In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant. Main confusions are in three areas: 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg ) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F ) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person )
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ 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>
