IRC office hours/Office hours 2016-10-19

Log

Chat on Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0
19 October 2016
14:00 - 15:00 UTC

[13:55:53] <jsutherland> Hello everyone!
[14:00:55] <jsutherland> We'll be kicking off the office hour now. This is for the potential licensing upgrade for Wikimedia content to Creative Commons 4.0.
[14:01:09] <jsutherland> More information on this upgrade: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
[14:01:15] <jsutherland> Feel free to ask questions!
[14:01:51] <ToAruShiroiNeko> woha
[14:02:04] <jsutherland> Hi, ToAruShiroiNeko!
[14:02:15] <Dragonfly6-7> please explain what the switch will/would mean
[14:02:26] <ToAruShiroiNeko> Iam a but confused by the legalize on the matter as well.
[14:02:34] <slaporte> Hi everyone! Welcome to our scheduled discussion on Creative Commons 4.0. I'm Stephen, and I'm here with Jacob (jrogers55) and Chuck (croslof). We are three attorneys for the Wikimedia Foundation who focus on copyright topics.
[14:02:36] <ToAruShiroiNeko> What is the actual practical difference?
[14:03:46] <ToAruShiroiNeko> hello jsutherland :)
[14:04:28] <slaporte> Dragonfly6-7: the switch will mean that new content is available under the updated license terms. The 4.0 version has very similar terms to the 3.0 version (it still requires attribution and sharealike). The main changes are in the detail of how the terms are explained in the license.
[14:04:50] <ToAruShiroiNeko> So no difference?
[14:04:59] <slaporte> The terms are simpler in 4.0, and there have been some adjustments to how they explain attribution.
[14:05:22] <slaporte> 4.0 also allows official translations of the license, so it can be available in more languages
[14:05:51] <slaporte> But for many contributors and re-users, it may be essentially the same as 3.0
[14:06:14] <ToAruShiroiNeko> So the fine print is more or less the same then.
[14:06:33] <Dragonfly6-7> the way I typically explain it to total neophyes on the help channel: you allow the content to be used by anyone, free, without asking, for any purpose including commercial, as long as they give credit. Will that continue to be appropriate?
[14:06:59] <slaporte> Dragonfly6-7: That’s still right.
[14:07:11] <Dragonfly6-7> good
[14:07:18] <Dragonfly6-7> am I missing any important details?
[14:07:57] <slaporte> ToAruShiroiNeko: There are some changes in the fine print, but this is getting squarely into the land of legalese :)
[14:08:28] <ToAruShiroiNeko> can you give a few examples?
[14:08:46] <ToAruShiroiNeko> I dont need exact diffs
[14:09:12] <ToAruShiroiNeko> I am just trying to see how those fine changes improve our quality
[14:09:17] <mindspillage> plugs https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions for explanation of the fine print
[14:09:34] <jsutherland> Ah, mindspillage is here!
[14:09:35] <ToAruShiroiNeko> I can read the full text too.
[14:09:42] <jsutherland> Hello, mindspillage. :)
[14:09:47] <mindspillage> waves
[14:09:51] <slaporte> So one simple example is that 4.0 provides people with a licensee with an opportunity to correct violations within a short period to restore their rights
[14:10:01] <ToAruShiroiNeko> okay
[14:10:04] <slaporte> mindspillage: Hello!
[14:10:34] <ToAruShiroiNeko> So for cases where someone pastes soemthing and then regrets it.
[14:10:38] <ToAruShiroiNeko> FOr example.
[14:10:44] <jrogers55> Another example is database rights. They're a right in collections of data that only exists in some places (like Europe). 4.0 addresses them while 3.0 doesn't, and we're suggesting adding a waiver of them to make sharing consistent worldwide.
[14:10:59] <Dragonfly6-7> .... 'database rights' what what?
[14:11:13] <jrogers55> Dragonfly6-7: that's actually about the right reaction, nobody quite knows how they apply.
[14:11:32] <Dragonfly6-7> in this case, I don't quite know what the term actually means.
[14:11:39] <ToAruShiroiNeko> So basically an agreement for them to also release the metadata?
[14:12:13] <ToAruShiroiNeko> I am more familiar with database rights that a few people possibly.
[14:12:17] <jrogers55> Dragonfly6-7: it's a right to stop people from copying large collections of data. Like, if you made a big chart of the birthdates of every major figure in the Roman Empire, some countries might stop other people from copying big chunks of it.
[14:12:27] <Dragonfly6-7> ah
[14:12:37] <ToAruShiroiNeko> Oh you mean like that.
