4 ms·

There is like 50 page agreement, you even have to give up your copyright rights! The only way to do it legally in my country, is to hire editor as an employee!!

There is like 50 page agreement, you even have to give up your copyright rights! The only way to do it legally in my country, is to hire editor as an employee!!! (Contractors can not legally give up copyright to their work) https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use

francisdavey 3mo ago
You license your contributions under an open licence. You don't give up your copyright. There would be no other sensible way to operate a collaborative encyclopedia without a license of this kind. I (lawyer) have never encountered a jurisdiction where a contractor could not license their work under the contract with their employer (the person contracting them).
- sandworm101 3mo ago
  There are some non-divestable rights out there. Canada (and others) have a copyright concept of moral rights that cannot be given away by contract or, in other words, nobody can ever force someone to give them away. An artist/creator can decide to not exercise them but the artist/creator retains them regardless of contract language. >> Unlike other IP rights, moral rights cannot be sold or given away. Even in the case of a sale, an author retains their moral rights in the work, unless they choose to waive these rights. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/copyright-learn-basics/copyright-learn-basics-protect-your-original-works-learn-why-copyright-matters https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-prope... I was thinking about this as they were covering up murals and stadium names for the world cup. Canada doesnt really do that, but canadian stadiums are not generally named after tech companies (ie BC Place got to keep its name).
  - some_random 3mo ago
    How is the right non-divestable if you can waive it? More importantly, how could wikipedia possibly work if contributors retained copyright in any form over their submitted articles and edits?
    - throw93949444 3mo ago
      The only legal way to waive copyright rights, is to hire an employee to produce the work. Individual contributors are not cogs in a machine, employees are! And if someone produced work for 15 years, and edited 10000 articles... very hard to argue it is not permanent worker! Wikipedia can easily work as "marketplace of ideas", linking original authors. That is not possible if you have editorial policy, political opinions and work like a corporation or a news paper.
      - some_random 3mo ago
        A "marketplace of ideas" wikipedia is not wikipedia, that's twitter or maybe reddit. More importantly, your theory of copyright being unwaivable without an employee-employer relationship makes the entire internet unworkable. Nothing could accept user input of any kind unless it can be ruled uncopyrightable.
        throw93949444 3mo ago
        Just link original author, and do notndestroy their work, even copyleft license wikipedia uses demands that!
        some_random 3mo ago
        If editing an article opens you up to copyright lawsuits for "destroying their work", it's completely untenable.
        true_religion 3mo ago
        With a moral rights framework, that depends on the content of the edit. If for example you edit in racist views and leave the attribution of the original author because it’s just a one word change from “the holocaust” to “the alleged holocaust”, then yes you are open to a lawsuit for any harm that results from that malicious edit. This is especially true with my example as that view would run afoul of criminal statue in many counties.
some_random 3mo ago
Have you ever read the ToS/ToU of any social media site? Did you know that by using this site you've agreed to arbitration? https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou Giving up copyright when you write an article for Wikipedia is literally the only way it could possibly work. The biggest issue Wikimedia has is its full time staff, followed by full time editors.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- throw93949444 3mo ago
  Social media is different from wikipedia. If i write my opinions here, it is not an opinion of ycombinator. If I write stuff on wikipedia, it is opinion of wikipedia and there is rigorous editorial process, to get my stuff published... Also here my name is right next to the text, not in wikipedia! Platform vs publisher...
  - lkbm 3mo ago
    > If I write stuff on wikipedia, it is opinion of wikipedia That's obviously false, if for no other reason than: > and there is rigorous editorial process, to get my stuff published... There are people who will see and review your work after the fact, but it's published immediately. > Also here my name is right next to the text, not in wikipedia! There's a link at the top of every page to see who wrote what text.
- cccbbbaaa 3mo ago
  There is no copyright assignment on wikipedia. You are required to license your work under CC-BY-SA 4.0, so the WMF can distribute it, and other editors can reuse and modify it. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

francisdavey 3mo ago

You license your contributions under an open licence. You don't give up your copyright. There would be no other sensible way to operate a collaborative encyclopedia without a license of this kind. I (lawyer) have never encountered a jurisdiction where a contractor could not license their work under the contract with their employer (the person contracting them).

sandworm101 3mo ago
There are some non-divestable rights out there. Canada (and others) have a copyright concept of moral rights that cannot be given away by contract or, in other words, nobody can ever force someone to give them away. An artist/creator can decide to not exercise them but the artist/creator retains them regardless of contract language. >> Unlike other IP rights, moral rights cannot be sold or given away. Even in the case of a sale, an author retains their moral rights in the work, unless they choose to waive these rights. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/copyright-learn-basics/copyright-learn-basics-protect-your-original-works-learn-why-copyright-matters https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-prope... I was thinking about this as they were covering up murals and stadium names for the world cup. Canada doesnt really do that, but canadian stadiums are not generally named after tech companies (ie BC Place got to keep its name).
- some_random 3mo ago
  How is the right non-divestable if you can waive it? More importantly, how could wikipedia possibly work if contributors retained copyright in any form over their submitted articles and edits?
  - throw93949444 3mo ago
    The only legal way to waive copyright rights, is to hire an employee to produce the work. Individual contributors are not cogs in a machine, employees are! And if someone produced work for 15 years, and edited 10000 articles... very hard to argue it is not permanent worker! Wikipedia can easily work as "marketplace of ideas", linking original authors. That is not possible if you have editorial policy, political opinions and work like a corporation or a news paper.
    - some_random 3mo ago
      A "marketplace of ideas" wikipedia is not wikipedia, that's twitter or maybe reddit. More importantly, your theory of copyright being unwaivable without an employee-employer relationship makes the entire internet unworkable. Nothing could accept user input of any kind unless it can be ruled uncopyrightable.
      - throw93949444 3mo ago
        Just link original author, and do notndestroy their work, even copyleft license wikipedia uses demands that!
        some_random 3mo ago
        If editing an article opens you up to copyright lawsuits for "destroying their work", it's completely untenable.
        true_religion 3mo ago
        With a moral rights framework, that depends on the content of the edit. If for example you edit in racist views and leave the attribution of the original author because it’s just a one word change from “the holocaust” to “the alleged holocaust”, then yes you are open to a lawsuit for any harm that results from that malicious edit. This is especially true with my example as that view would run afoul of criminal statue in many counties.

some_random 3mo ago

Have you ever read the ToS/ToU of any social media site? Did you know that by using this site you've agreed to arbitration? https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou Giving up copyright when you write an article for Wikipedia is literally the only way it could possibly work. The biggest issue Wikimedia has is its full time staff, followed by full time editors.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
throw93949444 3mo ago
Social media is different from wikipedia. If i write my opinions here, it is not an opinion of ycombinator. If I write stuff on wikipedia, it is opinion of wikipedia and there is rigorous editorial process, to get my stuff published... Also here my name is right next to the text, not in wikipedia! Platform vs publisher...
- lkbm 3mo ago
  > If I write stuff on wikipedia, it is opinion of wikipedia That's obviously false, if for no other reason than: > and there is rigorous editorial process, to get my stuff published... There are people who will see and review your work after the fact, but it's published immediately. > Also here my name is right next to the text, not in wikipedia! There's a link at the top of every page to see who wrote what text.
cccbbbaaa 3mo ago
There is no copyright assignment on wikipedia. You are required to license your work under CC-BY-SA 4.0, so the WMF can distribute it, and other editors can reuse and modify it. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights