Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-28 Thread rupert THURNER
On Jul 28, 2015 9:37 AM, "WereSpielChequers" wrote: > It isn't clear to me at present whether he is: > > 1 insisting on his undisputed licence rights > 2 strictly enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one Wikimedia project and don't ourselves breach as a movement > 3 enforcing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-28 Thread WereSpielChequers
I don't know whether this is a mistranslation in the title thread, but if this wikimedian is "advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users" that would seem to me a different thing to taking images for himself but releasing a CC-BY-SA version on Wikimedia Common

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-26 Thread
As this may be a good opportunity to discuss the case as test of Commons policies, this has been raised on the Wikimedia Commons administrators noticeboard.[1] Please feel free to add evidence or viewpoints there. Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Lega

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-26 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
It looks to me like Harald Bischoff is making Money with this. If you google his Name, you find a lot of Blogposts related his "Abmahnungen [1]". According to jurablogs he is also sending such "Abmahnungen" when a link to the license text itself is missing [2]. Bischoff is sending the Abmahnung

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-21 Thread Lilburne
On 21/07/2015 08:00, rupert THURNER wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne wrote: On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde wrote: it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-21 Thread rupert THURNER
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne wrote: > On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde wrote: >> >>> it is also hard for me to get behind the >>> notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things >>> that >>> Commons actually

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Lilburne
On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde wrote: it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. It's not a question of punishment, but of protec

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
***note this reply is still entirely in my personal capacity and in no way represents anything official*** On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > > Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as > CC, > > we follow the same rules as anyone else. > > > > N

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde wrote: > > > it is also hard for me to get behind the > > notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things > that > > Commons actually recommends that they do. > > It's not a questi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Richard Symonds
I think the next step is for someone to notify him that he's being talked about. :-) On 20 Jul 2015 13:39, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde wrote: > > > it is also hard for me to get behind the > > notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the thing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde wrote: > it is also hard for me to get behind the > notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that > Commons actually recommends that they do. It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons' reputation (from being"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
Poking around I found the following related discussions listed below (all in German) dealing with the current issue and a similar 2013 complaint. In the second link Harald responds a couple times to the 2013 complaint. The Google translate versions of the linked discussions are somewhat hard to f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Newyorkbrad
I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing without requested attribution information after warnings. Has anyone directly c

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, > we follow the same rules as anyone else. > Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line accompany CC BY images, which is somethin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
***note this reply is entirely in my personal capacity and in no way represents anything official*** On Jul 20, 2015 3:09 AM, "rupert THURNER" wrote: > > the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer > differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. Since when has t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
What do you mean by legalize? The license is what the license is, while we might influence future versions of the license, we don't really control how current licenses are interpreted. That is an issue for the courts. There is a modest ambiguity in CC BY-SA 3.0 about the attribution clauses (e.g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Jane Darnell
I would agree - it has annoyed me for years that on Dutch Wikipedia, if you use a painting image from Commons in an article, you may attribute the painter (though it's not required) but you may NOT attribute the painting's owner (often a museum and this seems ridiculous to me). I agree we should re

[Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread rupert THURNER
hi, may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds. there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff states "comes into si