Wikiversity talk:Copyrights

Creative Commons
Any chance of getting Creative Commons dual-licensing for Wikiversity? The Jade Knight 04:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The german Wikiversity use CC-BY-SA 2.5. Why not the english Wikiversity?
 * We now have a Creative Commons learning project. CQ 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content
Hello. I am usually at English Wikipedia. There I noticed that at the article for someone added links to non-free textbooks hosted locally here at Wikiversity. I am posting because I believe this is not allowed.

Global policies for this is are at wmf:Terms_of_Use/en and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. The second of those says, "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License...". I interpret this to mean that while different Wikimedia projects can have variations in their exemption policies, activities like hosting entire non-free works are out of bounds. Friends of Wikimedia projects like the Internet Archive are alternative options for hosting nonfree Creative Commons content including textbooks with noncommercial or nonderivative licenses.

There is a template here Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 and a category Category:Creative Commons Non-Commercial ShareAlike. I think all of this content will need to be deleted and I started a deletion discussion at Requests_for_Deletion. Over there anyone can discuss the deletion. I think here would be the best place to discuss how to make Wikiversity's copyright policy as clear as possible.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   11:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As I read Terms of Use, the only relevant section is 7d on non-text media. CC-BY-NC-SA is a "Free Content License", so the only part of 7d that is open for interpretation here is whether non-commercial is consistent with "unrestricted". Since the full phrase is "general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution", and content under CC-BY-NC-SA is generally available for re-use and re-distribution, I'm not seeing a violation of the Terms of Use. Do you have a reference to comments from WMF Legal supporting this interpretation? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone can contact legal but for my part, I would prefer to talk this through. You could contact legal either now or later as you like.
 * Section 7d of the terms of use says, "you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy", and links to the license policy I presented above.
 * At Creative Commons they draw a line between their free and non-free licenses. Instead of WMF legal, most copyright issues in Wikimedia projects get resolved at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. NC licenses are already forbidden on Commons. They would give comments immediately if asked.
 * There are a few directions we can go with this. Can you tell me if you disagree with any of these, so I know more about what we are discussing?
 * NC licenses are non-free
 * Non-free licensed content is generally not allowed on Wikimedia projects
 * There are special exceptions which permit NC-licensed content, but the content in this Wikiversity category does not meet those exceptions, and the exception rule probably will not have any applications here.
 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a difference of opinion in that I believe NC licenses are free content licenses, while you, apparently, do not. Commons isn't relevant here. If you'd like to see a change in Wikiversity content hosting, please contact WMF Legal and provide a reference supporting your position. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarifying: The difference between the Creative Commons article you linked to and WMF Terms of Use is that Creative Commons describes "Free Culture" while WMF refers to "Free Content". CC-BY-NC-SA content is free, and generally open to re-use and re-distribution. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This was my mistake (if it was a mistake). I just deleted my reinsertion of a link to these pdf files on WIKIPEDIA. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenStax_College&type=revision&diff=797042652&oldid=796953307 --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, we have a difference in interpretation. I am comfortable letting the deletion discussion progress without my further participation. Here are my positions:
 * NC licenses are non-free according to all authorities, including Creative Commons, the open access community, and the consensus of the Wikimedia community.
 * There is no ambiguity in defining free versus non-free licenses.
 * I can agree that either or both my phrasing of all this is unclear, or that Wikimedia policy can be difficult to read. Still, Wikimedia projects do not permit hosting of this kind of NC content.
 * Thanks, I think we reached the end of the conversation.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I need to delete files such as File:Openstax_University_Physics_Volume_1-LR.pdf?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem with CC-BY content. The question Bluerasberry has asked is whether the community agrees with the other Wikimedia projects that CC-BY-NC-SA content is not free, and if not free, then not hosted. But it should be noted that there are four paths to address this request: Based on the options available, what is your preference? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The community can decide that CC-BY-NC-SA is not free and should be deleted.
 * 2) The community can decide to ignore the request and continue as is, accepting CC-BY-NC-SA as generally free (free content rather than free culture).
 * 3) The community can decide that CC-BY-NC-SA is not free, and add Fair Use tags to retain the content.
 * 4) The community can decide that CC-BY-NC-SA is not free and revise our EDP to allow the content.


