Books by Wikimedia Foundation Options

[mbz1]

I've noticed recently that there are many ebooks published by Wikimedia Foundation. Let's for example take a look at this one
in particular at the section named "Etymology" (scroll down to the page #1). Please compare this section to this section of Wikipedia article.
The article is free, the book is $2.51. Why?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

I've noticed recently that there are many ebooks published by Wikimedia Foundation. Let's for example take a look at this one
in particular at the section named "Etymology" (scroll down to the page #1). Please compare this section to this section of Wikipedia article.
The article is free, the book is $2.51. Why?

To make up all the costs of printing the e-book...uh...never mind. It's just another money grab.

I don't understand why people contribute to something that sells your work for profit, without giving you any piece of it. It's bad enough it can be edited by any cretin, but selling it is even more insulting.

[melloden]

I've noticed recently that there are many ebooks published by Wikimedia Foundation. Let's for example take a look at this one
in particular at the section named "Etymology" (scroll down to the page #1). Please compare this section to this section of Wikipedia article.
The article is free, the book is $2.51. Why?

It's a PediaPress PDF printout. I'm sure the WMF did not publish it, although the content is taken from Wikipedia. Many publishers try to earn a quick buck this way (horrible business strategy though). Note, the author is Wikimedia Foundation, not the publisher.

[Fusion]

But of course The Wikimedia Foundation is not the author. If asked, its board and staff would strongly deny being the authors because if they were they could be sued! So firstly that is misleading. Secondly it is surely a breach of copyright. Do these books give full references to the individual Wikipedia articles and their histories? I suppose ideally they should print the histories as an appendix.

[mbz1]

But of course The Wikimedia Foundation is not the author. If asked, its board and staff would strongly deny being the authors because if they were they could be sued! So firstly that is misleading. Secondly it is surely a breach of copyright. Do these books give full references to the individual Wikipedia articles and their histories? I suppose ideally they should print the histories as an appendix.

Quite a few of my images were published in the books with not exactly the same attributions I released them with. Using the same attributions the images are released with is required by the license.
I emailed about this to WMF, and got a response that their legal "is looking into it." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[melloden]

But of course The Wikimedia Foundation is not the author. If asked, its board and staff would strongly deny being the authors because if they were they could be sued! So firstly that is misleading. Secondly it is surely a breach of copyright. Do these books give full references to the individual Wikipedia articles and their histories? I suppose ideally they should print the histories as an appendix.

Yep.

Mila, which books/images? The random ones I checked, at least from that chemistry book, seem to match their licenses from Wikipedia.

[mbz1]

But of course The Wikimedia Foundation is not the author. If asked, its board and staff would strongly deny being the authors because if they were they could be sued! So firstly that is misleading. Secondly it is surely a breach of copyright. Do these books give full references to the individual Wikipedia articles and their histories? I suppose ideally they should print the histories as an appendix.

Yep.

Mila, which books/images? The random ones I checked, at least from that chemistry book, seem to match their licenses from Wikipedia.

Every my image in every book, and not only mine, at least one other photographer too, but I would rather not discuss the specifics now before I hear back from WMF.

[mbz1]

Here is an update. I did get email from the legal department of wmf. The books were published by them.
Without getting into specifics I could tell you that the reasons provided in their email to justify using my images the way they did was wrong because... they cited the policy about using text. Just get it, it took two days for them to get back to me with a wrong policy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) No wonder they need millions of dollars in donations to pay their attorneys (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, now, when Mike is here, I hope I could get some free legal advise how to deal with this issue (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Hey, am I going to get blocked for a legal threat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[TungstenCarbide]

Here is an update. I did get email from the legal department of wmf. The books were published by them.
Without getting into specifics I could tell you that the reasons provided in their email to justify using my images the way they did was wrong because... they cited the policy about using text. Just get it, it took two days for them to get back to me with a wrong policy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) No wonder they need millions of dollars in donations to pay their attorneys (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, now, when Mike is here, I hope I could get some free legal advise how to deal with this issue (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Hey, am I going to get blocked for a legal threat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Something doesn't sound right - I thought the foundation didn't publish. Hasn't that always been the case? That's how they avoid liability - only the volunteer editors publish. You might want to double check this with a different foundation employee.

I know there are various people not affiliated with the WMF selling wikipedia derived books on Amazon.

