Offering Wikibooks content for sale

[Robert Horning]

This is an idea that has been kicked around, and I want to congratulate
one of the Wikibooks contributors by being bold and actually getting a
print version of Wikibooks content available for purchase from an
"on-line" store.  It can be found right now at:

http://www.lulu.com/content/346504

While I admire the effort that this user has put forth to get this put
together, I am concerned that it might affect the tax-exempt status,
especially as this link is found on a Wikimedia website and openly
"advertising" that this content is available for sale.  Please see this
page for an example:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior

This is some outstanding content that has been fermenting on Wikibooks
now for over a year and a half, and is really the first fruits of the
Wikijunior sub-project on Wikibooks.  This user is also not trying to
make any profit from the sale of this, and is really doing this just as
a public service and going through Lulu Press simply because they are
available.

I am posting this to the wider Wikimedia Foundation List because I think
some guidelines should be developed regarding "official" links on
project pages for commercial content of this nature, and to what extent
the use of the name "Wikimedia Foundation" can be on such content.  I'm
also hoping that the legal list will get wind of this and offer a little
bit of input as well in terms of how far can we go before we start to
tread on the non-profit status of the WMF.

Frankly, I'd like to encourage efforts like this, as it really can be
beneficial to spread Wikimedia content beyond the close circle of
internet users we currently have.  Wikibooks in particular is moving
strongly in this direction, as we already have a couple dozen PDF files
for Wikibooks that are nearing at least major proofreading stages rather
than content building.  It seems logical that an on-line bookstore is
going to happen in one form or another with this content, and many other
users are going to be doing this.  Links of this nature should remain
relatively low-key and non-intrusive if you are trying to actually read
the content

The question I pose then is should we push the genie back into the
bottle and stop this kind of linking, or should we as a community
encourage further commercial publication?

Should we allow commercial publication, but not allow links on project
pages to commercial resources of this nature?  Be real careful here, as
it does have implications for other Wikimedia projects as well,
including Wikipedia "1.0" suggestions.  The GFDL does allow commercial
publication, so the real point is if project pages can be used as links.

Should there be some sort of formal organization, even if just on a
local project level, that should control the content that is published
in this manner?  Or should it just be done on an ad-hoc basis as
individual users feel motivated?  This is mainly to see how commercial
links are used on Wikimedia project pages, not that any other person can
set up their own website and advertise they have published Wikimedia
content but not have links on project pages.  A more formal organization
can help do things like coordinate ISBN numbers and make sure that
profits can be plowed back into the project.

 From my understanding of non-profit laws in the USA (IANAL), as long as
we can show a need for the money that is legitimate (staff salaries,
equipment costs, reasonable travel expenses, etc.) fundraisers of this
nature aren't really too much of a problem.  Indeed several non-profit
groups have on-line bookstores just for this purpose.  Assuming a
runaway success with this sort of sale of content, we would have to do
direct fundraisers less often.  I don't think too many people on this
list would complain about that.  The only real problem might be apparent
endorsement of a commercial enterprise.

There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.

--
Robert Scott Horning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[James Hare]

The major difference here between this bookstore and the Wikimedia CaféPress
store is that the latter is, if I'm correct, in the name of Wikimedia.
Perhaps if we found a way to transfer control to Wikimedia.

On 7/3/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@...> wrote:

