Talk:UNESCO definitions of endangered languages
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This redirect was nominated for deletion on 28 August 2015. The result of the discussion was move without leaving a redirect. |
Copyright
editA bot has tagged this as a possible copright violation. This content has been used for years in several related list articles. It was copied here for consistency and ease of updating (the URL used in most, if not all, of the articles had gone stale). I have no expertise in copyvio issues, but I can't imagine this is not fair use (assuming that term applies), since we need the precise definitions in our articles. - dcljr (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the bot found this text not at UNESCO's website, but on a blog somewhere. Obviously, we can't be violating the copyright of a blog that itself has copied the UNESCO definitions from elsewhere! (One copy is on the page the citation here links to.) I'm removing the template from the page, since I don't believe any copyright issues actually exist. - dcljr (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! The bot flags one source; it doesn't always get the original page with its first guess. But yes, the issue is whether we can copy the definitions from the UNESCO page, not some random site that has copied it.
- I don't know the answer to that, but the site carries a clear copyright notice, "© UNESCO 2009 - 2014", so I don't believe the page was allowable as it stood. I think expert attention is needed here, so I've listed the page at WP:CP; however, since it seems to be transcluded to many other pages, I've simply removed the definitions rather than blank the whole page with the customary large and invasive template. I wonder if quotation may be a way forward here if the exact wording is important? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since ArchReader saw fit to restore the copyvio to the page I have now blanked it, as I had hoped to avoid needing to do. You may perhaps want to comment it out where it is transcluded until this is resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer to that, but the site carries a clear copyright notice, "© UNESCO 2009 - 2014", so I don't believe the page was allowable as it stood. I think expert attention is needed here, so I've listed the page at WP:CP; however, since it seems to be transcluded to many other pages, I've simply removed the definitions rather than blank the whole page with the customary large and invasive template. I wonder if quotation may be a way forward here if the exact wording is important? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- This tagging/blanking is yet another incident that makes me question the [sentence truncated in transmission]. Let's see UNESCO's Open Access statements:
- shorter. "Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder."
- longer (pdf)Available in Open Access to copy, distribute and transmit the work for non-commercial purposes with appropriate attribution to the work. Some rights reserved for adaptation and derivative works. Permission must be taken from UNESCO for commercial use. "• Arch♦Reader 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly so, ArchReader. So the content is not compatible for use here, where our licence includes commercial re-use. Copying UNESCO materials into Wikipedia is, it seems, a copyright infringement; there's been discussion of, and work on, this in the past – please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 November 5.
- The options for these definitions seem to be (1) rewrite in substantively different words (2) quote and (3) leave them out. I'm going to ask, for the ten-thousandth time, if Moonriddengirl would be kind enough to comment here, particularly on whether quotation is an acceptable solution in this case (I'm concerned that the extent of the quotation might be disproportionate to the other text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. One of the considerations in fair use is the weight of the non-free material in proportion to both the source and the destination material. The question is whether the use is building some new, or simply taking some essential from the original. (See transformation (law).) If the article had more substantive original content, I think those would be fine as quotes. Without that, the material isn't transformative - we're simply copying it because we want to share it, and that isn't likely to be fair use and is not supportable by WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- "If the article had more substantive original content, I think those would be fine as quotes." Like here? - dcljr (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. One of the considerations in fair use is the weight of the non-free material in proportion to both the source and the destination material. The question is whether the use is building some new, or simply taking some essential from the original. (See transformation (law).) If the article had more substantive original content, I think those would be fine as quotes. Without that, the material isn't transformative - we're simply copying it because we want to share it, and that isn't likely to be fair use and is not supportable by WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Moonriddengirl. I remember when you showed up on Wikipedia. Well, then, can you just put this transcluded page back the way it was, and remove that offensive template? • Arch♦Reader 01:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Arch♦Reader. Glad you find me memorable. :) I would be happy to, but it looks like this one is contentious and the template is used in such cases to allow people to explain why they believe the content is not a copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Restored. This is ridiculous. It would be fair use even if it were under normal copyright. We can't very well discuss where languages fit in the UNESCO classification without explaining the UNESCO classification, and UNESCO specifically allows it to be copied with attribution. — kwami (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am emailing UNESCO. If they say no, then no. • Arch♦Reader 10:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've put the template back, as it's not supposed to be removed prior to resolution. It's a fair exercise in WP:IAR to remove a template that is clearly placed out of process, but this one isn't. UNESCO certainly has the ability to authorize use, and hopefully they will, but their website very clearly indicates that reuse is not permitted commercially. Wikipedia had the opportunity to accept a non-com license and chose not to. Hence, the concern here is a valid one, not spurious. