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
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
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
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
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
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
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
***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
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
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
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"
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
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
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
***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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
