We have no control over what Creative commons put up in their webspace. We currently regard the CC 3.0 series of licences as non free because of the way they handle moral rights. Obviously Creative commons dissagree.

Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)

Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)

I guess I better move my en.wikipedia images over to the commons. I tried using the tool to do that, but it gave me an error. What's the best way to migrate images from en.wikipedia?

On 7/13/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito <jito(a)neoteny.com> wrote: By hand, I fear ... also, please excuse how much the interface sucks. Which tool? CommonsHelper? http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/ commonshelper.php It's the best tool for moving from wikipedias, but it was working last time I checked :( -- Ayelie ~Editor at Large _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones. http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/07/13/ my_picture_of_pierre_in_businessweek.html

On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito <jito(a)neoteny.com> wrote: FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones. The best thing to do in this case is send them an email stating they 'forgot" to credit you. Tell them it's simple and that would avoid any procedure in which they would be forced to remove the image. They usually comply. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

It worked. I see the credit for your name there now. Congratulations! On 7/15/07, Joichi Ito <jito(a)neoteny.com> wrote: I sent them a nice letter yesterday. I'll let you know how it turns out. On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:16 JST, Guillaume Paumier wrote: > > On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito <jito(a)neoteny.com> wrote: FYI, I just > blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of > Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving > attribution on the Getty Images ones. > > The best thing to do in this case is send them an email stating > they 'forgot" to credit you. Tell them it's simple and that would > avoid any procedure in which they would be forced to remove the > image. They usually comply. > > -- > Guillaume Paumier > [[m:User:guillom]] > "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you > have imagined." Henry David Thoreau

On 7/13/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: We in this case is the positon commons has taken

On 7/14/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's non free. I fails to see why there should be any change of position.

On 7/14/07, Samuli Lintula <samuli(a)samulilintula.net> wrote: Under UK law it is posible to waive those rights. is unfree? Because it doesn't really place restictions on what you can do with the work -- geni _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

On 7/14/07, Fruggo <fruggo(a)gmail.com> wrote: Unless you move the image to the US. -- geni _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

How will moving the image help? When Dutch law applies to the picture, moving the image won't change that; at most Dutch and US law will be applicable.

On 7/14/07, Fruggo <fruggo(a)gmail.com> wrote: How were you planning on enforceing Dutch law in the US? -- geni _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Is that a relevant question? We're talking about the applicable law, not if it can be enforced. Whether it can or cannot be enforced in country X shouldn't be decisive to the decision to do or do not break the law.

On 14/07/07, Fruggo <fruggo(a)gmail.com> wrote: law other However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not apply. If this is not the case, I eagerly await Joichi's clarification and explanation, as noted. from to You may think you're presenting that as a reductio ad absurdum, but this is actually a serious possibility. - d. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Generally speaking, moral rights have to be addressed in the unported license to assure that this license would be enforceable by law in every jurisdiction, whether moral rights are exist or not. The criticism, that the wording of the moral rights section in the unported license could be read as if the licensee has the obligation "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" in every jurisdiction, even if moral rights are do not exist, is not legally correct. The important phrase "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" refers to every jurisdiction, whether moral rights exist or not. This means, that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist, this whole sentence is dispensable, because the applicable law does not permit anything else, meaning we have to respect moral rights (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether we like it or not. In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the first part of the sentence "or as otherwise permitted by applicable law" explicitly makes an exception to the rest of the sentence "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation". This exception ensures that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective law. The only problem here is the understanding of the wording "as otherwise permitted by applicable law". The right "to distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" will not be explicitly allowed by applicable copyright law, but you need to know, that it is not prohibited, if moral rights are do not exist. However, I also see the point, that besides being legally correct, CC licenses should be easily to understand. If people don't use CC licenses, because they don't understand them, we would have failed, even if the licenses are "accurate" in view of the law. We need to find the balance between legally well drafted licenses and a simple language. I agree, that the wording of the moral rights section in the "unported" license could probably have been drafted in a simpler way and less confusing so that everyone understands and it does not have to be discussed and explained in lots of E- mails.

But if this is not in fact the case I'm sure Joichi will eventually come back to this thread and clarify how the licenses don't mean what they appear to mean.

> The important phrase "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" > refers to every jurisdiction, whether moral rights exist or not. > This means, that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist, > this whole sentence is dispensable, because the applicable law does > not permit anything else, meaning we have to respect moral rights > (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the > licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any > other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be > prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether > we like it or not. >

I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well, at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S (please tell me I'm on the wrong track here) -Fruggo

On 14/07/07, Fruggo <fruggo(a)gmail.com> wrote: However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not apply.

On 7/14/07, Samuli Lintula <samuli(a)samulilintula.net> wrote:

Because it doesn't really place restictions on what you can do with the work

I believe you are completely mistaken. The way *i* understand it, the CC 3.0 licence simply states clearly in the text of the licence rights that exist and can't be waived in those countries where they exist anyway. In clear, the licence does not *add* any restriction that is not there in the first place.

It sounds like a decision has been made.

I uploaded a sample picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazareth_Christ_church_1.jpg Will anybody fix the license template please?