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_Artik... [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-intervie...
best rupert
noting:for give my missing any finer point my German isnt sufficient to read the discussion without the aid of google translate
The question your asking is should the author of the image have the right to enforce the licensing of work they have uploaded. The position you take is that they dont have that right which means you want all media uploaded under an effective Public Domain License.
The de.community voted to accept the proposal outcome based on a majority not an absolute 2/3rd majority. When the was discussion closed the proposal was rejected, you have come here to Wikimedia-l to ask for a second Common to be established to exclude work by authors who exercise their right to uphold the license under which the work was provided and ask that this new commons has the right to relicense an authors work under other licenses.
As side issue is what looks like an external forum presented one side of the argument while the discussion was on going, your using this as justification for asking here.
Commons has a very clear licensing page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing of whats acceptable licensing with media uploaded there.
To me what I see here basic forum shopping after the de.community rejected your proposal.... IMHO if you want to change or put limitations on licensing then discussing it on Commons would be a first step. Doing so without a direct proposal to change licensing or delete(exclude) the works of others would enable a wider view and other possible suitable outcomes. I would suggest that when starting the discussion that evidence be presented to support the accusations being made, if the google translators choice of words are accurate then it needs to be well substantiated ....
On 2 March 2017 at 13:44, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I cant get there through your link, maybe something is happening Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Heilman Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 4:47 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100
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@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@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@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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14042 - Release Date: 03/01/17
that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier for them with links.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100
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@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@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@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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Appropriatel... is well worth a read to understand the issue
On 4 March 2017 at 17:44, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier for them with links.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based
on
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100
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@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@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@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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Todd,
as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed what they are). These people would upload material under a free license (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to that use, and they send them a bill.
If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to the caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses, you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the discussion)
Best, Lodewijk
2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it quite right.
If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find acceptable.
Todd
On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Todd,
as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed what they are). These people would upload material under a free license (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to that use, and they send them a bill.
If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to the caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses, you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the discussion)
Best, Lodewijk
2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
Peter does this work better https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
J
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it quite right.
If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find acceptable.
Todd
On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Todd,
as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to that use, and they send them a bill.
If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to the caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses, you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers
to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the discussion)
Best, Lodewijk
2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Sure, and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with that.
However, in the current legal construct, the author can decide whether to apply that principle or not.
The question remains: if people apply principles that go way beyond that, what do we do? I think question that was put in the German community is a very realistic one, and if we don't tackle the issue, that may bite us later. There is no correct answer though - because both using and not using such image (or even deleting it) will have a downside to free knowledge. Either we don't show a piece of free knowledge, or we risk that people stop trusting our repository as a safe resource to reuse from.
There are multiple alternative approaches to the issue, besides stopping to use the image (or even deleting it). One is to add a warning to the description page. Rupert's proposal on this list is the mirror of that: adding a 'marked as safe' notice (which is what using a separate project basically is), for a subset of licenses that are considered reuse-friendly (not just in theory, but also in practice).
I personally feel that would go too far - and that we should tackle the actual problem: bad faith uploaders. This is, presumably, a very small percentage, and marking them as such may go a long way. I could even imagine prohibiting those users under certain circumstances to upload further material, as they are abusing the system. But that is rather a question for the Wikimedia Commons community, I suspect.
Lodewijk
2017-03-03 3:10 GMT+01:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
Peter does this work better https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
J
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try
to
attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones
James
mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it quite right.
If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good
faith
effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find acceptable.
Todd
On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Todd,
as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the
hope
that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies
to
that use, and they send them a bill.
