case 1:
daniel pugge has a single person enterprise, and a blog. out of
wordpress he linked to the "juice plus" wikipedia article with marco
almbauers picture on it. the wordpress preview showing the thumbnail
of the linked article. marco then used the services of kurt kulac,
former president of wikimedia austria, to send a cease and desist
letter to daniel. reason: cc-by-sa-4.0, "license not stated directly
adjacent or within the picture". daniels conclusion "don't use
wikipedia commons" is not what the movement mission is:
* cost: this one the cheap version, 524 euro,, daniels lawyer
not included
this case i find highly disturbing - i thought he cc license is fixed
now that dummy linking by dummy persons is not dangerous any more.

case 2:
kai copied a foto, medium resolution from commons to his own
webserver. he linked to it, attributing properly. afterwards he
deleted the website including the attribution, but left the picture on
the server. it still could be found by the search indixers. from the
cc germany mailing list, getting the helpful answer in the lines of
"if you are that stupid you deserve to pay":

to give other examples of edits the vote tried to ban from de:wp are
ones of 10 or so authors considered to create a trap. e.g. change the
foto of rijksmuseum amsterdam to his own, or berlin cathedral,
sometimes including an edit war between the two camps:
* reporting for vandalism:

to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
"abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
Harald Bischoff, Martina Nolte, Ralf Roletschek, Alexander Savin,
Wladyslaw Sojka, Sven Teschke, Dirk Vorderstra├če, Thomas Wolf.

personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
not ready for proper online usage.


On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <> wrote:
> I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
> good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> <>
> of
> hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or 
> this
> website that was asked <> to
> pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
> find more examples and stories.
> Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> Lodewijk
> 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <>:
>> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
>> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
>> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
>> what we're actually talking about here?
>> - d.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to