Meeting with a copyright lawyer out of Vancouver next week. Will have more details soon.
James On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:55 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> wrote: > i got two further links in private mails which seem helpful in this > area. first, a page on commons which suggests to split commons in > "safe" and "not safe". besides putting the license info and > attribution into the picture this would be my personal favourite, as > it can be easy explained to users: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki > > and second, steinsplitter noted that cc-by-sa 4 contains a clause in > section 6 where the license reinstates in case it is fixed after a > notification: > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode > > what gergő says, that this hurts the reputation and morale, and > andreas kolbes remark that what people see on wikipedia is giving a > wrong example - mere mortals do not get such subtleties. while i fully > agree with yann that it is not pleasant that a political party uses an > image, i do not think you did upload to commons to make money, isn't > it? so if you get 500 or 5000 it does not matter too much? > > james case is very different. there somebody deliberately breaks the > license for years. i contacted amazon and the process to report > copyright violations is tedios. only the person whose copyright is > violated can do it, and single cases need to be reported. not funny if > *thousands* of books are concerned. as far as i know james is in > contact with the wikimedia foundation legal team. stephen, any news > here? > > best > rupert > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> > wrote: > > It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the > > copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that > > reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in > a > > world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the > licenses. > > Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from other > people > > because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe uploads an CC > image > > from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the image it will end up > being > > credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe > > Blow's image is actually a derivative that contains parts of images from > > multiple other people. > > > > When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create > a > > liability for down stream reusers. > > > > > > > > On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> > >> People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not > >> comply > >> with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are > >> expected to comply with them. That's a problem. > >> > >> For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's > >> author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in > >> Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that > >> information > >> is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons > >> page.[1] > >> > >> Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people > >> being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So > why > >> shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly > >> the > >> same way Wikipedia is using it? > >> > >> If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, > given > >> what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without > >> even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if > they > >> do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they > can > >> get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros. > >> > >> One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits > >> who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a > >> Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the > required > >> attribution. > >> > >> It doesn't seem fair. > >> > >> > >> [1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici > >> [2] > >> > >> https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet- > ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2 > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time > this > >>> came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make > >>> images > >>> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved > >>> (amongst > >>> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia > >>> article > >>> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the > image > >>> description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a > >>> ~$1000 > >>> fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral > >>> standing > >>> of the movement IMO. > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