[mbz1]

Here is an update. I did get email from the legal department of wmf. The books were published by them.
Without getting into specifics I could tell you that the reasons provided in their email to justify using my images the way they did was wrong because... they cited the policy about using text. Just get it, it took two days for them to get back to me with a wrong policy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) No wonder they need millions of dollars in donations to pay their attorneys (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, now, when Mike is here, I hope I could get some free legal advise how to deal with this issue (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Hey, am I going to get blocked for a legal threat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Something doesn't sound right - I thought the foundation didn't publish. Hasn't that always been the case? That's how they avoid liability - only the volunteer editors publish. You might want to double check this with a different foundation employee.

I know there are various people not affiliated with the WMF selling wikipedia derived books on Amazon.

Well, I emailed to one employe of the foundation, and he forwarded my email to two others. I got response from one of these two. They discussed the issue I brought up about my images, but they have never said they did not publish these books and that I should contact some one else. It is all I know.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[TungstenCarbide]

Well, I emailed to one employe of the foundation, and he forwarded my email to two others. I got response from one of these two. They discussed the issue I brought up about my images, but they have never said they did not publish these books and that I should contact some one else. It is all I know.

According to google it's published by "eM Publications, 1960", about which I couldn't find any more information. You might also try contacting Google and complain that your copyrights are being violated. It would be interesting to see where the money is going.

[melloden]

Well, I emailed to one employe of the foundation, and he forwarded my email to two others. I got response from one of these two. They discussed the issue I brought up about my images, but they have never said they did not publish these books and that I should contact some one else. It is all I know.

There is a significant difference between not saying "We didn't publish this book" and saying "We published this book." Just because they neglected to deny something doesn't imply that they actually do that.

[mbz1]

Well, I emailed to one employe of the foundation, and he forwarded my email to two others. I got response from one of these two. They discussed the issue I brought up about my images, but they have never said they did not publish these books and that I should contact some one else. It is all I know.

There is a significant difference between not saying "We didn't publish this book" and saying "We published this book." Just because they neglected to deny something doesn't imply that they actually do that.

But they did discuss my question with me, and discussed it in length and three employees were involved. If they had nothing to do with these books, the best response would have been: "We have nothing to do with the books. Please address your questions to the publisher."
Anyway I emailed them again, and will wait for their response.

[dogbiscuit]

Well, I emailed to one employe of the foundation, and he forwarded my email to two others. I got response from one of these two. They discussed the issue I brought up about my images, but they have never said they did not publish these books and that I should contact some one else. It is all I know.

There is a significant difference between not saying "We didn't publish this book" and saying "We published this book." Just because they neglected to deny something doesn't imply that they actually do that.

But they did discuss my question with me, and discussed it in length and three employees were involved. If they had nothing to do with these books, the best response would have been: "We have nothing to do with the books. Please address your questions to the publisher."
Anyway I emailed them again, and will wait for their response.

Is it anything to do with them?

A publishes a photograph on Flickr. B puts it on Wikimedia. C puts it in an article on Wikipedia. WMF, through Wikipedia, published with a licence, correctly. A N Other republishes breaking the terms of the licence. It is not clear to me that it is the last man in the queue is the one responsible as they have acted correctly. As the wronged party, presumably it is up to you to pursue the breach of your licence? What would your complaint against the WMF be (because you are pursuing them as culpable at the moment it seems?) - presumably for failing to enforce the terms of the licence that by a circuitous route you granted them. You pick the WMF as they are the one with pockets deep enough, or last man before the breach. If last man before the breach was you, how would you respond?

All these licenses to is unprotect everyone: they really don't give any protection, so they allow you to take safely, but they don't really allow you to resist giving.

[lilburne]

As far as I know, a reuser of a CC work, at a minimum, has to provide attribution of the author of the content and to provide a reference to the appropriate license for the work. For non-text elements of a wikipedia page, attribution to wikipedia is a violation of the terms of the license. In addition if some images were licensed as CC-BY others as CC-BY-SA then the appropriate original usage license should be specified with each image. If that isn't happening then there is a violation of the terms of the license. These violations are on the part of the re-user / publisher. So the publisher of any book that fails to attribute each and every photographer, or fails to specify the license of each and every image is in violation of copyright.

[dogbiscuit]

As far as I know, a reuser of a CC work, at a minimum, has to provide attribution of the author of the content and to provide a reference to the appropriate license for the work. For non-text elements of a wikipedia page, attribution to wikipedia is a violation of the terms of the license. In addition if some images were licensed as CC-BY others as CC-BY-SA then the appropriate original usage license should be specified with each image. If that isn't happening then there is a violation of the terms of the license. These violations are on the part of the re-user / publisher. So the publisher of any book that fails to attribute each and every photographer, or fails to specify the license of each and every image is in violation of copyright.

Fine, but where is the "So what?" test here?

