MusicBrainz (CC0 licensed music metadata project, think Wikidata for music) announced today that they prevailed against Philpot <https://blog.metabrainz.org/2019/06/25/we-were-sued-by-a-copyright-troll-and-we-prevailed/> and had a court dismiss the suit with prejudice.
Some discussion (including Nemo mentioning this thread, thanks!) is happening on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/vrandezo/status/1143548566775853056>. Myself and other Wikimedians are also MusicBrainz contributors, and I'm pretty sure even more of us are consumers through Amazon/last.fm/Spotify/etc. so it would be nice if we could figure out their remaining concerns with using images from Commons, and a way forward. -- Legoktm On 4/24/19 3:58 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) via Commons-l wrote: > See > <https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/04/photographer-sues-for-failure-to-provide-creative-commons-required-attribution-philpot-v-wos.htm> > > > This was briefly discussed also at > <https://2019.copyleftconf.org/schedule/presentation/11/> > > I tried to make a list of some of Philpot cases (attached). > > Federico > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
