I would be interested to see the example of "Flickr2Commons-uploaded images which marked license as CCLv3". AFAIK, all images I had to review had proper CCLv2 template, or it was... (one of the below) - Copyvio - Human error (mistake of user) - It was licensed under NC or ND in fact.
I haven't been much active as I used to be in Commons this year, so bot code may have been changed. Yet bot shouldn't do that stupid thing (marking v2 stuff as v3). -- Revi - commons admin hat here. https://revi.me -- Sent from Android -- 2015. 7. 30. 오전 2:33에 "Lilburne" <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>님이 작성: > On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote: > >> Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" >> appear >> in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very >> specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image >> attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable >> upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly >> the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any >> reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also >> licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a >> sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to >> the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history >> page >> that lists all authors and editors)".] >> > > > Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses. > Not 2.5, 3.0, > or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version. > > The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a > v4.0 license. Many > photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as a > result. So > you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0. > Those running > flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to > v3.0 unless they > are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a > hyperelink is sufficient for > attribution. They all say that: > > You must keep intact all copyright notices for > the Work and > give the Original Author credit reasonable to > the medium or > means You are utilizing by conveying the name > (or pseudonym > if applicable) of the Original Author if > supplied; the title of the > Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably > practicable, the > Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that > Licensor specifies to be > associated with the Work, unless such URI does > not refer to the > copyright notice or licensing information for > the Work > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
