Thanks for the specific examples.
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.
The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is "It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.
I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project. But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.
I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a mistake in doing so.
Todd
On Mar 5, 2017 5:36 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, <grin> this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia </grin> We know that each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise. That is useful. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
thus
i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag
von
rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1:
<removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
or this
website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677
to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
wikipedia"
to
find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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
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
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