They also appear to be using photos from Wikimedia Commons without paying attention to the license. I can find photos of mine that are CC-BY-SA-4.0 licensed that are being used without any metadata at all, let alone attribution and the correct CC license info…
The same is also true for Everipedia, BTW. Thanks, Mike > On 10 Apr 2018, at 14:43, Rob Speer <rob.sp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > BabelNet (http://babelnet.org) is a multilingual knowledge resource that > defines words and phrases in many languages. I've noticed that it copies > large amounts of content from Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, > Wiktionary, and Wikiquote, while violating Wikimedia's CC-By-SA license by > placing the content under an incompatible CC-By-NC-SA license. > > As one example, I can search BabelNet for "Timsort", a Wikipedia article > whose first sentence is one I wrote: > http://live.babelnet.org/synset?word=Timsort&lang=EN&details=1&orig=Timsort > > The sentence I wrote appears at the top of the page (with credit to > Wikipedia). The rest of the page is also content remixed from Wikipedia, > including a gallery of images that are presented without credit. A scrolly > box in the footer of the page says the content is under the CC-By-NC-SA 3.0 > license. Other pages, such as http://babelnet.org/synset?word=bn:00852566n, > combine data from multiple different resources. > > The BabelNet creators are aware of the CC-By-SA licenses of the resources > they use (see http://babelnet.org/licenses/). In addition to the > non-commercial license they offer, their company, Babelscape ( > http://babelscape.com/), sells commercial licenses to BabelNet. > > I reached out to Roberto Navigli, who runs BabelNet and Babelscape, over > e-mail on March 23. I asked if the non-commercial license clause was simply > a mistake. In his reply, Navigli stated that BabelNet is not a derived > work, but is a CC-By-NC-SA-licensed collection made of several different > works. I responded that BabelNet doesn't meet the Creative Commons > definition of a "Collective Work", which would be necessary for it to not > be a derived work. Navigli responded: > > "actually it is a collection of derivative work of several resources with > heretogeneous licenses, each of which clearly separated with separate > licenses and bundles. By transitivity derivative work is work with a > certain license, so it is work. Therefore, it is a collection of works with > different licenses and it can keep a separate license." > > I believe this is nonsense on multiple levels. BabelNet is a derived work, > and if someone could disregard their obligation to share-alike their > derived work simply because they derived it from multiple resources, there > would be no point to putting ShareAlike clauses on data resources at all. > > As a Wikipedia contributor (and a lapsed admin), I am sad to see BabelNet > appropriating the hard work of Wikimedians and others, placing a more > restrictive license on it, and selling it. This is also relevant for me > because I run ConceptNet (http://www.conceptnet.io/), a similar knowledge > resource, and I have made sure to follow Creative Commons license > requirements and to release all its data as CC-By-SA. > > In a way I see BabelNet as a competitor, but ConceptNet is an open data > project and this space shouldn't have "competitors". If the Creative > Commons license were being used appropriately, then all of us working with > this kind of data would be collaborators in the world of Linked Open Data. > My preferred outcome would be to get BabelNet to change the copyright > notices and Creative Commons links on their site to remove the > "non-commercial" requirement, and to be able to download and use their data > under the CC-By-SA license that it should be under. > > I'm sure Wikimedia has dealt with similar situations to this. What would be > the most effective next step to ensure that BabelNet follows the CC-By-SA > license? > > -- Rob Speer > _______________________________________________ > 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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
