CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the
sole problem here.
1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to
the extent reasonably practicable." must != to the extent reasonably
practicable
2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1> in any
reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You
Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing
to anyone have some commonsense.
3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the
court of his country?
Regards,
Jee
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for
the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law
of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do
not.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose <jkadavoor(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons,
I noticed that many of
our
media contributors are not well aware of the
terms of licenses they
grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced
in WMF projects. I don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement
between the contributors and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements.
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Co…
> )
> 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
> for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
> file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_som…
> )
> 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_per…
> ,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable…
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
Regards,
Jee
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>