CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the sole problem here.
1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable." must != to the extent reasonably practicable
2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1 in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing to anyone have some commonsense.
3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law." Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the court of his country? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
Regards, Jee
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of
our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
- Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements.
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_some...
) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_pers...
,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_...
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe