[Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

James Salsman-2
If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
to the extent that their attribution was improper?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Pine W
Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.

Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
> in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
> to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Risker
Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
issue directly with him on-wiki.

Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
appreciate if you'd stop doing that.

Risker/Anne

On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire situation.
>
> Pine
> On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> > attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
> standing
> > in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
> proportion
> > to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Pine W
Risker,

James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
like this.

Pine
On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
> to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
> discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
> expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
> its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
> whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
> within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
> involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
> be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
> this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
> issue directly with him on-wiki.
>
> Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
> that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
> relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
> relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
> appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
> situation.
> >
> > Pine
> > On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> > > attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
> > standing
> > > in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
> > proportion
> > > to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Jan-Bart de Vreede-3
Hey Pine (& All)

I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the Foundation/chapter staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always true.

Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something else that cannot be done). When there are situations when you genuinely need Foundation staff to answer something that is fine, but I think that Risker is arguing that it is best to wait with a request such as this until you are actually at the point of needing that energy to be spent (when the community discussion has concluded)

I am sympathetic to this because I often see requests coming by which really do not take into account the amount of time it takes to provide an answer. Of course there is always room for legitimate requests but I would encourage everyone to think twice before asking staff members (of the Foundation or their chapter) to commit time on something which might be of personal interest to them, or is a hypothetical situation which might well wait until the situation has become reality.

Jan-Bart


> On 27 Jul 2015, at 01:03, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Risker,
>
> James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
> license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
> Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
> community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
> parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
> WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
> place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
> and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
> like this.
>
> Pine
> On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
>> to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
>> discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
>> expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
>> its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
>> whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
>> within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
>> involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
>> be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
>> this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
>> issue directly with him on-wiki.
>>
>> Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
>> that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
>> relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
>> relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
>> appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
>> situation.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
>>>> attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
>>> standing
>>>> in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
>>> proportion
>>>> to the extent that their attribution was improper?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Steinsplitter Wiki
The wmf simply can't pursue legal actions against Harald Bischoff for the individuals who probably suffered damage. It is up to the community to investigate. For example banning him for copyright trolling [1].

A discussion has been started on commons [1].

Apart from that, i find it problematic that Bischoff is claiming to take pictures for the wmf on his userpage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff

> From: [hidden email]
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:33:45 +0200
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?
>
> Hey Pine (& All)
>
> I think that the statement “there is no harm” in asking the Foundation/chapter staff (legal or otherwise) to do something is not always true.
>
> Every request has at least an “opportunity cost” (meaning there is something else that cannot be done). When there are situations when you genuinely need Foundation staff to answer something that is fine, but I think that Risker is arguing that it is best to wait with a request such as this until you are actually at the point of needing that energy to be spent (when the community discussion has concluded)
>
> I am sympathetic to this because I often see requests coming by which really do not take into account the amount of time it takes to provide an answer. Of course there is always room for legitimate requests but I would encourage everyone to think twice before asking staff members (of the Foundation or their chapter) to commit time on something which might be of personal interest to them, or is a hypothetical situation which might well wait until the situation has become reality.
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
> > On 27 Jul 2015, at 01:03, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Risker,
> >
> > James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about
> > license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF
> > Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with
> > community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in
> > parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take.
> > WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take
> > place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm,
> > and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation
> > like this.
> >
> > Pine
> > On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this?  It is considerably premature
> >> to expect them to do anything much more  than read the relevant
> >> discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you
> >> expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not
> >> its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here,
> >> whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well
> >> within the acceptable parameters of that project.  Should the community
> >> involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then
> >> be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal.  Looking at
> >> this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the
> >> issue directly with him on-wiki.
> >>
> >> Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues
> >> that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the
> >> relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the
> >> relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would
> >> appreciate if you'd stop doing that.
> >>
> >> Risker/Anne
> >>
> >> On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire
> >> situation.
> >>>
> >>> Pine
> >>> On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> >>>> attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have
> >>> standing
> >>>> in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in
> >>> proportion
> >>>> to the extent that their attribution was improper?
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Pine W
I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
license terms as they understood them on Commons.

Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
use of volunteer time.