If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to
the
caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some
licenses,
you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask
publishers
to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention
of
using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the discussion)
Best, Lodewijk
2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
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@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:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should it coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual approaches? Or should it do nothing? What's best?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer. Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should it coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual approaches? Or should it do nothing? What's best?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
without
proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
I have a personal experience which is worth considering. One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets (printed to more than 10,000 copies each). I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite difficult to accept. But then they stopped answering to my mails. So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000 euros". Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a compensation of a few euros", which is completely false. Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds euros. Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(
Regards,
Yann
2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer. Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should
it
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual approaches? Or should it do nothing? What's best?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
without
proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yann
Did you ask for, or receive, any help from the WMF? If so, was it effective? If not, do you think you should have done?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a personal experience which is worth considering. One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets (printed to more than 10,000 copies each). I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite difficult to accept. But then they stopped answering to my mails. So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000 euros". Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a compensation of a few euros", which is completely false. Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds euros. Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(
Regards,
Yann
2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer. Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list
that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that
I
wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should
it
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous
individual
approaches? Or should it do nothing? What's best?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
without
proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples
of
what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
No, I didn't ask any help from the WMF. I don't know if it would have changed anything.
Regards,
Yann
2017-03-05 21:07 GMT+01:00 Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com:
Yann
Did you ask for, or receive, any help from the WMF? If so, was it effective? If not, do you think you should have done?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a personal experience which is worth considering. One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets (printed to more than 10,000 copies each). I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite
difficult
to accept. But then they stopped answering to my mails. So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000 euros". Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a
compensation
of a few euros", which is completely false. Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds
euros.
Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(
Regards,
Yann
2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a
lawyer.
Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask
him.
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list
that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content
that
I
wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or
should
it
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous
individual
approaches? Or should it do nothing? What's best?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
without
proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted
examples
of
what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12 of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677 to pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
case 1: daniel pugge has a single person enterprise, and a blog. out of wordpress he linked to the "juice plus" wikipedia article with marco almbauers picture on it. the wordpress preview showing the thumbnail of the linked article. marco then used the services of kurt kulac, former president of wikimedia austria, to send a cease and desist letter to daniel. reason: cc-by-sa-4.0, "license not stated directly adjacent or within the picture". daniels conclusion "don't use wikipedia commons" is not what the movement mission is: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juice_Plus&type=revision&... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VSf12T37fY * cost: this one the cheap version, 524 euro, https://www.jurablogs.com/go/abmahnung-marco-almbauer, daniels lawyer not included * http://danielpugge.de/impressum/ this case i find highly disturbing - i thought he cc license is fixed now that dummy linking by dummy persons is not dangerous any more.
case 2: kai copied a foto, medium resolution from commons to his own webserver. he linked to it, attributing properly. afterwards he deleted the website including the attribution, but left the picture on the server. it still could be found by the search indixers. from the cc germany mailing list, getting the helpful answer in the lines of "if you are that stupid you deserve to pay": * http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-de/2017-January/001138.html
to give other examples of edits the vote tried to ban from de:wp are ones of 10 or so authors considered to create a trap. e.g. change the foto of rijksmuseum amsterdam to his own, or berlin cathedral, sometimes including an edit war between the two camps: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rijksmuseum&diff=prev&old... * https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berliner_Dom&diff=next&ol... * reporting for vandalism: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2017/02/26...
to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): Harald Bischoff, Martina Nolte, Ralf Roletschek, Alexander Savin, Wladyslaw Sojka, Sven Teschke, Dirk Vorderstraße, Thomas Wolf.
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12 of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677 to pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artik...
________________________________ Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag von rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1: <removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12 of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677 to pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, <grin> this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia </grin> We know that each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise. That is useful. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag von rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1:
<removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
or this
website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677 to pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
to
find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for the specific examples.
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an accompanying page.
The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is "It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.
I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project. But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.
I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a mistake in doing so.
Todd
On Mar 5, 2017 5:36 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, <grin> this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia </grin> We know that each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise. That is useful. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
thus
i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag
von
rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1:
<removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
or this
website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677
to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
wikipedia"
to
find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an accompanying page.
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if - the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers (e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better - the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked - the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license.
I think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of xyz....".
