On 2 March 2014 16:35, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. The extreme paranoia over images people created themselves
versus the ridiculously sloppy standards for anything on Flickr (a bot
can't meaningfully "verify" an image) makes Commons merely seem
capricious.
No the same standards are applied to flickr images. The bot is verifying
against later changes of license not that the license claim is correct. The
reality is though that flickr images tend to be either fine of
straightforward copyvios so arguments over less known areas of copyright
law tend not to be an issue. Its mostly a matter of spotting the stream has
an unlikely range of images or cameras.
tl;dr Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be worked around.
If people who consider themselves part of the Commons community don't
like that being noted, they're the ones who need to consider changing;
their intransigence up to now is *why* Commons appears to behave like
damage.
Because you and various other members of the project seem to view insisting
on free content as damaging. Fundamentally there isn't much that can be
done about.
--
geni