On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ahem, everyone, including us, violates our licenses left, right and centre.
A point here since it looks like we're in agreement otherwise..
We're not talking about "our licenses" we're talking about the licenses of the photographers whos work we distribute. The vast majority of the images on wikipedia (well, en at least) were not created by a Wikipedia editor.
I've had 100% success with takedown notices of sites infringing on my image copyrights with little difficulty. ... Even if that weren't the case, it still wouldn't excuse Wikipedia from doing something which is potentially in violation.
That was mostly an aside, it seems that we agree some sort of small credits link (I think I'd prefer 'image details' because another common question is 'can I get a larger version of the image on foo') is conceptually acceptable. Has anyone mocked this up yet and considered all the other impacts (skin compatibility, browser compatibility, accessability by the disabled)?