On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do.
It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons' reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be termed)
If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.
Why?
Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over for the attribution/license.
the link is good enough imo, commons does not throw away the record that the foto was there and everything can be reconstructed in case of trouble. but - i'd love that this gets solved on a technical level. every media file in commons either contains the author, or it is set by wikipedia software into the metadata. resizing and storing retains this information. after a while all toolchains will retain such information and the problem of wikipedia as cause of cease and desist letters (german: abmahnung) [0] will cease to exist. even for offline wikipedia (kiwix, and similar) and direct links to media. there was a non-wikipedia case a while ago [1], where the court says even in direct links to the image you should be able to see the author and license. it was dragged on to a higher instance but i could not find what the final judgement was.
another challenge in this context are "user defined licenses". those were used by lawyers cease and desist letters bearing a 600-1500 eur price tag. there seems to be even a business in fighting such letters, naming wikipedia authors [2][3]. just as example, one of the mentioned users images has Permission={{User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2}} as foto license. [4]. different author, same strategy, outcome "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" for a cc-by-sa 3.0 foto [5]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung [1] http://www.chip.de/news/LG-Koeln-Copyright-Urteil-schafft-neue-Abmahn-Falle_... [2] http://www.abmahnung.de/abmahnung-rechtsanwalt-dr-iur-hans-g-muesse-im-auftr... [3] http://www.obladen-gaessler.de/wikipedia-abmahnung-durch-ra-dr-hans-g-muesse... [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farmer_plowing_in_Fahrenwalde,_Meckl... [5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-06-08_Projekt_Hei%C3%9Fluftball...