On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko <zvand...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to