>
> This is an idea that has been kicked around, and I want to congratulate
> one of the Wikibooks contributors by being bold and actually getting a
> print version of Wikibooks content available for purchase from an
> "on-line" store.  It can be found right now at:
>
> http://www.lulu.com/content/346504
>
> While I admire the effort that this user has put forth to get this put
> together, I am concerned that it might affect the tax-exempt status,
> especially as this link is found on a Wikimedia website and openly
> "advertising" that this content is available for sale.  Please see this
> page for an example:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior
>
> This is some outstanding content that has been fermenting on Wikibooks
> now for over a year and a half, and is really the first fruits of the
> Wikijunior sub-project on Wikibooks.  This user is also not trying to
> make any profit from the sale of this, and is really doing this just as
> a public service and going through Lulu Press simply because they are
> available.
>
> I am posting this to the wider Wikimedia Foundation List because I think
> some guidelines should be developed regarding "official" links on
> project pages for commercial content of this nature, and to what extent
> the use of the name "Wikimedia Foundation" can be on such content.  I'm
> also hoping that the legal list will get wind of this and offer a little
> bit of input as well in terms of how far can we go before we start to
> tread on the non-profit status of the WMF.
>
> Frankly, I'd like to encourage efforts like this, as it really can be
> beneficial to spread Wikimedia content beyond the close circle of
> internet users we currently have.  Wikibooks in particular is moving
> strongly in this direction, as we already have a couple dozen PDF files
> for Wikibooks that are nearing at least major proofreading stages rather
> than content building.  It seems logical that an on-line bookstore is
> going to happen in one form or another with this content, and many other
> users are going to be doing this.  Links of this nature should remain
> relatively low-key and non-intrusive if you are trying to actually read
> the content
>
> The question I pose then is should we push the genie back into the
> bottle and stop this kind of linking, or should we as a community
> encourage further commercial publication?
>
> Should we allow commercial publication, but not allow links on project
> pages to commercial resources of this nature?  Be real careful here, as
> it does have implications for other Wikimedia projects as well,
> including Wikipedia "1.0" suggestions.  The GFDL does allow commercial
> publication, so the real point is if project pages can be used as links.
>
> Should there be some sort of formal organization, even if just on a
> local project level, that should control the content that is published
> in this manner?  Or should it just be done on an ad-hoc basis as
> individual users feel motivated?  This is mainly to see how commercial
> links are used on Wikimedia project pages, not that any other person can
> set up their own website and advertise they have published Wikimedia
> content but not have links on project pages.  A more formal organization
> can help do things like coordinate ISBN numbers and make sure that
> profits can be plowed back into the project.
>
> From my understanding of non-profit laws in the USA (IANAL), as long as
> we can show a need for the money that is legitimate (staff salaries,
> equipment costs, reasonable travel expenses, etc.) fundraisers of this
> nature aren't really too much of a problem.  Indeed several non-profit
> groups have on-line bookstores just for this purpose.  Assuming a
> runaway success with this sort of sale of content, we would have to do
> direct fundraisers less often.  I don't think too many people on this
> list would complain about that.  The only real problem might be apparent
> endorsement of a commercial enterprise.
>
> There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
> would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
> kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
> trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Erik Moeller-3]

Quick comments:

1) Both http://www.lulu.com/content/346504 and the PDF attribute the
content to "Wikimedia Foundation Inc. & Contributing authors". Which
of the content is actually claimed to be copyrighted by the WMF?
Normally all content is under the GFDL; there is no transfer of
copyright to the WMF during the editing process. If content by the WMF
is used (the logos come to mind), explicit permission is necessary,
but I did not see any such content. I suspect the user simply
misunderstood how copyright on Wikimedia projects works, in which case
the WMF should be removed from the authorship credit.

2) The problem with a proliferation of unofficial links is that the
user who has control over the print on demand account also controls
the markup, and can change it any time. For this reason, an official
solution should be sought as quickly as possible. As James has noted,
the problem parallels strongly our existing CafePress shop at:

http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia

In fact, CafePress also offers print on demand services. The shop is
controlled by the Foundation. It would seem best to me to authorize
trusted users to manage  print on demand services on behalf of the
Foundation, and to make sure that all proceeds (if any) go directly to
the organization. Perhaps the small SP subcommittee on static content

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_subcommittees/Static_content

could be expanded to deal with this problem, at least until a better
organizational model that involves the projects and languages directly
is found.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[daniwo59]

Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the  
most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it  
using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the  
Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
arrangement for precisely these reasons.
 
Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the  
Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After considerable  
discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the books  
online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
*not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get a  
considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand the  Wikijunior
project.
 
This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting unilaterally  
on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications of
what  they are doing.
 
Danny
 
 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[James Hare]

Do you see yourself getting involved in the ordeal? I mean, you ARE the
Wikimedia Office...r.

