On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne <lilburne(a)tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:
it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
that
Commons actually recommends that they do.
It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
termed)
If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users
absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.
Why?
Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license
that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a
fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on
your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over
for the attribution/license.
the link is good enough imo, commons does not throw away the record
that the foto was there and everything can be reconstructed in case of
trouble. but - i'd love that this gets solved on a technical level.
every media file in commons either contains the author, or it is set
by wikipedia software into the metadata. resizing and storing retains
this information. after a while all toolchains will retain such
information and the problem of wikipedia as cause of cease and desist
letters (german: abmahnung) [0] will cease to exist. even for offline
wikipedia (kiwix, and similar) and direct links to media. there was a
non-wikipedia case a while ago [1], where the court says even in
direct links to the image you should be able to see the author and
license. it was dragged on to a higher instance but i could not find
what the final judgement was.
another challenge in this context are "user defined licenses". those
were used by lawyers cease and desist letters bearing a 600-1500 eur
price tag. there seems to be even a business in fighting such letters,
naming wikipedia authors [2][3]. just as example, one of the mentioned
users images has Permission={{User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2}} as foto
license. [4]. different author, same strategy, outcome "You must
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"
for a cc-by-sa 3.0 foto [5]
[0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung
[1]
http://www.chip.de/news/LG-Koeln-Copyright-Urteil-schafft-neue-Abmahn-Falle…
[2]
http://www.abmahnung.de/abmahnung-rechtsanwalt-dr-iur-hans-g-muesse-im-auft…
[3]
http://www.obladen-gaessler.de/wikipedia-abmahnung-durch-ra-dr-hans-g-muess…
[4]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farmer_plowing_in_Fahrenwalde,_Meck…
[5]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-06-08_Projekt_Hei%C3%9Fluftbal…