Hi Steve, Wikimedia Germany developed a tool that determines the license information of Commons items and makes it more user-friendly to determine how you can use the item (e.g. how to attribute, in which context you can use a particular item in, etc.): https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
Original blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/17/digest-attribution-generator/ Hope it's relevant to what you're looking for! Raya On 24 March 2017 at 14:38, Harry Mitchell <hjmw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Using images from Commons is a lot like using information from Wikipedia - > it requires due diligence and you sometimes have to apply healthy > scepticism, though this can be complicated by the varying copyright laws of > different countries. Commons is hosted in the United States, so it usually > defaults to American copyright law, which is often more liberal than > British law (Chris mentions the "sweat of brow" doctrine, for example). > > For obvious cases, like a photograph of a building or a statue uploaded by > the photographer themselves, you're usually safe. (I've been writing about > war memorials lately and sometimes you get really lucky and find a > professional-quality photograph that someone has uploaded to Commons). Less > obvious cases will depend on your knowledge of copyright. > > > Harry Mitchell > http://enwp.org/User:HJ > +44 (0) 7507 536 971 > Skype: harry_j_mitchell > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> >> You certainly could have a more nuanced policy, and use more images as a >> result! >> >> I'd guess the reasons you might be cautious are: >> - Commons has a good number of files it that are in the public domain in >> the US, but may not be in the UK (assuming that public domain-UK is >> sufficient for the BBC to make use of something) >> - Commons also has a good number of files which we believe are public >> domain (at least in the US) but where someone still asserts copyright from >> "sweat of the brow" rights (this set overlapping with the previous one a >> fair bit) >> - Some images might simply have been mis-attributed by whoever uploaded >> them to Commons and are actually in copyright (probably a much smaller >> group than the first 2) >> >> Of course, these kinds of issues aren't unique to Wikimedia Commons, any >> open image source could have the same problems - so if you are taking PD >> images from Flickr or elsewhere on the Internet, then you shouldn't have a >> blanket bank on Wikimedia Commons! >> >> Paid photography sources potentially have the opposite problem, in that >> you can end up paying royalties for images that you think actually are in >> the public domain. >> >> As Charles says, it's usually possible to come to an informed judgement >> based on what the Commons page for a given file says, but this needs a >> reasonable level of awareness of copyright law. I'm not sure if there is >> any kind of "user-friendly" summary at the minute, but there probably >> should be - I'm asking around... >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Chris >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Steve Bowbrick <steve.bowbr...@bbc.co.uk >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here! >>> >>> I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations and >>> for some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.). >>> >>> We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of >>> sources: commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned >>> photos, some public domain and cc sources. >>> >>> We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commons >>> images. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty >>> about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us >>> to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in >>> commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and >>> this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using >>> them). >>> >>> So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), >>> is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the >>> safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons >>> images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of >>> a Commons image reliably? And what's Wikipedia's policy about the use of >>> these images in entries? >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> s >>> >>> -- >>> Social media for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, 4 Extra, Proms, classical... >>> 07718 120 073 >>> http://twitter.com/bowbrick >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