On 7/3/06, daniwo59@... <daniwo59@...> wrote:

>
> Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
> most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only
> is it
> using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
> Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is
> attributing  the
> content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for
> any  copyvios
> in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print
> on  Demand
> publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided
> such  an
> arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
> Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the
> Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After
> considerable
> discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the
> books
> online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
> *not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get
> a
> considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand
> the  Wikijunior
> project.
>
> This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting
> unilaterally
> on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications
> of
> what  they are doing.
>
> Danny
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[jmerkey-3]

daniwo59@... wrote:

>Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the  
>most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it  
>using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the  
>Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
>content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
>in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
>publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
>arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
>Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the  
>Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After considerable  
>discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the books  
>online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
>*not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get a  
>considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand the  Wikijunior
>project.
>
>This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting unilaterally  
>on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications of
>what  they are doing.
>
>Danny
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@...
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
>

I have reviewed this website and it appears to violate the Wikimedia
Foundation's trademark rights. I don't think the content is an issue,
but the use of the Wikimedia Foundations trademarks and trading on the
goodwill of the Foundation seems to impinge on its rights. We are also
publishing College Level textbooks in Cherokee from Wikipedia content,
however, we are not selling the textbooks, we are paying for the
printings ourselves and donating the books to the Cherokee Nation
language immersion programs and donating them to our schools of
information technology.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
> would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
> kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
> trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.

I have no particular stance on the overall issues here, other than some
broad general principles that I think would be widely accepted by almost
everyone.

However, in the short term, since this came as a complete surprise
without any information given to the broader community, I have removed
the link from wikibooks, and also asked lulu to pull the book
immediately (but perhaps temporarily).

The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the
foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus
both the community and the foundation.  We should have been told first,
there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a
number of important factors.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Austin Hair]

On 7/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...> wrote:
> The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the
> foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus
> both the community and the foundation.  We should have been told first,
> there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a
> number of important factors.

I'm surprised that you would consider it a matter of anyone versus
anyone.  However misguided and ill-considered this may be, there's no
need to polarize the matter and try to set the community against a
presumably well-intentioned person—let's assume good faith.

Austin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 7/3/06, daniwo59@... <daniwo59@...> wrote:
> Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
> most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it
> using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
> Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
> content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
> in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
> publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
> arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
[[Wikibooks:Copyrights]] needs to be changed to reflect this.  It
currently states (among other things):

"You may use the same title as the Wikibooks book and/or module(s) but
trademark law prevents you from advertising the Wikibooks or Wikimedia
names without our written permission. This does not prevent you from
giving either Wikibooks or Wikimedia credit for the work by name; as a
matter of fact we very much appreciate all the credit we can get (this
is a separate issue from author credit; see below). But it does
legally prevent you from leading your readers to believe that your
version of our work is in fact an official Wikibooks or Wikimedia
publication."

This paragraph is somewhat contradictory, but it does explicitly say
that trademark law does not prevent giving Wikimedia credit for the
work by name.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Michael R. Irwin]

Anthony wrote:

> snip

>This paragraph is somewhat contradictory, but it does explicitly say
>that trademark law does not prevent giving Wikimedia credit for the
>work by name.
>
>Anthony
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@...
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  
>

If my understanding of the FDL is correct, then the publisher must at
least provide a pointer back to the original authors and perhaps must
list all of the authors in the published materials somewhere.

What would the Wikimedia Foundation's reaction be if the material were
published without giving any credit to the Foundation or the original
authors?

regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:02:04PM -0400, daniwo59@... wrote:
> Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the  
> Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content.

Just checking: Free as in speech, not as in beer, right?

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Austin Hair wrote:

> On 7/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...> wrote:
>> The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the
>> foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus
>> both the community and the foundation.  We should have been told first,
>> there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a
>> number of important factors.
>
> I'm surprised that you would consider it a matter of anyone versus
> anyone.  However misguided and ill-considered this may be, there's no
> need to polarize the matter and try to set the community against a
> presumably well-intentioned person—let's assume good faith.

You are right and I am sorry I put it that way.



