The BBC has published a timeline article about Fukushima:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13017282
At the end of the article is a schematic drawing of a boiling water reactor. The image contains "Source: RobbyBer/Wikimedia". Not as text, mind you, just part of the GIF.
No link to Commons.
The images on Commons that look similar and are based on RobbyBer's work (e.g. [1]) are all GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
Looks like someone tried, probably whoever edited the SVG, but was ignored somewhere down the line...
Yes, there's many images "just taken" from Wiki(m|p)edia on the web, but this one is rather prominent. Maybe someone should write the BBC a friendly mail, reminding them that "IP piracy" will get them into Gitmo these days ;-)
Cheers, Magnus
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Schema_siedewasserr...
I don't see a problem. They've attributed it both to the actual user and to Wikimedia (I would have preferred Wikimedia Commons, but close enough). What more do you want? I'm not aware of any requirement to link to Commons.
On 12 April 2011 09:02, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
The BBC has published a timeline article about Fukushima:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13017282
At the end of the article is a schematic drawing of a boiling water reactor. The image contains "Source: RobbyBer/Wikimedia". Not as text, mind you, just part of the GIF.
No link to Commons.
The images on Commons that look similar and are based on RobbyBer's work (e.g. [1]) are all GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
Looks like someone tried, probably whoever edited the SVG, but was ignored somewhere down the line...
Yes, there's many images "just taken" from Wiki(m|p)edia on the web, but this one is rather prominent. Maybe someone should write the BBC a friendly mail, reminding them that "IP piracy" will get them into Gitmo these days ;-)
Cheers, Magnus
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Schema_siedewasserr...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the "-SA" in "CC-BY-SA" require mentioning the license?
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see a problem. They've attributed it both to the actual user and to Wikimedia (I would have preferred Wikimedia Commons, but close enough). What more do you want? I'm not aware of any requirement to link to Commons.
On 12 April 2011 09:02, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
The BBC has published a timeline article about Fukushima:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13017282
At the end of the article is a schematic drawing of a boiling water reactor. The image contains "Source: RobbyBer/Wikimedia". Not as text, mind you, just part of the GIF.
No link to Commons.
The images on Commons that look similar and are based on RobbyBer's work (e.g. [1]) are all GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
Looks like someone tried, probably whoever edited the SVG, but was ignored somewhere down the line...
Yes, there's many images "just taken" from Wiki(m|p)edia on the web, but this one is rather prominent. Maybe someone should write the BBC a friendly mail, reminding them that "IP piracy" will get them into Gitmo these days ;-)
Cheers, Magnus
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Schema_siedewasserr...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the "-SA" in "CC-BY-SA" require mentioning the license?
The -sa clause is only relevant for derivative works, not for simple reuse. However, the legal code of both cc-by and cc-by-sa requires that "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." (section 4a, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) IANAL, however, so I'm not sure that this is the relevant part to apply and, in any case, it's up to the author to defend his/her copyright. Cruccone
On 12 April 2011 12:02, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the "-SA" in "CC-BY-SA" require mentioning the license?
IANAL, however, so I'm not sure that this is the relevant part to apply and, in any case, it's up to the author to defend his/her copyright.
Yeah, basically the author should contact the BBC and ask them to add "CC by-sa" to it at least. And thank them for the reuse with credit of course, always be encouraging to reusers who at least try to comply in good faith :-)
- d.
On 12 April 2011 12:02, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the "-SA" in "CC-BY-SA" require mentioning the license?
The -sa clause is only relevant for derivative works, not for simple reuse. However, the legal code of both cc-by and cc-by-sa requires that "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." (section 4a, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) IANAL, however, so I'm not sure that this is the relevant part to apply and, in any case, it's up to the author to defend his/her copyright.
True, they ought to link to the license. I think we have to be happy with what we can get, though! As long as they attribute it, they aren't doing too badly. Once we've got people used to writing "Source: Wikipedia" we can start on getting them to do everything by the book.
On 12 April 2011 11:48, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be mistaken, but doesn't the "-SA" in "CC-BY-SA" require mentioning the license?
Yes.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
<quote> CC-BY-SA In the Creative Commons Attribution and ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA), re-users are free to make derivative works and copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, even commercially.
When re-using the work or distributing it, you must attribute the work to the author(s) and you must mention the license terms or a link to them. You must make your version available under CC-BY-SA. </quote>
I don't think that it is a big deal in this case (if this is an isolated case), but if someone feels strongly about it they could point the BBC to the above-mentioned wikimedia page. They really ought to have a policy about reusing content from Wikimedia/Wikipedia, but I suspect they don't.
Andrew
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org