Something like this just requires trust. If you're an editor who has been around a while and the things you are uploading look plausibly like something you'd have the ability to say with confidence is CC-SA, then I don't see why anyone would give you any real trouble. It's when people upload a bunch of pictures obviously taken by Associated Press and label them as GFDL without elaboration that people start to get really suspicious.
I'm fine with trusting users who look like they deserve it. They are, after all, the ones affirming the copyright status of the image; unless I have a really good reason to doubt them I'm going to go with their call on these things.
Bots obviously lack such ability for judgment, unless they are human-augmented.
FF
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Mmm. I can't see e.g. Commons agreeing to allow images with no source indication.
So let me give a hypothetical. Say my grandmother takes a really awesome photograph. She doesn't want to create a Wikipedia or Commons account. In fact, she doesn't even have a computer. Furthermore, she doesn't want her name up on the Internet. But she is willing, after some persuasion from me, to license her photo under Sharealike 1.0.
Can I put this image in Wikipedia and/or Commons without lying?
Anthony
Just list the source as your grandmother. or as an anonymous donor.
I've been listing them as anonymous. And I've been getting messages from that stupid bot.
I guess I could create a sockpuppet and list the source as my grandmother, if it was indeed my grandmother. Do I need to do this, or is "anonymous" OK?
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l