[Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
)
2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
)
3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
)

In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
Regards,
Jee
___
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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:

So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?


The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and 
even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, 
but for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while 
giving legal advice is out of question.


The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved 
in some way, please propose tweaks: 

In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to 
focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really 
crucial aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while 
-NC and -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_Creative_Commons_licenses

Nemo

___
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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

"For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"

But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who
contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they
all must meet exact license terms.

Regards,
Jee


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
>
>  So do we have a responsibility to
>> educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
>>
>
> The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even
> CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2
> and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal
> advice is out of question.
>
> The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in
> some way, please propose tweaks:  org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial>
> In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to
> focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial
> aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and
> -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_
> Creative_Commons_licenses
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> 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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

See. I upload a freely licensed photo from Flickr to Commons and another
user added it to a Wikipedia article. A court concluded that mere linking
to file description page in commons.wikimeda.org is not enough for
attribution. Who is responsible for this infringement? Me, the user who
added it, or WMF?

We have a similar case here:
http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-I-37-O-9798-11-Endurteil.pdf

It says "In this case , the Court considers that a duty to name the author
( "copyright notice" ) requires a mention of the filings by the creator's
name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the
picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can
be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license
conditions."

"The Creative Commons license provides that the name of the author /
copyright holder is to be called in the manner determined by it. This is to
be understood that the author indicated in the image information page under
"author"  the name, pseudonym must be etc. are mentioned ."

"At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is
on the same server." - It is not fully true; they are different domains
owned by WMF.

"Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so
far on a "foreign" server sometimes is unreachable." - True; sometimes
Wikimedia Commons is down even if Wikipedia is available.

So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?

Regards,
Jee


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> "For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"
>
> But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who
> contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they
> all must meet exact license terms.
>
> Regards,
> Jee
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
>>
>>  So do we have a responsibility to
>>> educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
>>>
>>
>> The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and
>> even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but
>> for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving
>> legal advice is out of question.
>>
>> The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in
>> some way, please propose tweaks: > org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial>
>> In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to
>> focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial
>> aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and
>> -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect.
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_
>> Creative_Commons_licenses
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:

So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?


IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to 
file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their 
copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story.


Nemo

___
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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

"If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the
content deleted, end of story."

Good; but shouldn't be this an eye opening for WMF to approach copyright
matters seriously. Or we can amend the Commons:PCP: #6. If someone can
prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end
of story.

Regards,
Jee


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:
>
>  So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
>>
>
> IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to
> file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their
> copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story.
>
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> 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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for
the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law
of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
> media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
> Main confusions are in three areas:
> 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
> used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the
> source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
> know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware
> of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
> Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
> uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. (
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> )
> 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
> for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
> file of that work too. (
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
> )
> 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> advised that such rights may affected. (
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F
> ,
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
> )
>
> In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
> ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
> educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
> Regards,
> Jee
> ___
> 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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the
sole problem here.

1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to
the extent reasonably practicable." must !=  to the extent reasonably
practicable

2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
 in any
reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You
Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing
to anyone have some commonsense.

3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the
court of his country?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg

Regards,
Jee


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for
> the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law
> of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do
> not.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of
> our
> > media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
> grant.
> > Main confusions are in three areas:
> > 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
> > used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
> the
> > source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
> > know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
> aware
> > of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
> > Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
> > uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements.
> (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> > )
> > 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
> > for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
> > file of that work too. (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
> > )
> > 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> > advised that such rights may affected. (
> >
> >
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F
> > ,
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
> > )
> >
> > In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
> > ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
> > educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> > ___
> > 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] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each
country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country
specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware
off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.

As to why things go wrong? They do.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 7 June 2014 04:51, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the
> sole problem here.
>
> 1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
> form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
> with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to
> the extent reasonably practicable." must !=  to the extent reasonably
> practicable
>
> 2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
>  in any
> reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You
> Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing
> to anyone have some commonsense.
>
> 3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
> Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the
> court of his country?
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
>
> Regards,
> Jee
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for
> > the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law
> > of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do
> > not.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> >
> > > In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of
> > our
> > > media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
> > grant.
> > > Main confusions are in three areas:
> > > 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the
> work
> > > used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
> > the
> > > source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I
> don't
> > > know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
> > aware
> > > of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors
> and
> > > Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
> > > uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special
> agreements.
> > (
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> > > )
> > > 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is
> applicable
> > > for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
> > > file of that work too. (
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
> > > )
> > > 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> > > advised that such rights may affected. (
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F
> > > ,
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
> > > )
> > >
> > > In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
> > > ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility
> to
> > > educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
> > > Regards,
> > > Jee
> > > ___
> > > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

"As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for
each country
and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific
implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off."

True up to version 3.0; but it seems they stopped it for version 4.0 and
started calling it "International License".

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Should_I_choose_an_international_license_or_a_ported_license.3F

Jee


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each
> country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country
> specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware
> off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.
>
> As to why things go wrong? They do.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 7 June 2014 04:51, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the
> > sole problem here.
> >
> > 1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
> > form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
> > with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material
> to
> > the extent reasonably practicable." must !=  to the extent reasonably
> > practicable
> >
> > 2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
> >  in any
> > reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You
> > Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing
> > to anyone have some commonsense.
> >
> > 3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
> > Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by
> the
> > court of his country?
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows
> for
> > > the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the
> law
> > > of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do
> > > not.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> > >
> > > > In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many
> of
> > > our
> > > > media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
> > > grant.
> > > > Main confusions are in three areas:
> > > > 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the
> > work
> > > > used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link
> to
> > > the
> > > > source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I
> > don't
> > > > know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
> > > aware
> > > > of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors
> > and
> > > > Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
> > > > uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special
> > agreements.
> > > (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> > > > )
> > > > 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is
> > applicable
> > > > for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high
> quality
> > > > file of that work too. (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
> > > > )
> > > > 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> > > > advised that such rights may affected. (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F
> > > > ,
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend,
> and
> > > > ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a
> responsibility
> > to
> > > > educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jee
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailin