Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Apr 10, 2012, 8:54 AM

Post #1 of 13 (183 views)
Permalink

[Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content

Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open
content. One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo,
part of which is CC-BY-SA licenced, at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.

Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 10, 2012, 8:57 AM

Post #2 of 13 (177 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open content.
> One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of which
> is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.

Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just
examples of them using others' open content?

(IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's
impossible!" with the latter in control.)

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Apr 10, 2012, 9:07 AM

Post #3 of 13 (178 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

Well, that's the next step! The good thing is that they're starting to
/use/ it. The closest they've come, AFAIK, is a 'Creative Archive
Licence', which was similar to CC-BY-SA-ND-NC. It died a death in 2006 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/creativearchive/licence/index.shtml

Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.

On 10/04/2012 16:57, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds
> <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
>> Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open content.
>> One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of which
>> is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
>
> Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just
> examples of them using others' open content?
>
> (IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's
> impossible!" with the latter in control.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Apr 10, 2012, 9:08 AM

Post #4 of 13 (177 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

Correct: Derivatives are allowed

Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.

On 10/04/2012 16:57, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds
> <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
>> Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open content.
>> One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of which
>> is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
>
> Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just
> examples of them using others' open content?
>
> (IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's
> impossible!" with the latter in control.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Apr 10, 2012, 9:27 AM

Post #5 of 13 (180 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

CC-BY-SA-NC isn't a bad license. I know we strongly prefer licenses
that allow commericial use (and need them if we're going to use the
content on Wikimedia projects), but if -NC is the best we can get we
should be trying to encourage it. Is there any way we can revive the
2006 proposal?

PS Having just looked at that link, there is a "UK only" clause. I
don't think we could live with that... (I understand why it is there -
the BBC makes a lot of money selling its content overseas - but
geographic limits are highly impractical.)

On 10 April 2012 17:08, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> Correct: Derivatives are allowed
>
>
> Richard Symonds
> Office& Development Manager
> Wikimedia UK
> +44 (0) 207 065 0992
> --
> Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
> Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th
> Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> London EC2A 4LT.
> Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
> Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
> organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
> its contents.
>
>
> On 10/04/2012 16:57, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds
>> <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open
>>> content.
>>> One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of
>>> which
>>> is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
>>
>>
>> Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just
>> examples of them using others' open content?
>>
>> (IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's
>> impossible!" with the latter in control.)
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Apr 10, 2012, 9:30 AM

Post #6 of 13 (178 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

There's also a "no promotion" clause - you can't use the work to promote
your organisation. This is above and beyond the normal 'no derogatory
use' clause...

Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.

On 10/04/2012 17:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> CC-BY-SA-NC isn't a bad license. I know we strongly prefer licenses
> that allow commericial use (and need them if we're going to use the
> content on Wikimedia projects), but if -NC is the best we can get we
> should be trying to encourage it. Is there any way we can revive the
> 2006 proposal?
>
> PS Having just looked at that link, there is a "UK only" clause. I
> don't think we could live with that... (I understand why it is there -
> the BBC makes a lot of money selling its content overseas - but
> geographic limits are highly impractical.)
>
> On 10 April 2012 17:08, Richard Symonds
> <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> Correct: Derivatives are allowed
>>
>>
>> Richard Symonds
>> Office& Development Manager
>> Wikimedia UK
>> +44 (0) 207 065 0992
>> --
>> Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
>> Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th
>> Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
>> London EC2A 4LT.
>> Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
>> Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
>> organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
>> its contents.
>>
>>
>> On 10/04/2012 16:57, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 10 April 2012 16:54, Richard Symonds
>>> <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like the BBC are now starting to use goodly amounts of open
>>>> content.
>>>> One that's caught my eye is a piece on the seige of Sarajevo, part of
>>>> which
>>>> is CC-BY-SA licenced, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17617775.
>>>
>>> Have we ever gotten any video of theirs released by them, not just
>>> examples of them using others' open content?
>>>
>>> (IME the BBC is roughly divided between "free it all!" and "that's
>>> impossible!" with the latter in control.)
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 10, 2012, 9:33 AM

Post #7 of 13 (181 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On 10 April 2012 17:30, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> There's also a "no promotion" clause - you can't use the work to promote
> your organisation. This is above and beyond the normal 'no derogatory use'
> clause...

