It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Andrew
2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232 However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)" If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Usually if someone (preferably the creator) contacts them suggesting how to do it right, places are keen to get it right. Asking nicely and reasonably is effective in practice.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey:
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232 However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)" If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Usually if someone (preferably the creator) contacts them suggesting how to do it right, places are keen to get it right. Asking nicely and reasonably is effective in practice.
For practical purposes it's the only way that would work. The creator is often the only person with the legal right to demand something like this. There is much good sense to the requirement that a formal take-down order must include a statement of how that person has the legal right to make such a demand. Without that sites would be inundated with literally-minded and officious twits who believe that they have made a fantiastic discovery of rampant lawlessness. WMF has never been keen on being named any kind of agent for the copyright owner, so when it gets down to the crunch he's on his own.
Ec
So, how *should* it be attributed? I'm confused...
Go Freedom! Unionhawk
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Andrew _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Unionhawkunionhawk.sitemod@gmail.com wrote:
So, how *should* it be attributed? I'm confused...
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Can I put the question in another way:
Suppose a media company lawyer came to us and said "we've found this photo on Wikimedia that we would like to use - how can we do this and comply with the copyright"
What would we say in response?
Is it written down anywhere?
----- "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2009 17:26:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Unionhawk wrote: > So, how *should* it be attributed? I'm confused... (Photo: Wikipedia ) I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We have a policy:
[[Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content]]
--Falcorian
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
Can I put the question in another way:
Suppose a media company lawyer came to us and said "we've found this photo on Wikimedia that we would like to use - how can we do this and comply with the copyright"
What would we say in response?
Is it written down anywhere?
----- "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2009 17:26:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Unionhawk wrote: > So, how *should* it
be attributed? I'm confused... (Photo: Wikipedia ) I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Falcorianalex.public.account+ENWikiMailingList@gmail.com wrote:
We have a policy:
[[Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content]]
It would be good to have something that specifically referred to reuse of images, since I think that is probably more common than reusing text.
Sam
2009/6/6 Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Falcorianalex.public.account+ENWikiMailingList@gmail.com wrote:
We have a policy:
[[Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content]]
It would be good to have something that specifically referred to reuse of images, since I think that is probably more common than reusing text.
Sam
I haven't checked it over lately but that should be at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
The policy seems to regard mostly text. In the case of a photo, there is almost always only one photographer (or, in my case) artist, so one name or ID should be enough. I could not find the particular photo used. As regards how these compliance checks happen, it is like anything on wikipedia. Nothing happens fast, unless you do it, and do not expect any lawyerly tasks to happen fast if they are also done well. _______ Universal Policy of Service: If you want it good and fast, then it will not be cheap. If you want it good and cheap, then it will not be fast. If you want it cheap and fast, then it will not be good.
"Falcorian" alex.public.account+ENWikiMailingList@gmail.com wrote in message news:4c6429690906051621w68933807ye42d3c91da386e75@mail.gmail.com...
We have a policy:
[[Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content]]
--Falcorian
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
Can I put the question in another way:
Suppose a media company lawyer came to us and said "we've found this photo on Wikimedia that we would like to use - how can we do this and comply with the copyright"
What would we say in response?
Is it written down anywhere?
----- "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2009 17:26:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Unionhawk wrote: > So, how *should* it
be attributed? I'm confused... (Photo: Wikipedia ) I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/6/5 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
Can I put the question in another way: Suppose a media company lawyer came to us and said "we've found this photo on Wikimedia that we would like to use - how can we do this and comply with the copyright" What would we say in response? Is it written down anywhere?
Yes - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia was written specifically to deal with this precise question.
- d.
Yes - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia was written specifically to deal with this precise question.
And a very good guide it is. It would be ideal if more media organisations followed its advice.
AGK
2009/6/6 AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia was written specifically to deal with this precise question.
And a very good guide it is. It would be ideal if more media organisations followed its advice.
It's useful to point people to :-) It certainly helped cut down the phone calls asking permission when people didn't have to ...
- d.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
Can I put the question in another way:
Suppose a media company lawyer came to us and said "we've found this photo on Wikimedia that we would like to use - how can we do this and comply with the copyright"
What would we say in response?
Is it written down anywhere?
"no synopsis can substitute for what the text of the licensehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_Licensesays, and if in doubt the reuser should seek a proper legal opinion" ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia)
Or, in this particular case, "you're the lawyer, you figure it out".
2009/6/6 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
"no synopsis can substitute for what the text of the licensehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_Licensesays, and if in doubt the reuser should seek a proper legal opinion" ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia) Or, in this particular case, "you're the lawyer, you figure it out".
Yep. That even the FSF can't explain the GFDL was another reason it was considered too broken to stay with.
- d.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Adding the license wouldn't be much harder:
(Photo: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg%22%3EWikipedia</a>, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a>)
Angela
2009/6/6 Angela beesley@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Adding the license wouldn't be much harder:
(Photo: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg%22%3EWikipedia</a>, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a>)
Angela
Not really. You are still entirely reliant on wikipedia servers staying up and the image staying in that place which is why you should host the credit and probably the GFDL locally.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/6 Angela beesley@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Adding the license wouldn't be much harder:
(Photo: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg%22%3EWikipedia</a>, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a>)
Angela
Not really. You are still entirely reliant on wikipedia servers staying up and the image staying in that place which is why you should host the credit and probably the GFDL locally.
As I said, *almost* everyone!
I do not think hosting the license is *quite* necessary, and I could be persuaded, especially before their webmaster has a chance to digest lunch. I think a caption below the image, which links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:WikiWitch would be an exemplary citation.
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f80608430906060455y45f8d176u5d883abd1858560a@mail.gmail.com...
2009/6/6 Angela beesley@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Adding the license wouldn't be much harder:
(Photo: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg%22%3EWikipedia</a>, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a>)
Angela
Not really. You are still entirely reliant on wikipedia servers staying up and the image staying in that place which is why you should host the credit and probably the GFDL locally.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Hell no. You didn't even credit the author.
Photo: WikiWitch at Wikipedia, under GFDL.
That's about the minimum you could get away with. You could probably ditch the "Wikipedia" actually, maybe link to their Wikipedia user page though.
(In this case, the photo is actually PD, so it's all moot).
Steve
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Hell no. You didn't even credit the author.
Photo: WikiWitch at Wikipedia, under GFDL.
That's about the minimum you could get away with. You could probably ditch the "Wikipedia" actually, maybe link to their Wikipedia user page though.
(In this case, the photo is actually PD, so it's all moot).
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images.
Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Korn wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Hell no. You didn't even credit the author.
Photo: WikiWitch at Wikipedia, under GFDL.
That's about the minimum you could get away with. You could probably ditch the "Wikipedia" actually, maybe link to their Wikipedia user page though.
(In this case, the photo is actually PD, so it's all moot).
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images.
You can put a lot of details into a free licence, but ss the number of details increases, compliance diminishes. Something like "Courtesy Wikipedia" may be the full extent of what you can realistically expect. Articles are relatively easier to link to than images, because articles have clear obvious plain-language titles, something which cannot always be said of images. In large measure the rules requiring detailed credits are completely unenforcible outside the WMF community.
Almost every website has its terms of service, which people rarely read, and more readily ignore. It is foolish to believe that using a site implies that the Terms of Service imply some kind of contract between the site owner and user.
Ec
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote in message news:4A32892B.90602@telus.net...
Sam Korn wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Korn wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Hell no. You didn't even credit the author.
Photo: WikiWitch at Wikipedia, under GFDL.
That's about the minimum you could get away with. You could probably ditch the "Wikipedia" actually, maybe link to their Wikipedia user page though.
(In this case, the photo is actually PD, so it's all moot).
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images.
You can put a lot of details into a free licence, but ss the number of details increases, compliance diminishes. Something like "Courtesy Wikipedia" may be the full extent of what you can realistically expect. Articles are relatively easier to link to than images, because articles have clear obvious plain-language titles, something which cannot always be said of images. In large measure the rules requiring detailed credits are completely unenforcible outside the WMF community.
Almost every website has its terms of service, which people rarely read, and more readily ignore. It is foolish to believe that using a site implies that the Terms of Service imply some kind of contract between the site owner and user.
I know that is how it seems sometimes, that ignorance is an excuse. Look at it this way, though: wikipedia is easier to learn than "build your own website", or "html made simple", or "common terms of service for internet service", so if we do not get some people thinking about these things, then nobody learns. _______ Your rights end where mine begin.
On 12 Jun 2009, at 11:13, Sam Korn wrote:
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images.
Images are generally the work of one, or a few people, whereas Wikipedia articles are the work of many.
In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine. I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case.
TBH, I think giving a list of usernames/authors of Wikipedia articles when they're reused would be best, but due to the number of authors that's more often than not impractical.
Mike
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
<snip>
In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine. I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case.
I'd agree with this as well. Photography is, in this sense, more an artform with a single end result, rather than a collaboration. Of course, by uploading to Commons, you are allowing people to take the original and modify it and so forth, but if the original you provided is used, most people expect to be credited for that. Ask those people who have numerous featured pictures and something of a reputation as a photographer. They would be most upset if their pictures were used without attribution. This is still the case even when photographers are paid for what they produce - being credited is how they build a reputation as a good photographer. Similar to how writers build a reputation as a good writer (with a byline).
The strange things about use within Wikipedia is how unstable it can be. Sometimes a picture you take will last in an article for years. Other times, even after years, someone will come along with a similar picture they have taken (sometimes better, sometimes not) and replace "your" picture with theirs. It is "deep breath" and calm down point at that time.
And then there are the thousands of pictures on Commons that are not being used, either because no-one knows they are there (they need sorting and categorising) or no-one has bothered to pick the best from a page or category to use on a page, or because the pictures are rubbish. It doesn't help that running a query across all projects for each of hundreds of photos one may have uploaded is not really practical. Ideally, uses of the photos would be recorded permenently, so you could just check periodically and note with interest that a picture you uploaded was used in an edit war on the Polish wikipedia, or that a picture you uploaded was used for 5 minutes on the Japanese wikipedia, and that a picture you uploaded has been in stable use on the English wikipedia for 3 years, and so on.
If that is already possible (examining the history of use of each image), please let me know (I'm going to be uploading some pics today).
Carcharoth
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 12 Jun 2009, at 11:13, Sam Korn wrote:
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images.
Images are generally the work of one, or a few people, whereas Wikipedia articles are the work of many.
In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine. I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case.
TBH, I think giving a list of usernames/authors of Wikipedia articles when they're reused would be best, but due to the number of authors that's more often than not impractical.
And for the (not insignificant number of) cases where there is more than one contributor to an image? E.g. where an image has been touched up by another user?
I'm suggesting a simple, catch-all method. If the method we suggest isn't simple, it won't be followed.
I agree entirely that giving a list of users would be *best*, but I'm not sure that practically we have that option.
Sam
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 12 Jun 2009, at 11:13, Sam Korn wrote:
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that would be different for images.
Images are generally the work of one, or a few people, whereas Wikipedia articles are the work of many.
In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine. I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case.
TBH, I think giving a list of usernames/authors of Wikipedia articles when they're reused would be best, but due to the number of authors that's more often than not impractical.
And for the (not insignificant number of) cases where there is more than one contributor to an image? E.g. where an image has been touched up by another user?
It's not uncommon to credit more than one user. Look at the NASA telescope picture credit lines for examples. In practice, though, newspapers (with limited print space) may put an abbreviated version, or just "NASA". In books, where the practice is more usual to put a dedicated page of credits at the end of the book, the full credit is more likely. I believe I *have* seen full credit given for Wikipedia images and the user in question, in print books, but may be misremembering.
