i got two further links in private mails which seem helpful in this
area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in
"safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and
attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as
it can be easy explained to users:

and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in
section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a

what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and
andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a
wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully
agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an
image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't
it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much?

james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the
license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report
copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is
violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if
*thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in
contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news


On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
> It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the
> copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that
> reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in a
> world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the licenses.
> Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other people
> because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC image
> from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up being
> credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe
> Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from
> multiple other people.
> When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create a
> liability for down stream reusers.
> On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not
>> comply
>> with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
>> expected to comply with them. That's a problem.
>> For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
>> author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
>> Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that
>> information
>> is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
>> page.[1]
>> Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
>> being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
>> shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly
>> the
>> same way Wikipedia is using it?
>> If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
>> what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
>> even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
>> do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
>> get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.
>> One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
>> who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
>> Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
>> attribution.
>> It doesn't seem fair.
>> [1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
>> [2]
>> https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
>>> came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make
>>> images
>>> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved
>>> (amongst
>>> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia
>>> article
>>> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
>>> description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a
>>> ~$1000
>>> fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral
>>> standing
>>> of the movement IMO.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to