Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

Meeting with a copyright lawyer out of Vancouver next week. Will have more
details soon.

James

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:55 PM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> i got two further links in private mails which seem helpful in this
> area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in
> "safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and
> attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as
> it can be easy explained to users:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
>
> and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in
> section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a
> notification:
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
>
> what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and
> andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a
> wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully
> agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an
> image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't
> it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much?
>
> james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the
> license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report
> copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is
> violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if
> *thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in
> contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news
> here?
>
> best
> rupert
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne 
> wrote:
> > It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the
> > copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that
> > reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in
> a
> > world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the
> licenses.
> > Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other
> people
> > because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC
> image
> > from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up
> being
> > credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe
> > Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from
> > multiple other people.
> >
> > When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create
> a
> > liability for down stream reusers.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >>
> >> People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not
> >> comply
> >> with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
> >> expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
> >>
> >> For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
> >> author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
> >> Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that
> >> information
> >> is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
> >> page.[1]
> >>
> >> Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
> >> being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So
> why
> >> shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly
> >> the
> >> same way Wikipedia is using it?
> >>
> >> If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them,
> given
> >> what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
> >> even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if
> they
> >> do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they
> can
> >> get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
> >>
> >> One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
> >> who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
> >> Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the
> required
> >> attribution.
> >>
> >> It doesn't seem fair.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
> >> [2]
> >>
> >> https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-
> ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time
> this
> >>> came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make
> >>> images
> >>> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved
> >>> (amongst
> >>> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia
> >>> article
> >>> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the
> image
> >>> description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a
> >>> ~$1000
> >>> fee. These kind of predatory 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[rupert THURNER]

i got two further links in private mails which seem helpful in this
area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in
"safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and
attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as
it can be easy explained to users:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki

and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in
section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a
notification:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and
andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a
wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully
agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an
image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't
it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much?

james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the
license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report
copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is
violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if
*thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in
contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news
here?

best
rupert

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne  wrote:
> It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the
> copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that
> reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in a
> world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the licenses.
> Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other people
> because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC image
> from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up being
> credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe
> Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from
> multiple other people.
>
> When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create a
> liability for down stream reusers.
>
>
>
> On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>> People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not
>> comply
>> with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
>> expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
>>
>> For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
>> author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
>> Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that
>> information
>> is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
>> page.[1]
>>
>> Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
>> being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
>> shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly
>> the
>> same way Wikipedia is using it?
>>
>> If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
>> what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
>> even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
>> do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
>> get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
>>
>> One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
>> who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
>> Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
>> attribution.
>>
>> It doesn't seem fair.
>>
>>
>> [1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
>> [2]
>>
>> https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:
>>
>>> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
>>> came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make
>>> images
>>> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved
>>> (amongst
>>> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia
>>> article
>>> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
>>> description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a
>>> ~$1000
>>> fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral
>>> standing
>>> of the movement IMO.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the 
copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that 
reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in 
a world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the 
licenses. Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from 
other people because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe 
uploads an CC image from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the 
image it will end up being credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. 
Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe Blow's image is actually a 
derivative that contains parts of images from multiple other people.


When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create 
a liability for down stream reusers.



On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply
with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
expected to comply with them. That's a problem.

For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information
is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
page.[1]

Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the
same way Wikipedia is using it?

If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.

One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
attribution.

It doesn't seem fair.


[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
[2]
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:


I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.




I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

On 06/03/2017 06:37, Gergő Tisza wrote:

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:


I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
accompanying page.


I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.


But Commons does the same thing in reverse. I recall some 12yo uploading 
a photograph of a butterfly in the mistaken belief that it could only be 
used on wikipedia. Then when realising the mistake wanted the image 
removed. The Commons denizens harangued and hounded the kid across 
various talk and administrator pages for several weeks in respect to the 
fine print of the license.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

On 07/03/2017 02:24, James Forrester wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 18:14 Lilburne > wrote:


For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image
along
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?

Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.