--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:02:04PM -0400, daniwo59@... wrote:
>> Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the  
>> Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content.
>
> Just checking: Free as in speech, not as in beer, right?

Absolutely.

Put simply: we should welcome developments such as this, this is exactly
what we intend people to do with our content, and there is absolutely
nothing wrong with people taking this content, packaging it, and selling it.

There CAN BE something very wrong with using wikibooks itself to
advertise/promote a third-party venture, and there CAN BE something very
wrong with using the community's names to promote such work, but the
exact parameters of these things is something that we have to feel our
way forward with carefully.

My feeling here is that with some minor adjustments and communication
about what is going on, this can go forward without difficulty.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 7/4/06, Michael R. Irwin <michael_irwin@...> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>
> > snip
>
>
> >This paragraph is somewhat contradictory, but it does explicitly say
> >that trademark law does not prevent giving Wikimedia credit for the
> >work by name.
>
> If my understanding of the FDL is correct, then the publisher must at
> least provide a pointer back to the original authors and perhaps must
> list all of the authors in the published materials somewhere.
>
> What would the Wikimedia Foundation's reaction be if the material were
> published without giving any credit to the Foundation or the original
> authors?

Yes, this is all very unclear.  Hopefully Brad Patrick can start
tackling this in the near future, so that there can be an official
statement as to what copyright interest, if any, the Wikimedia
Foundation claims on content, and if they claim any, then how they
intend the GFDL to be applied to such content.  It would also be nice
to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.

Of course this likely only solves a small sliver of the problem, as
every individual contributor *also* holds a copyright interest in the
content.  One can hope that a court would consider Big Cats (for
instance) to be a joint work, in which case permission only need to be
granted by a single contributor, but it's quite up in the air whether
or not that is true.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Robert Horning]

daniwo59@... wrote:

>Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the  
>most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it  
>using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the  
>Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
>content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
>in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
>publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
>arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
>Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the  
>Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After considerable  
>discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the books  
>online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
>*not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get a  
>considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand the  Wikijunior
>project.
>

I guess this is the free as in beer vs. free as in liberty argument.
 The content certainly is free in the sense that it is available to
anybody, and we certainly havn't granted any exclusive publication
rights to a particular user.  In this sense, I have no real understand
of why this is such a problem, nor why it would affect any sort of
negotiations.  If it was promised to be free as in beer and a grant
given to be able to do that, you should involve the community who is
developing the content and let us know exactly what was promised and how
we can get stuff like this published in a more productive manner.
 Besides, the GFDL prohibits restricting publication in precisely the
manner that you are complaining about here.

The only real issue is if a link will be on a project page or not, and
to offer a strong policy on how to accomplish this.  By simply
prohibiting links of this nature IMHO is the wrong way to approach this
issue, and this is something that the WMF needs to deal with and allow
at least some sort of path to accomplish the goal:  selling content in
some sort of on-line bookstore with links on project pages.  At the
moment there is no path other than what this user has accomplished.

>
>This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting unilaterally  
>on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications of
>what  they are doing.
>
>Danny
>
>
This user is not acting unilaterally on behalf of the WMF, but is trying
to be bold and acting on good faith to acomplish a goal that has been
dismissed on this list in the past, where comments encouraging this
specific kind of behavior have been offered and no rebuttal by people
like yourself until the actions occured.


--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Robert Horning]

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>I have reviewed this website and it appears to violate the Wikimedia
>Foundation's trademark rights. I don't think the content is an issue,
>but the use of the Wikimedia Foundations trademarks and trading on the
>goodwill of the Foundation seems to impinge on its rights. We are also
>publishing College Level textbooks in Cherokee from Wikipedia content,
>however, we are not selling the textbooks, we are paying for the
>printings ourselves and donating the books to the Cherokee Nation
>language immersion programs and donating them to our schools of
>information technology.
>
>Jeff
>
>  
>

I am asking for some reasonable guidelines to be offered to Wikimedia
users who do things like this so compliance with trademark issues can
made in terms that can also protect the WMF.  If you are suggesting that
each Wikimedia user must have a lawyer before they do something bold
like this, it defeats the whole purpose of putting the content available
as free (GFDL) content.  Clearly this user and any similar kinds of
publishers of content like this would like to acknowledge the WMF as the
source of the information, or at least the people that helped get the
group together that wrote this content.

I'll say this again, the GFDL does not prohibit making a profit off of
content like this, and saying that the content is free as in beer is not
the point of the GFDL.  I'm sorry that this one book is pushing the
issue, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what the GFDL
is really all about here.  If you can give away book because you have
found some sort of philonthropic donor to help out in paying for the
physical paper, fine.  That is a very noble thing.  But don't muddle up
the waters here and confuse the issue.  I can also make money off of
content like this, as can you, Jeff,  and everybody else.  The GFDL
mainly says that nobody has exclusive publication rights, and why it is
called copyleft.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Robert Horning]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>  
>
>>There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
>>would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
>>kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
>>trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.
>>    
>>
>
>I have no particular stance on the overall issues here, other than some
>broad general principles that I think would be widely accepted by almost
>everyone.
>
>However, in the short term, since this came as a complete surprise
>without any information given to the broader community, I have removed
>the link from wikibooks, and also asked lulu to pull the book
>immediately (but perhaps temporarily).
>
>The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the
>foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus
>both the community and the foundation.  We should have been told first,
>there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a
>number of important factors.
>
>--Jimbo
>  
>

But you were told... here and now.... that the content is available.  It
didn't take a long time to put this together, and the point of even
raising this issue at all is because there is much more content on
Wikibooks that can be made available this way.  And I for one think it
should be in one form or another.  Help me to find a legitimate way for
Wikibooks users to accomplish this task.  

As I've been trying to point out, this is just the first raindrops
before the huge storm of activity is going to be coming this way, and
trying to dam up the efforts is just going to make things worse.  OK,
you don't like how the link has been put onto the web page.  Fine.
 Let's find a way that we can accomodate something like this, and I
think a reasonable solution can be found that would also protect WMF
trademarks.

BTW, I don't think you can reasonably stop publication by Lulu Press of
this content.  The only thing you can do is to force the person doing
the publication to remove any references to the Wikimedia Foundation.  I
don't want this issue blowing up in the face of the WMF, and turn into
an ordinary user with lawyer vs foundation lawyer legal fight that has
to be settled in a courtroom.  Yet this kind of stance is headed exactly
in that direction if you are not more careful.  Please help me to
diffuse this situation.

This is also nothing new.  I have raised this issue in a theoretical
basis several times on this mailing list and have made quite inquiries
to several others as well, knowing this is a delicate issue.  Indeed,
the way this user has acted is precisely what was recommened by several
others on this mailing list, other than adding the link to the project page.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[daniwo59]

To be perfectly clear, I am *not* opposed to seeing material produced by  
Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, or any other project published per se. Nor do  
I believe that the person who did this acted in bad faith. I do not.
 
What I find problematic is as follows:
1. The material is presented as being copyrighted by the Wikimedia  
Foundation. It is not.
2. Being copyrighted by the WMF would mean legal liability for the content.  
We are not in a position to accept such liability.
3. A third party, Lulu Press, is using the trademarked name of the  
Foundation to sell a book. While I believe that they are doing this unwittingly,  it
nonetheless infringes on our trademark.
4. All of this is taking place in the midst of negotiations to obtain a  
grant to secure more money for the development of the Wikijunior books. One of  
the issues being discussed is print. When they come to us and say "But you  are
already printing the books," we will look pretty stupid answering "Actually,  
we didn't know that."
 
Of course, I defer to Brad and the other lawyers on the WMF to tell me I am  
wrong about this.
 
