Maybe instead of using the POTY stack in the banner, we should create and use a WLM stack. At least by clicking the link you'd be in closer contact with the author info. On the other hand, this really is a small pic, so we shouldn't get carried away, but we have to be very careful on how we follow licences - we're setting the example for others here. Pete User:Smallbones
Hi Platonides and Pete, in any case, we cannot use an image licenced under a Creative Commons licence (which disqualifies almost all pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments), as they all require an attribution (the name or pseudonym of the author/copyright holder) and a URL to the licence text (not the deed!).
(Please also note that Susana specifically mentioned she does not need to be attributed to when the WLM logo is used in relation to the contest; however, the licence still requires a working URL to its text, so we are violating its requirements here, too.)
I agree that we (the Wikimedia community) should set an example in the usage of freely licenced files, so I am thinking as what we should do here.
We have two options: (1) remove the image created by Saibo from the banners (but we should then also remove the WLM logo) or (2) add working links to the images in the banners, and possibly also protect their description pages; this would, however, mean that we'll need to rebuild the templates so the links work for the files as well as for the websites; to do that, we could only use the text as the link.
Tomasz
Hi everyone.
Is it necessary to provide attribution and license text URL after every use of CC image? We can make a page 'Copyrights' on wikilovesmonuments.org where every thing will be attributed. I mean the banner stuff, website stuff, etc. Anyway, we'd have to link to this page in the banner or what...
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Platonides and Pete, in any case, we cannot use an image licenced under a Creative Commons licence (which disqualifies almost all pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments), as they all require an attribution (the name or pseudonym of the author/copyright holder) and a URL to the licence text (not the deed!).
(Please also note that Susana specifically mentioned she does not need to be attributed to when the WLM logo is used in relation to the contest; however, the licence still requires a working URL to its text, so we are violating its requirements here, too.)
I agree that we (the Wikimedia community) should set an example in the usage of freely licenced files, so I am thinking as what we should do here.
We have two options: (1) remove the image created by Saibo from the banners (but we should then also remove the WLM logo) or (2) add working links to the images in the banners, and possibly also protect their description pages; this would, however, mean that we'll need to rebuild the templates so the links work for the files as well as for the websites; to do that, we could only use the text as the link.
Tomasz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I suggest to keep a pragmatic view here. Let's not like real wikipedians go into all details and hurt ourselves here - but keep the spirit of free knowledge in mind. In this case it seems obvious Susana doesn't object - if she did she would have objected long ago and she indeed indicated explicitly that she didn't require naming etc in this context.
For the stack, one of the creators of the image clearly objected to its use in this way. Then lets not make a hard deal out of it, and just replace it. It is not like we have a shortage of images. Ideally lets use a PD image (perhaps one of the organizers would like to release one for this purpose?)
There is little to win in these detailed discussions.
Lodewijk
2012/9/5 Paul Selitskas p.selitskas@gmail.com
Hi everyone.
Is it necessary to provide attribution and license text URL after every use of CC image? We can make a page 'Copyrights' on wikilovesmonuments.org where every thing will be attributed. I mean the banner stuff, website stuff, etc. Anyway, we'd have to link to this page in the banner or what...
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Platonides and Pete, in any case, we cannot use an image licenced under a Creative Commons licence (which disqualifies almost all pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments), as they all require an attribution (the name or pseudonym of the author/copyright holder) and a URL to the licence text (not the deed!).
(Please also note that Susana specifically mentioned she does not need to be attributed to when the WLM logo is used in relation to the contest; however, the licence still requires a working URL to its text, so we are violating its requirements here, too.)
I agree that we (the Wikimedia community) should set an example in the usage of freely licenced files, so I am thinking as what we should do here.
We have two options: (1) remove the image created by Saibo from the banners (but we should then also remove the WLM logo) or (2) add working links to the images in the banners, and possibly also protect their description pages; this would, however, mean that we'll need to rebuild the templates so the links work for the files as well as for the websites; to do that, we could only use the text as the link.
Tomasz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Paul Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects p.selitskas@gmail.com, +375257408304 Skype: p.selitskas
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Yeah, you need a Uniform Reference Indicator (URI) for every use of a CC-BY photo. Look at sections 4a, 4b, and 4c here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Every day news outlets and blogs and most everyone online violates this and it's not enforced by anyone (Creative Commons or otherwise), but agreed we should be a model on this as we are one of the larger free license image repositories out there.
Some discussion of the matter here in relation to Facebook: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Face...
-Matthew
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Paul Selitskas p.selitskas@gmail.comwrote:
Hi everyone.
Is it necessary to provide attribution and license text URL after every use of CC image? We can make a page 'Copyrights' on wikilovesmonuments.org where every thing will be attributed. I mean the banner stuff, website stuff, etc. Anyway, we'd have to link to this page in the banner or what...
