[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Non-commercial only and By Permission
From:       Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal () inbox ! org>
Date:       2005-11-28 15:25:13
Message-ID: 71cd4dd90511280725o6f118622kbf3b5926df51fb62 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 11/28/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/05, Mike Finucane <mike_finucane@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to have to re-evaluate contributing to wikipedia if its based
> > on providing source material for commercial companies.
> >
> > Feel free to explain WHY you have this policy; but I have to say your
> > explanation above wasnt very tactful or conducive to goodwill on my
> > part.
>
> Basic problem: Wikipedia has a goal of producing an encylopedia. Not
> an encyclopedia limited only to people with Internet access - though
> internet access is certainly booming - but an encyclopedia accessible
> through other means. The long-term goal of this is, of course, the
> mythical Printed Version - it's still in the air as to whether this
> will ever be successful, but we do try and keep it in mind.
>
> But there's other options. In Germany, for example, there was a very
> successful DVD distribution of the German-language wikipedia; it was
> reformatted, put on DVD, and sold for  ten euros(?). A large swathe of
> this went back to the Foundation, a small quantity went to production
> costs, and the residue went to the company that produced and
> distributed them. Given the remarkable sales, I assume they made a
> profit - asking on wikipedia-l would probably get some nice German to
> explain this in better detail.
>
If the restriction is that the use be "non-commercial", then it
doesn't matter whether or not they made a profit anyway.  Selling DVDs
qualifies as commercial regardless of whether or not you make a
profit, and under my and probably most interpretations, it qualifies
as commercial even if done by a non-profit organization.

> This was very popular, and no doubt a good thing for the project - but
> it was a commercial venture, and had it contained non-commercial
> material it wouldn't have been able to go ahead, because the company
> was distributing it at more than cost. Any form of large-scale
> distribution is likely to fall afoul of non-commercial clauses, at
> some point, or at least to clash with them to such an extent that it
> becomes impractical to do the distribution at anything but a loss.
>
I wonder how much of the success of the German DVD compared to the
lack (AFAIK) of one for the English Wikipedia has to do with the lack
of fair use images in the German Wikipedia.  I'm sure it's not the
only problem, the English Wikipedia is a lot larger and wouldn't even
fit on a DVD without some serious trimming anyway.

> Picking a random role, we'd love to provide, oh, a ten-dollar
> encyclopedia to Indian schools. But if the choice is providing a
> fifteen-dollar one with someone making a profit, or not being able to
> afford to provide a ten-dollar one at cost, then fifteen starts to
> sound pretty good.
>
> Yes, this can be avoided by cleaning out with-permission and
> limited-use images, but this itself provides another burden - the
> labour to filter images. If we only accept images which are known to
> be redistributable, then this presages that problem. We already do
> this with text, and the reason for the strong wording is because we
> recently tightened the standards on images.
>
> (Personally, I feel we are more insistent on only-free-images than we
> absolutely need to be, but...)
>
Probably more importantly than the trouble of cleaning out certain
images is the fact that we're much less likely to find or create free
images if we already have semi-free ones.

> I hope that explains matters.
>
It explains why en.Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial use images. 
And it does so a lot better than some of the other explanations
(images *don't* have to be GFDL or even GFDL-compatible as some others
stated).  But it doesn't explain why en.Wikipedia doesn't allow images
which are free for educational use (such as in an encyclopedia). 
Personally I think this restriction should be relaxed and the one on
non-commercial images tightened.  The goal of Wikipedia is to create
an encyclopedia, not provide images for people to use in commercials
or other non-encyclopedia productions.

> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

Anthony
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]