From commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Earlier: "... When I read this article [0] on "Telegraph", I knew I have seen the image before, somewhere [1]... I know this is not the first time nor the last this happens, I just wanted to highlight it, as I think it is one of the biggest newspapers in the UK. I see no way to contact them *. I suppose that, for some people, we are a just bunch of PD images... :-( [0]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/19/scisc issors119.xml
[1]
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We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject * The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date * You may have followed a link from another web site that contains an incorrect or out of date URL (web page address) * You may have typed an incorrect URL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@telegraph.co.uk will work, such as editor@telegraph.co.uk or webmaster@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
...
Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
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
Wrong! Just browse to C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files You'll get a nice two column system with the filenames and its URL. (and not being smart enough to find out doesn't mean "use at will"!)
Also, it appears just doing a search on google images with the filename... but not on commons! I suspect they copied it from http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/images/2006/05/250px-Rock_paper_scissors.jpg and saved it with a border at lower quality (note that metblogs file is called 250px but is 185px, so it's a resizing of thumbnail at en:Rock,_Paper,_Scissors of commons:Image:Rock_paper_scissors.jpg).
The process could have been: Vix929 creates and uploads Image:Rock_paper_scissors.jpg from several images, en:Rock,_Paper,_Scissors article includes it as 250px. sf.metblogs resizes it even more and puts at http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/2006/05/rock_paper_scissors.phtml the telegraph makes a border, lowers quality and publishes at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/19/sciscissor...
I had a similar issue recently, and the journalist whom I contacted by phone told me that he had checked the EXIF and IPTC, and acted as he had, failing to find relevant information there. I also contacted the person responsible for putting my image without any source, author or information on their image database, who wrote me that it was the responsability of the author to give information (sic).
Now, we want to be practical: - As to the ignorance of these professionals with respect to their own field, I don't think that much can be done. We cannot educate all these people into Bern Conventions, copyright being automatic, images not to be used unless one has authorisation, etc. - But we can make efforts provide EXIF and IPTC
It's either that, or a painful campaign against piracy, which I doubt would be efficient and sustainable. -- Rama
On 22/12/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
I had a similar issue recently, and the journalist whom I contacted by phone told me that he had checked the EXIF and IPTC, and acted as he had, failing to find relevant information there. I also contacted the person responsible for putting my image without any source, author or information on their image database, who wrote me that it was the responsability of the author to give information (sic).
Now, we want to be practical:
- As to the ignorance of these professionals with respect to their own
field, I don't think that much can be done. We cannot educate all these people into Bern Conventions, copyright being automatic, images not to be used unless one has authorisation, etc.
- But we can make efforts provide EXIF and IPTC
It's either that, or a painful campaign against piracy, which I doubt would be efficient and sustainable.
Aw, where's the option for legal action?
Or at least a stiffly worded letter and an invitation to inform themselves for next time?
cheers Brianna
Aw, where's the option for legal action?
Or at least a stiffly worded letter and an invitation to inform themselves for next time?
cheers Brianna
As you can imagine, I have neither the sort of time or money that I would have to devote to a legal action.
As a matter of fact, I think that this is becoming a real problem : some people obviously decided to treat us like some sort of free-of-charge, don't-say-thanks, step-on-our-licences source of images, precisely because they know that, in practice, nobody will seriously complain. (Which is quite ironic on the part of people who are easily offended by "piracy", when it's about a 15-year copying mp3s of lousy albums he'd never buy anyway.)
Of course I'd like to see one patent example of such violation taken in court and serve as an example for others, but this means that someone will have to actually take the burden on his shoulders (and personally, that's not my career plan). -- Rama
On 22/12/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Aw, where's the option for legal action?
If the violator is hosted in the US, anyone can send a DMCA notice. When someone is blatantly stealing your stuff and has said they don't care, it can work wonders. c.f. Matthew Garrett DMCAing the MPAA recently.
- d.
The incident that started the thread was in British newspaper. My images were used improperly in Swiss and French papers. I am afraid that we will have to think more broadly than the USA. -- Rama
On Dec 22, 2007 12:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Aw, where's the option for legal action?
If the violator is hosted in the US, anyone can send a DMCA notice. When someone is blatantly stealing your stuff and has said they don't care, it can work wonders. c.f. Matthew Garrett DMCAing the MPAA recently.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 22/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Aw, where's the option for legal action?
If the violator is hosted in the US, anyone can send a DMCA notice. When someone is blatantly stealing your stuff and has said they don't care, it can work wonders. c.f. Matthew Garrett DMCAing the MPAA recently.
I found this one today: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2007/12/tree-of-the-w-2.html#comments "Photo Credit: commons.wikimedia.org" (no link or anything) from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Orange_tree_%28chez_fine%29.jpg from http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilbanks/100480646/
DMCA takedown notice seems overkill. Geez, we already provide free content, is it so hard to fulfill the license conditions? I just want to poke them and say "improve your credit-giving regime".
cheers Brianna
On 23/12/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
DMCA takedown notice seems overkill. Geez, we already provide free content, is it so hard to fulfill the license conditions? I just want to poke them and say "improve your credit-giving regime".
Oh yeah, do that first ;-) Always seek compliance first!
- d.
I don't mean to be a killjoy, but taking the example of the image by David Monniaux, for instance, and licence compliance nonwistanding, doesn't "courtesy of Wikimedia Commons" make us a more efficient publicity than "GFDL" ?
there might be some food for though in the fact that we are requesting a lower profile, in practice. Should we encourage people to * Put proper EXIFs * double-licence their images under a Free CC licence * put an example of proper credits including a mention of Commons (like "(c)Rama / Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa) below all images ?
-- Rama
On Dec 23, 2007 1:08 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
DMCA takedown notice seems overkill. Geez, we already provide free content, is it so hard to fulfill the license conditions? I just want to poke them and say "improve your credit-giving regime".
Oh yeah, do that first ;-) Always seek compliance first!
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Rama Rama wrote on Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:57 PM:
- put an example of proper credits including a mention of Commons (like
"©Rama / Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa) below all images ?
That sounds like a thing we could do anyway. Maybe we could add something additional to the link "Reuse this image" in {{information}} to the license tags. I'm thinking about a text that you can copy to your website/newspaper in order to get a valid credit line in dependence of the license. Maybe a box saying: "You can use this picture, if you put the following line under it".
We could even use some JS magic in order to insert the author mentioned in {{information}}
What do you think?
Regards.
Flo
On 08/01/2008, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
That sounds like a thing we could do anyway. Maybe we could add something additional to the link "Reuse this image" in {{information}} to the license tags. I'm thinking about a text that you can copy to your website/newspaper in order to get a valid credit line in dependence of the license. Maybe a box saying: "You can use this picture, if you put the following line under it".
We could even use some JS magic in order to insert the author mentioned in {{information}}
What do you think?
Regards.
Flo
I think that that is not remotely in keeping within the terms of the license.
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:40 PM:
On 08/01/2008, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
That sounds like a thing we could do anyway. Maybe we could add something additional to the link "Reuse this image" in {{information}} to the license tags. I'm thinking about a text that you can copy to your website/newspaper in order to get a valid credit line in dependence of the license. Maybe a box saying: "You can use this picture, if you put the following line under it".
We could even use some JS magic in order to insert the author mentioned in {{information}}
What do you think?
Regards.
Flo
I think that that is not remotely in keeping within the terms of the license.
If you mean GFDL, you're right. We can of course also include "... copy and link the license text to the picture ..."
On Jan 8, 2008 6:50 AM, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Rama Rama wrote on Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:57 PM:
- put an example of proper credits including a mention of Commons (like
"(c)Rama / Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa) below all images ?
That sounds like a thing we could do anyway. Maybe we could add something additional to the link "Reuse this image" in {{information}} to the license tags. I'm thinking about a text that you can copy to your website/newspaper in order to get a valid credit line in dependence of the license. Maybe a box saying: "You can use this picture, if you put the following line under it".
We could even use some JS magic in order to insert the author mentioned in {{information}}
What do you think?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wei%C3%9Fenbrunn_im_Landkreis_Kronac...
Magnus
"Magnus Manske" magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:00 AM:
On Jan 8, 2008 6:50 AM, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Rama Rama wrote on Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:57 PM:
- put an example of proper credits including a mention of Commons (like
"(c)Rama / Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa) below all images ?
That sounds like a thing we could do anyway. Maybe we could add something additional to the link "Reuse this image" in {{information}} to the license tags. I'm thinking about a text that you can copy to your website/newspaper in order to get a valid credit line in dependence of the license. Maybe a box saying: "You can use this picture, if you put the following line under it".
We could even use some JS magic in order to insert the author mentioned in {{information}}
What do you think?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wei%C3%9Fenbrunn_im_Landkreis_Kronac...
I almost forgot that one. Can we activate it as default?
Regards,
Flo
On 22/12/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
I had a similar issue recently, and the journalist whom I contacted by phone told me that he had checked the EXIF and IPTC, and acted as he had, failing to find relevant information there. I also contacted the person responsible for putting my image without any source, author or information on their image database, who wrote me that it was the responsability of the author to give information (sic).
A DMCA notice would focus the attention of such idiots wonderfully.
- d.