Hi Todd,

as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
(presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
that use, and they send them a bill.

If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to the
caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.

The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.

(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
discussion)

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___________" to a caption. It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to