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Platonides and Pete, in any case, we cannot use an image licenced under a Creative Commons licence (which disqualifies almost all pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments), as they all require an attribution (the name or pseudonym of the author/copyright holder) and a URL to the licence text (not the deed!).
(Please also note that Susana specifically mentioned she does not need to be attributed to when the WLM logo is used in relation to the contest; however, the licence still requires a working URL to its text, so we are violating its requirements here, too.)
I agree that we (the Wikimedia community) should set an example in the usage of freely licenced files, so I am thinking as what we should do here.
We have two options: (1) remove the image created by Saibo from the banners (but we should then also remove the WLM logo) or (2) add working links to the images in the banners, and possibly also protect their description pages; this would, however, mean that we'll need to rebuild the templates so the links work for the files as well as for the websites; to do that, we could only use the text as the link.
Tomasz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Paul Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects p.selitskas@gmail.com, +375257408304 Skype: p.selitskas
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
For now, I have removed the stack photo from the banners. We are still violating the terms of the licence used by the logo, though.
Tomasz
2012/9/5 Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com:
For now, I have removed the stack photo from the banners. We are still violating the terms of the licence used by the logo, though.
Lusitana has just granted the right to use her work in relation to the contest WLM.without credits, so it is actually OK.
On 5 September 2012 12:11, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Lusitana has just granted the right to use her work in relation to the contest WLM.without credits, so it is actually OK.
She did agree not to mention her name when the logo is used in relation to the contest (and she did that in August 2011), but still -- the licence chosen makes it clear that it is required to place a link to its text whenever the image is used.
We cannot do that due to space limitation (and I am sure that a link in the "alt" or "title" attribution wouldn't count), so we are still violating its terms. Susana would probably need to release the logo into the public domain (or we'll need to change the banners so they link to the licence).
2012/9/5 Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com:
On 5 September 2012 12:11, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Lusitana has just granted the right to use her work in relation to the contest WLM.without credits, so it is actually OK.
She did agree not to mention her name when the logo is used in relation to the contest (and she did that in August 2011), but still -- the licence chosen makes it clear that it is required to place a link to its text whenever the image is used.
We cannot do that due to space limitation (and I am sure that a link in the "alt" or "title" attribution wouldn't count), so we are still violating its terms. Susana would probably need to release the logo into the public domain (or we'll need to change the banners so they link to the licence).
Well - not really. This is overinterpetation. She is not bound by the licence, as she is still a copyright owner, so she can release her work in any way she wishes to the selected people or for selected use. This is just like a kind of dual-licening. Maybe her statement on picture description could more formal, but legally it is actually OK. My lawyer English is rather poor - but her statement could be like this:
"I hereby grant to use my work without any credits to anyone and for any purpose as long as it is directly linked with Wiki Loves Monument Contest all over the world. In all other cases you must follow the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0".
people... if there is at some point a discussion worth of being called bikeshedding... it must be this one :)
I know we all love legal stuff but lets be pragmetic and just move on. The logo has been designed for these purposes, the intention is clear.
Lodewijk
2012/9/5 Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com
On 5 September 2012 12:11, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Lusitana has just granted the right to use her work in relation to the contest WLM.without credits, so it is actually OK.
She did agree not to mention her name when the logo is used in relation to the contest (and she did that in August 2011), but still -- the licence chosen makes it clear that it is required to place a link to its text whenever the image is used.
We cannot do that due to space limitation (and I am sure that a link in the "alt" or "title" attribution wouldn't count), so we are still violating its terms. Susana would probably need to release the logo into the public domain (or we'll need to change the banners so they link to the licence).
-- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 05/09/12 01:14, Paul Selitskas wrote:
Hi everyone.
Is it necessary to provide attribution and license text URL after every use of CC image? We can make a page 'Copyrights' on wikilovesmonuments.org where every thing will be attributed. I mean the banner stuff, website stuff, etc. Anyway, we'd have to link to this page in the banner or what...
That would indeed solve the problem. A note stating the license of the image shown on the previous page would be ok IMHO. *But* we are linking to 35 different websites. So it is actually easier to change the image (with which we also solve the oppose from the author).
Lodewijk:
people... if there is at some point a discussion worth of being called bikeshedding... it must be this one :)
I agree. The spirit of the WLM-exception seems to me that you do not need to attach any licensing information at all to the picture when using related to WLM.
However, for the sake of correctness I've asked her for a more explicit statement at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lusitana#WLM_logo_license
On 05/09/12 23:46, Platonides wrote:
Lodewijk:
people... if there is at some point a discussion worth of being called bikeshedding... it must be this one :)
I agree. The spirit of the WLM-exception seems to me that you do not need to attach any licensing information at all to the picture when using related to WLM.
However, for the sake of correctness I've asked her for a more explicit statement at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lusitana#WLM_logo_license
For the record, Lusitana added an exception for includubg the link as expected, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:LUSITANA_WLM_2011_d...
In her words, «I never thought people would actualy try to put a link to the license on the material»
:)
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org