hi,
may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from
commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.
there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
states "comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff…
"komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"
harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
attributing in mouseover:
http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-…
what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?
to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
should either fix the software, or the license.
best,
rupert