All,
I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's about licencing.
Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
The CC family of licences, and Commons re-use guidelines, however, say that you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this? - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
Your thoughts much appreciated!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The CC family of licences, and Commons re-use guidelines, however, say that you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this?
- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full
byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
Your thoughts much appreciated!
Considering mixing my elephant (in corner) and worm (can of) metaphors...
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
pb
___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The CC family of licences, and Commons re-use guidelines, however, say
that
you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable
as
attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this?
- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the
full
byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
Your thoughts much appreciated!
Considering mixing my elephant (in corner) and worm (can of) metaphors...
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we can't presume the creators have clicked said button.
- d.
And I'm also unsure all the upload wizards have the same text?
2013/1/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we can't presume the creators have clicked said button.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I've always considered this poor policy on the part of Wikipedia; a sort of intellectual "grab" that we do so well :(
I've uploaded images before by great photographers, after working to obtain their permission, and make a point of crediting them when inserting the image into the article - partly because it's useful to know and partly because it seems fair.
Tom
On 22 January 2013 17:46, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
And I'm also unsure all the upload wizards have the same text?
2013/1/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under
the
Creative Commons license."
Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we can't presume the creators have clicked said button.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
All,
I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's about licencing.
Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
Hi Richard, On the Wikimedia blog, we include "Copyright notes" at the bottom of each post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name (and link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page on CC or elsewhere. See for example: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-ce...
This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that we appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin end or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give to post authors and editors: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Note...
thanks, Matthew
Hi,
great question, Richard! Seconding Matthew's comment on WMF blog policy: At Wikimedia Deutschland we adopted the bottom notes for posts with multiple images[1]. As a general rule, we include attribution in the bylines[2].
Adding yet another aspect to sufficient CC licensing, let's not forget that CC deeds actually recommend linking to deeds[3], as exemplified here[4].
I particularly like Thomas' notion of not differentiating between attribution requirements for text and images. From my personal understanding of CC license terms, I agree. There is no difference, which indeed leads to the question:
"How to deal with authorship attribution of dozens of authors (to pick a rather simple example) under CC-BY-SA in any convincing manner?" That is, "convincing" as in "intuitive and practical use cases".
I sense that this is, first of all, an issue for Creative Commons licensing politics.
Best, Michael
[1] see e. g. https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/17/die-gesichter-hinter-den-zahlen-ein-ruc... [2] see e. g. https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/21/die-server-der-wikimedia-foundation-zie... [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [4] please follow the asterisc here http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/06/20/zahlen-und-bilder-die-wikimania-2012-in-...
2013/1/22 Matthew Roth mroth@wikimedia.org
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
All,
I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's about licencing.
Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
Hi Richard, On the Wikimedia blog, we include "Copyright notes" at the bottom of each post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name (and link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page on CC or elsewhere. See for example:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-ce...
This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that we appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin end or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give to post authors and editors:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Note...
thanks, Matthew
--
Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hello all,
An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is this going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles illustrated with images too? Apologies if I've missed something here.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 22 January 2013 23:51, Michael Jahn michael.jahn@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi,
great question, Richard! Seconding Matthew's comment on WMF blog policy: At Wikimedia Deutschland we adopted the bottom notes for posts with multiple images[1]. As a general rule, we include attribution in the bylines[2].
Adding yet another aspect to sufficient CC licensing, let's not forget that CC deeds actually recommend linking to deeds[3], as exemplified here[4].
I particularly like Thomas' notion of not differentiating between attribution requirements for text and images. From my personal understanding of CC license terms, I agree. There is no difference, which indeed leads to the question:
"How to deal with authorship attribution of dozens of authors (to pick a rather simple example) under CC-BY-SA in any convincing manner?" That is, "convincing" as in "intuitive and practical use cases".
I sense that this is, first of all, an issue for Creative Commons licensing politics.
Best, Michael
[1] see e. g.
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/17/die-gesichter-hinter-den-zahlen-ein-ruc... [2] see e. g.
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/21/die-server-der-wikimedia-foundation-zie... [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [4] please follow the asterisc here
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/06/20/zahlen-und-bilder-die-wikimania-2012-in-...
2013/1/22 Matthew Roth mroth@wikimedia.org
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
All,
I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing.
It's
about licencing.
Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
Hi Richard, On the Wikimedia blog, we include "Copyright notes" at the bottom of each post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name
(and
link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page
on
CC or elsewhere. See for example:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-ce...
This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that
we
appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin
end
or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give to post authors and editors:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Note...
thanks, Matthew
--
Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260
http://wikimedia.de http://www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
*Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:* http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 23 January 2013 10:10, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hello all,
An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is this going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles illustrated with images too? Apologies if I've missed something here.
Yes, I think Richard's initial question was about Wikipedia, etc.. The subject of blogs was just raised as an example of somewhere we sometimes take a different approach.
My initial question was aimed to find out what sort of attribution we'd need to do on Wikimedia UK sites - eg, uk.wikimedia.org and blog.wikimedia.org.
I'm not really *keen* on changing policy on Wikipedia. That's not my job!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 23 January 2013 12:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2013 10:10, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hello all,
An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is
this
going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles illustrated with images too? Apologies if I've missed something here.
Yes, I think Richard's initial question was about Wikipedia, etc.. The subject of blogs was just raised as an example of somewhere we sometimes take a different approach.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 23/01/2013 12:39, Richard Symonds wrote:
My initial question was aimed to find out what sort of attribution we'd need to do on Wikimedia UK sites - eg, uk.wikimedia.org and blog.wikimedia.org.
I'm not really *keen* on changing policy on Wikipedia. That's not my job!
In that case just do what flickr does when someone grabs the code from the "Share->Grab the HTML/BBCode" link.
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this?
- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full
byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well?
It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.
The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you import something the author has made no such agreement.
On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this? - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well?
It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.
The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you import something the author has made no such agreement.
Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark. If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of it.
2013/1/22 ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk:
On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this? - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use thefull byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well?
It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.
The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you import something the author has made no such agreement.
Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark. If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of it.
That's a very simplified description of what happened. See e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/News_a...
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The CC family of licences [...] however, say that you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.
Err, where?
Looking at the text of the CC-BY-SA-3.0, it looks to me like it says to "provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing" various information, but doesn't specify exactly how this is to be presented. It even explicitly says "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner". Is linking to an image description page with all this information reasonable to the medium of an online encyclopedia using the MediaWiki software?
It also says you must "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work", but it doesn't seem to specify what exactly "keep intact" means. If you take a CC-licensed mp3 with a copyright notice in the id3 tag and use it as part of the soundtrack for your feature film, you can't exactly keep the id3 tag but you could transfer it to the credits. Does that keep it intact? If you crop a copyright notice watermark off of an image but transcribe the text of the notice to the image's metadata (or MediaWiki file description page), does that keep it intact?
The "armchair lawyers" on Wikipedia and Commons typically answer these questions as "yes". If you really want to know the answers to all these questions, ask a real lawyer and/or take it to court for an actual ruling.
- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
It has come up on enwiki's Village pump several times. Probably on Commons's equivalent as well.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org