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>

Reply via email to