Why it's bad
[edit]- Non-compliant redistribution defeats the point of open content. Other people who see the unlicensed content will not know who wrote it, will not know that they have the right to obtain the source, will not know that the content comes from Wikivoyage and will not be able to contribute their knowledge.
- Non-compliant redistribution violates the copyrights of the original authors. They have agreed to license their work under the specific conditions of the CC by-sa 3.0 license only, and the copyright holder can, legally speaking, sue offenders for copyright violation.
What to do
[edit]Non-compliant redistribution should be addressed by contacting the distributor in question and gently and politely noting their obligations under the license. Pointing to the how to re-use Wikivoyage guides page is a good way of showing them what to do and how to do it, and most people are happy to comply if asked nicely.
Only the authors have any right to demand compliance. If a re-user has copied all or large parts of Wikivoyage, you can probably find a page for which you are the main author, or for which you have contributed significant content that hasn't been edited much by others. The content must reach the threshold of originality to earn you a copyright, so if you use a page as an example, choose one in which you haven't just added standard wordings (such as in most listings). Most photos and other images would also qualify. If you cannot find such a page, leave the action to somebody else.
Please report sites you find that may potentially infringe any of our copyrights, whether intentionally or unintentionally, on this page's discussion page or send an email to [email protected] where the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team may be able to promptly respond to the matter.