***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 <raro...@gmail.com> 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 something that Wikipedia doesn't do in > articles. See below. > Sigh. I think I'll refrain from further comment on Commons' statement. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Robert Rohde <raro...@gmail.com> wrote: > but in another narrative > you are telling content creators that the few rights they are nominally > granted by the required license (e.g. attribution) are worthless because if > they try to enforce those rights we'll kick them out. > No, we'd just be telling them that a non-standard reading of the CC license's requirements on attribution (namely the reading that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" in the *non-binding description* of the license means the creator is allowed to specify exactly how and where the attribution appears,[1] rather than "in any reasonable manner", "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing", and "at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" as the license actually says) aren't welcome. [1]: To the extent of "magenta 24pt Comic Sans", presumably. _______________________________________________ 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>
