On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Mike Dupont
<jamesmikedupont(a)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