Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-08-01 Thread Martin Kraft

Am 31.07.2015 um 19:34 schrieb rupert THURNER:

independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
reusers in future on a safe ground.


The only foolproof licence is CC0, which gives away all rights to the 
user and keeps almost nothing for the author himself. But CC0 neither is 
a CopyLeft licence that perpetually secures the freedom of this content 
(Everybody can take CC0 staff and publish it in a proprietary way wit no 
attribution what-so-ever), nor is it a good argument to convince 
professional or semi-professional contributors to publish there quality 
work under. Hence CC0 is more a problem than a solution.


Beside that, I don't think that it is our prior duty to offer save 
ground to any kind of reusers. A lot of licence violators honestly 
don't give a shit about free content. They just don't care about 
copyrights and have no respect to the author, who created the stuff they 
are using in the first place. I definitely don't want to support that.




By automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of
the image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have
this kind of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.


An attribution only inside the metadata is not compatible with the 
licence's requirements, mainly because it can't be read in every browser 
without any add-ons and digital forensic skills.


The CC-licences require the attributions to be at least as prominent as 
the credits for the other contributing author.


Furthermore a lot of CMS remove such metadata automatically while 
scaling and recompressing images.




Without the need of education.


Education is the only promising approach to prohibit license and 
copyright violations.


We need to teach people, that our content is not free as in free 
beer but free as in freedom and that freedom comes with 
responsibility. Namely the responsibility to give reasonable credit to 
the author of the work (you want to use) and reference the license (that 
allows you to use it).


It is neither possible nor desirable to take that responsibility from 
the users.



// Martin


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-31 Thread rupert THURNER
On Jul 27, 2015 5:33 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

  snip

 This still leaves me
  wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
  reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
  license terms as they understood them on Commons.

 snip
 

 Acting in good faith will, at best, mitigate against damages.  It isn't
 actually a defense against liability.  If people are getting sued after
 doing absolutely everything right, then I could maybe imagine getting
 involved.  However, in many licensing disputes there is a legitimate case
 that the reuser violated the terms of the license (e.g. by neglecting
 details regarding authorship / attribution / etc.), often due to ignorance
 of what the license requires.  In many such cases, the reuser may well
face
 a likelihood of losing if the case ever made it to court.  In a world of
 good faith we might expect that reusers who made mistakes out of
 ignorance to be treated kindly, but the legal system isn't exactly geared
 towards kindness.

 I think that we (the community + the WMF) should do more to help ensure
 license compliance and educate reusers about appropriate attribution, etc.
 However, I don't think that WMF Legal should get involved in cases where
 someone wanted to do the right thing but failed.  There is no need to
waste
 our resources on third-party cases where there is a significant risk of
 losing.

Robert, and Jan Bart,  what the lawyer did in harald Bischof s Name is
something common. There might be hundreds or thousands of cases, and there
are maybe the same number of images concerned. Google reveals that lawyers
did this on behalf of at least 4 authors in the last 10 years or so. There
is no sign that this will stop in future.

Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.

Best
Rupert
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-31 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
 an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
 independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
 reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
 automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
 image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
 of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.


It's not impossible but a hairy problem. It's being tracked under T5361
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T5361.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-31 Thread Robert Rohde
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:34 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:

 snip

Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
 an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
 independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
 reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
 automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
 image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
 of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.


For a short answer, I think there is no way that attribution which only
appeared within image metadata would be regarded as legally adequate under
current CC licenses.  Such metadata is not sufficiently discoverable to
meet standards for reasonable attribution under the few cases that have
addressed the issue.

-Robert Rohde
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-30 Thread Hong, Yongmin
I would be interested to see the example of Flickr2Commons-uploaded images
which marked license as CCLv3. AFAIK, all images I had to review had
proper CCLv2 template, or it was... (one of the below)
- Copyvio
- Human error (mistake of user)
- It was licensed under NC or ND in fact.

I haven't been much active as I used to be in Commons this year, so bot
code may have been changed. Yet bot shouldn't do that stupid thing (marking
v2 stuff as v3).

--
Revi - commons admin hat here.
https://revi.me
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 7. 30. 오전 2:33에 Lilburne lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net님이 작성:

 On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:

 Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website]
 appear
 in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
 specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
 attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
 upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
 the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any
 reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
 licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
 sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
 the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history
 page
 that lists all authors and editors).]



 Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses.
 Not 2.5, 3.0,
 or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.

 The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a
 v4.0 license. Many
 photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as a
 result. So
 you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0.
 Those running
 flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to
 v3.0 unless they
 are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a
 hyperelink is sufficient for
 attribution. They all say that:

You must keep intact all copyright notices for
 the Work and
give the Original Author credit reasonable to
 the medium or
means You are utilizing by conveying the name
 (or pseudonym
if applicable) of the Original Author if
 supplied; the title of the
Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
 practicable, the
Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that
 Licensor specifies to be
associated with the Work, unless such URI does
 not refer to the
copyright notice or licensing information for
 the Work



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-29 Thread Lilburne

On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:

Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any
reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
that lists all authors and editors).]



Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses. 
Not 2.5, 3.0,

or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.

The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a 
v4.0 license. Many
photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as 
a result. So
you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0. 
Those running
flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to 
v3.0 unless they
are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a 
hyperelink is sufficient for

attribution. They all say that:

   You must keep intact all copyright notices 
for the Work and
   give the Original Author credit reasonable 
to the medium or
   means You are utilizing by conveying the 
name (or pseudonym
   if applicable) of the Original Author if 
supplied; the title of the
   Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably 
practicable, the
   Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that 
Licensor specifies to be
   associated with the Work, unless such URI 
does not refer to the
   copyright notice or licensing information 
for the Work




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-29 Thread James Salsman
... The license requires only that the credit be implemented in
 any reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects,
 while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that
 explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink
 (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using

If it's easy to find the correct image attribution with an image
search, use on the web without explicit textual attribution is
reasonably properly attributed, for values of reasonableness which
involve the actual ease with which the source may be found by someone
exercising a minimal amount of diligence.

Alternatively, printed use with something like photo by Joe Smith
would be far less reasonable even though it purports to name the
credited party. My only motivation here is that of the reputation of
the projects.

The German legal system is fascinating to me. I wish we had 3rd party
standing in the US. Then we would probably get as much sustainable and
power-to-gas energy as Germany has. They are way ahead of everyone
there.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-29 Thread Petr Kadlec
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Martin Kraft wikipe...@martinkraft.com
wrote:

 Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:

 If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
 attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
 in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
 to the extent that their attribution was improper?


 Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, if
 you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the
 copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?!

 Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs Abmahnung. So whoever
 wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some idea of
 what legal offence he should be sued for.

 And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the
 attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution (like
 Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter case
 definetly is no proper CC-attribution.


Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any
reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
that lists all authors and editors).]

And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers
to a blogger who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in
mouseover, i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking
to the image source with full credit and license information), even though
not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-29 Thread Martin Kraft

Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any
reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
that lists all authors and editors).]


1. CC-BY-SA is not defined by what Wikipedia is doing. CC-BY-SA is only 
defined by its legal code.


2. If the licences states You must[0] it means that YOU Yourself need 
to do this. And You yourself simply don't give appropriate credit, if 
you do not provide it yourself, but link to a third party website, you 
don't have any control on and that maybe gone someday. Since one is not 
liable for the content behind an external link, one cannot use it to 
comply personal legal duties, on the other hand.


The attribution you give (Author and Licence) legally is the price you 
pay for using this image. And if you do not give that attribution 
yourself, you don't have any right to use that content.


3. You need to diffenciate between the practice within the wikimedia 
projects and the one outside. No matter if the Wikipedia itself strictly 
fullfills the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (some law experts 
even doubt that)[1], most authors uploaded there work here by themself 
knowing how Wikipedia is going to use them. Therefore we have something 
call an implied-in-fact contract[2] that might legalise the use inside 
Wikipedia anyway.


[0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (Section 4c)
[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung.2FUrheber-Nennung.2FWikipedia_gibt_schlechtes_Beispiel

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract




And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers
to a blogger who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in
mouseover, i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking
to the image source with full credit and license information), even though
not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo.


Afaik there was no proper attribution on mouseover only a backlink to 
Commons. And according to a recent judgment[3] of a court in Munich it 
is not even sufficent to provide attribution via mouse over anyway.


[3] 
http://irights.info/webschau/lg-muenchen-creative-commons-lizenzen-mouseover-namensnennung/25887



// Martin


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-28 Thread Martin Kraft

Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:

If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper?


Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, 
if you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the 
copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?!


Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs Abmahnung. So 
whoever wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some 
idea of what legal offence he should be sued for.


And wether we like what Harald does, or not: The terms and conditions of 
CC-BY-SA require the user of a CC-image to provide proper attribution. 
And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the 
attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution 
(like Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter 
case definetly is no proper CC-attribution. So irrespective of how 
HaraldBischoffs reacted, the his rights where violated. And on the other 
hand I can't see a single project guideline that has been violated by 
his reaction.


So: On the grounds of the what do you want to ban or sue him???

Just to put that straight: I also don't like what he is doing. And of 
course it isn't nice, when the first reaction to a licence offence comes 
with ab bill of 900€. But based on etherything we know, he has the right 
to do so from the legal point of view.


// Martin

[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread Pine W
I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
license terms as they understood them on Commons.

Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
use of volunteer time.

Thanks,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Some people on the one hand like to complain on the interferences and
interventions of the Foundation, and on the other hand want its involvement
when it suits them.
Pointing to the wealth of the Foundation and by that legitimizing any
spending, is not really convincing.
Ziko



Am Montag, 27. Juli 2015 schrieb Pine W :

 I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
 sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
 might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
 block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
 wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
 reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
 license terms as they understood them on Commons.

 Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
 million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
 it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
 reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
 cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
 Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
 people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
 use of volunteer time.

 Thanks,

 Pine
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 ?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread Robert Rohde
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 snip

This still leaves me
 wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
 reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
 license terms as they understood them on Commons.

snip


Acting in good faith will, at best, mitigate against damages.  It isn't
actually a defense against liability.  If people are getting sued after
doing absolutely everything right, then I could maybe imagine getting
involved.  However, in many licensing disputes there is a legitimate case
that the reuser violated the terms of the license (e.g. by neglecting
details regarding authorship / attribution / etc.), often due to ignorance
of what the license requires.  In many such cases, the reuser may well face
a likelihood of losing if the case ever made it to court.  In a world of
good faith we might expect that reusers who made mistakes out of
ignorance to be treated kindly, but the legal system isn't exactly geared
towards kindness.

I think that we (the community + the WMF) should do more to help ensure
license compliance and educate reusers about appropriate attribution, etc.
However, I don't think that WMF Legal should get involved in cases where
someone wanted to do the right thing but failed.  There is no need to waste
our resources on third-party cases where there is a significant risk of
losing.

-Robert Rohde
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread
As a reminder, if files are to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, this
only happens by discussion and administrative action on Wikimedia
Commons.

Roundtable discussion may be interesting, but this is not how
decisions are made in our community. If you have notes or minutes of
this closed meeting, please publish them so the Wikimedia community
can benefit. In the meantime if anyone would like to contribute to a
discussion that may result in the images being removed, please follow
this link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff

All are welcome to express their views.

Thanks,
Fae

On 27 July 2015 at 14:59, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
 sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
 might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
 block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
 wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
 reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
 license terms as they understood them on Commons.

 Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
 million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
 it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
 reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
 cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
 Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
 people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
 use of volunteer time.

 Thanks,

 Pine

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread Pine W
Ziko, is that statement directed at me? If so, I would appreciate it if we
could talk off list.