Best,
Isaac Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 22:37:35 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an accompanying page.
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if - the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers (e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better - the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked - the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree with your principle. However whenever there is a way to game the system, someone will find it and use it. We have to stop this as it reflects poorly on those who work here with good faith. Using WMF sites for personal profit by using hidden or not easily visible traps is not what we are here to do, nor is providing the opportunity for enriching fraudsters who claim other people's work as their own. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Olatunde Isaac Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:37 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
I think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of xyz....".
Best,
Isaac Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 22:37:35 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an accompanying page.
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if - the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers (e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better - the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked - the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license. _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17
People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons page.[1]
Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the same way Wikipedia is using it?
If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required attribution.
It doesn't seem fair.
[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici [2] https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fo...
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in a world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the licenses. Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other people because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC image from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up being credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from multiple other people.
When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create a liability for down stream reusers.
On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons page.[1]
Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the same way Wikipedia is using it?
If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required attribution.
It doesn't seem fair.
[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici [2] https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fo...
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license. _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
i got two further links in private mails which seem helpful in this area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in "safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as it can be easy explained to users: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a notification: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much?
james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if *thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news here?
best rupert
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in a world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the licenses. Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other people because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC image from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up being credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from multiple other people.
When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create a liability for down stream reusers.
On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons page.[1]
Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the same way Wikipedia is using it?
If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required attribution.
It doesn't seem fair.
[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici [2]
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fo...
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
Meeting with a copyright lawyer out of Vancouver next week. Will have more details soon.
James
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:55 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
i got two further links in private mails which seem helpful in this area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in "safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as it can be easy explained to users: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a notification: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much?
james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if *thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news here?
best rupert
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in
a
world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the
licenses.
Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other
people
because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC
image
from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up
being
credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from multiple other people.
When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create
a
liability for down stream reusers.
On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons page.[1]
Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So
why
shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the same way Wikipedia is using it?
If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them,
given
what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if
they
do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they
can
get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the
required
attribution.
It doesn't seem fair.
[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici [2]
ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time
this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the
image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 06/03/2017 06:37, Gergő Tisza wrote:
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an accompanying page.
I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the movement IMO.
I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license.
But Commons does the same thing in reverse. I recall some 12yo uploading a photograph of a butterfly in the mistaken belief that it could only be used on wikipedia. Then when realising the mistake wanted the image removed. The Commons denizens harangued and hounded the kid across various talk and administrator pages for several weeks in respect to the fine print of the license.
Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I didn't see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by any chance?
Thanks, Lodewijk
2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com:
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag von rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1:
<removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
or this
website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677 to pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
to
find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lodewijk, I posted on the 4th,
Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed is well worth a read to understand the issue
the problem of no attribution is a real issue sometimes I just ask for the company to fix that and other times I just ignore. On one occasion I went to a lawyer because the company had put their copyright mark on my photo and was offering it for sale. The cases highlighted are trivial and should normally be dismissed by courts but using predatory behavior of lawyers does get rewards.
I agree that the predatory behavior needs to be addressed but in doing so we shouldnt be excluding the opportunity for recourse when malicious behaviors of the end user occur. A part of the free sharing of knowledge is ensuring the under lying laws and conditions that enable it are also respected by all parties.
On 6 March 2017 at 08:03, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I didn't see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by any chance?
Thanks, Lodewijk
2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-wiki@live.com
:
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
thus
i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag
von
rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1:
<removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands). Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
or this
website that was asked https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677
to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
wikipedia"
to
find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Gnagarra,
(in case others try to open the same link unsuccessfully as well: this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensedshould work) The discussion is from 2013, and good to look back at indeed.
I don't disagree that there may be occasions where legal action is the most reasonable approach. Maybe it would be better to define a 'best practice' in that field as a community, a path that we consider commonly accepted? It is really the (perceived?) excesses that triggered this discussion, I think, not the typical wikimedian that tries to get credit where credit is due.
Respect may indeed be the term that should take center stage. It is fine that people expect reusers to respect the terms - but I guess some may have a disagreement what 'respect' really means, and whether or not it can be accomplished by hefty 'penalties' and fearmongering.
Lodewijk
2017-03-06 2:01 GMT+01:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Lodewijk, I posted on the 4th,
Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons
.
wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
is
well worth a read to understand the issue
the problem of no attribution is a real issue sometimes I just ask for the company to fix that and other times I just ignore. On one occasion I went to a lawyer because the company had put their copyright mark on my photo and was offering it for sale. The cases highlighted are trivial and should normally be dismissed by courts but using predatory behavior of lawyers does get rewards.
I agree that the predatory behavior needs to be addressed but in doing so we shouldnt be excluding the opportunity for recourse when malicious behaviors of the end user occur. A part of the free sharing of knowledge is ensuring the under lying laws and conditions that enable it are also respected by all parties.
On 6 March 2017 at 08:03, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I
didn't
see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by
any
chance?
Thanks, Lodewijk
2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <
steinsplitter-wiki@live.com
:
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
thus
i see no need to discuss it here again.
The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.
--Steinsplitter
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag
von
rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
case 1:
<removed> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia): <removed>
personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress, etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is not ready for proper online usage.
rupert
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the
materials
in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that
wanted
to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the
Netherlands).
Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author
name
or this
website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677
to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
wikipedia"
to
find more examples and stories.
Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
Lodewijk
2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples
of
what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?
Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.
On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER 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_Artik... [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-intervie...
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 18:14 Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?
Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.
This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's Commons POTD https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg, unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)
On viewing the image/media file, users can click the "share" icon, then pick "embed", and they get an HTML response contains the uploader account name (with link), the licence name (with link), and a link to the media file's page on wiki.
This feature could be more visible (at some cost to reader experience), but it's there.
Hope this helps.
J.
James Forrester jforrester@wikimedia.org wrote:
For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?
Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.
This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's Commons POTD https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg, unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)
On viewing the image/media file, users can click the "share" icon, then pick "embed", and they get an HTML response contains the uploader account name (with link), the licence name (with link), and a link to the media file's page on wiki.
[…]
That procedure leads to the result (word-wrapped):
| <p> | <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg"> | <img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg" alt="Ehrenstetten - Ölbergkapelle6.jpg" width="16247" height="6083"> | </a> | <br> | By <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Taxiarchos228" title="User:Taxiarchos228">Taxiarchos228</a> - | <span class="int-own-work" lang="en">Own work</span>, | <a href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en" title="Free Art License">FAL</a>, | <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41725272">Link</a> | </p>
I. e., the author is credited as "Taxiarchos228". The note under the image says (in bold): "Als Gegenleistung für die kostenlose (nichtgewerbliche) Nutzung muss der Weiternutzer nur die Lizenzbedingungen einhalten und den Fotografen (mei- nen vollständigen Klarnamen Wladyslaw Sojka sowie die ver- linkte Website www.sojka.photo) als Urheber nennen."
The used Free Art License says in "2.2 Freedom to Distrib- ute, to Perform in Public":
| You have the right to distribute copies of this work; wheth- | er modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with | or without any charge, provided that you:
| - […]
| - specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the | originals, including yours if you have modified the work,
| - specify to the recipient where to access the originals | (either initial or subsequent).
| […]
I'm not convinced that "Taxiarchos228" is the "name" of the author as required by the license.
Tim
On 07/03/2017 02:24, James Forrester wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 18:14 Lilburne <lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net mailto:lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for the CC license. Why can't commons do the same? Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's Commons POTD https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg, unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)
In which case I have little sympathy for those too lazy to use the tools provided.
Hello Lilburne,
https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
--Steinsplitter
________________________________ Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag von Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2017 03:14 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business
For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?
Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.
On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER 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_Artik... [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-intervie...
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@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@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