On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/07, samuli@samulilintula.net <samuli@samulilintula.net> wrote:
> > Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the
> > wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a
> > valid release under that license.  Not only would such an accidental
> > and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible
> > from a position of ethics.
>
> IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with
> FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a
> dropdown box.

Please re-read what I wrote. You've misunderstood me and I'm not sure
how to clarify other than to say that I'm speaking about Flickr users
and not flickrlickr users.

> > Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr.  Flickr
> > refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the
> > accumulate.  A second human review is a good sanity check against
> > situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
>
> Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr user.
> A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images
> uploaded directly to Commons.

We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used
FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same
person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.

> Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with
> FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a
> stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to
> do.

No one asked you to.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l