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- More importantly, why have so many words been used already, without anyone having tagged the article...? ResMar 20:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- " With regard to your request to reproduce content of the limited dataset, we are going to make a consultation within the legal offices of UNESCO. Due to the amount of feedback received, please consider a delay for reply of 15 days." • Arch♦Reader 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @ArchReader: Can you post the actual text of your e-mail so we can see what question they will be answering? - dcljr (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup. Copy/paste follows. I used to know how to do templates to indent etc., but I have forgotten, so you can reformat if you wish:
- @ArchReader: Can you post the actual text of your e-mail so we can see what question they will be answering? - dcljr (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I have 2 issues to discuss: 1) Back in 2012 I emailed UNESCO a list of potential errors in the Atlas of Endangered languages. I stopped looking at this issue for a few years, but now have a new list of potential errors. Who, if anyone, could/should I send those to? It's possible that I may find more later as well. 2) May Wikipedia have permission to reproduce the contents of the LIMITED data set, plus the definitions of the "degrees of vitality" in lists of endangered languages, in tabular format? Please be advised that although of course Wikipedia is not a business, its licensing permits other individuals to copy its content for business purposes (licence includes commercial re-use). For an example of the sort of table(s) I am referring to, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endangered_languages_in_Asia For the Wikipedia debate about potential UNESCO/Atlas copyright violations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lists_of_endangered_languages/UNESCO_definitions
- • Arch♦Reader 05:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. I would have preferred a bit more specificity on the definitions issue — e.g., pointing them to, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lists_of_endangered_languages/UNESCO_definitions&oldid=656039763 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endangered_language&oldid=656379907#Defining_and_measuring_endangerment — seeing as how that's what this particular discussion is about. But whatever. Hopefully they'll read this page carefully enough to realize what you're referring to. Thanks for posting the text here. - dcljr (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since my request wasn't specific enough, I will refer any follow-up exchanges to you. • Arch♦Reader 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what I was implying. - dcljr (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please direct them to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Their permission needs to permit derivative works as well as reuse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what I was implying. - dcljr (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since my request wasn't specific enough, I will refer any follow-up exchanges to you. • Arch♦Reader 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. I would have preferred a bit more specificity on the definitions issue — e.g., pointing them to, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lists_of_endangered_languages/UNESCO_definitions&oldid=656039763 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endangered_language&oldid=656379907#Defining_and_measuring_endangerment — seeing as how that's what this particular discussion is about. But whatever. Hopefully they'll read this page carefully enough to realize what you're referring to. Thanks for posting the text here. - dcljr (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- • Arch♦Reader 05:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
reply from UNESCO - CC BY SA license
edit@Justlettersandnumbers:
@Moonriddengirl:
@Dcljr:
@Kwamikagami:
Dear [name],
Thank you for your interest in the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger.
We have received your comment submitted on 26/04/2015, requesting a permission to reproduce the contents of the limited dataset and definitions of the "degrees of vitality" of the Atlas.
After a thorough consultation with UNESCO’s legal service, we are pleased to let you know that the limited dataset and the definition of the ”degrees of vitality” are under UNESCO’s Open Access Policy<http://en.unesco.org/open-access/>.
Please note that the use of the limited dataset and the information related to the Interactive Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger is bound to the Terms of Use. In that connection, it is requested to indicate the source references as follows:
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd edn. Paris, UNESCO Publishing. Online version: http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/en/atlasmap.html
Also note that UNESCO will take no responsibility for the update of such reproduction, nor the coherence with the data modifications caused by daily updates of the Interactive Atlas.