This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's 
Commons POTD 
, 
unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)





In which case I have little sympathy for those too lazy to use the tools 
provided.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

I believe we already have that in the upload form - this user chose not to
use it.

Someone mentioned earlier that if someone is of bad faith, they will always
find a way to fool the system. So lets not worry too much - I'm just saying
that this is a social issue even more than a technical one.

Lodewijk

2017-03-07 14:53 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:

>  Could we set it up so that the uploader could set their preferred
> "Attribute me as..." text, if they want something different from the
> default? And make the facilities for generating it automatically more
> prominent?
>
> That would both help good faith uploaders to get better compliance without
> a lot of hassle, and hinder bad faith ones from setting traps. I see that
> as good for everyone.
>
> On Mar 7, 2017 6:35 AM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, that would technically violate the terms as stated in the template.
> > The result of those buttons would be:
> > "By Taxiarchos228 (Own work) [FAL], via Wikimedia Commons"
> >
> > According to the detailed description it has to be (I think):
> > "By Wladyslaw Sojka, www.sojka.photo"
> > (from the description it's not even 100% clear to me whether the license
> > has to be mentioned).
> >
> > I'm not sure whether this kind of 'trapping' is part of the bad
> practices,
> > but given the stories I read so far, I wouldn't be surprised.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-07 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you
> > press
> > > the right icons.
> > >
> > > Jonatan Svensson Glad
> > > Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons
> > >
> > > > On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
> > > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Todd Allen]

 Could we set it up so that the uploader could set their preferred
"Attribute me as..." text, if they want something different from the
default? And make the facilities for generating it automatically more
prominent?

That would both help good faith uploaders to get better compliance without
a lot of hassle, and hinder bad faith ones from setting traps. I see that
as good for everyone.

On Mar 7, 2017 6:35 AM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> Well, that would technically violate the terms as stated in the template.
> The result of those buttons would be:
> "By Taxiarchos228 (Own work) [FAL], via Wikimedia Commons"
>
> According to the detailed description it has to be (I think):
> "By Wladyslaw Sojka, www.sojka.photo"
> (from the description it's not even 100% clear to me whether the license
> has to be mentioned).
>
> I'm not sure whether this kind of 'trapping' is part of the bad practices,
> but given the stories I read so far, I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2017-03-07 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonatan Svensson Glad <gladjona...@outlook.com
> >:
>
> > Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you
> press
> > the right icons.
> >
> > Jonatan Svensson Glad
> > Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons
> >
> > > On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Well, that would technically violate the terms as stated in the template.
The result of those buttons would be:
"By Taxiarchos228 (Own work) [FAL], via Wikimedia Commons"

According to the detailed description it has to be (I think):
"By Wladyslaw Sojka, www.sojka.photo"
(from the description it's not even 100% clear to me whether the license
has to be mentioned).

I'm not sure whether this kind of 'trapping' is part of the bad practices,
but given the stories I read so far, I wouldn't be surprised.

Lodewijk


2017-03-07 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonatan Svensson Glad <gladjona...@outlook.com>:

> Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you press
> the right icons.
>
> Jonatan Svensson Glad
> Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons
>
> > On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you press the 
right icons.

Jonatan Svensson Glad
Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" 
> <wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 
> Re: a second commons,    prevent cease and desist business

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Hello Lilburne,


https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en


--Steinsplitter


Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von 
Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2017 03:14
An: Wikimedia Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?

Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.

On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER wrote:
> on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>
> but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> work.
>
> as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> sides.
>
> [1] 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> [4] 
> https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-interview-mit-simplicius/
>
> best
> rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Andreas Kolbe]

People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply
with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
expected to comply with them. That's a problem.

For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information
is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
page.[1]

Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the
same way Wikipedia is using it?

If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.

One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
attribution.

It doesn't seem fair.


[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
[2]
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:

> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
> came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
> description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
> fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
> of the movement IMO.
>


> I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
> - the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
> (e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
> - the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
> - the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
> elsewhere
> but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
> of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
> license.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Tim Landscheidt]

James Forrester  wrote:

>> For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
>> link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along
>> with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
>> the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?

>> Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.

> This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's Commons
> POTD
> ,
> unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)

> On viewing the image/media file, users can click the "share" icon, then
> pick "embed", and they get an HTML response contains the uploader account name
> (with link), the licence name (with link), and a link to the media file's
> page on wiki.

> […]

That procedure leads to the result (word-wrapped):

| 
|   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg;>
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg;
 alt="Ehrenstetten - Ölbergkapelle6.jpg" width="16247" height="6083">
|   
|   
|   By Taxiarchos228 -
|   Own work,
|   http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en; title="Free Art 
License">FAL,
|   https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41725272;>Link
| 

I. e., the author is credited as "Taxiarchos228".  The note
under the image says (in bold): "Als Gegenleistung für die
kostenlose (nichtgewerbliche) Nutzung muss der Weiternutzer
nur die Lizenzbedingungen einhalten und den Fotografen (mei-
nen vollständigen Klarnamen Wladyslaw Sojka sowie die ver-
linkte Website www.sojka.photo) als Urheber nennen."

The used Free Art License says in "2.2 Freedom to Distrib-
ute, to Perform in Public":

| You have the right to distribute copies of this work; wheth-
| er modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with
| or without any charge, provided that you:

| - […]

| - specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the
|   originals, including yours if you have modified the work,

| - specify to the recipient where to access the originals
|   (either initial or subsequent).

| […]

I'm not convinced that "Taxiarchos228" is the "name" of the
author as required by the license.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a 
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along 
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for 
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?


Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.

On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER wrote:

on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].

but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
work.

as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
sides.

[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
[4] 
https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-interview-mit-simplicius/

best
rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[WereSpielChequers]

Different people are going to have very different views as to how
diplomatic we should be when we find people who are using our work but not
complying with the license. As long as the movement doesn't invest in
enforcing the relatively minor conditions involved in CC-BY-SA and we leave
enforcement to the individual, we can expect that responses to people who
don't respect our copyrights will range from very diplomatic to the
reverse. With those of us like myself who never write to people who use my
work without attribution being at least partially protected by those who
take a much stricter view of copyright breaches.

If we want more consistency in the way we deal with people who breach our
copyrights, one possible solution is to get the WMF to employ some people
to defend our Intellectual Property rights. It would be difficult to insist
that people who want stricter enforcement leave the issue to WMF IP
enforcement, though I suspect some would. But unless we start insisting
that all contributions are dual licensed CC0 as well as any other license
we shouldn't complain about people who don't consider that their
contributions were dual licensed CC0.

I suspect the main effect of the WMF writing to organisations that use our
work without attribution would be for more attribution and more links back
to Commons. Sometimes there may be an offer to pay what a stock photo site
would charge, I suspect that many of us would be happy to donate such fees
to the WMF. I can understand reluctance on the part of the WMF and some of
its detractors to set up a new department and take on a new role. But
getting more attribution to our sites and our contributors isn't just an
opportunity to get some money and encourage more traffic to our sites. Many
of us are at least partly motivated by seeing our work in use and
attributed to us. Investing in encouraging more organisations to comply
with CC-BY-SA when reusing our contributions may be better thought of as an
editor retention program not an IP defence program.

In the spirit of being bold I have started a submission on this for a
roundtable discussion at Montreal. I hope that others on this list will be
equally bold and put themselves down as speakers.

https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/How_do_we_encourage_reusers_to_respect_CC-BY-SA%3F

WSC


>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 07:06:35 -0700
> From: Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons,prevent cease and desist
> business
> Message-ID:
> <CAGToUqz+JUKQ_NDGpkbaRYjaKhMYZAW6_gF5ekJihKBBXRSPVA@mail.gmail.
> com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Thanks for the specific examples.
>
> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
> a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
> accompanying page.
>
> The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal
> for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be
> banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is
> "It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.
>
> I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the
> project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project.
> But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first
> resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.
>
> I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails
> or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license
> compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is
> clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if
> they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially
> true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a
> mistake in doing so.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Hi Gnagarra,

(in case others try to open the same link unsuccessfully as well: this one
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed>should
work)
The discussion is from 2013, and good to look back at indeed.

