If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion to the extent that their attribution was improper?
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion to the extent that their attribution was improper? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this? It is considerably premature to expect them to do anything much more than read the relevant discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here, whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well within the acceptable parameters of that project. Should the community involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal. Looking at this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the issue directly with him on-wiki.
Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
Risker/Anne
On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Risker,
James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take. WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm, and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation like this.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this? It is considerably premature to expect them to do anything much more than read the relevant discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here, whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well within the acceptable parameters of that project. Should the community involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal. Looking at this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the issue directly with him on-wiki.
Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
Risker/Anne
On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
situation.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Pine (& All)
I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the Foundation/chapter staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always true.
Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something else that cannot be done). When there are situations when you genuinely need Foundation staff to answer something that is fine, but I think that Risker is arguing that it is best to wait with a request such as this until you are actually at the point of needing that energy to be spent (when the community discussion has concluded)
I am sympathetic to this because I often see requests coming by which really do not take into account the amount of time it takes to provide an answer. Of course there is always room for legitimate requests but I would encourage everyone to think twice before asking staff members (of the Foundation or their chapter) to commit time on something which might be of personal interest to them, or is a hypothetical situation which might well wait until the situation has become reality.
Jan-Bart
On 27 Jul 2015, at 01:03, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take. WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm, and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation like this.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this? It is considerably premature to expect them to do anything much more than read the relevant discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here, whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well within the acceptable parameters of that project. Should the community involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal. Looking at this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the issue directly with him on-wiki.
Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
Risker/Anne
On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
situation.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The wmf simply can't pursue legal actions against Harald Bischoff for the individuals who probably suffered damage. It is up to the community to investigate. For example banning him for copyright trolling [1].
A discussion has been started on commons [1].
Apart from that, i find it problematic that Bischoff is claiming to take pictures for the wmf on his userpage.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Leg...
From: jdevreede@wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:33:45 +0200 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
Hey Pine (& All)
I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the Foundation/chapter staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always true.
Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something else that cannot be done). When there are situations when you genuinely need Foundation staff to answer something that is fine, but I think that Risker is arguing that it is best to wait with a request such as this until you are actually at the point of needing that energy to be spent (when the community discussion has concluded)
I am sympathetic to this because I often see requests coming by which really do not take into account the amount of time it takes to provide an answer. Of course there is always room for legitimate requests but I would encourage everyone to think twice before asking staff members (of the Foundation or their chapter) to commit time on something which might be of personal interest to them, or is a hypothetical situation which might well wait until the situation has become reality.
Jan-Bart
On 27 Jul 2015, at 01:03, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take. WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm, and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation like this.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this? It is considerably premature to expect them to do anything much more than read the relevant discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here, whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well within the acceptable parameters of that project. Should the community involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal. Looking at this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the issue directly with him on-wiki.
Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
Risker/Anne
On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
situation.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the license terms as they understood them on Commons.
Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68 million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in; it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding use of volunteer time.
Thanks,
Pine
Some people on the one hand like to complain on the interferences and interventions of the Foundation, and on the other hand want its involvement when it suits them. Pointing to the wealth of the Foundation and by that legitimizing any spending, is not really convincing. Ziko
Am Montag, 27. Juli 2015 schrieb Pine W :
I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the license terms as they understood them on Commons.
Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68 million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in; it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding use of volunteer time.
Thanks,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Ziko, is that statement directed at me? If so, I would appreciate it if we could talk off list.
In any case, I believe that I've attempted to do all the good that I can in this discussion at this time, so I'm signing off from this discussion for now.
Pine
As a reminder, if files are to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, this only happens by discussion and administrative action on Wikimedia Commons.
Roundtable discussion may be interesting, but this is not how decisions are made in our community. If you have notes or minutes of this closed meeting, please publish them so the Wikimedia community can benefit. In the meantime if anyone would like to contribute to a discussion that may result in the images being removed, please follow this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Leg...
