On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova <[email protected]> wrote: > and no share of authorship. If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the > matter certainly would be taken seriously.
Do you think? Based on past experience, the reaction is usually to laugh at the offending party for a) using Wikipedia text rather than writing their own, and b) failing to cite it. Can you think of instances where a high-profile plagiariser was reprimanded by the WMF for not meeting licence conditions? Perhaps the difference with images is that there is nothing wrong or unusual with Time using a third party photo - no one expects them to produce all their own photos from scratch. So there remains only the question of the licence and giving proper credit. And lastly, you're in the area of image restoration rather than image creation, which makes your creative work even more subtle and difficult to point to precisely. I guess these various factors combine to subdue the hoped for outrage from your fellow editors. Is there any policy (or even expectation) for the WMF to contact third parties on editors' behalf? Ultimately, the issue of copyright infringement is between the producer of the work, and the party using it, with Wikipedia just an intermediary, right? Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
