk about wikipedia as well. I think many of you might have heard about the work I have been doing to promote wikipedia, and now all my user pages on those topics have been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Mdupont/AgimRamadani - User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunities http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/OpenLetterToFreeSoftwareCommunitiesaction=editredlink=1 - WP:WEBHOST http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEBHOST - Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia thank, mike How would people from Kosovo or Albania find all those user pages? Fred Well, we had been sharing that open letter link all over the internet, and the team there had been helping with it, I think that i posted it on the portals as well. We should do more for outreach, there was a wikipedia 10 party in prishtina. mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Promotional material about the user's activities outside Wikipedia, nothing useful to Wikipedia
On 04/26/2011 03:56 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: (BTW, related to that, may folk from en.wp raise requirements for so called consensus related to page deletion? Something like at least five users with at least 500 edits would save many useful material from systemic trolling.) Do any other wikis have similar thresholds? If I remember well, sr.wp has some thresholds related to policy decisions. Not sure about deletion; but RfD on sr.wp are far from en.wp traffic. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
On 26 April 2011 03:06, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I always thought that translations were considered wholely derivative, that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating. I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, jurisdictions that includes some kind of sweat of the brow doctrine would probably protect translations. What jurisdiction are you referring to? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
