Am 31.07.2015 um 19:34 schrieb rupert THURNER:
independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
reusers in future on a safe ground.
The only foolproof licence is CC0, which gives away all rights to the
user and keeps almost nothing for the author himself. But CC0
On Jul 27, 2015 5:33 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
This still leaves me
wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put
I would be interested to see the example of Flickr2Commons-uploaded images
which marked license as CCLv3. AFAIK, all images I had to review had
proper CCLv2 template, or it was... (one of the below)
- Copyvio
- Human error (mistake of user)
- It was licensed under NC or ND in fact.
I haven't been
On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:
Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the
... The license requires only that the credit be implemented in
any reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects,
while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that
explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink
(where possible) or URL to the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Martin Kraft wikipe...@martinkraft.com
wrote:
Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
in Germany to
Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
upon
Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
to the extent that their
I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
Some people on the one hand like to complain on the interferences and
interventions of the Foundation, and on the other hand want its involvement
when it suits them.
Pointing to the wealth of the Foundation and by that legitimizing any
spending, is not really convincing.
Ziko
Am Montag, 27.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
This still leaves me
wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
license terms as they understood them on Commons.
snip
As a reminder, if files are to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, this
only happens by discussion and administrative action on Wikimedia
Commons.
Roundtable discussion may be interesting, but this is not how
decisions are made in our community. If you have notes or minutes of
this closed meeting,
Ziko, is that statement directed at me? If so, I would appreciate it if we
could talk off list.
In any case, I believe that I've attempted to do all the good that I can in
this discussion at this time, so I'm signing off from this discussion for
now.
Pine
: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:33:45 +0200
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against
Harald Bischoff?
Hey Pine ( All)
I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the
Foundation/chapter staff (legal or otherwise
Hey Pine ( All)
I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the Foundation/chapter
staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always true.
Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something
else that cannot be done). When there are situations when
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper?
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this? It is considerably premature
to expect them to do anything much more than read the relevant
discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
its own
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.
Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
Risker,
James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
20 matches
Mail list logo
