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 Abmahnungen though an Attorney which is asking the affected persons to sign a cease and desist letter. Apart from that the affected person is requested to pay for damages and attorneys fees[2]. The complains are all over the web, this is imho a very bad reputation for wiki(p/m)edia. I am wondering if his behavior is violating the terms of use. Regards, Steinsplitter [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung [2] http://www.jurablogs.com/2015/04/28/abmahnung-wegen-unberechtigter-bildnutzung-des-herrn-harald-bischoff-auch-ins-ausland [3] https://www.betterplace.org/de/fundraising-events/freiheitsliebe-abmahnung-durch-bischoff On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 situations where pictures for the WMF are created", > here: > > > https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=143679802 > "komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder > andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation" > > harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license, > and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger > who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and > attributing in mouseover: > > http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/ > > what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model, > i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any > website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer > differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it > only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a > link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought > cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway? > > to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia > does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we > should either fix the software, or the license. > > best, > rupert > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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>
