Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-23 Thread ??? 

On 23/01/2013 12:39, Richard Symonds wrote:

My initial question was aimed to find out what sort of attribution we'd
need to do on Wikimedia UK sites - eg, uk.wikimedia.org and
blog.wikimedia.org.

I'm not really *keen* on changing policy on Wikipedia. That's not my job!



In that case just do what flickr does when someone grabs the code from 
the "Share->Grab the HTML/BBCode" link.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-23 Thread Richard Symonds 
My initial question was aimed to find out what sort of attribution we'd
need to do on Wikimedia UK sites - eg, uk.wikimedia.org and
blog.wikimedia.org.

I'm not really *keen* on changing policy on Wikipedia. That's not my job!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 23 January 2013 12:22, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 23 January 2013 10:10, Stevie Benton 
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright
> > information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is
> this
> > going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles illustrated with
> > images too? Apologies if I've missed something here.
>
> Yes, I think Richard's initial question was about Wikipedia, etc.. The
> subject of blogs was just raised as an example of somewhere we
> sometimes take a different approach.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-23 Thread Thomas Dalton 
On 23 January 2013 10:10, Stevie Benton  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright
> information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is this
> going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles illustrated with
> images too? Apologies if I've missed something here.

Yes, I think Richard's initial question was about Wikipedia, etc.. The
subject of blogs was just raised as an example of somewhere we
sometimes take a different approach.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-23 Thread Stevie Benton 
Hello all,

An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright
information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is this
going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles illustrated with
images too? Apologies if I've missed something here.

Thanks,

Stevie

On 22 January 2013 23:51, Michael Jahn  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> great question, Richard! Seconding Matthew's comment on WMF blog policy: At
> Wikimedia Deutschland we adopted the bottom notes for posts with multiple
> images[1]. As a general rule, we include attribution in the bylines[2].
>
> Adding yet another aspect to sufficient CC licensing, let's not forget that
> CC deeds actually recommend linking to deeds[3], as exemplified here[4].
>
> I particularly like Thomas' notion of not differentiating between
> attribution requirements for text and images. From my personal
> understanding of CC license terms, I agree. There is no difference, which
> indeed leads to the question:
>
> "How to deal with authorship attribution of dozens of authors (to pick a
> rather simple example) under CC-BY-SA in any convincing manner?" That is,
> "convincing" as in "intuitive and practical use cases".
>
> I sense that this is, first of all, an issue for Creative Commons licensing
> politics.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
> [1] see e. g.
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/17/die-gesichter-hinter-den-zahlen-ein-ruckblick-auf-die-spendenkampagne-2012-2/
> [2] see e. g.
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/21/die-server-der-wikimedia-foundation-ziehen-um/
> [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> [4] please follow the asterisc here
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/06/20/zahlen-und-bilder-die-wikimania-2012-in-washington-d-c/
>
> 2013/1/22 Matthew Roth 
>
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds <
> > richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing.
> It's
> > > about licencing.
> > >
> > > Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example,
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be
> > > clicked
> > > on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same
> > > applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > On the Wikimedia blog, we include "Copyright notes" at the bottom of each
> > post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name
> (and
> > link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page
> on
> > CC or elsewhere. See for example:
> >
> >
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/
> >
> > This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that
> we
> > appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA
> > license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> >
> > Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have
> > subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin
> end
> > or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give
> > to post authors and editors:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Notes
> >
> > thanks,
> > Matthew
> >
> > --
> >
> > Matthew Roth
> > Global Communications Manager
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
> > www.wikimediafoundation.org
> > *https://donate.wikimedia.org*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260
>
> http://wikimedia.de 
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
> Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
>
> *Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
> Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:*
> http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 

Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Flo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Michael Jahn 
Hi,

great question, Richard! Seconding Matthew's comment on WMF blog policy: At
Wikimedia Deutschland we adopted the bottom notes for posts with multiple
images[1]. As a general rule, we include attribution in the bylines[2].

Adding yet another aspect to sufficient CC licensing, let's not forget that
CC deeds actually recommend linking to deeds[3], as exemplified here[4].

I particularly like Thomas' notion of not differentiating between
attribution requirements for text and images. From my personal
understanding of CC license terms, I agree. There is no difference, which
indeed leads to the question:

"How to deal with authorship attribution of dozens of authors (to pick a
rather simple example) under CC-BY-SA in any convincing manner?" That is,
"convincing" as in "intuitive and practical use cases".

I sense that this is, first of all, an issue for Creative Commons licensing
politics.

Best,
Michael


[1] see e. g.
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/17/die-gesichter-hinter-den-zahlen-ein-ruckblick-auf-die-spendenkampagne-2012-2/
[2] see e. g.
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/21/die-server-der-wikimedia-foundation-ziehen-um/
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
[4] please follow the asterisc here
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/06/20/zahlen-und-bilder-die-wikimania-2012-in-washington-d-c/

2013/1/22 Matthew Roth 

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds <
> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's
> > about licencing.
> >
> > Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example,
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be
> > clicked
> > on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same
> > applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
> >
>
> Hi Richard,
> On the Wikimedia blog, we include "Copyright notes" at the bottom of each
> post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name (and
> link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page on
> CC or elsewhere. See for example:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/
>
> This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that we
> appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA
> license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have
> subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin end
> or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give
> to post authors and editors:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Notes
>
> thanks,
> Matthew
>
> --
>
> Matthew Roth
> Global Communications Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
> +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> *https://donate.wikimedia.org*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260

http://wikimedia.de 

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!

*Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:*
http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread HaeB 
2013/1/22 ??? :
> On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable
>>> as
>>> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
>>>
>>> - Does anyone have any input on this?
>>> - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
>>> - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the
>>> full
>>> byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
>>
>>
>> If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as
>> well?
>>
>> It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm
>> not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than
>> no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.
>>
>> The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is
>> potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to
>> be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you
>> import something the author has made no such agreement.
>>
>
> Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark.
> If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the
> case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating
> 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of
> it.
>
That's a very simplified description of what happened. See e.g
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/News_and_notes

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Brad Jorsch 
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Richard Symonds
 wrote:
>
> The CC family of licences [...] however, say that
> you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the
> fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.

Err, where?

Looking at the text of the CC-BY-SA-3.0, it looks to me like it says
to "provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing"
various information, but doesn't specify exactly how this is to be
presented. It even explicitly says "The credit required by this
Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner". Is linking
to an image description page with all this information reasonable to
the medium of an online encyclopedia using the MediaWiki software?

It also says you must "keep intact all copyright notices for the
Work", but it doesn't seem to specify what exactly "keep intact"
means. If you take a CC-licensed mp3 with a copyright notice in the
id3 tag and use it as part of the soundtrack for your feature film,
you can't exactly keep the id3 tag but you could transfer it to the
credits. Does that keep it intact? If you crop a copyright notice
watermark off of an image but transcribe the text of the notice to the
image's metadata (or MediaWiki file description page), does that keep
it intact?

The "armchair lawyers" on Wikipedia and Commons typically answer these
questions as "yes". If you really want to know the answers to all
these questions, ask a real lawyer and/or take it to court for an
actual ruling.

> - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?

It has come up on enwiki's Village pump several times. Probably on
Commons's equivalent as well.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread ??? 

On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:

On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
 wrote:

It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as
attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:

- Does anyone have any input on this?
- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full
byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?


If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well?

It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm
not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than
no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.

The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is
potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to
be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you
import something the author has made no such agreement.



Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright 
watermark. If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator 
and in the case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after 
donating 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons 
because of it.




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Thomas Dalton 
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
 wrote:
> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as
> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
>
>- Does anyone have any input on this?
>- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
>- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full
>byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?

If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well?

It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm
not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than
no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.

The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is
potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to
be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you
import something the author has made no such agreement.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Matthew Roth 
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> All,
>
> I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's
> about licencing.
>
> Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example,
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be
> clicked
> on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same
> applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.
>

Hi Richard,
On the Wikimedia blog, we include "Copyright notes" at the bottom of each
post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name (and
link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page on
CC or elsewhere. See for example:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/

This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that we
appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA
license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have
subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin end
or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give
to post authors and editors:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Notes

thanks,
Matthew

-- 

Matthew Roth
Global Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
+1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
www.wikimediafoundation.org
*https://donate.wikimedia.org*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Thomas Morton 
I've always considered this poor policy on the part of Wikipedia; a sort of
intellectual "grab" that we do so well :(

I've uploaded images before by great photographers, after working to obtain
their permission, and make a point of crediting them when inserting the
image into the article - partly because it's useful to know and partly
because it seems fair.

Tom


On 22 January 2013 17:46, Lodewijk  wrote:

> And I'm also unsure all the upload wizards have the same text?
>
> 2013/1/22 David Gerard 
>
> > On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box:
> > > "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under
> the
> > > Creative Commons license."
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we
> > can't presume the creators have clicked said button.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Lodewijk 
And I'm also unsure all the upload wizards have the same text?

2013/1/22 David Gerard 

> On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
> > FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box:
> > "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the
> > Creative Commons license."
>
>
> Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we
> can't presume the creators have clicked said button.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread David Gerard 
On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:

> FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box:
> "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the
> Creative Commons license."


Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we
can't presume the creators have clicked said button.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Philippe Beaudette 
FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box:
"...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the
Creative Commons license."

pb

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

> On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
>  wrote:
>
> > The CC family of licences, and Commons re-use guidelines, however, say
> that
> > you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the
> > fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.
> >
> > It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable
> as
> > attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
> >
> >- Does anyone have any input on this?
> >- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
> >- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the
> full
> >byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
> >
> > Your thoughts much appreciated!
>
> Considering mixing my elephant (in corner) and worm (can of) metaphors...
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
 wrote:

> The CC family of licences, and Commons re-use guidelines, however, say that
> you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the
> fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.
>
> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as
> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
>
>- Does anyone have any input on this?
>- Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
>- Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full
>byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
>
> Your thoughts much appreciated!

Considering mixing my elephant (in corner) and worm (can of) metaphors...

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Licencing question

2013-01-22 Thread Richard Symonds 
All,

I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's
about licencing.

Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked
on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same
applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs.

The CC family of licences, and Commons re-use guidelines, however, say that
you need to have attribution using a byline next to the image, in the
fashion 'Horation Nelson/CC-BY-SA'.

It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as
attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:

   - Does anyone have any input on this?
   - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
   - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full
   byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?

Your thoughts much appreciated!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l