I don't disagree that there may be occasions where legal action is the most
reasonable approach. Maybe it would be better to define a 'best practice'
in that field as a community, a path that we consider commonly accepted? It
is really the (perceived?) excesses that triggered this discussion, I
think, not the typical wikimedian that tries to get credit where credit is
due.

Respect may indeed be the term that should take center stage. It is fine
that people expect reusers to respect the terms - but I guess some may have
a disagreement what 'respect' really means, and whether or not it can be
accomplished by hefty 'penalties' and fearmongering.

Lodewijk

2017-03-06 2:01 GMT+01:00 Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>:

> Lodewijk, I posted ​on the 4th,
>
> > Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons
> .
> > wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
> is
> > well worth a read to understand the issue
>
>
> the problem of no attribution is a real issue sometimes I just ask for the
> company to fix that and other times I just ignore.  On one occasion I went
> to a lawyer because the company had put their copyright mark on my photo
> and was offering it for sale. The cases highlighted are trivial and should
> normally be dismissed by courts but using predatory behavior of lawyers
> does get rewards.
>
> I agree that the predatory behavior needs to be addressed but in doing so
> we shouldnt be excluding the opportunity for recourse when malicious
> behaviors of the end user occur.   A part of the free sharing of knowledge
> is ensuring the under lying laws and conditions that enable it are also
> respected by all parties. ​
>
> On 6 March 2017 at 08:03, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times
> > on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually
> > the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I
> didn't
> > see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by
> any
> > chance?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com
> > >:
> >
> > > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> > thus
> > > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> > >
> > > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > > speaks for itself.
> > >
> > > --Steinsplitter
> > >
> > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > >
> > >
> > > ________
> > > Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag
> > von
> > > rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > > business
> > >
> > > case 1:
> > > 
> > > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > > 
> > >
> > > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > > not ready for proper online usage.
> > >
> > > rupert
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the
> materials
> > > in
> > > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that
> wanted
> > to
> > > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the
> Netherlands).
> > > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Peter Southwood]

I agree with your principle. However whenever there is a way to game the 
system, someone will find it and use it. We have to stop this as it reflects 
poorly on those who work here with good faith. Using WMF sites for personal 
profit by using hidden or not easily visible traps is not what we are here to 
do, nor is providing the opportunity for enriching fraudsters who claim other 
people's work as their own.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:37 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

I  think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. 
A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not 
as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed 
ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the 
website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an 
image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright 
notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of 
xyz". 

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com>
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 
2017 22:37:35
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons,
prevent cease and desist business

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in 
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was 
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple 
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up 
> before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on 
> an accompanying page.
>

I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came 
up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the 
wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of 
some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image 
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. 
These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the 
movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers (e.g. a 
commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from elsewhere 
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of 
free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Olatunde Isaac]

I  think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. 
A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not 
as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed 
ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the 
website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an 
image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright 
notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of 
xyz". 

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com>
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 
2017 22:37:35 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons,
prevent cease and desist business

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
> a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
> accompanying page.
>

I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gergő Tisza]

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
> a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
> accompanying page.
>

I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gnangarra]

Lodewijk, I posted ​on the 4th,

> Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons.
> wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed  is
> well worth a read to understand the issue


the problem of no attribution is a real issue sometimes I just ask for the
company to fix that and other times I just ignore.  On one occasion I went
to a lawyer because the company had put their copyright mark on my photo
and was offering it for sale. The cases highlighted are trivial and should
normally be dismissed by courts but using predatory behavior of lawyers
does get rewards.

