Sure, and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with that.
However, in the current legal construct, the author can decide whether to apply that principle or not.
The question remains: if people apply principles that go way beyond that, what do we do? I think question that was put in the German community is a very realistic one, and if we don't tackle the issue, that may bite us later. There is no correct answer though - because both using and not using such image (or even deleting it) will have a downside to free knowledge. Either we don't show a piece of free knowledge, or we risk that people stop trusting our repository as a safe resource to reuse from.
There are multiple alternative approaches to the issue, besides stopping to use the image (or even deleting it). One is to add a warning to the description page. Rupert's proposal on this list is the mirror of that: adding a 'marked as safe' notice (which is what using a separate project basically is), for a subset of licenses that are considered reuse-friendly (not just in theory, but also in practice).
I personally feel that would go too far - and that we should tackle the actual problem: bad faith uploaders. This is, presumably, a very small percentage, and marking them as such may go a long way. I could even imagine prohibiting those users under certain circumstances to upload further material, as they are abusing the system. But that is rather a question for the Wikimedia Commons community, I suspect.
Lodewijk
2017-03-03 3:10 GMT+01:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
Peter does this work better https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
J
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try
to
attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones
James
mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it quite right.
If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good
faith
effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find acceptable.
Todd
On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Todd,
as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the
hope
that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies
to
that use, and they send them a bill.
If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to
the
caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some
licenses,
you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask
publishers
to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention
of
using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the discussion)
Best, Lodewijk
2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
acknowledgement
to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___________" to a
caption.
It
takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
can
see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very
minimal
things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer) material.
Todd
On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work
includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own) better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a
small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above,
the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last
10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse,
unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their work.
as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons
in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease
and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more, technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both sides.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_
abmahnenden_Fotografen
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-
abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
interview-mit-simplicius/
best rupert
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ 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