The Non-Controversy: No, Wikipedia Authors Should Not Get Paid
from the manufacturing-controversy dept
Let's say that I sold you a piece of land, and you then built a nice house on that land, and then you sold the property for a lot more money. Would anyone think that it was reasonable for me to then show up and demand a piece of the profits? Of course not. Yet when that scenario is tweaked just slightly into the digital realm and using $0 as the original price, suddenly people start getting things backwards. A few months back, for example, there was the situation with Billy Bragg complaining about the fact that musicians who chose to put their music on Bebo didn't get any of the AOL buyout money. But that was perfectly reasonable, because the musicians made a fair trade initially: they gave their music, they got publicity. Asking for money after the fact is no different then me trying to renegotiate my land sale after you made the land more valuable and resold it.Now we're seeing yet another such case. Ethan Bauley writes in to point to an article suggesting that somehow Wikipedia authors are being ripped off because Bertelsmann is going to publish a paper version of Wikipedia for profit. But, again, it's the same thing. People who contribute to Wikipedia clearly felt that giving their labor away for free was a fair transaction. Bertelsmann is now trying to make Wikipedia valuable to a different audience by putting it into book form. They're taking on the risk of printing the book (building the house), and to have the various writers go back later and demand payment is equally as ridiculous. Luckily, it seems like most people recognize this -- and many comments on the ReadWriteWeb article point this out. It's just a few agitators, who apparently want to change the terms after the fact, who are having trouble getting this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fair deals, renegotiation, volunteer, wikipedia
Companies: bertelsmann, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
right of first sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the same
Now, you had the land, and then let me come in and build something on it (my time, my labor, etc), and then you turned around and SOLD that, then yes, I could have a right to bitch.
How about I go ahead and publish a book containing all the comments from everyone on here? I wonder if you will think that is fine and dandy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
eleete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
1. You owned land.
2. You sold land.
3. Buyer(NOT you) builds a house on land.
4. Land is sold and they owe you nothing.
Unless you helped AOL with ALL of their issues, you had no hand in building their "house", your only part was selling the land.
Sad thing is, Billy Bragg is someone who should be beyond this at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same
1. You own the land.
2. You invited me onto land to build what I wanted.
3. I did so, my own time/money/etc
4. Someone else comes in and sells my work without asking me, and I get nothing.
This is exactly what is going on now. Since nobody doing step #2 expected their free work to be sold, how hard it is to understand why they are upset?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not the same
2. I invited you on the land to build what you want, with you knowing it really wasn't yours and it would be free to anyone.
3. You did so using your own time/money/etc with no expectation of any return.
4. I come in and sell a copy of your house that someone can own. The free one is still there and available to anyone.
Why would you be upset again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same
5. The someone who bought the house makes improvement to it, and you're allowed to and copy those improvements back into the original house. Or you can just make a copy of the improved house for yourself.
This whole concern trolling over wikipedia is silly anyhow. Anyone who submits content to wikipedia explicitly licenses it to them under the GFDL. The GFDL explicitly allows commercial distribution of the content. That's part of the whole purpose of tbe GFDL. The FSF wanted publishers to be able to publish and sell documentation for free software without that documentation being wrapped up by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same
Correct except for the not-wrapped-up-by-copyright part. The GFDL is a copyright license. It just happens to be written contrary to the wildly assumed intent of copyright (give freedoms rather than restrict them).
One (lame and flawed) argument against the GPL and GFDL is that they themselves restrict rights by restricting recipients from restricting others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
Ok sory this is really long but Wikipedia would not work or would never have worked if it was for profit. If Bertelsmann actually think wikipedia would work and be as good and as accessible as it is now if it were for profit, hes just a stupid capitalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same
Uh. But that's not the case at all. The terms of the deal (including the possibility of for-profit offshoots) have always been clearly stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
I'll need you to fill out some paperwork, pay some fees, and write a fat check if you would like to publish my comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
In your analogy, I own the land yet you build on it and I claim all the profits. That is obviously criminal, so thanks for pointing out an obvious fact, but to what real even do you place this analogy? Nothing in this article is even remotely similar to a situation which you are describing other than you stealing these forum posts... You make little sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same
The outcome of the analogy is the same: if the builder wanted compensation for the buildings, he should never have agreed to the original terms. Complaining later is foolish, pointless, and perhaps even unethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
As others have correctly pointed out, yes that would be fine and dandy. In fact, it would be better than that, because you'd be helping to drive more attention to us. So, if you're going to do that, thank you. If you need any assistance, please let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The book remains the intellectual property of its contributors
Given that Wikipedia is free, the book cannot be charging for the work therein, but the costs in producing everything else comprising the book.
Anyone can copy Wikipedia or the book and publish their own books and charge twice the price (or half) if they fancy.
It's a free market - NO FRICKING MONOPOLY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The book remains the intellectual property of its contributors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not sure i agree
/sarcasm on
unless of course Bertelsmann, like JK rowling is donating the profits to “charity” then it is all OK.
