Meeting with a copyright lawyer out of Vancouver next week. Will have more
details soon.
James
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:55 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
i got two further links in private mails which seem
helpful in this
area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in
"safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and
attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as
it can be easy explained to users:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in
section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a
notification:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and
andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a
wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully
agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an
image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't
it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much?
james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the
license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report
copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is
violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if
*thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in
contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news
here?
best
rupert
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne <lilburne(a)tygers-of-wrath.net>
wrote:
It probably isn't fair. But then again
without actually contacting the
copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that
reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in
a
world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to
fouling up the
licenses.
Flickr does not allow people to upload CC
licensed images from other
people
because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose
Jane Doe uploads an CC
image
from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the
image it will end up
being
credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation
becomes very hard if Joe
Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from
multiple other people.
When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create
a
liability for down stream reusers.
On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not
> comply
> with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
> expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
>
> For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
> author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
> Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that
> information
> is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
> page.[1]
>
> Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
> being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So
why
> shouldn't people think that they are
allowed to use an image in exactly
> the
> same way Wikipedia is using it?
>
> If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them,
given
> what they have been told, to right-click on
it and select copy, without
> even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if
they
> do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a
link to the source, they
can
> get slapped with a bill for several thousand
dollars or euros.
>
> One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
> who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
> Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the
required
ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza <gtisza(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time
this
>> came up (the thread was called
"harald bischoff advertising to make
>> images
>> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It
involved
>> (amongst
>> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia
>> article
>> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the
image
>> description page; but no author or
license), and was slapped with a
>> ~$1000
>> fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral
>> standing
>> of the movement IMO.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine