New Commons depicts: license CC0

[Graaf Statler]

Arthur, can you tell us something about this new CC0 licence? You are the legal expert.

Discussion Commons
Discussie De Kroeg (Dutch)

Jürgen Eissink claims the problem is in the "BY" part of the CC-BY-SA license.

Maar begrijp jij het stukje 'BY' dan niet? Jürgen Eissink (overleg) 14 feb 2019 21:36 (CET)

[Dysklyver]

CC0 is the least restrictive CC licence, it is the closest thing to no rights reserved or public domain that is legally possible. If something is CC0, it means the creator has given a licence for anyone to do whatever they like with the content. Basically as if it is without copyright.

CC-BY, is different. The "BY" means that people using the content have to give attribution to the author, like a photo credit or byline. And Wikipedia is generally under CC-BY-SA, the "SA" means "Share-alike" which means anything made with the content has to be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well.

CC0 is not itself new, and is already used in Wikidata, as the entire Wikidata project is CC0. What is new, is the Wikidata caption box on Wikimedia Commons. Because it is a caption box connected to Wikidata, and thus technically part of Wikidata, it has to CC0, but Wikimedia Commons was previously CC-BY-SA.

This is causing the current argument, which is that anyone making photo captions in the new Wikidata box on Commons will not get any credit for it.

[Graaf Statler]

Thanks Arthur. CC0 is indeed close to the public domain, and WMF clearly want to change Wikipedia in a public domain source in this way. Because if you "write" with your bot articles out of Wikidata you create public domain content.

Wikidate is hot in the wiki world, but it is complete rubbish. It's bulk data collected by autistic guy's, because for them it is very attractive. They love it! Wikidata content is complete unreliable and wikidate is the wet dream of trolls because you can change with one edit something on every wiki in the world. But WMF doesn't care. They give the donors what they want, bulk public domain rubbish for free. In exchange of free lunches, free breakfasts, free dinners and free holiday trips.
And that autistic guys? They are thankful even for every glas of water they get for free, so for them this is the paradise. And the knowledge ecology? How cares.

Wikipedia and Wikidata are as danger as plastic in the oceans. Only a blind man or woman doesn't understand what is going on.

[Graaf Statler]

(Sorry, it is in Dutch)

Het "jullie zijn te dom om mij te begrijpen"-frame kan natuurlijk ook gelezen worden als een "ik ben te dom om dingen goed uit te leggen"-frame. Sowieso zijn beide frames uiterst irritant. Als we blijkbaar zo langs elkaar heen praten, laten we de discussie dan maar gewoon staken. Dan kan Jürgen op Commons met Fæ verder praten en kunnen de domme stervelingen hier het over andere zaken hebben. CaAl (overleg) 15 feb 2019 13:54 (CET)

Source

Nee CaAL, je bent zeker niet dom anders had je nooit bereikt wat je bereikt had. Maar, net zoals de meeste van je collega wiki-managers heb je een one track mind en dat weet jijzelf donders goed. Maar, je onderkent je beperkingen gewoon niet, want je kan onmogelijk verbanden zien en zegt en doet en zegt daardoor de meest stomme en achterlijke dingen en dat is heel wat anders. Want Jurgen heeft namelijk stomweg gelijk, en als gewoonlijk kleunen jij en Edo er weer vierkant naast. En dát is de ware reden waarom WP-NL zo erbarmelijk slecht presteert. Autisme. En ik pik jullie er zo uit, nooit behoorlijke artikelen schijven, aangetrokken tot lijsten en Wikidata, achterlijke, achterlijke beslissingen nemen en op een arrogante manier bovenbaasje spelen en er zelf werkelijk niks van bakken.

Neem Jouw, neem Woudloper, neem Vinvught, neem Josq, neem Edo met zijn krankzinnige mail, neem Mar(c), neem SjoerddeBruin, neem Romaine=>Wikimedia, Neem trollob... sorry Robotje, neem de hele bubs en voilà, daar is het antwoord waarom wikipedia-NL zo een enorme slecht presterende puinhoop is.
Juist, door jullie hoog-functionerende, intelligente autisten die menen dat jullie de leiding toekomt als door de wiki-god gegeven.

Maar jullie zijn bepaald niet hoog-functionerend op het gebied van Wikimanegment, op dat gebied zijn jullie meer..... hoe zal ik het zeggen...... inbreeding pudding heads? Of zoiets?
En merk op dat ik Whaledad en Professor Natuur12 aka Drmies zeer zeker niet noem in dit rijtje, professor CaAL. En trouwens nog gefeliciteerd met je aanstelling als hoogleraar, puddinghoofd wat je bent! Maar ik heb mooi de veel zeldzamere SanFanBan, zeldzamer dan een Nobelprijs gewonnen! En dat met drie klassen lager school in vijf jaar, en nu jij weer Professor! En zo heb je altijd maar weer baas boven baas.

[ericbarbour]

This is causing the current argument, which is that anyone making photo captions in the new Wikidata box on Commons will not get any credit for it.

