Hi all, bchoo asked me to take a look at this one. I think Tacsipacsi's analysis is broadly accurate, including the specific question about machine translation. The machine translation one is subject to some uncertainty now because of all the law on AI/ML happening. Based on the most recent copyright law office analysis, there would be two theories on machine translation being uncopyrightable, kind of on opposite ends of thinking. On one hand, if the machine is doing something very formulaic, predictable, and uncreative with no human creativity as part of it, then it's not creative enough for copyright. On the opposite end, if the machine is too random and disconnected from the human input, it appears that also means there's no human author and thus no copyright. If it's in-between where the machine is functioning as a complex tool to channel human creativity, then it might be copyrightable.

Hi folks, just want to add a note from WMF Legal since we're looking at this. We do think as Urbanecm relayed, that this info is personal data, and the discussion here already is correct in how to think about it. On GeneralNotability's point, we are planning to take a review over the privacy policy in the next couple years ("couple" used loosely here, we don't have a firm date yet) and can take this point into account as we update. I think what counts as personal info in various laws around the world has updated quite a bit in the last few years. Also as a general note, I at least am of the opinion that 2FA is good and helpful overall, even with problems it can cause. So if various legal and policy issues do cause significant disruption to the ability of folks to set it up, please let us know and we'll focus on finding ways to improve the situation.

Reviewed the ticket. Given the public nature of the info, we could make it public if you all deem it safe from a technical standpoint to do so.

Saw the note in our legal mail (thanks for reaching out that way!). Yes, this has legal approval to change.

Hi all, signing off here for the legal team. Yes, you can go ahead and change the dumps licensing description to more closely match the wikidata licensing page linked in this thread.

@Urbanecm Thanks for following up on the approval part of the policy, my apologies for not addressing it. I don't recall users running a normal whois search ever coming up, but it has also been part of regular practice for some time and is quite low risk, so I think we can give a general approval for the use of regular IP searches. For something bigger like this scripted tool, I had already taken a look at this one and it's approved for use (treat this post as written approval). I think for other tools that might allow a large number of requests like this, we probably should have some kind of legal and security review first and then approve them. I'll bring this up with the legal privacy team in our meeting next week to discuss what we should look for going forward so our process doesn't take too long.

We took a look and this doesn't violate the privacy policy or access to non-public info policies (although in general we'd always recommend using trustworthy services with good security). In the access to non-public info policy, roman numeral ii gives users with this sort of access permission to disclose this sort of data to
"service providers, carriers, or other third party vendors to assist in the targeting of IP blocks or the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers" which is what allows this here. The overall privacy policy also allows this kind of disclosure to protect people (section titled: To Protect You, Ourselves & Others) and includes users with advanced rights in that allowance.

Apologies that this stalled for a while. From our research, we don't believe that changing the language to remove the "I fully understand" section will have any impact on the enforceability of the CC licenses in Japan. The language regarding the licensing is likely clear enough and the Japanese Civil Code does not provide extra protections for any special language such as stating "I fully understand this."

@sbassett Just to confirm, legal has reviewed the use of the API here and this is approved.

Added some background info in the task description.

Hi all. This post was directed my way, as I read some Japanese and am one of the WMF lawyers who works on copyright and licensing issues. I may be able to assist, but I'm not sure what the request is related to. Could you let me know what you're looking for here? Feel free to also send an email to legal at wikimedia.org and we can communicate through there. I've found that to be easier if there's a lot of context someone wants to send us.

Of the suggestions from Strainu, I'd be okay with either 2 or 3. It doesn't need to be immediate, so having a bot flagging it for admin review would work.

The underlying worry that our previous GCs highlighted is that deleted information has some stuff that creates legal risks either for the WMF or sometimes individual users (or even if it may not actually be risky, it's the kind of material that could lead to a lot more complaints coming in, making for a large administrative burden for us). So, the right to review and access deleted material should be limited to ensure it's only available to a trusted group and it doesn't accidentally become public. We've relied on that trust being established through the RFA process, so I'm hesitant to give approval for a process that's shorter and only requires one commenter to participate.

Hi all. A couple thoughts. I note from the original ticket that there's a note that patrollers were all selected through an RFA style process, which would satisfy the need for community review before giving people rights. It's not clear to me from this thread if that's the process for all patrollers or if it's just coincidence that it applies to all patrollers right now. If the latter, I would suggest that you formalize that the process to get patroller rights requires a community review and then this is fine.

Hi all, commenting on this from WMF Legal.

@ZMcCune @Bawolff. I have some good news on the BebasNeue font. It seems to be floating around some different sites, but it appears that it has been freely licensed under the Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL) which is an acceptable free license for font usage. It shows up under this license in a few places, including the original designers website at http://dharmatype.com/license
So, you've got Legal approval for using that one.

Clarifying that this is approved from Legal as long as the CC license is present, putting it in the title field is not a requirement. I was suggesting use of title as a way to avoid it being cut off, but it's approved as long as the information is present.

Update. Legal is good with going forward on this. As a note, when filling these out, the CC license information should be in the name fields, to avoid it getting cut off for viewers on a mobile device, as it seems like the description field for some of these tags does not always display. The CC info can be pretty short. Something like [photo name] by [creator] CC [license type and version number]

Jumping in here. I'm hoping to help on this one to take a bit off Stephen's plate. What I was saying with @Ladsgroup is that having the CC notice with the picture is the ideal, since it makes it the easiest to make sure we're doing the license right. But it's probably okay to do this even if we can't make that work. I want to take a day or two to look into it a bit more.

@MarcoAurelio @JEumerus A DMCA isn't really effective for a leak. Even if one could DMCA a specific page, the leaked info would either not be copyrightable or could simply be paraphrased.

The best way to do an upgrade is to change the terms of use. Which would require a community consultation, so there would be an announcement and a discussion period, followed (one hopes) by consensus to upgrade the license. At that point, we would change the terms of use to 4.0 and update the footer along with the edit page and anywhere else that the license version might appear when contributing to the projects.

Hi Riley, would it be possible to do the digging? I've tried looking on our end and have not been able to find a conversation from Legal approving the change.

Hi all,