Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
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 neither is a CopyLeft licence that perpetually secures the freedom of this content (Everybody can take CC0 staff and publish it in a proprietary way wit no attribution what-so-ever), nor is it a good argument to convince professional or semi-professional contributors to publish there quality work under. Hence CC0 is more a problem than a solution. Beside that, I don't think that it is our prior duty to offer save ground to any kind of reusers. A lot of licence violators honestly don't give a shit about free content. They just don't care about copyrights and have no respect to the author, who created the stuff they are using in the first place. I definitely don't want to support that. By automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind of attribution accepted in a future version cc license. An attribution only inside the metadata is not compatible with the licence's requirements, mainly because it can't be read in every browser without any add-ons and digital forensic skills. The CC-licences require the attributions to be at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing author. Furthermore a lot of CMS remove such metadata automatically while scaling and recompressing images. Without the need of education. Education is the only promising approach to prohibit license and copyright violations. We need to teach people, that our content is not free as in free beer but free as in freedom and that freedom comes with responsibility. Namely the responsibility to give reasonable credit to the author of the work (you want to use) and reference the license (that allows you to use it). It is neither possible nor desirable to take that responsibility from the users. // Martin ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
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 clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? 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 page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors).] 1. CC-BY-SA is not defined by what Wikipedia is doing. CC-BY-SA is only defined by its legal code. 2. If the licences states You must[0] it means that YOU Yourself need to do this. And You yourself simply don't give appropriate credit, if you do not provide it yourself, but link to a third party website, you don't have any control on and that maybe gone someday. Since one is not liable for the content behind an external link, one cannot use it to comply personal legal duties, on the other hand. The attribution you give (Author and Licence) legally is the price you pay for using this image. And if you do not give that attribution yourself, you don't have any right to use that content. 3. You need to diffenciate between the practice within the wikimedia projects and the one outside. No matter if the Wikipedia itself strictly fullfills the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (some law experts even doubt that)[1], most authors uploaded there work here by themself knowing how Wikipedia is going to use them. Therefore we have something call an implied-in-fact contract[2] that might legalise the use inside Wikipedia anyway. [0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (Section 4c) [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung.2FUrheber-Nennung.2FWikipedia_gibt_schlechtes_Beispiel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers to a blogger who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover, i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking to the image source with full credit and license information), even though not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo. Afaik there was no proper attribution on mouseover only a backlink to Commons. And according to a recent judgment[3] of a court in Munich it is not even sufficent to provide attribution via mouse over anyway. [3] http://irights.info/webschau/lg-muenchen-creative-commons-lizenzen-mouseover-namensnennung/25887 // Martin ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
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 attribution was improper? Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, if you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?! Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs Abmahnung. So whoever wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some idea of what legal offence he should be sued for. And wether we like what Harald does, or not: The terms and conditions of CC-BY-SA require the user of a CC-image to provide proper attribution. And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution (like Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter case definetly is no proper CC-attribution. So irrespective of how HaraldBischoffs reacted, the his rights where violated. And on the other hand I can't see a single project guideline that has been violated by his reaction. So: On the grounds of the what do you want to ban or sue him??? Just to put that straight: I also don't like what he is doing. And of course it isn't nice, when the first reaction to a licence offence comes with ab bill of 900€. But based on etherything we know, he has the right to do so from the legal point of view. // Martin [1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Listen Button
Am 25.01.2015 um 23:22 schrieb Andrew Lih: On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Il 25/Gen/2015 12:18 Martin Kraft martin.kr...@gmx.de ha scritto: Did I miss some aspect? Is there a point in converting something visual into something visual? I have been told that people born deaf find more easy to read things in sign language. I imagine it like the difference between reading something written in your mother tongue and reading something in another language you know. Yes, I had a deaf student who opened my eyes to this -- he wanted to create a video site for the deaf that would have signed videos and movies. He had staffers and volunteers take viral YouTube videos and sign them for the deaf. My first question was, wouldn't reading subtitles simply solve the problem? Why do you need to do ASL versions? He gave me an annoyed look. It's something the deaf community finds frustrating to explain to outsiders. There's a reason its called American SIGN LANGUAGE and not signed English language. It's a primary language in itself, and reading off the screen is as inferior an experience as if we read the subtitles with the sound off. Yes of course: sign language is a far better substitute to spoken language than subtitles – not at last due to the point, that it comes to gether with the mimic an gesture of a real person signing and therefore has a kind of accentuation, written text can not provide. But in the case of Wikipedia articles the thing to be translated is not spoken language but well phrased text – furthermore a text with a lot of technical terms. And afaik these terms are hard to encode and decode in sign language. And while a hearing person can benefit from watching the pictures, maps, e.g. while listening to somebody reading this article, deaf people need there eyes to listen. Would be interesting, to read what somebody, how realy is deaf, thinks about this topic?! // Martin ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
