Sure, and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with that. However, in the current legal construct, the author can decide whether to apply that principle or not.
The question remains: if people apply principles that go way beyond that, what do we do? I think question that was put in the German community is a very realistic one, and if we don't tackle the issue, that may bite us later. There is no correct answer though - because both using and not using such image (or even deleting it) will have a downside to free knowledge. Either we don't show a piece of free knowledge, or we risk that people stop trusting our repository as a safe resource to reuse from. There are multiple alternative approaches to the issue, besides stopping to use the image (or even deleting it). One is to add a warning to the description page. Rupert's proposal on this list is the mirror of that: adding a 'marked as safe' notice (which is what using a separate project basically is), for a subset of licenses that are considered reuse-friendly (not just in theory, but also in practice). I personally feel that would go too far - and that we should tackle the actual problem: bad faith uploaders. This is, presumably, a very small percentage, and marking them as such may go a long way. I could even imagine prohibiting those users under certain circumstances to upload further material, as they are abusing the system. But that is rather a question for the Wikimedia Commons community, I suspect. Lodewijk 2017-03-03 3:10 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
