On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
> On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>
>> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <raro...@gmail.com> 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" brought into disrepute", as it might be
>> termed)
>>
>
> If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users
> absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.
>
> Why?
>
> Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license
> that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a
> fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on
> your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over
> for the attribution/license.
the link is good enough imo, commons does not throw away the record
that the foto was there and everything can be reconstructed in case of
trouble. but - i'd love that this gets solved on a technical level.
every media file in commons either contains the author, or it is set
by wikipedia software into the metadata. resizing and storing retains
this information. after a while all toolchains will retain such
information and the problem of wikipedia as cause of cease and desist
letters (german: abmahnung) [0] will cease to exist. even for offline
wikipedia (kiwix, and similar) and direct links to media. there was a
non-wikipedia case a while ago [1], where the court says even in
direct links to the image you should be able to see the author and
license. it was dragged on to a higher instance but i could not find
what the final judgement was.
another challenge in this context are "user defined licenses". those
were used by lawyers cease and desist letters bearing a 600-1500 eur
price tag. there seems to be even a business in fighting such letters,
naming wikipedia authors [2][3]. just as example, one of the mentioned
users images has Permission={{User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2}} as foto
license. [4]. different author, same strategy, outcome "You must
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"
for a cc-by-sa 3.0 foto [5]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung
[1]
http://www.chip.de/news/LG-Koeln-Copyright-Urteil-schafft-neue-Abmahn-Falle_66923908.html
[2]
http://www.abmahnung.de/abmahnung-rechtsanwalt-dr-iur-hans-g-muesse-im-auftrag-eines-rechteinhabers.html
[3]
http://www.obladen-gaessler.de/wikipedia-abmahnung-durch-ra-dr-hans-g-muesse-fuer-alexander-savin/
[4]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farmer_plowing_in_Fahrenwalde,_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,_Germany.jpg
[5]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-06-08_Projekt_Hei%C3%9Fluftballon_-_Highflyer_DSCF7768.jpg
_______________________________________________
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>
