We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a
CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out
to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.
Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.
James
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)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:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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