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)
- 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.
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 7. 30. 오전 2:33에 "Lilburne" <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>님이 작성:
> On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:
>> Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]"
>> 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
>> 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:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: