Talk:Wikilegal/Copyright for Google Translations
[edit]
Are most WMF wikipedias share alike license? In this case wouldn't any derivative work like a translation need the same license?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that is pretty much the case. But it is important to know who authored the derivative work so you know who is relicensing the translation. For a number of reasons, it could be concerning if Google held the rights behind that new CC-BY-SA license instead of the person who used Google's translation tools. Fortunately that does not appear to be the case at this time. Hahnw (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think this may be a 'sweat of the brow' issue. In the commons I recently added France to the threshold of originality list. A few other editors as well as had difficulty trying figure out the 'level of the bar' for France. We think it may fall between USA and UK. These cases seem best decided in a court of law. Do we know where Google servers are located? If it is in UK that may make a huge difference type thing. If they are in more than one country that would cause even more problems. When they actually do a machine translation from CC-BY-SA and the machine does not attach a license does that affect the legal status of the machine made work, etc, etc. I don't think we need to concern ourselves with this now. In the future a case may be filed and then decided by local courts and possibly set a precendent for that country. We can only hope that WMF is not that case I would assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that is pretty much the case. But it is important to know who authored the derivative work so you know who is relicensing the translation. For a number of reasons, it could be concerning if Google held the rights behind that new CC-BY-SA license instead of the person who used Google's translation tools. Fortunately that does not appear to be the case at this time. Hahnw (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Another line of reasoning[edit]
Another reason that using Google translations of compatibly licensed content on Wikipedia does not constitute a violation of Google's copyrights: Google doesn't get rights for the same reason David Slater doesn't get rights to the famous w:Monkey_selfie (details and case references there) he facilitated. Works created by non-humans are not subject to copyright. --Elvey (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Legit opinion?[edit]
{{helpme}} I don't understand why User:Philippe (who is now more or less inactive) blocked the intern who authored this page, User:hahnw but didn't leave an explanation in the block log, on the user page, or anywhere else I can find, for this official action (identified as such and taken when Philippe was on staff). That's not normal. Should {{FormerStaff}} be at User:hahnw? --Elvey (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like it's not that unusual to block former staff accounts. Not the norm, tho? --Elvey (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Elvey. Typically, we globally lock rather than block departed staff. It does not in any way indicate any issues with their work; it's a safety precaution since those accounts should never be used again to help prevent issues like hackers impersonating staff. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Elvey, I did block that user, and to be honest - I can't for the life of me remember why I did that but didn't globally lock. Most likely I was running through lists of userpages that had WMF-related templates (like the staff one) applied, saw that it was still active, and didn't bother to check the global account status, preferring to just locally block. But as Maggie indicates, the block was for security reasons - to secure a former intern's account to prevent reuse or compromise. Edit: yeah, I removed a category right about the same time. That supports my theory of how I found it. --Philippe (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- 👍 There's a related template bug. See Category_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_staff.--Elvey (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Elvey, I did block that user, and to be honest - I can't for the life of me remember why I did that but didn't globally lock. Most likely I was running through lists of userpages that had WMF-related templates (like the staff one) applied, saw that it was still active, and didn't bother to check the global account status, preferring to just locally block. But as Maggie indicates, the block was for security reasons - to secure a former intern's account to prevent reuse or compromise. Edit: yeah, I removed a category right about the same time. That supports my theory of how I found it. --Philippe (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Elvey. Typically, we globally lock rather than block departed staff. It does not in any way indicate any issues with their work; it's a safety precaution since those accounts should never be used again to help prevent issues like hackers impersonating staff. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Revisit?[edit]
Should this page be revisited in light of Project GLOW? See:
Will the content translated by Google Translate be free for use in Wikipedia? Yes. The content received from Google Translate is otherwise freely available on the web translation platform. Content Translation receives it via an API key to make it seamlessly available on the translation interface. This content can be modified by the users (if necessary) and used in Wikipedia articles under free licenses.
— mw:Content translation/Machine Translation/Google Translate#Will the content translated by Google Translate be free for use in Wikipedia?
My understanding is that the agreement creates a mutual understanding that Google Translate translations of Wikipedia text retain their Creative Commons license. I vaguely recall reading something more explicit about the translated text explicitly having a cc-by-sa license but I can't find that now. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Please less legalese: source attribution?[edit]
What does this sentence mean? "Since the source material is presumably available by CC-BY-SA 3.0 or a similar license, the translated work would be safe for use on Wikipedia as long as its source is properly attributed." The article is about text from one wikipedia-article translated by google-translate to become another wikipedia article of a different language version.
Does it mean we should attribute the earlier wikipedia article? Why? Even the wikipedia translation tool does not do this (outside the page history). Or is it about something different? Kipala (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kipala: yes, you legally have to attribute, because it is required by the license(s) people release their text under when they submit to Wikipedia. However, page history is sufficient, as detailed in https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#7._Licensing_of_Content and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)