I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any problems arising from it, sounds more like reinforcing the status quo than promoting knowledge equity to me. And note that the law may not be written in their favor in the first place, so suggesting them to “secure their concerns in a legal way” may require a lengthy legislative process first, with uncertain outcome.
(I must admit that I haven’t yet read the articles linked in the draft, so this email is phrased rather vaguely. I hope it still makes sense.) Cheers, Lucas On 14.08.19 23:51, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > 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. > > Paulo > > geni <geni...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 22:22: > >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning <aronmanni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> . >>> The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 >>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html>,2 >>> < >> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418 >>> ) >>> 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: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>