In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Co…
)
2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_som…
)
3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_per…,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable…
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
Regards,
Jee
