Re: [Commons-l] Yet another GFDL violation in a big newspaper

http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/19/scisc issors119.xml> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_paper_scissors.jpg> Peter Blaise responds: I concur - the telegraph.co.uk web site seems to crap out when trying to make contact: * "Contact us" at the bottom of the quoted web page returns: * Sorry, the page you have requested is not available Please try again later * This error message may occur for a number of reasons: We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject * The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date * You may have followed a link from another web site that contains an incorrect or out of date URL (web page address) * You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser * There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site. !!! But I found on OTHER web sites the mention them: "...contact the Telegraph via 020 7931 2076 or email: photographs@telegraph.co.uk..." so I imagine ANY name(a)telegraph.co.uk will work, such as editor(a)telegraph.co.uk or webmaster(a)telegraph.co.uk and so on. Try it. The image in question has no identifying markers on it, or in it, that indicate origin - EXIF and IPTC are empty. So, if the image lands in somebody's browser cache on their own PC, then it will be brought up in their (free) Picasa / Google drive self-search with nothing more identifying it than this type of location: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\RICPZFAU\Rock_paper_scissors[1].jpg Where did it come from? The computer doesn't know! But, that's where the image is on MY hard drive, and that's where my Picasa found it after I browsed, and maybe the contributor to the Commons found it in THEIR Picasa web cache display before they uploaded it?!? No origin. No source identifier. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Until we learn to mark the Commons image files internally, and on their face, with at least a source identifier, Commons (and ANY image on the Internet) is acting like a free-for-all PD Public Domain farm. Also, unless the image contains something that actively engages the image in a copyright management system (DRM Digital Rights Management), then there is also no chance of successfully prosecuting anyone for tampering with it to remove source and copyright information. What's the problem here? What's the goal? What's your point? Do we want them to credit Commons as the source? Do we want them to not use the image if there is a profit transaction? Do we want them to negotiate republishing rights with the original copyright holder? Do we want them to explicitly state the image source and that it is free for anyone else to redistribute, and it is NOT part of their own copyright on the rest of their publication? What? What is your point, what do you want the telegraph.co.uk to have done? What do we want the Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/ to do? Auto EXIF / IPTC / DRM / watermark anyone? We're collecting a boatload of resources to freely share with the world. I'm not sure I understand if there was even a problem pointed to in the original post. More reading to do at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikime dia ... which illustrates TEXT reuse, not images. And of course, a Google search for "GFDL": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5628 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-swi tches-to-creative-commons/ http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update http://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/some_important_news_from_wikip.html ...