[14:12:53] <ToAruShiroiNeko> So this protects us or them?
[14:14:23] <kmh_> crowded
[14:14:42] <kmh_> but no talk?
[14:14:49] <Zppix|mobile> I guess
[14:14:56] <jrogers55> ToAruShiroiNeko: it protects reusers of information. It clarifies that someone reusing material under the CC licenses can't get in trouble under these other rights if they're in the wrong country.
[14:15:07] <Dragonfly6-7> ah, I see.
[14:15:13] <Dragonfly6-7> what was that you said about revocation?
[14:15:14] <ToAruShiroiNeko> ah okay, sounds reasonable
[14:15:37] <Dragonfly6-7> <slaporte> So one simple example is that 4.0 provides people with a licensee with an opportunity to correct violations within a short period to restore their rights
[14:15:39] <Dragonfly6-7> expand on that, please?
[14:15:45] <mindspillage> The 3.0 llicenses didn't talk about database rights, which meant that it was not clear if they were licensed or how.
[14:17:28] <slaporte> Dragonfly6-7: Under the CC terms, if you don’t follow the requirements in the license, you lose the liense. Version 4.0 gives people 30 days to correct a violation after they discover it to regain the license.
[14:17:49] <Dragonfly6-7> .... what?
[14:18:57] <slaporte> If you reuse CC material and don’t do it right, you have a chance to correct it.
[14:19:40] <Dragonfly6-7> if I take a CC-licensed photo from Commons and put it on my own commercially-oriented website, and I don't credit it... I have 30 days to correct that?
[14:20:20] <Dragonfly6-7> or....?
[14:20:31] <slaporte> That’s right
[14:21:23] <Dragonfly6-7> and if I don't, then what?
[14:22:07] <slaporte> then you don’t have permission to use the file under a CC license
[14:22:44] <slaporte> Under 3.0, your rights under the license are terminated, and you can only regain your rights with the creator’s permission. Under 4.0, you would get a 30 day period to correct the issue to regain your rights.
[14:22:44] <anomie> Dragonfly6-7: If I understand it correctly, under 3.0 if you don't credit it then you lose the ability to use the photo at all under the CC BY-SA license, forever. Under 4.0, if you fix it within 30 days then you automatically get the ability back.
[14:23:16] <mindspillage> This was modeled after similar terms in the GPL (and some other licenses)--to allow people who have simply made a mistake to correct it, not specifying that the license is lost unless you don't correct it.
[14:24:00] <Samwalton9> Huh, I didn't know that was the case for 3.0
[14:24:20] <jrogers55> I actually don't think it's much of a change in practice. Lots of people today make mistakes, somebody notices their mistake, and they fix it. This just formalizes that there's a safe period to correct mistakes when they're discovered.
[14:24:35] <mindspillage> (since not everyone here knows me, I was one of the drafters of the 4.0 license)
[14:25:38] <Dragonfly6-7> when (an important special-effects guy) died, the Hollywood Reporter partially copied the Wikipedia article about him (which I wrote) for their obituary, and didn't credit it. What does that imply, in terms of the license?
[14:27:54] <jrogers55> Well, if they didn't take too much, it was probably a fair use under copyright law, which would make it okay (the licenses have a clause that says they don't stop anyone from using stuff if they'd be allowed to under normal copyright law). If it was a much longer bit, it's possible the Reporter made a mistake and should have given credit (and could have lost their right to use
[14:27:55] <jrogers55> the article as a result). I'd guess it was okay though, they're usually pretty good.
[14:30:35] <jsutherland> For those who have just joined: Welcome! This is an office hour for the potential licensing upgrade for Wikimedia content to Creative Commons 4.0.
[14:31:14] <jsutherland> Please feel free to ask questions. We have slaporte, jrogers55, and croslof here from the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Team to answer questions.
[14:32:07] <slaporte> We’ve had CC 4.0 licensed images on Wikimedia Commons for a while now — the change under discussion here would be for the text
[14:32:55] <mindspillage> The grace period before licenses get terminated is intended to give people time to correct whatever they got wrong (and give incentive to correct it quickly--you're not an infringer yet, but you need to fix it, please do these things).
[14:33:51] <jsutherland> (We also have mindspillage here, which is supercool since she helped to draft the 4.0 license. :) )
[14:34:10] <mindspillage> (this is one thing that people have done with the GPL to encourage people to correct failures to comply with the license)
[14:34:24] <slaporte> mindspillage: I like this grace period since it formalizes a simple way to encourage compliance
[14:35:37] <croslof> The GPL is the GNU General Public License, which is a widely-used license for free software.
