All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of
certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC
licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia
concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content
produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal
image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola
logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd
parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one.
That's Coca Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the
infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure
their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who
get access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it
freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because
some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim
that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.


geni <> escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning <> wrote:
> .
> > The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
> > <>,2
> > <
> >)
> > that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
> > benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
> >
> > Aron
> 1 refers to images that are public domain in terms of copyright and
> the latter is mostly talking about trademark or stuff so broad that
> you couldn't usefuly copyright it in the first place. ND isn't a
> useful protection in these cases (it might be of some use for current
> individual artists but they can publish their work elsewhere).
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to