I agree that the predatory behavior needs to be addressed but in doing so
we shouldnt be excluding the opportunity for recourse when malicious
behaviors of the end user occur.   A part of the free sharing of knowledge
is ensuring the under lying laws and conditions that enable it are also
respected by all parties. ​

On 6 March 2017 at 08:03, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times
> on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually
> the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I didn't
> see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by any
> chance?
>
> Thanks,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com
> >:
>
> > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> thus
> > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> >
> > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > speaks for itself.
> >
> > --Steinsplitter
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> >
> >
> > 
> > Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag
> von
> > rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > business
> >
> > case 1:
> > 
> > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > 
> >
> > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > not ready for proper online usage.
> >
> > rupert
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> > in
> > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
> to
> > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> > aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > > of
> > > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> > or this
> > > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677>
> to
> > > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
> wikipedia"
> > to
> > > find more examples and stories.
> > >
> > > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > >> what we're actually talking about here?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - d.
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times
on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually
the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I didn't
see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by any
chance?

Thanks,
Lodewijk

2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>:

> This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus
> i see no need to discuss it here again.
>
> The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> speaks for itself.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
>
>
> 
> Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von
> rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> business
>
> case 1:
> 
> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> 
>
> personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> not ready for proper online usage.
>
> rupert
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
> > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> in
> > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > of
> > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> or this
> > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
> to
> > find more examples and stories.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> >> what we're actually talking about here?
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

No, I didn't ask any help from the WMF.
I don't know if it would have changed anything.

Regards,

Yann

2017-03-05 21:07 GMT+01:00 Rogol Domedonfors :

> Yann
>
> Did you ask for, or receive, any help from the WMF?  If so, was it
> effective?  If not, do you think you should have done?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a personal experience which is worth considering.
> > One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without
> > attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets
> > (printed to more than 10,000 copies each).
> > I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was
> > not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite
> difficult
> > to accept.
> > But then they stopped answering to my mails.
> > So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000
> > euros".
> > Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a
> compensation
> > of a few euros", which is completely false.
> > Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds
> euros.
> > Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer
> > directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yann
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
> >
> > > Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a
> lawyer.
> > > Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask
> him.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list
> > that
> > > > violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content
> that
> > I
> > > > wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
> > > > community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or
> should
> > > it
> > > > coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous
> > individual
> > > > approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
> > > > without
> > > > > proper attribution.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
> > > discussions
> > > > > > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > > > > > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted
> examples
> > of
> > > > > > what we're actually talking about here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - d.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > >  > unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > James Heilman
> > > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > James Heilman
> > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Yann

Did you ask for, or receive, any help from the WMF?  If so, was it
effective?  If not, do you think you should have done?

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a personal experience which is worth considering.
> One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without
> attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets
> (printed to more than 10,000 copies each).
> I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was
> not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite difficult
> to accept.
> But then they stopped answering to my mails.
> So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000
> euros".
> Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a compensation
> of a few euros", which is completely false.
> Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds euros.
> Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer
> directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
>
> 2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
>
> > Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer.
> > Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list
> that
> > > violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that
> I
> > > wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
> > > community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or should
> > it
> > > coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous
> individual
> > > approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
> > > without
> > > > proper attribution.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
> > discussions
> > > > > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > > > > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples
> of
> > > > > what we're actually talking about here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - d.
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > James Heilman
> > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > >
> > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

I have a personal experience which is worth considering.
One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without
attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets
(printed to more than 10,000 copies each).
I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was
not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite difficult
to accept.
But then they stopped answering to my mails.
So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000
euros".
Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a compensation
of a few euros", which is completely false.
Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds euros.
Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer
directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(

Regards,

Yann


2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

> Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer.
> Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
> > violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
> > wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
> > community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or should
> it
> > coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
> > approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
> > without
> > > proper attribution.
> > >
> > > https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
> discussions
> > > > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > > > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > > > what we're actually talking about here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - d.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > James Heilman
> > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer.
Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.

James

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
> violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
> wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
> community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or should it
> coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
> approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
> without
> > proper attribution.
> >
> > https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > > what we're actually talking about here?
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Todd Allen]

Thanks for the specific examples.

I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
accompanying page.

The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal
for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be
banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is
"It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.