[14:39:20] <jsutherland> Please, feel free to ask questions about the potential upgrade! If you're reading this in a log, feel free to chip into the discussion on meta until November 8. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
[14:40:30] <slaporte> One topic that has come up a few times in the discussion on meta wiki is moral rights
[14:41:54] <jrogers55> To expand on moral rights, one of the things in 4.0 is a moral rights waiver included with the license.
[14:42:02] <Dragonfly6-7> .... oh?
[14:42:49] <jrogers55> This is designed to help make sharing consistent worldwide because moral rights vary a lot country to country, and the ideal is that someone CC licensing content makes is reusable using the same attribution requirements anywhere.
[14:43:32] <slaporte> The license provides a “waiver” to the extent that it’s allowed and it’s necessary to exercise the rights under CC
[14:46:11] <croslof> Moral rights are a collection of copyright-like rights that authors have under some countries' laws. They differ from standard copyright in that they aren't economic—they aren't primarily about making sure authors of works are compensated for their works.
[14:48:11] <Dragonfly6-7> if you took a photo of a random stranger on a beach, and uploaded it to Commons as "Example of obesity'... would that be in conflict with the moral rights issue?
[14:48:12] <croslof> Some common moral rights include the right to attribution (an author's right to be credited for their work) and the right of integrity (an author's right not to have their work altered or distorted).
[14:48:58] <Dragonfly6-7> Ah.
[14:49:13] <DatGuy> Right of Integrity is the big one (or is it something else? Need to have permission from the person)
[14:49:14] <croslof> Dragonfly6-7: Moral rights are rights that the creators of works have, not the subjects of works.
[14:49:24] <Dragonfly6-7> ahh
[14:49:32] <Dragonfly6-7> okay, that's ... personality rights, I think?
[14:50:25] <croslof> Yes, personality rights are rights held by the subjects of works
[14:50:40] <jrogers55> Yeah, rights of the subject are personality and privacy usually. The term moral for author's rights was picked to contrast with economic rights because they're about respecting authors and artists, not making them money.
[14:50:48] <Dragonfly6-7> ah
[14:52:44] <jrogers55> To bring it back to the licenses, if you take a selfie and upload it under CC4, you do waive your personality rights as the photo subject as part of the license.
[14:56:29] <jsutherland> Five-minute warning for questions :)
[14:59:34] <Numetrics> If my picture is taken, and I've paid for a copy, am I allowed to post it to Commons or am I in violation of some right?
[15:00:05] <Dragonfly6-7> Numetrics - as I understand it, you've paid for *a* copy.
[15:00:09] <Dragonfly6-7> so... no.
[15:00:23] <jrogers55> There's actually not enough info in the question to give a definite answer
[15:00:44] <tschroder1> a *single* copy? or a copy with rights to reuse/reproduce Numetrics?
[15:00:45] <zhuyifei1999_> I thought it's *a* copy, not *all* future copies
[15:01:17] <jrogers55> Someone who commissions a picture where you have a lot of creative control (think, like, film director) can be the "author" for copyright purposes even if they didn't hold the camera and press the button. But usually buying a single copy of a picture someone else took means the photographer is the author.
[15:02:22] <slaporte> Thanks everyone for joining today! If you have more questions about CC 4.0, please do drop in the discussion on Meta Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
[15:02:40] <Numetrics> Me and my friends have gathered, and we wanted a photo. Each of us paid for it. But, you're saying we can't distribute it as we want without contacting the photographer?
[15:03:28] <jrogers55> Numetrics: Hard to say, but quite possibly correct. You'd have to look at the details of the specific situation.
[15:04:15] <Steinsplitter> hi, the tos are giving us the ligetimation to upgrade the license?
[15:04:58] <Steinsplitter> is there a judicature yet regarding license upgrades?
[15:05:10] <Numetrics> @jrogers55 Could you tell me where I could find the details for such a scenario?
[15:06:29] <jrogers55> Numetrics: Not really. That's the kind of thing where you need to hire a lawyer to get a definite answer.
[15:06:36] <slaporte> Steinsplitter: under Section 16 in the Terms of Use, the terms can be modified after the public discussion on the topic (following a similar process to how the Terms of Use were written)
[15:06:55] <jsutherland> Thanks for joining today. Please feel free to ask more questions on the discussion page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
[15:07:04] <slaporte> we’ll be hosting the discussion on Meta Wiki from Oct 5 through Nov 8
[15:08:04] <slaporte> In California, we’re getting ready to start our work day. Thanks again everyone!
[15:09:38] <Steinsplitter> good work slaporte et all :)