[Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

[HaeB]

2013/1/22 ??? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk>:
> On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
>> <richard.symonds at wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable
>>> as
>>> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
>>>
>>>     - Does anyone have any input on this?
>>>     - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
>>>     - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the
>>> full
>>>     byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
>>
>>
>> If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as
>> well?
>>
>> It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm
>> not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than
>> no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.
>>
>> The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is
>> potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to
>> be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you
>> import something the author has made no such agreement.
>>
>
> Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark.
> If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the
> case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating
> 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of
> it.
>
That's a very simplified description of what happened. See e.g
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/News_and_notes