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(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy:
You give an
acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___________" to a
caption.
It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
can
> see why people are a bit put out when
someone won't do these very
minimal
> > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > material.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER"
<rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work
includs
> > > "improving text deserts, and
changing bad images to (often his own)
> > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a
small
> > > number of persons do have such a
business model, some of them even
> > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> > >
> > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above,
the
> >
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last
10
> > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse,
unrestricted,
> > > as success, and the ones who think
it is not desired to incorrectly
> > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > > work.
> > >
> > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons
in
> > > two, for every opinion? the new
commons would include safe licenses
> > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease
and
> > > desist letters as business model
not interesting any more,
> > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > [1]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_
abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > > [2]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> Wolf_im_Wald
> > > [3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > > [4]
https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-
> abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > > interview-mit-simplicius/
> > >
> > > best
> > > rupert
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>