Hoi,
As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each
country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country
specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware
off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.
As to why things go
As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for
each country
and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific
implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off.
True up to version 3.0; but it seems they stopped it for version 4.0 and
Hoi,
The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for
the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law
of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according
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
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)
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
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:
So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to
file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their
copyright is not respected they'll get the content
If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the
content deleted, end of story.
Good; but shouldn't be this an eye opening for WMF to approach copyright
matters seriously. Or we can amend the Commons:PCP: #6. If someone can
prove their copyright is not respected they'll get