All are welcome to express their views.
Thanks, Fae
On 27 July 2015 at 14:59, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the license terms as they understood them on Commons.
Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68 million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in; it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding use of volunteer time.
Thanks,
Pine
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
This still leaves me
wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the license terms as they understood them on Commons.
<snip>
Acting in good faith will, at best, mitigate against damages. It isn't actually a defense against liability. If people are getting sued after doing absolutely everything right, then I could maybe imagine getting involved. However, in many licensing disputes there is a legitimate case that the reuser violated the terms of the license (e.g. by neglecting details regarding authorship / attribution / etc.), often due to ignorance of what the license requires. In many such cases, the reuser may well face a likelihood of losing if the case ever made it to court. In a world of "good faith" we might expect that reusers who made mistakes out of ignorance to be treated kindly, but the legal system isn't exactly geared towards kindness.
I think that we (the community + the WMF) should do more to help ensure license compliance and educate reusers about appropriate attribution, etc. However, I don't think that WMF Legal should get involved in cases where someone wanted to do the right thing but failed. There is no need to waste our resources on third-party cases where there is a significant risk of losing.
-Robert Rohde
On Jul 27, 2015 5:33 PM, "Robert Rohde" rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
This still leaves me
wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the license terms as they understood them on Commons.
<snip> >
Acting in good faith will, at best, mitigate against damages. It isn't actually a defense against liability. If people are getting sued after doing absolutely everything right, then I could maybe imagine getting involved. However, in many licensing disputes there is a legitimate case that the reuser violated the terms of the license (e.g. by neglecting details regarding authorship / attribution / etc.), often due to ignorance of what the license requires. In many such cases, the reuser may well
face
a likelihood of losing if the case ever made it to court. In a world of "good faith" we might expect that reusers who made mistakes out of ignorance to be treated kindly, but the legal system isn't exactly geared towards kindness.
I think that we (the community + the WMF) should do more to help ensure license compliance and educate reusers about appropriate attribution, etc. However, I don't think that WMF Legal should get involved in cases where someone wanted to do the right thing but failed. There is no need to
waste
our resources on third-party cases where there is a significant risk of losing.
Robert, and Jan Bart, what the lawyer did in harald Bischof s Name is something common. There might be hundreds or thousands of cases, and there are maybe the same number of images concerned. Google reveals that lawyers did this on behalf of at least 4 authors in the last 10 years or so. There is no sign that this will stop in future.
Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers: independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.
Best Rupert
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers: independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.
It's not impossible but a hairy problem. It's being tracked under T5361 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T5361.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:34 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers: independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.
For a short answer, I think there is no way that attribution which only appeared within image metadata would be regarded as legally adequate under current CC licenses. Such metadata is not sufficiently discoverable to meet standards for "reasonable" attribution under the few cases that have addressed the issue.
-Robert Rohde
Am 31.07.2015 um 19:34 schrieb rupert THURNER:
independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur reusers in future on a safe ground.
The only foolproof licence is CC0, which gives away all rights to the user and keeps almost nothing for the author himself. But CC0 neither is a CopyLeft licence that perpetually secures the freedom of this content (Everybody can take CC0 staff and publish it in a proprietary way wit no attribution what-so-ever), nor is it a good argument to convince professional or semi-professional contributors to publish there quality work under. Hence CC0 is more a problem than a solution.
Beside that, I don't think that it is our prior duty to offer "save ground" to any kind of reusers. A lot of licence violators honestly don't give a shit about free content. They just don't care about copyrights and have no respect to the author, who created the stuff they are using in the first place. I definitely don't want to support that.
By automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.
An attribution only inside the metadata is not compatible with the licence's requirements, mainly because it can't be read in every browser without any add-ons and digital forensic skills.
The CC-licences require the attributions to be "at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing author".
Furthermore a lot of CMS remove such metadata automatically while scaling and recompressing images.
Without the need of education.
Education is the only promising approach to prohibit license and copyright violations.
We need to teach people, that our content is not "free" as in "free beer" but "free" as in "freedom" and that freedom comes with responsibility. Namely the responsibility to give reasonable credit to the author of the work (you want to use) and reference the license (that allows you to use it).
It is neither possible nor desirable to take that responsibility from the users.
// Martin
Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion to the extent that their attribution was improper?
Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, if you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?!
Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs "Abmahnung". So whoever wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some idea of what legal offence he should be sued for.
And wether we like what Harald does, or not: The terms and conditions of CC-BY-SA require the user of a CC-image to provide proper attribution. And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution (like Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter case definetly is no proper CC-attribution. So irrespective of how HaraldBischoffs reacted, the his rights where violated. And on the other hand I can't see a single project guideline that has been violated by his reaction.
So: On the grounds of the what do you want to ban or sue him???
Just to put that straight: I also don't like what he is doing. And of course it isn't nice, when the first reaction to a licence offence comes with ab bill of 900€. But based on etherything we know, he has the right to do so from the legal point of view.
// Martin
[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Martin Kraft wikipedia@martinkraft.com wrote:
Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion to the extent that their attribution was improper?
Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, if you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?!
Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs "Abmahnung". So whoever wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some idea of what legal offence he should be sued for.
And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution (like Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter case definetly is no proper CC-attribution.
Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors)".]
And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers to a blogger "who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover", i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking to the image source with full credit and license information), even though not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors)".]
1. CC-BY-SA is not defined by what Wikipedia is doing. CC-BY-SA is only defined by its legal code.
2. If the licences states "You must"[0] it means that "YOU Yourself need to do this". And You yourself simply don't give "appropriate credit", if you do not provide it yourself, but link to a third party website, you don't have any control on and that maybe gone someday. Since one is not liable for the content behind an external link, one cannot use it to comply personal legal duties, on the other hand.
The attribution you give (Author and Licence) legally is the price you pay for using this image. And if you do not give that attribution yourself, you don't have any right to use that content.
3. You need to diffenciate between the practice within the wikimedia projects and the one outside. No matter if the Wikipedia itself strictly fullfills the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (some law experts even doubt that)[1], most authors uploaded there work here by themself knowing how Wikipedia is going to use them. Therefore we have something call an "implied-in-fact contract"[2] that might legalise the use inside Wikipedia anyway.
[0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (Section 4c) [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung.2FUrhe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers to a blogger "who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover", i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking to the image source with full credit and license information), even though not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo.
Afaik there was no proper attribution on mouseover only a backlink to Commons. And according to a recent judgment[3] of a court in Munich it is not even sufficent to provide attribution via mouse over anyway.
[3] http://irights.info/webschau/lg-muenchen-creative-commons-lizenzen-mouseover...
// Martin
On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:
Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors)".]
Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses. Not 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.
The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a v4.0 license. Many photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as a result. So you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0. Those running flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to v3.0 unless they are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a hyperelink is sufficient for attribution. They all say that:
You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work
I would be interested to see the example of "Flickr2Commons-uploaded images which marked license as CCLv3". AFAIK, all images I had to review had proper CCLv2 template, or it was... (one of the below) - Copyvio - Human error (mistake of user) - It was licensed under NC or ND in fact.
I haven't been much active as I used to be in Commons this year, so bot code may have been changed. Yet bot shouldn't do that stupid thing (marking v2 stuff as v3).
-- Revi - commons admin hat here. https://revi.me -- Sent from Android -- 2015. 7. 30. 오전 2:33에 "Lilburne" lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net님이 작성:
On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:
Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors)".]
Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses. Not 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.
The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a v4.0 license. Many photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as a result. So you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0. Those running flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to v3.0 unless they are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a hyperelink is sufficient for attribution. They all say that:
You must keep intact all copyright notices forthe Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org