I agree with your principle. However whenever there is a way to game the system, someone will find it and use it. We have to stop this as it reflects poorly on those who work here with good faith. Using WMF sites for personal profit by using hidden or not easily visible traps is not what we are here to do, nor is providing the opportunity for enriching fraudsters who claim other people's work as their own. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Olatunde Isaac Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:37 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
I think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of xyz....".
Best,
Isaac Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 22:37:35 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an accompanying page.
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.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if - the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers (e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better - the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked - the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17