Thanks. I've added entries for Google Knowledge Graph and various Google
derivative products, which have varying quality of attribution and license
information and license. None appear to be fully compliant.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Editors used
Editors used to do plenty by hand, if you recall. The on-wiki list of
mirrors and forks had compliance info, and individuals would reach out and
ask for license changes or takedowns.
Since having a legal team I don't know how these have happened, or which
individuals have made such claims &
Related, has there ever been any copyright enforcement for Wikipedia, or is
its copyleft a joke and it's functionally purely public domain?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Renée Bagslint
> Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since
Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since that
belongs to the individual contributors?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source
> date along with e.g. the
a court case a year should be easily affordable
for the WMF and an excellent investment.
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:12:43 +
> From: James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source
date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the
attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to
require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and
Google, but doing so will
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and copyleft
retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus
> Google provide attribution in a lot of their
2017-06-05 19:32 GMT+03:00 The Cunctator :
> I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to
> the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia
> content into non-free publications?
> E.g. Graphiq
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus
Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni wrote:
> On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator wrote:
> > Both Google and Graphiq are
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator wrote:
> Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus
> for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you
can't copyright facts".
Yes, probably and in the process they do exactly what we aim to achieve;
share in the sum of all knowledge. What they do not do is claim copyright.
They are the number one referral site for our traffic.
You may be right in a narrow sense but it will ill serve us to do something
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus
for their results.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Well "fair use" applies, but if the amount of content used goes beyond fair
> use than it needs to be indicated that the content
Well "fair use" applies, but if the amount of content used goes beyond fair
use than it needs to be indicated that the content is under an open license.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
> I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please
Mail list logo