Hello Lilburne,
https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en --Steinsplitter ________________________________ Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2017 03:14 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for the CC license. Why can't commons do the same? Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image. On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER 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>