/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not sure i agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not sure i agree
Furthermore, we need promote the idea called "Base-line" education package for everybody in the world. No matter how rich or poor you are, the total cost of pre-graduate school education should be very small, and the "pay-back" amount shall NEVER be beyond 5 percent of an educated-colleague-graduate's annual income. As a result, it will force a more efficient system coming out to serve everybody in the world.
Have a good future!
Hua Fang
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not sure i agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not sure i agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not sure i agree
As to someguys point, the analogy is flawed, a better analogy:
You have a piece of property that is a public park free for all to use.
You ask me to help you make the park beautiful, I agree and do it for free since it is a public park free for all.
You then tear down the park and put up a parking lot, and charge for parking.
Again it may be legal, but it is definately against the spirt of what was requested of me and I gladly provided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not sure i agree
No one is tearing down the beautiful park. They’re making the same beautification changes to a different piece of land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not sure i agree
If that's what they believed, they believed incorrectly. The license used on Wikipedia is clear that it can be used for commercial purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoping to get published
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
Legally, I see the point that I cannot sue. However, I would think twice about contributing for free again. Why should my work make someone else money and me nothing? It goes against the spirit in which I contributed the content. (again, legally, I know that probably wouldnt stand up in court)
On a side note, if Wikipedia can claim that it's a platform and therefore not responsible for the content is users create when they plagarise or infringe on copyright, how the hell do they justify turning around and then selling the content as though it belongs to them?
Im confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry, you contributed free, not yours
If you're donating for free, you should be welcome that your work is included and thus being given out to more people than it would reach in the first place. You might even be able to present yourself as an expert in said topic, and sell things related to that, whereas before the distribution nobody knows you/cares. Your view is very you-centric. If your ideas are private, then don't publish em. Simple as that.
If you don't want your work to make other people money while you make none, then don't release it under GPL. If you can't figure out a way to monetize your own efforts for your own purpose, that is not our problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
Think about the printed version like this for a second; they are charging for the SERVICE of printing the content on the website, not for the content itself, which may change many times after it has been printed.
You can do this yourself by printing everything from the site to your printer, however this will take a great deal of time and resources (paper & ink). Plus I doubt you will put a snazzy cover on the one you print at home, which will allow it to become damaged more quickly and require you to reprint portions of it.
Therefore paying someone else to do the printing for you in no way changes the final outcome, which is that you have a printed copy of the content on the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again - its probably not illegal (unless the contract said that you couldnt develop),but Im sure you would feel wronged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just don't get it, do you
And it always will be free. You contributed to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is still free. Bertelsmann is trying to sell a copy of something that is freely available on-line.
"how the hell do they justify turning around and then selling the content as though it belongs to them"
Actually, they are not. Bertelsmann is making their own copy, under the GFDL, and selling the copy that they made. German Wikipedia has nothing to do with Bertelsmann's decision. Frankly, I'm surprised at the number of people that just don't understand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute
2. You CAN use your work to make money and the work of the other contributors. Release your own copy of Wikipedia in book form. If you were concerned that you weren't getting rewarded for your contribution, then don't contribute.
3. Wikipedia isn't plagiarizing or infringing any copyright. Read the license you agreed to by contributing.
4. You are confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Analogy
A correct analogy would be similar to software source licenses. The author gives it away with permission to distribute it for free (a freely accessible website) if the source code is to be used in a commercial product, a licensing fee must be paid. (a royalty to the authors)
So yes the authors are entitled to a share of the profits unless they expressly agreed to have their work distributed in a commercial paid for product(the book)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Analogy
Based on the fact that their contributions were given under the GPL that Wikipedia has, I don't think this claim passes muster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution
1) You must provide the source on request, or a network-accessible place where the source can be downloaded.
2) If you change anything, you must maintain invariant texts from previous versions and make it clear this is a changed work.
So, bottom line, if you're mad that someone's selling Wikipedia in book form, there's an easy solution. Go download the source and print it yourself. Sell it for as much or as little as you want. Get it into bookstores listed as free, right next to the pay edition. Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Stupid
Absolutely no. Wikipedia content is entered on free will with no compensation. Period. It's like vlounteer workers wanting to get paid.
The Wikipedia book is just a home written encyclopedia (with errors) and Bertelsmann should get no profit either. Let's pay the ancestors of the writers of the Declaration of Independence for their efforts too while we are at it.
Sheesh!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is not that I'm not getting a piece of the profits, but rather that somebody it getting something for essentially nothing. Even though I'm not expecting any payment, I'm still getting cheated. Now, if this printed book will be sold for a price that does nothing more than cover the publishing and printing costs, meaning the person doing it gets no money for themselves out of the deal, then it's no big deal. But it is ethically wrong to make a profit on somebody else's free work.
