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:

[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:

[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.