I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the
project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project.
But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first
resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.

I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails
or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license
compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is
clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if
they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially
true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a
mistake in doing so.

Todd

On Mar 5, 2017 5:36 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
>  this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia   We know that
> each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its
> own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise.
> That is useful.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> thus
> > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> >
> > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > speaks for itself.
> >
> > --Steinsplitter
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> >
> >
> > 
> > Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag
> von
> > rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > business
> >
> > case 1:
> > 
> > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > 
> >
> > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > not ready for proper online usage.
> >
> > rupert
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> > in
> > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
> to
> > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> > aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > > of
> > > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> > or this
> > > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677>
> to
> > > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
> wikipedia"
> > to
> > > find more examples and stories.
> > >
> > > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-le

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
 this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia   We know that
each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its
own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise.
That is useful.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
wrote:

> This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus
> i see no need to discuss it here again.
>
> The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> speaks for itself.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
>
>
> 
> Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von
> rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> business
>
> case 1:
> 
> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> 
>
> personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> not ready for proper online usage.
>
> rupert
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
> > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> in
> > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > of
> > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> or this
> > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
> to
> > find more examples and stories.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> >> what we're actually talking about here?
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus i 
see no need to discuss it here again.

The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for 
itself.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen



Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von 
rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
An: Wikimedia Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

case 1:

to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
"abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):


personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
not ready for proper online usage.

rupert

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
> good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> of
> hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or 
> this
> website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
> find more examples and stories.
>
> Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
>
>> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
>> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
>> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
>> what we're actually talking about here?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[rupert THURNER]

case 1:
daniel pugge has a single person enterprise, and a blog. out of
wordpress he linked to the "juice plus" wikipedia article with marco
almbauers picture on it. the wordpress preview showing the thumbnail
of the linked article. marco then used the services of kurt kulac,
former president of wikimedia austria, to send a cease and desist
letter to daniel. reason: cc-by-sa-4.0, "license not stated directly
adjacent or within the picture". daniels conclusion "don't use
wikipedia commons" is not what the movement mission is:
* 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juice_Plus=revision=708489448=707955254
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VSf12T37fY
* cost: this one the cheap version, 524 euro,
https://www.jurablogs.com/go/abmahnung-marco-almbauer, daniels lawyer
not included
* http://danielpugge.de/impressum/
this case i find highly disturbing - i thought he cc license is fixed
now that dummy linking by dummy persons is not dangerous any more.

case 2:
kai copied a foto, medium resolution from commons to his own
webserver. he linked to it, attributing properly. afterwards he
deleted the website including the attribution, but left the picture on
the server. it still could be found by the search indixers. from the
cc germany mailing list, getting the helpful answer in the lines of
"if you are that stupid you deserve to pay":
* http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-de/2017-January/001138.html

to give other examples of edits the vote tried to ban from de:wp are
ones of 10 or so authors considered to create a trap. e.g. change the
foto of rijksmuseum amsterdam to his own, or berlin cathedral,
sometimes including an edit war between the two camps:
* 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rijksmuseum=prev=728651441
* 
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berliner_Dom=next=163030993
* reporting for vandalism:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2017/02/26#Artikel_Berliner_Dom_.28erl..29

to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
"abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
Harald Bischoff, Martina Nolte, Ralf Roletschek, Alexander Savin,
Wladyslaw Sojka, Sven Teschke, Dirk Vorderstraße, Thomas Wolf.

personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
not ready for proper online usage.

rupert

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
> good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> 
> of
> hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or 
> this
> website that was asked  to
> pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
> find more examples and stories.
>
> Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :
>
>> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
>> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
>> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
>> what we're actually talking about here?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill

of
hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this
website that was asked  to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
find more examples and stories.

Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.

Lodewijk

2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :

> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> what we're actually talking about here?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or should it
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without
> proper attribution.
>
> https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > what we're actually talking about here?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without
proper attribution.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22

James

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> what we're actually talking about here?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[David Gerard]

This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
what we're actually talking about here?


