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-… 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

"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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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#Co… Regards, Jee On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

"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_int… http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Should_I_choose_… Jee On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: