Well I found it disturbing, and i stlll find it disturbing. I still find that we are failing our mission if we just accept this. Someone has to stand up and say something about this, so I guess I will have to stand alone.
here are some stats on the licences in general http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metrics/License_statistics I did not find any license stats for wikipedia or commons. Also a number of images are fair usage on wikipedia. In any case, it is a bad example for kids, it is a bad example for students, it is a bad example for anyone. we should not allow the wikipedia logo and name to be used in such a manner. People need to check the license before you use them, advertising agencies cannot just take pictures off the wikipedia and copy them into your advertising, students cannot just copy them into their homework. You need to research into them first and check the license. thanks, mike On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 AM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 December 2011 23:09, Mike Dupont <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Well thanks for the great explanation, so the did their homework. >> now what about the example that is being given to kids, just google >> it, download an image from wikipedia and then use it in your >> advertising campaign. >> How could wikipedia allow someone to use the wikipedia logo in such a manner? >> mike > > Well we do have quite a collection of public domain images where you > can do precisely that. Realistically I think we have to accept that > most films are not going to include extended scenes covering copyright > and free licenses. > > > -- > geni > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