Could not find anything on Commons noticeboards about this. Where is this happening if I may ask?

[Dysklyver]

This is causing the current argument, which is that anyone making photo captions in the new Wikidata box on Commons will not get any credit for it.

Could not find anything on Commons noticeboards about this. Where is this happening if I may ask?

The main debate is here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=339158118#Caption_license_changed_to_CC-0

[Graaf Statler]

Did you read this, Arthur? (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The "oh we cannot expect attribution" is a weird argument to justify turning CC-BY text into CC0 text, because it simply is irrelevant in practice to Commons. On this project 99% plus of files only ever have one person editing the descriptions, dates or author entries. Even then, it may well be that it is not the editor than needs attribution, but the off-wiki source where the metadata or text came from. You cannot set up a project that harvests images and texts from the public, with an unambiguous legal commitment to attribution, and then years later change your mind, waive a technical wand, and haphazardly declare that text might be reused as CC0 and freely sold on losing all chance of attribution. That really does seem to make the word exploit entirely accurate, though I would also encourage the use of copyfraud. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The main problem is most wikipedians have not a single clou about licenses and copyright. And WMF is playing the fool and hide themself behind section 230 and harvest. Money, money, lots of money out of the work of volontairs. And that CC0 licence makes that a lot easier.

[Dysklyver]

Yes it does, Wikimedia know that nobody will use a database which is CC-BY, the community was very strongly against Wikidata being CC0 when it opened, I recall significant numbers of complaints.

Additionally Wikidata imports a lot of databases which are copyrighted from various sources anyway, because Wikimedia doesn't respect database rights. So they really could just ingest all this commons data without caring about the copyright.

That would be normal everyday procedure for Wikidata.

[Graaf Statler]

Additionally Wikidata imports a lot of databases which are copyrighted from various sources anyway, because Wikimedia doesn't respect database rights. So they really could just ingest all this commons data without caring about the copyright.

Well, if i read the latest development in the EU legalisation it seems to me they have a problem.
And of course you can dream Julia Reda with her one seat pirate party still can change anything, but that doesn't look me very realistic. That is not the way the European Parlement operates.

I said many times before, to quote Mark Rutte, the European Parlement is a party committee looking for party. Mit Opa nach Europa. The European parlement is paper tiger, it is not a real parlement, so It is useless to phone "your MEP", how for the hell that might be, because i like most Europeans have not any idea who that is. We don't vote in general for the European parlement, only the die hard voters because it is useless. At least it feels useless. And if Wikipedia put it's site on black it will change nothing. The public opinion has no influence on European politics, only the national parliaments have. And special the German and France.

[Graaf Statler]

Wikimedia doesn't respect database rights. So they really could just ingest all this commons data without caring about the copyright.

Correct. Wikimedia use the principe of copyleft. A invention of this overaged fake hippy, Richard Stallman.
The problem in Europe is this form of copyleft is worthless because of the leak of fair use and the extreem strict copyright laws. As I have showed even a 200PX picture is protected so you can in no way get ride of copyright. European copyright is fixed even to the smallest part, and copyright infringement can be even be a crime, you can end up in prison in this way. Europe has also a pay (a lot of money) or I sue you system and no take down system. And a extreem restricted quotation law, and that was the reason for the tremendous fight on the tiny Wikiquote -NL what ended up in a SanFanBan for me, because the quotation law was the last final straw of the free source movement.
So, it is not so clever to put work what is not yours and created by you under a CC-BY or CC0 zero licence, and you bring a re-users in legal danger in Europe and yourself too. The principe of copyleft is total worthless in Europe. With only one exception, if something is really the creation of the one who is giving the licence and not a remix of protected material. (Please correct me if I am wrong, Arthur.)

Het is allereerst een misvatting dat korte teksten niet in aanmerking zouden komen voor copyright.
(Very importante, I mentioned it before, every small, even a tiny single part is protected in Europe. edited by Graaf Statler)

Het koppelen (lees: verhandelen) van een [Wiki]database vol met CC0 data is commercieel oneindig veel aantrekkelijker, want je hebt dan geen 'last' van de auteurs, wat met een database op basis van CC-BY wel het geval is. Misschien ben ik naïef geweest, maar ik had Wikidata op die manier nog nooit bekeken, tot gisteren plots met een soort overvaltactiek Commons vroeg om met een enkele druk op de knop voorgoed en onherroepelijk in te stemmen met het opgeven van auteursrecht. Bij de voorbeelden die je noemt is het niet WMF die de data kapitaliseert, maar het uitrollen van Stuctured Data op de manier waarop dat nu gebeurt roept bij mij wel vragen naar de intentie op. WMF heeft een zeker idealistisch imago en het zou zonde zijn als daarmee zou worden gemarchandeerd. Jürgen Eissink (overleg) 14 feb 2019 21:18 (CET).

Wikipedia and wikidate is scram and indeed Copyfraud. And article 13 is there end. Because for sure nobody will use there wikishit anymore if article 13 is in function because it is externe risky stuff.