accordingly then
once the discussion here is over.
-Yonatan
On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/20/07, samuli(a)samulilintula.net <samuli(a)samulilintula.net> wrote:
Erik, if
a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the
wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a
valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental
and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible
from a position of ethics.
IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with
FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a
dropdown box.
Please re-read what I wrote. You've misunderstood me and I'm not sure
how to clarify other than to say that I'm speaking about Flickr users
and not flickrlickr users.
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr
refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the
accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against
situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr
user.
A second checks is just as silly an idea as
double checking all images
uploaded directly to Commons.
We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used
FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same
person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.
Well, I'm not going to touch any of those
images I uploaded with
FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a
stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to
do.
No one asked you to.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l