Best regards, Editorial team UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger
...and if you follow the link to the relevant pdf, you find:
All UNESCO publications which are published on or after 31 July 2013 must be licensed using the Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 IGO license, as follows:
Any publication created by a staff member for whom the Publications Board has given its
approval on or after 31st July 2013 shall be published under CC BY SA license. As a
reminder, according to UNESCO’s Rules and Regulations, all intellectual property rights
concerning any work produced by a member of the Secretariat as part of his/her official
duties, shall be vested in the Organization.
Any person external to UNESCO who co-authors a publication with a member of the
Secretariat shall assign copyright to UNESCO. UNESCO authors are responsible for
informing co-authors of the Open Access Policy and for obtaining the rights of the external
co-authors. A permission form is provided by ERI/DPI for this purpose. Therefore, all coauthored
content shall be published under CC BY SA license.
- [posted here by] • Arch♦Reader 00:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's helpful. :) Please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, User:ArchReader. I've restored the content even though the filing should come first, but it does need to follow. If you let me know when you have done so, I'll make sure it is processed quickly rather than languishing. Alternatively, if there is something on their website that confirms the content is under that license, we can log that here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The pdf I linked to is on their website. Amidst the legal verbiage, it essentially seems to say that all research on their site CC BY SA (you can't use their logo etc., but you can use their data)... Is that what you mean? • Arch♦Reader 11:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The PDF unfortunately isn't enough by itself, User:ArchReader. It says "All UNESCO publications which are published on or after 31 July 2013" and the document was published in 2010. The important part of your letter is this: "After a thorough consultation with UNESCO’s legal service, we are pleased to let you know that the limited dataset and the definition of the ”degrees of vitality” are under UNESCO’s Open Access Policy" :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, rats. I acted prematurely here. :( They don't define the license at all. We need clarification. I'm sorry. They say, "Any content published prior to 31 July 2013 and for which UNESCO owns the rights, is considered in Open Access and is released on a case-by-case basis under one of the three following licenses: CC BY SA, CC BY NC SA and CC BY ND. Users should refer to the type of restricted license attached to the publication for specific terms of use". So, open access may or may not be sufficient for us. We really need them to specify, as two of those licenses we can't use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, this is in OTRS now: Ticket:2015052010014302. I have written back to UNESCO (cc'ing User:ArchReader) to ask if we may use it under CC-By-SA. Hoping for a quick and successful resolution. :) Thanks for reaching out to them, ArchReader. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, rats. I acted prematurely here. :( They don't define the license at all. We need clarification. I'm sorry. They say, "Any content published prior to 31 July 2013 and for which UNESCO owns the rights, is considered in Open Access and is released on a case-by-case basis under one of the three following licenses: CC BY SA, CC BY NC SA and CC BY ND. Users should refer to the type of restricted license attached to the publication for specific terms of use". So, open access may or may not be sufficient for us. We really need them to specify, as two of those licenses we can't use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The PDF unfortunately isn't enough by itself, User:ArchReader. It says "All UNESCO publications which are published on or after 31 July 2013" and the document was published in 2010. The important part of your letter is this: "After a thorough consultation with UNESCO’s legal service, we are pleased to let you know that the limited dataset and the definition of the ”degrees of vitality” are under UNESCO’s Open Access Policy" :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The pdf I linked to is on their website. Amidst the legal verbiage, it essentially seems to say that all research on their site CC BY SA (you can't use their logo etc., but you can use their data)... Is that what you mean? • Arch♦Reader 11:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's helpful. :) Please forward that email to permissions-en
What is going on
editWhat is going on with the OTRS? I can't check the ticket. Surely a year is long enough to get some resolution on this… - dcljr (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- They never responded to the original inquiry or the follow-up I sent them four months later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Atlas of World Languages in Danger is available under CC BY-SA
editFollowing on from the conversation above the AWLD is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 here with instructions on how to add open license text available at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. The credit for reusing text from AWLD would look like this (just add the page numbers, the template works in Visual Editor)
This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 (license statement/permission). Text taken from Atlas of the world's languages in danger, UNESCO.
Thanks