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gnangarra]

Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
 is well worth a read to understand the issue

On 4 March 2017 at 17:44, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of
> such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why
> they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier
> for them with links.
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based
> on
> > Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
> > https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100
> >
> > They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content
> under a
> > CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
> > are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached
> out
> > to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being
> asked.
> >
> > Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
> > should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
> > refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> acknowledgement
> >> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> >>
> >> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a
> caption. It
> >> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
> can
> >> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very
> minimal
> >> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> >> material.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> >> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> >> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> >> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> >> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> >> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> >> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> >> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> >> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >> >
> >> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> >> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> >> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> >> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> >> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> >> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> >> > work.
> >> >
> >> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> >> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> >> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> >> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> >> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> >> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> >> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> >> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> >> > sides.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> >> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> >> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> Wolf_im_Wald
> >> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> >> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-
> abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> >> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >> >
> >> > best
> >> > rupert
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[rupert THURNER]

that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of
such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why
they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier
for them with links.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on
> Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100
>
> They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a
> CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
> are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out
> to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.
>
> Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
> should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
> refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
>> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>>
>> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
>> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
>> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
>> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
>> material.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
>> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
>> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
>> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
>> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
>> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
>> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
>> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
>> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>> >
>> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
>> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
>> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
>> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
>> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
>> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
>> > work.
>> >
>> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
>> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
>> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
>> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
>> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
>> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
>> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
>> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
>> > sides.
>> >
>> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
>> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
>> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
>> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
>> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
>> > interview-mit-simplicius/
>> >
>> > best
>> > rupert
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Sure, and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with that.

However, in the current legal construct, the author can decide whether to
apply that principle or not.

The question remains: if people apply principles that go way beyond that,
what do we do? I think question that was put in the German community is a
very realistic one, and if we don't tackle the issue, that may bite us
later. There is no correct answer though - because both using and not using
such image (or even deleting it) will have a downside to free knowledge.
Either we don't show a piece of free knowledge, or we risk that people stop
trusting our repository as a safe resource to reuse from.

There are multiple alternative approaches to the issue, besides stopping to
use the image (or even deleting it). One is to add a warning to the
description page. Rupert's proposal on this list is the mirror of that:
adding a 'marked as safe' notice (which is what using a separate project
basically is), for a subset of licenses that are considered reuse-friendly
(not just in theory, but also in practice).

I personally feel that would go too far - and that we should tackle the
actual problem: bad faith uploaders. This is, presumably, a very small
percentage, and marking them as such may go a long way. I could even
imagine prohibiting those users under certain circumstances to upload
further material, as they are abusing the system. But that is rather a
question for the Wikimedia Commons community, I suspect.

Lodewijk

2017-03-03 3:10 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

> Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image
> or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
>
> Peter does this work better
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=gbs_navlinks_s
>
> J
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> >  Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try
> to
> > attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones
> James
> > mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
> > quite right.
> >
> > If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
> > about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good
> faith
> > effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
> > acceptable.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Todd,
> > >
> > > as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> > > wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
> > indeed
> > > what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> > > (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the
> hope
> > > that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
> > the
> > > license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies
> to
> > > that use, and they send them a bill.
> > >
> > > If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to
> the
> > > caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
> > still
> > > be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some
> licenses,
> > > you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
> > which
> > > is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
> > >
> > > The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask
> publishers
> > to
> > > attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> > > images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention
> of
> > > using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
> > >
> > > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> > > discussion)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :
> > >
> > > > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> > > acknowledgement
> > > > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> > > >
> > > > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a
> > caption.
> > > It
> > > > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
> > can
> > > > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very
> > minimal
> > > > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > > > material.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work
> includs
> > > > > "improving 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image
or comply with the license before legal action is taken.