The reality is that as an individual, what real redress is there? An ethical publisher might offer to correct the situation in future publications, but you couldn't really claim substantial damages when the creator quite clearly was prepared to offer the work for free so there was no real world financial loss, have no public stature as a photographer so no real loss of reputation (or trading on someone else's) there and so on, so there is no point in a legal fight.

A less ethical publisher, and I think what we have here is a cottage industry home made publisher than anything serious, will simply ignore you. Get serious and employ a lawyer, they simply withdraw the specific work as not worth the hassle (costs of legals > likely profit) and move onto the next scam publication - you have spent money, and they have acted, I doubt a lawyer would recommend pursuing for costs - risking further costs to recoup say $200 for the original letters.

[lilburne]

The license is based on the re-user fulfilling the requirements. Courts have already established that a free license has an economical value to the licensor even if cash doesn't change hands and the free license brigade are actively arguing for injunctions to stop distribution of works where a licenses terms have been broken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

[dogbiscuit]

The license is based on the re-user fulfilling the requirements. Courts have already established that a free license has an economical value to the licensor even if cash doesn't change hands and the free license brigade are actively arguing for injunctions to stop distribution of works where a licenses terms have been broken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

I'm still going to Yes But this, I don't doubt that you are correct, but my point is what is the relevance of this to your average Wikipedian who in reality has a minor problem, though there may be a major principle at stake.

There is an activist movement who may pursue headline cases, but as for Joe Public, are they really going to take the time and effort to pursue this?

A user has a few of his pictures used not in the terms of the licence. What is the real economic value of these? What is the cost of an injunction? Who is going to pay for that injunction? Is the WMF going to follow this up on a matter of principle to protect its asset, Wikipedia, or is the "free licence brigade" going to step in?

[melloden]

I'm still going to Yes But this, I don't doubt that you are correct, but my point is what is the relevance of this to your average Wikipedian who in reality has a minor problem, though there may be a major principle at stake.

There is an activist movement who may pursue headline cases, but as for Joe Public, are they really going to take the time and effort to pursue this?

A user has a few of his pictures used not in the terms of the licence. What is the real economic value of these? What is the cost of an injunction? Who is going to pay for that injunction? Is the WMF going to follow this up on a matter of principle to protect its asset, Wikipedia, or is the "free licence brigade" going to step in?

Mila isn't Joe Public. She's unique. Obviously the WMF is not going to give a shit about this. Mila just wants to play the finger-pointing game because how else is she going to feel "accepted" by the rest of the WRers?

It's like WP:POINT, except it's not about WP here.

[mbz1]

I'm still going to Yes But this, I don't doubt that you are correct, but my point is what is the relevance of this to your average Wikipedian who in reality has a minor problem, though there may be a major principle at stake.

There is an activist movement who may pursue headline cases, but as for Joe Public, are they really going to take the time and effort to pursue this?

A user has a few of his pictures used not in the terms of the licence. What is the real economic value of these? What is the cost of an injunction? Who is going to pay for that injunction? Is the WMF going to follow this up on a matter of principle to protect its asset, Wikipedia, or is the "free licence brigade" going to step in?

Mila isn't Joe Public. She's unique. Obviously the WMF is not going to give a shit about this. Mila just wants to play the finger-pointing game because how else is she going to feel "accepted" by the rest of the WRers?

It's like WP:POINT, except it's not about WP here.

Remember this famous dialog from "Some like it hot"

Jerry: Oh no you don't! Osgood, I'm gonna level with you. We can't get married at all.
Osgood: Why not?
Jerry: Well, in the first place, I'm not a natural blonde.
Osgood: Doesn't matter.
Jerry: I smoke! I smoke all the time!
Osgood: I don't care.
Jerry: Well, I have a terrible past. For three years now, I've been living with a saxophone player.
Osgood: I forgive you.
Jerry: [Tragically] I can never have children!
Osgood: We can adopt some.
Jerry: But you don't understand, Osgood!
[Finally gives up and pulls off his wig]
Jerry: Ohh... I'm a man!
Osgood: Nobody's perfect!

It is what happened with my communications to two attorneys from WMF.
We exchanged countless emails, we argued about the license, about attributions and about other things, and in the end I got this email today.

Hello Mila,
<name redacted> looked into the information about the book and attributions at issue and discovered that the publisher is a company called eM Publications. They published your images and created the attributions independent of Wikimedia Foundation. In order to address your concerns, you will need to contact them directly.

It would have been funny, if it were not so sad.
High payed attorneys from WMF spent hours discussing with me the matter that has no connection to them! No wonder WMF needs all the donations they could get.