 * Looking at Wikiversity history, numbers 2 & 3 have precedents! While number 1 may have occurred, I have found no precedent and, therefore, do not agree with it. Since we are already allowing the content with that license as well as have some images originally uploaded under that license and converted to fair use per uploader or faculty request, number 4 may not garner much interest. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are aligned with Marshallsumter's. I have no knowledge or understanding of our relationship with Wikimedia Foundation, and cannot judge the relative merits of 2,3,4.  But I fully endorse the principle that we obey the rules and conform to the WMF power structure. The fact that Wikiversity can host sister links onto Wikipedia articles gives the WMF both the moral and legal authority to exert power over Wikiversity. Wikiversity should never "revolt" against WMF.  Instead, we (as individuals) should find other wikis such as https://wikiversity.miraheze.org/wiki/. I created this wiki and propose that we consider creating an official relationship with Miraheze (subject to the approval of WMF of course).  Miraheze has no advertising and relies on small donations and free labor.  It links into WMF wikis (WP, WV, Commons...) but has no sister links out of WMF wikis.  Miraheze is performing a valuable service for my university by hosting a private wikinode at https://wright.miraheze.org/wiki/ where 100 students can write term papers without "peeking" into each other's projects, which I later grade for university credit.  This service would cost $1000 per year on another wiki, and I suggested to a Miraheze administrator that they "sell" this service to my university at a low cost.  I was informed that they are committed to being a free service.  These are noble people!
 * FYI to all: I adopted a wiki that was abandoned on Miraheze, and uploaded this pdf file there b/c I don't have time to get the original authors permission. I will properly license it in a few weeks when I see this person.  Anybody is more than welcome to use this wiki for similar purposes.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If there was a legal violation, we would hear from WMF Legal or WMF Office. It's a question of how we want to handle NC content. As I understand the CC-BY-NC-SA license, there is no issue. Wikiversity is non-commercial, and files (not pages) can be tagged and shared NC-SA.
 * Separately, hosting something elsewhere in the situation described is unnecessary. A Fair Use tag should be applied to resolve the freecollegeproject issue until the content is publicly licensed, whether hosted here or elsewhere.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on the file hosted by the freecollegeproject. I will leave it there because I am writing a pdf document to be read online and wanted a hyperlink to it (note also how I signed my comment on this miraheze-supported wiki with my WV username, "Wikiversity:User:Guy vandegrift").  The readers will be interested in seeing that there are lots of wikis out there.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the licensing of Openstax textbooks: Page two of each pdf contains the copyright information:
 * File:CalculusVolume1-OP.pdf (as well as volumes 2 and 3) are CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
 * File:Openstax Astronomy-LR.pdf is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
 * File:Openstax University Physics Volume 1-LR.pdf (and volumes 2 and 3) are Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
 * File:College-physics-9.72.pdf is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License


 * Per https://openstax.org/tos, Openstax is CC-BY unless otherwise noted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Source of endless dispute
There is a conflict of purposes. The WMF policy was largely designed for encyclopedias, and "free content" was interpreted to mean "free for any use (with attribution)." The NC licenses discussed are not "free" for "commercial use," so the effect of the policy is to support commercial users, who, in theory, then, can just copy WMF content without worrying about copyrights. In fact, the projects are full of copyright problems, including Commons, as you can tell by the constant flow of deletions there of files that had been hosted for years, where someone discovers an alleged defect in the license.

The actual WMF policies allow individual projects to have differing policies, by creating and maintaining an Exemption Doctrine Policy. This has been discussed many times, and some of the discussion has been disruptive. See and. There has never been a clear resolution.

As pointed out there, we have an EDP. If the EDP is not clear enough to cover common situations, it should properly be revised, by the community, so that the endless arguments and questions can cease. Mu301, in 2016, amended the EDP section to add a bolded note at the end: Note: any "fair use" at Wikiversity must conform to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy

That was circular, since the Foundation policy allows Wikiversity to amend its own policies. Who decides what conforms? First of all, the Foundation policy was clearly written with encyclopedic content-creation purposes in mind. Wikiversity has a quite different mission, learning, including "learning by doing." The way I read the Foundation policy is that they give examples of exceptions, and possibly non-exceptions, but within an encyclopedic context. The WMF has the ability to enforce its own decisions, but will also generally respect community rights. We are not required to consult the WMF to develop our own policy. Rather, if the WMF considers our policy to be in violation it is free to object. Per discussions long ago, to consult the WMF in advance of finding an actual community consensus is backwards, and likely to result in the most conservative answer possible, rather than the one that most serves the purposes of this particular community.

Having a clear local policy will allow users and custodians to avoid endless disputes (and damage to content). We are free to define that policy. Instead, what we have is what could be called "established local practice." This turns something that could be simple into a more complex decision, that could then readily vary with time and the custodian involved. One point to make very clear: the existing practice requires that all "non-free" content be tagged in a way that it is machine-readable. That will allow a commercial user to quickly find all such content and, if they choose to, remove it. This fully covers the clear purpose of the Foundation Policy.

There is no issue of copyright violation on this, no risk to Wikiversity or the WMF, which is fully protected legally, and so "fair use" considerations are largely a red herring. A commercial user could decide to use NF content on a fair use argument as well; for commercial users, such uses are more restricted than are non-commercial users. But how much work are our users and custodians, volunteers, to be required to do in order to avoid some work by commercial users? Non-commercial re-users don't need to worry about it. If we can use it, so can they (assuming the license is NC. If the material is ordinary copyright, it may still be used with a Fair Use Rationale, and that requires some level of judgment. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The need to disseminate information.
Hello, At 94 years of age not too sure if I am in the right location. I will provide personal information and if someone could get back to me and advise. At my age time is not on my side. The plethora of technical information on the site is well outside my ability to digest. Born in Scotland, left school at 14 years of age. Emigrated to New Zealand with my family just after the war and lived there for some thirty years. My wife and I later retired to Australia where I now live. In New Zealand, at fifty years of age, I did a four-year Liberal studies course at Canterbury University and graduated from there. Have written and published ten books through Google Books under the title "Universal Language of Absolutes". Have decided to rewrite that series using Wikimedia images and to avoid any Copywrite issues. Would welcome any advice available.

Sincerely,

James Brines. Hamish84 (discuss • contribs) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Welcome! If you wrote the content, there are no copyright issues. You own the copyright. Creative Commons licenses describe what others may do with the content. As the copyright owner, you aren't limited either way. As you note, images you don't own need to be free. Any content you didn't write yourself needs to be properly referenced and consistent with Fair Use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)