On 8 July 2012 16:44, Adam Cuerden <cuerden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm commenting here because I honestly didn't
think Commons could be
acting in a manner that required them to actively ignore laws, and
thought it highly unlikely that Commons would be actively removing
mere requests for credit from works. That Commons apparently is doing
both of those is pretty much my limit for trying to engage with
Commons.
That's a separate allegation. Removing credit is clearly incorrect -
that's the provenance of the image and it needs to be kept. However,
that's an entirely separate matter from (a) asserting a nonexistent
copyright (b) claiming said copyright as a reason to keep attribution
with it.
Do you have diffs showing removal of the correct provenance of images?
Not removal of dubious assertions of copyright, but of the thing
you've just actually claimed in this email.
- d.