In any case, I believe that I've attempted to do all the good that I can in
this discussion at this time, so I'm signing off from this discussion for
now.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
The wmf simply can't pursue legal actions against Harald Bischoff for the 
individuals who probably suffered damage. It is up to the community to 
investigate. For example banning him for copyright trolling [1].

A discussion has been started on commons [1].

Apart from that, i find it problematic that Bischoff is claiming to take 
pictures for the wmf on his userpage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll
[2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff

 From: jdevre...@wikimedia.org
 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:33:45 +0200
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against
 Harald Bischoff?
 
 Hey Pine ( All)
 
 I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the 
 Foundation/chapter staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always 
 true.
 
 Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something 
 else that cannot be done). When there are situations when you genuinely need 
 Foundation staff to answer something that is fine, but I think that Risker is 
 arguing that it is best to wait with a request such as this until you are 
 actually at the point of needing that energy to be spent (when the community 
 discussion has concluded)
 
 I am sympathetic to this because I often see requests coming by which really 
 do not take into account the amount of time it takes to provide an answer. Of 
 course there is always room for legitimate requests but I would encourage 
 everyone to think twice before asking staff members (of the Foundation or 
 their chapter) to commit time on something which might be of personal 
 interest to them, or is a hypothetical situation which might well wait until 
 the situation has become reality.
 
 Jan-Bart
 
 
  On 27 Jul 2015, at 01:03, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  Risker,
  
  James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
  license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
  Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
  community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
  parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
  WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
  place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
  and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
  like this.
  
  Pine
  On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
  to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
  discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
  expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
  its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
  whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
  within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
  involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
  be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
  this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
  issue directly with him on-wiki.
  
  Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
  that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
  relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
  relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
  appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
  
  Risker/Anne
  
  On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
  situation.
  
  Pine
  On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
  attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
  standing
  in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
  proportion
  to the extent that their attribution was improper?
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-27 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hey Pine ( All)

I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the Foundation/chapter 
staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always true.

Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something 
else that cannot be done). When there are situations when you genuinely need 
Foundation staff to answer something that is fine, but I think that Risker is 
arguing that it is best to wait with a request such as this until you are 
actually at the point of needing that energy to be spent (when the community 
discussion has concluded)

I am sympathetic to this because I often see requests coming by which really do 
not take into account the amount of time it takes to provide an answer. Of 
course there is always room for legitimate requests but I would encourage 
everyone to think twice before asking staff members (of the Foundation or their 
chapter) to commit time on something which might be of personal interest to 
them, or is a hypothetical situation which might well wait until the situation 
has become reality.

Jan-Bart


 On 27 Jul 2015, at 01:03, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Risker,
 
 James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
 license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
 Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
 community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
 parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
 WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
 place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
 and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
 like this.
 
 Pine
 On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
 to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
 discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
 expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
 its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
 whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
 within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
 involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
 be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
 this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
 issue directly with him on-wiki.
 
 Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
 that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
 relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
 relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
 appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
 
 Risker/Anne
 
 On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
 situation.
 
 Pine
 On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
 attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
 standing
 in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
 proportion
 to the extent that their attribution was improper?
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread Risker
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
issue directly with him on-wiki.

Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
appreciate if you'd stop doing that.

Risker/Anne

On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.

 Pine
 On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

  If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
  attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
 standing
  in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
 proportion
  to the extent that their attribution was improper?
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread Pine W
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.

Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
 attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
 in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
 to the extent that their attribution was improper?
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread Pine W
Risker,

James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
like this.

Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
 to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
 discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
 expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
 its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
 whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
 within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
 involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
 be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
 this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
 issue directly with him on-wiki.

 Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
 that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
 relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
 relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
 appreciate if you'd stop doing that.

 Risker/Anne

 On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

  Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
 situation.
 
  Pine
  On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
   attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
  standing
   in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
  proportion
   to the extent that their attribution was improper?
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe