Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread Pine W 
Risker,

James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
like this.

Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker"  wrote:

> Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
> to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
> discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
> expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
> its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
> whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
> within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
> involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
> be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
> this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
> issue directly with him on-wiki.
>
> Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
> that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
> relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
> relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
> appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
> situation.
> >
> > Pine
> > On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman"  wrote:
> >
> > > If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> > > attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
> > standing
> > > in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
> > proportion
> > > to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2015-07-26 Thread Fæ 
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#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread Risker 
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
issue directly with him on-wiki.

Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
appreciate if you'd stop doing that.

Risker/Anne

On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W  wrote:

> Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.
>
> Pine
> On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman"  wrote:
>
> > If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> > attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
> standing
> > in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
> proportion
> > to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread Pine W 
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.

Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman"  wrote:

> If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
> in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
> to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-26 Thread James Salsman 
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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 Abmahnungen though an Attorney which is asking the 
affected persons to sign a cease and desist letter. Apart from that the 
affected person is requested to pay for damages and attorneys fees[2].

The complains are all over the web, this is imho a very bad reputation for 
wiki(p/m)edia.
I am wondering if his behavior is violating the terms of use.

Regards,
Steinsplitter

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung
[2] 
http://www.jurablogs.com/2015/04/28/abmahnung-wegen-unberechtigter-bildnutzung-des-herrn-harald-bischoff-auch-ins-ausland
[3] 
https://www.betterplace.org/de/fundraising-events/freiheitsliebe-abmahnung-durch-bischoff
 

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:
> 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 situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
> here:
>
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=143679802
> "komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
> andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"
>
> harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
> and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
> who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
> attributing in mouseover:
>
> http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/
>
> what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
> i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
> website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
> differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
> only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
> link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
> cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?
>
> to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
> does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
> should either fix the software, or the license.
>
> best,
> rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,