See. I upload a freely licensed photo from Flickr to Commons and another
user added it to a Wikipedia article. A court concluded that mere linking
to file description page in
commons.wikimeda.org is not enough for
attribution. Who is responsible for this infringement? Me, the user who
added it, or WMF?
We have a similar case here:
http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-…
It says "In this case , the Court considers that a duty to name the author
( "copyright notice" ) requires a mention of the filings by the creator's
name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the
picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can
be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license
conditions."
"The Creative Commons license provides that the name of the author /
copyright holder is to be called in the manner determined by it. This is to
be understood that the author indicated in the image information page under
"author" the name, pseudonym must be etc. are mentioned ."
"At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is
on the same server." - It is not fully true; they are different domains
owned by WMF.
"Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so
far on a "foreign" server sometimes is unreachable." - True; sometimes
Wikimedia Commons is down even if Wikipedia is available.
So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
Regards,
Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jeevan Jose <jkadavoor(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"
But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who
contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they
all must meet exact license terms.
Regards,
Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their
ignorance in such cases?
The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and
even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but
for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving
legal advice is out of question.
The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in
some way, please propose tweaks: <https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial>
In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to
focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial
aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and
-ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_
Creative_Commons_licenses
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>