Danny
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Robert Horning]

Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>
>  
>
>>snip
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
>>This paragraph is somewhat contradictory, but it does explicitly say
>>that trademark law does not prevent giving Wikimedia credit for the
>>work by name.
>>
>>Anthony
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l@...
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>If my understanding of the FDL is correct, then the publisher must at
>least provide a pointer back to the original authors and perhaps must
>list all of the authors in the published materials somewhere.
>
>What would the Wikimedia Foundation's reaction be if the material were
>published without giving any credit to the Foundation or the original
>authors?
>
>regards,
>lazyquasar
>
>  
>

That becomes an issue of copyright law.   At least according to U.S.
copyright law, you need to list all of the authors who have a copyright
claim over the content.  It is for this reason why I added the "authors"
pages to the Wikijunior books, and this is now common practice for most
Wikibooks that are at a substantial level of completion.  If you want to
have your name included in the credits (which can be verified through
page edits) of the Wikibook, you are asked to add your name to the list
of authors.  Academic ethics alone would have you include these names,
although the order of the names can be debated.

As far as using the name of the book (aka Wikijunior Big Cats) that is
another story, and it is also a matter of how far does the WMF want to
go with protecting their trademarks and how can ordinary users trying to
act in good faith be able to make publications that also acknowlege that
this content was created using WMF servers.  Certainly offering a credit
on the "authors page" is not a violation of trademark law, and a minor
issue is over if the WMF has any sort of copyright claim on content
produced and edited on WMF servers.  On that point, I don't know.  It
gets into fine points of copyright law where I know similar situations
where copyright can be asserted by 3rd parties under some circumstances.  

For instance, Microsoft can assert copyright over all software that is
generated by using their compilers, even if they didn't "author" that
actual computer software.  In this case it doesn't change the GFDL, but
the question does arise if there can be any sort of copyright claim by
the WMF on content produced by Wikimedia projects.  The typical response
on this mailing list is "No", but I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that
conclusion unless it was in the form of an official statement by the WMF
that they don't claim any copyright on any project materials.  In other
words, even if there could be a copyright claim, the WMF is renoucing
any potential copyright claims.  It is a two-edged sword in the sense
that copyright claim also implies liability for content, although the
WMF seems to be acting as though they are liable for Wikimedia project
content as well.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 7/4/06, daniwo59@... <daniwo59@...> wrote:
> To be perfectly clear, I am *not* opposed to seeing material produced by
> Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, or any other project published per se. Nor do
> I believe that the person who did this acted in bad faith. I do not.
>
> What I find problematic is as follows:
> 1. The material is presented as being copyrighted by the Wikimedia
> Foundation. It is not.

I'd like to see it stated officially somewhere that Wikimedia
disclaims all copyright interest in Wikijunior Big Cats (and whatever
other content it wishes to disclaim copyright on).  It's unclear that
you are speaking on behalf of the foundation with this statement you
just made, and it's also unclear that you are authorized to make such
a statement.

I also should point out that the copyright statement you're talking
about has been in the PDF distributed by Wikimedia since at least
December 2005.  It nothing new, and it's still there, Go to
[[Wikijunior Big Cats]] and click on "Print Version (PDF) (as of
December 11th, 2005. pp. 65)" -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/c/cc/Big_Cats.pdf

If Wikimedia wants a different copyright statement in any print
version, a PDF with such a copyright statement on it should be
available.

> 2. Being copyrighted by the WMF would mean legal liability for the content.
> We are not in a position to accept such liability.

So in your opinion everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is liable for
the entire content?  This seems like an odd legal position.

> 3. A third party, Lulu Press, is using the trademarked name of the
> Foundation to sell a book. While I believe that they are doing this unwittingly,  it
> nonetheless infringes on our trademark.

How are they using the trademarked name of the Foundation to sell a
book (or, how were they, as they pulled it)?  How can a verbatim copy
(under the GFDL) be produced which doesn't do this?

This relies in part on whether or not you think the PDF at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/c/cc/Big_Cats.pdf is a
trademark infringement.

> 4. All of this is taking place in the midst of negotiations to obtain a
> grant to secure more money for the development of the Wikijunior books. One of
> the issues being discussed is print. When they come to us and say "But you  are
> already printing the books," we will look pretty stupid answering "Actually,
> we didn't know that."
>
Well, now you know.

> Of course, I defer to Brad and the other lawyers on the WMF to tell me I am
> wrong about this.
>
> Danny

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l