This sounds like a licence that deserves to die a death.

OTOH, actual free-as-in-freedom content reliably explodes heads in the
content industry. Me on the phone, multiple times:

"But we can't just lose control of our stuff!"
"It works for us. You called me, after all."

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

tom at tommorris

Apr 10, 2012, 9:56 AM

Post #8 of 13 (178 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 17:33, David Gerard wrote:
> This sounds like a licence that deserves to die a death.

Disagree. The point of the NC and ND licenses isn't so much so they can be used on Wikipedia but really as a stepping stone into CC for nervous types.

You might license something under CC BY-NC and watch it be reused a bit: someone pops it into a blog post or into a PowerPoint deck. And, holy crap, the world doesn't end, all is fine and nobody is being asked difficult questions about evil Communist freedom-haters who want to destroy Western civilisation. All is swell.

That's a pretty good practical argument when the Wikipedians turn up and start banging on about free licenses. Don't compromise on that: we should be stringent about PD, CC BY and BY SA only (although, incidentally, if we are to have non-free content, I'd rather have a CC BY NC licensed image than an all rights reserved image if possible, so long as it doesn't affect the number of contributed free images we have).

But let's not call for licenses to die or be killed: they serve an important role in allowing the cautious to get their toes wet.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 10, 2012, 10:00 AM

Post #9 of 13 (181 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On 10 April 2012 17:56, Tom Morris <tom [at] tommorris> wrote:

> But let's not call for licenses to die or be killed: they serve an important role in allowing the cautious to get their toes wet.

Just as long as we can still burn the GFDL at the stake.

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

tom at tommorris

Apr 10, 2012, 10:04 AM

Post #10 of 13 (180 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 18:00, David Gerard wrote:
> Just as long as we can still burn the GFDL at the stake.

Oh sure, no argument there. ;-)

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard at farmbrough

Apr 10, 2012, 10:12 AM

Post #11 of 13 (180 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

Well, actually we don't know it works for us. Our stuff is in early
draft, and re-use of text is already making life pretty difficult
already (checking for copyvios, notability, and clones in repressive
regimes (Baidu Baike) ). We are also causing breaks in attribution
chains every time we delete something that is mirrored, and the case law
is still patchy to say the least.

On 10/04/2012 17:33, David Gerard wrote:
>
> "But we can't just lose control of our stuff!"
> "It works for us. You called me, after all."
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

ml at gondwanaland

Apr 10, 2012, 10:16 AM

Post #12 of 13 (178 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:56, Tom Morris <tom [at] tommorris> wrote:
> Disagree. The point of the NC and ND licenses isn't so much so they can be used on Wikipedia but really as a stepping stone into CC for nervous types.

I hope this is true, but the handful of anecdotes I know of where
someone moves in one direction (mostly individuals dropping NC and/or
ND) or the other (sadly, Khan Academy) doesn't give me much confidence
it is.

> You might license something under CC BY-NC and watch it be reused a bit: someone pops it into a blog post or into a PowerPoint deck. And, holy crap, the world doesn't end, all is fine and nobody is being asked difficult questions about evil Communist freedom-haters who want to destroy Western civilisation. All is swell.

Putting stuff on the Internet constitutes getting one's feet wet.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 10, 2012, 10:27 AM

Post #13 of 13 (166 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BBC Open Content [In reply to]

On 10 April 2012 18:12, Richard Farmbrough <richard [at] farmbrough> wrote:

> Well, actually we don't know it works for us. Our stuff is in early draft,
> and re-use of text is already making life pretty difficult already (checking
> for copyvios, notability, and clones in repressive regimes (Baidu Baike) ).
> We are also causing breaks in attribution chains every time we delete
> something that is mirrored, and the case law is still patchy to say the
> least.

By "works", I mean that Wikipedia is the great big unignorable case of
free content working and being good enough to be useful.

And for them to call me. The context is them saying free content is
just impossible and me pointing out we're the counterexample.

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads