On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
Well I found it disturbing, and i stlll find it disturbing.
I still find that we are failing our mission if we just accept this. Someone has to stand up and say something about this, so I guess I will have to stand alone.
here are some stats on the licences in general http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metrics/License_statistics I did not find any license stats for wikipedia or commons.
Also a number of images are fair usage on wikipedia.
In any case, it is a bad example for kids, it is a bad example for students, it is a bad example for anyone. we should not allow the wikipedia logo and name to be used in such a manner.
People need to check the license before you use them, advertising agencies cannot just take pictures off the wikipedia and copy them into your advertising, students cannot just copy them into their homework. You need to research into them first and check the license.
I guess, this is just one of the times where things in Hollywood are a bit different than in real life. The students and kids will just have to realize that things in films are not always true to life... (Without having seen the movie, I guess a long sequence on proper licensing would have been very boring, and ad agencies in real life would have a legal team making sure the licences are alright and who would be sued if they aren't – it's not like they would take their cues from a short scene in a Smurfs movie.)
Best regards, Bence