Carcharoth
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8ceeef70906112226t56603352y27a9fc22fbea996d@mail.gmail.com...
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Sam Kornsmoddy@gmail.com wrote:
(Photo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Houses_of_Parliament.jpg">Wikipedia</a>)
I imagine that would satisfy *almost* everyone.
Hell no. You didn't even credit the author.
Photo: WikiWitch at Wikipedia, under GFDL.
That's about the minimum you could get away with. You could probably ditch the "Wikipedia" actually, maybe link to their Wikipedia user page though.
If two people get the same idea, then I am thinking it is probably good.
(In this case, the photo is actually PD, so it's all moot).
In GB, it might be PD, and probably even in this Colony of Canada. I do not know about anywhere else. It is only moot if the policy does not apply differently to images that you can copyright.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Turveyandrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
No. What's needed is:
1) A copy of the GFDL. For web uses, a link to the GFDL is generally accepted as complying with this.
2) The preservation of any copyright notices, and of the notice that the thing is available under the GFDL.
The situation is slightly different if using a modified version, but that's not usually the case when photos are used.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Andrew wrote:
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
No. What's needed is:
- A copy of the GFDL. For web uses, a link to the GFDL is generally
accepted as complying with this.
- The preservation of any copyright notices, and of the notice that
the thing is available under the GFDL.
The situation is slightly different if using a modified version, but that's not usually the case when photos are used.
That's highly unrealistic, especially for print media. A link to the source is about as much as can be sensibly expected.
Ec
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
I suppose the Free Software Foundation would be the body responsible for chasing up copyright violations, but, if they are anything like almost every other non-profit in the world, they probably don't have the time nor the resources to do so.
The individuals whose work is the object of the violation (i.e., the editor who uploaded the photo) could also chase up the copyvio by means of a private lawsuit, but obviously that isn't going to happen.
AGK
"AGK" wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote in message news:a342424e0906051009g38d27b9dked2193916a6dc98c@mail.gmail.com...
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
I suppose the Free Software Foundation would be the body responsible for chasing up copyright violations, but, if they are anything like almost every other non-profit in the world, they probably don't have the time nor the resources to do so.
The individuals whose work is the object of the violation (i.e., the editor who uploaded the photo) could also chase up the copyvio by means of a private lawsuit, but obviously that isn't going to happen.
It happens. It should be a last ditch. Last decade, when I was chasing up problems on articles or encouraging standard HTML, most sites did hav a webmaster account, even if it was not serviced. On rare occasions, I could hit C on my browser (Lynx) and get the owner of a page addressed in my e-mail software. Lawyers should not enter the equation unless you hav no clue that the problem exists (and there are legal foundations that check these things if you read http://bit.ly/hZsWF -- RE: When copyright paranoia isn't ), or unless you ran out of clues about what to do about a problem.
Subject-Was: GFDL compliance Speculative Addressee: webmaster at website in URL.
The photo at the top, of Westminster Abbey? It is not carefully cited regarding the source. Could I ask you to pull the photo from wikipedia again to get a more ultimate source? If you click on the photo, then you should be able to find someone who knows their way around a camera. I wish I could say that all wikipedians were that dangerous.
Sorry, what? I see that the photo at the top of that URL is the same as this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Houses.of.parliament.overall.arp.jpg
That one is listed as public domain - so they don't even have to credit it. It says an Adrian Pingstone took the photo in 2005 and released it into PD. What's the problem, exactly?
Steve
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jay Litwynbrewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
Subject-Was: GFDL compliance Speculative Addressee: webmaster at website in URL.
The photo at the top, of Westminster Abbey? It is not carefully cited regarding the source. Could I ask you to pull the photo from wikipedia again to get a more ultimate source? If you click on the photo, then you should be able to find someone who knows their way around a camera. I wish I could say that all wikipedians were that dangerous.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l