A more accurate analogy of this situation would be me going around a neighborhood doing yardwork for free, and then somebody coming around behind me trying to collect fees for said work without having done any of the work themselves, other than the work of traipsing from door to door. Imagine if you found out that somebody was trying to take advantage of your free service. I think you'd be pretty ticked off, no matter who you are.
The bottom line is, no Wikipedia author should get paid for their work, but neither should anybody else who distributes said work in any form. To do so destroys the spirit of free information. The only I way I would support a printed version is if it was done in a way as to be completely non-profit. Another acceptable method would be for any proceeds to be channeled back into Wikipedia in order for them to further enhance their services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Bertelsmann is taking a financial cost in producing the book that might backfire. it's a risky venture - half of the appeal of Wikipedia is in its instantly searchable and ever-changing nature. Putting the site into book form entails risks that are totally the company's own, so they need to be compensated for it.
2. Either way, this move does not affect the content that's already online. In fact, it puts your work out there to be appreciated by a wider audience, doubly so if the book credits the entries. Personally, I'd be flattered rather than annoyed if my entry was chosen to be in the book - there's no physical way the entire thing can be printed and sold.
3. Legal talk here, but as with anything online, you should be aware of the terms and conditions of your interactions with any given site. Wikipedia members will have agreed to have their work distributed under a specific licence, so have no recourse when that licence is used.
4, I think your yard work analogy is completely off. Nobody's trying to take credit for the work that's been done under false pretences. They are simply moving the site to an offline mode, and taking the profits from the risk and costs of doing so. your analogy would be pure and simple fraud. This is more along the lines of contributors not realising that money could be made, and are now pissed that they didn't think of it first.
5. One last point - think about Penguin and other publishers of public domain work. Should Shakespeare's ancestors get a cut because a publisher sell his complete works? No, of course not - the works were there free for anyone to use, to be published with little additional work from the publisher. other than the age of the work involved, this is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What idiot would buy an encyclopedia that is updated and searchable online for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
open-source software analogy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hippies
Get a grip damn hippies!! If you want to get paid for the work then publish it yourself or get a deal to write for Encyclopedia Britannica. If you weren't smart enough to profit from it yourself, well, too bad. Life sucks, learn the lesson and get over it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little confusion?
"This doesn't change if X is 0."
I learned some time back that in contract law, there must be an EXCHANGE of value for a contract to be valid. That is, I must receive some compensation for my work - even if only $.01. If you paid me NOTHING for building your house, then there is no valid contract. If you paid me a penny, then there is.
Not sure how GNU and such licenses hold up under this - but I will grant that volunteer work for non-profits has never been held to the same test (at least not that I know)
"they "sell the bindings" that just happen to have scripture in them."
Actually, certain TRANSLATIONS of the bible ARE under copyright (NIV and NASB, for example). The copyright is on the specific translation, not on the original text. The KJV is, obviously, public domain.
"Unless the authors agreed to have there freely posted work distributed on a paid for basis (a book) your analogy is wrong."
Did the contributors to Linux specifically agree to Redhat making money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not sure i agree
You have a piece of property that is a public park free for all to use.
You ask me to help you make the park beautiful, I agree and do it for free since it is a public park free for all.
You take pictures of the park, print the pictures at your own expense, find a publisher to publish the book and sell it for a profit. The park is still there to be enjoyed and can be made even more beautiful by other people.
Sound legal and ethical to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Wait a minute
I would have a problem if i contributed for free then the WEBSITE wikipedia began to charge to read it without paying me. As this is not the case, I dont see the harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Wait a minute
On your second point, it would still be fine for Wikipedia to charge people to read the site - without paying contributors. The thing is, no-one would pay such a charge, especially given the first payer could copy the whole thing and permit free access to everyone else (or charge a slightly lower price).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if we go even further.....
Where's my cut?
A point; if wikipedia makes a loss, will you bail them out? People don't see the "risk" to make money, they just see the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny, this is two years old...
If I was Bertelsmann, I would refer to the Palm Pilot version and its lack of objection as an excellent example of why contributors really don't have a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this a first?
Would like to know if this this the first time someone's printing any or all parts of Wikipedia. I certainly hope more and more people come forward to release Wikipedia in print format because it would be a lot more useful than people think. Wiktionary should be next on the list.
Another point: People who sell printed Wikipedias in countries like India would be doing a great service, because the vast majority of people don't have Net access. And most of the encyclopedias available are either too expensive, or not uptodate, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the analogy, I think it makes more sense of me owning a piece of land. I let you come along and build whatever kind of house you want on it without paying you a dime. Then I let someone else come along and make an exact copy of it which they can charge money for. In the meantime, you've made no money but you're still allowed to change anything you want in the house, remove parts, add on parts, you can even make your own copy and charge for it, but any copy has to stay exactly as it is.
You could even go so far as to say that what you built are all parts taken from someone else and copied by you, because Wikipedia is essentially a repository of information available elsewhere, it's just centralized in one spot. So if you do make money off a Wikipedia contribution that you write, couldn't you say that you're making money off something someone else has already done as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all can do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ответ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]