Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote: Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors).] Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses. Not 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version. The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a v4.0 license. Many photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as a result. So you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0. Those running flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to v3.0 unless they are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a hyperelink is sufficient for attribution. They all say that: You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
... The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using If it's easy to find the correct image attribution with an image search, use on the web without explicit textual attribution is reasonably properly attributed, for values of reasonableness which involve the actual ease with which the source may be found by someone exercising a minimal amount of diligence. Alternatively, printed use with something like photo by Joe Smith would be far less reasonable even though it purports to name the credited party. My only motivation here is that of the reputation of the projects. The German legal system is fascinating to me. I wish we had 3rd party standing in the US. Then we would probably get as much sustainable and power-to-gas energy as Germany has. They are way ahead of everyone there. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Martin Kraft wikipe...@martinkraft.com wrote: Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb 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? Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, if you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?! Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs Abmahnung. So whoever wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some idea of what legal offence he should be sued for. And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution (like Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter case definetly is no proper CC-attribution. Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors).] And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers to a blogger who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover, i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking to the image source with full credit and license information), even though not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page that lists all authors and editors).] 1. CC-BY-SA is not defined by what Wikipedia is doing. CC-BY-SA is only defined by its legal code. 2. If the licences states You must[0] it means that YOU Yourself need to do this. And You yourself simply don't give appropriate credit, if you do not provide it yourself, but link to a third party website, you don't have any control on and that maybe gone someday. Since one is not liable for the content behind an external link, one cannot use it to comply personal legal duties, on the other hand. The attribution you give (Author and Licence) legally is the price you pay for using this image. And if you do not give that attribution yourself, you don't have any right to use that content. 3. You need to diffenciate between the practice within the wikimedia projects and the one outside. No matter if the Wikipedia itself strictly fullfills the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (some law experts even doubt that)[1], most authors uploaded there work here by themself knowing how Wikipedia is going to use them. Therefore we have something call an implied-in-fact contract[2] that might legalise the use inside Wikipedia anyway. [0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (Section 4c) [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung.2FUrheber-Nennung.2FWikipedia_gibt_schlechtes_Beispiel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers to a blogger who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover, i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking to the image source with full credit and license information), even though not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo. Afaik there was no proper attribution on mouseover only a backlink to Commons. And according to a recent judgment[3] of a court in Munich it is not even sufficent to provide attribution via mouse over anyway. [3] http://irights.info/webschau/lg-muenchen-creative-commons-lizenzen-mouseover-namensnennung/25887 // Martin ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
