In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant. Main confusions are in three areas: 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com... ) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_some... ) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_pers..., https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_... )
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal advice is out of question.
The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in some way, please propose tweaks: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_Creative_Commons_lic...
Nemo
"For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"
But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they all must meet exact license terms.
Regards, Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal advice is out of question.
The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in some way, please propose tweaks: https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_ Creative_Commons_licenses
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
See. I upload a freely licensed photo from Flickr to Commons and another user added it to a Wikipedia article. A court concluded that mere linking to file description page in commons.wikimeda.org is not enough for attribution. Who is responsible for this infringement? Me, the user who added it, or WMF?
We have a similar case here: http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-I...
It says "In this case , the Court considers that a duty to name the author ( "copyright notice" ) requires a mention of the filings by the creator's name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license conditions."
"The Creative Commons license provides that the name of the author / copyright holder is to be called in the manner determined by it. This is to be understood that the author indicated in the image information page under "author" the name, pseudonym must be etc. are mentioned ."
"At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is on the same server." - It is not fully true; they are different domains owned by WMF.
"Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so far on a "foreign" server sometimes is unreachable." - True; sometimes Wikimedia Commons is down even if Wikipedia is available.
So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
Regards, Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
"For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"
But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they all must meet exact license terms.
Regards, Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal advice is out of question.
The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in some way, please propose tweaks: https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_ Creative_Commons_licenses
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:
So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story.
Nemo
"If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story."
Good; but shouldn't be this an eye opening for WMF to approach copyright matters seriously. Or we can amend the Commons:PCP: #6. If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story.
Regards, Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:
So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story.
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant. Main confusions are in three areas:
- Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com... ) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_some... ) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_pers... ,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_... )
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the sole problem here.
1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable." must != to the extent reasonably practicable
2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1 in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing to anyone have some commonsense.
3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law." Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the court of his country? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
Regards, Jee
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of
our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
- Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements.
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_some...
) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_pers...
,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_...
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.
As to why things go wrong? They do. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 June 2014 04:51, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the sole problem here.
- They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable." must != to the extent reasonably practicable
- "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1 in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing to anyone have some commonsense.
- "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the court of his country?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
Regards, Jee
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of
our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
- Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the
work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I
don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors
and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special
agreements.
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is
applicable
for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_some...
) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_pers...
,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_...
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility
to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off."
True up to version 3.0; but it seems they stopped it for version 4.0 and started calling it "International License".
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_are_the_inte...
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Should_I_choose_a...
Jee
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.
As to why things go wrong? They do. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 June 2014 04:51, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the sole problem here.
- They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material
to
the extent reasonably practicable." must != to the extent reasonably practicable
- "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1 in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing to anyone have some commonsense.
- "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by
the
court of his country?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
Regards, Jee
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows
for
the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the
law
of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many
of
our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
- Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the
work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link
to
the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I
don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors
and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special
agreements.
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Com...
) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is
applicable
for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high
quality
file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_some...
) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_pers...
,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_...
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend,
and
ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a
responsibility
to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 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 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@lists.wikimedia.org