Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
Peter does this work better https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s J On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. > > I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to > attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James > mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it > quite right. > > If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know > about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith > effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find > acceptable. > > Todd > > On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > > > Hi Todd, > > > > as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm > > wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is > indeed > > what they are). These people would upload material under a free license > > (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope > > that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of > the > > license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to > > that use, and they send them a bill. > > > > If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by ____" to the > > caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes > still > > be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses, > > you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) > which > > is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication. > > > > The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers > to > > attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use > > images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of > > using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model. > > > > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the > > discussion) > > > > Best, > > Lodewijk > > > > 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>: > > > > > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an > > acknowledgement > > > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free. > > > > > > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___________" to a > caption. > > It > > > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I > can > > > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very > minimal > > > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer) > > > material. > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who > > > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas > > > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which > > > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs > > > > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own) > > > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people > > > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small > > > > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even > > > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4]. > > > > > > > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the > > > > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last > 10 > > > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original > > > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted, > > > > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly > > > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their > > > > work. > > > > > > > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in > > > > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses > > > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to > > > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a > > > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both > > > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and > > > > desist letters as business model not interesting any more, > > > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both > > > > sides. > > > > > > > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/ > > > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen > > > > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_ > > Wolf_im_Wald > > > > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin > > > > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich- > > abmahnfalle-wikipedia- > > > > interview-mit-simplicius/ > > > > > > > > best > > > > rupert > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