Peter does this work better
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=gbs_navlinks_s

J

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

>  Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
>
> I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to
> attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James
> mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
> quite right.
>
> If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
> about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith
> effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
> acceptable.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Todd,
> >
> > as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> > wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
> indeed
> > what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> > (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
> > that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
> the
> > license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
> > that use, and they send them a bill.
> >
> > If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
> > caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
> still
> > be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
> > you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
> which
> > is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
> >
> > The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers
> to
> > attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> > images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
> > using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
> >
> > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> > discussion)
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :
> >
> > > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> > acknowledgement
> > > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> > >
> > > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a
> caption.
> > It
> > > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
> can
> > > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very
> minimal
> > > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > > material.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > > > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > > > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> > > >
> > > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > > > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last
> 10
> > > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > > > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > > > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > > > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > > > sides.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > > > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> > Wolf_im_Wald
> > > > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Todd Allen]

 Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to
attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James
mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
quite right.

If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith
effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
acceptable.

Todd

On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
> what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
> that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
> license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
> that use, and they send them a bill.
>
> If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
> caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
> be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
> you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
> is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
>
> The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
> attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
> using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
>
> (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> discussion)
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :
>
> > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> acknowledgement
> > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> >
> > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption.
> It
> > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > material.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> > >
> > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > > work.
> > >
> > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> Wolf_im_Wald
> > > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-
> abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > > interview-mit-simplicius/
> > >
> > > best
> > > rupert
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Hi Todd,

as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
(presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
that use, and they send them a bill.

If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.

The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.

(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
discussion)

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Peter Southwood]

I cant get there through your link, maybe something is happening
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
James Heilman
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 4:47 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on 
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100

They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a CC 
BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and are 
selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out to them 
and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.

Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we should 
ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they refuse than we 
should follow through with enforcement.

James

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an 
> acknowledgement to the person who graciously let you use their work totally 
> free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a 
> caption. It takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC 
> licensed. I can see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do 
> these very minimal things in exchange for a rich library of free (as 
> in speech and beer) material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who 
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas 
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which 
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs 
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own) 
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people 
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small 
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even 
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, 
> > the discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the 
> > last 10 years. a digital divide between persons supporting the 
> > original mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, 
> > unrestricted, as success, and the ones who think it is not desired 
> > to incorrectly reference, or feel that others should not make money 
> > out of their work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in 
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses 
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to 
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a 
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both 
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and 
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more, 
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both 
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] 
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] 
> > https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Heilman]

We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=PT100

They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a
CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out
to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.

Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.

James

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Todd Allen]

The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.

It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
material.

Todd

On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:

> on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>
> but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> work.
>
> as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> sides.
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> interview-mit-simplicius/
>
> best
> rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gnangarra]

noting:for give my missing any finer point my German isnt sufficient to
read the discussion without the aid of google translate

The question your asking is should the author of the image have the right
to enforce the licensing of work they have uploaded.  The position you take
is that they dont have that right which means you want all media uploaded
under an effective Public Domain License.

The de.community voted  to accept the proposal outcome based on a majority
not an absolute 2/3rd majority.When the was discussion closed the
proposal was rejected, you have come here to Wikimedia-l to ask for a
second Common to be established to exclude work by authors who exercise
their right to uphold the license under which the work was provided and ask
that this new commons has the right to relicense an authors work under
other licenses.

As side issue is what looks like an external forum presented one side of
the argument while the discussion was on going,  your using this as
justification for asking here.

Commons has a very clear licensing page
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing of whats acceptable
licensing with media uploaded there.

To me what I see here basic forum shopping after the de.community rejected
your proposal IMHO if you want to change or put limitations on
licensing then discussing it on Commons would be a first step. Doing so
without a direct proposal to change licensing or delete(exclude) the works
of others would enable a wider view and other possible suitable outcomes.
I would suggest that when starting the discussion that evidence be
presented to support the accusations being made, if the google translators
choice of words are accurate then it needs to be well substantiated 


On 2 March 2017 at 13:44, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>
> but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> work.
>
> as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> sides.
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> interview-mit-simplicius/
>
> best
> rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[rupert THURNER]

on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].

but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
work.

as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
sides.

[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
[4] 
https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-interview-mit-simplicius/

best
rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,