Thanks,

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Ziko van Dijk-3
Some people on the one hand like to complain on the interferences and
interventions of the Foundation, and on the other hand want its involvement
when it suits them.
Pointing to the wealth of the Foundation and by that legitimizing any
spending, is not really convincing.
Ziko



Am Montag, 27. Juli 2015 schrieb Pine W :

> I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
> sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
> might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
> block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
> wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
> reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
> license terms as they understood them on Commons.
>
> Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
> million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
> it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
> reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
> cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
> Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
> people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
> use of volunteer time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Fæ
In reply to this post by Pine W
As a reminder, if files are to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, this
only happens by discussion and administrative action on Wikimedia
Commons.

Roundtable discussion may be interesting, but this is not how
decisions are made in our community. If you have notes or minutes of
this closed meeting, please publish them so the Wikimedia community
can benefit. In the meantime if anyone would like to contribute to a
discussion that may result in the images being removed, please follow
this link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff

All are welcome to express their views.

Thanks,
Fae

On 27 July 2015 at 14:59, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
> sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
> might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
> block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
> wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
> reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
> license terms as they understood them on Commons.
>
> Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
> million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
> it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
> reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
> cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
> Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
> people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
> use of volunteer time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine

--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Pine W
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <snip>

This still leaves me
> wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
> reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
> license terms as they understood them on Commons.

<snip>
>

Acting in good faith will, at best, mitigate against damages.  It isn't
actually a defense against liability.  If people are getting sued after
doing absolutely everything right, then I could maybe imagine getting
involved.  However, in many licensing disputes there is a legitimate case
that the reuser violated the terms of the license (e.g. by neglecting
details regarding authorship / attribution / etc.), often due to ignorance
of what the license requires.  In many such cases, the reuser may well face
a likelihood of losing if the case ever made it to court.  In a world of
"good faith" we might expect that reusers who made mistakes out of
ignorance to be treated kindly, but the legal system isn't exactly geared
towards kindness.

I think that we (the community + the WMF) should do more to help ensure
license compliance and educate reusers about appropriate attribution, etc.
However, I don't think that WMF Legal should get involved in cases where
someone wanted to do the right thing but failed.  There is no need to waste
our resources on third-party cases where there is a significant risk of
losing.

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Pine W
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-3
Ziko, is that statement directed at me? If so, I would appreciate it if we
could talk off list.

In any case, I believe that I've attempted to do all the good that I can in
this discussion at this time, so I'm signing off from this discussion for
now.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Martin Kraft-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:
> If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
> attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
> in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
> to the extent that their attribution was improper?

Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself,
if you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the
copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?!

Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs "Abmahnung". So
whoever wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some
idea of what legal offence he should be sued for.

And wether we like what Harald does, or not: The terms and conditions of
CC-BY-SA require the user of a CC-image to provide proper attribution.
And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the
attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution
(like Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter
case definetly is no proper CC-attribution. So irrespective of how
HaraldBischoffs reacted, the his rights where violated. And on the other
hand I can't see a single project guideline that has been violated by
his reaction.

So: On the grounds of the what do you want to ban or sue him???

Just to put that straight: I also don't like what he is doing. And of
course it isn't nice, when the first reaction to a licence offence comes
with ab bill of 900€. But based on etherything we know, he has the right
to do so from the legal point of view.

// Martin

[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Mormegil
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Martin Kraft <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Am 26.07.2015 um 19:29 schrieb James Salsman:
>
>> If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter
>> attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have standing
>> in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in proportion
>> to the extent that their attribution was improper?
>>
>
> Sorry guys but if I read suggestions like this, I seriously ask myself, if
> you've ever read the legal code of CC-BY-SA[1] or the the
> copyright/Urheberrecht it is based on?!
>
> Why? Because this is legal base of HaraldBischoffs "Abmahnung". So whoever
> wants to sue him for sueing somebody, should at least have some idea of
> what legal offence he should be sued for.
>
> And from the legal point of view, it makes a big difference wether the
> attribution is on a website that is operated by the same institution (like
> Wikipedia and Commons) or on a third party website. The latter case
> definetly is no proper CC-attribution.


Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any
reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
that lists all authors and editors)".]

And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers
to a blogger "who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in
mouseover", i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking
to the image source with full credit and license information), even though
not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Martin Kraft-2
> Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear
> in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
> specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
> attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
> upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
> the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any
> reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
> licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
> sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
> the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
> that lists all authors and editors)".]

1. CC-BY-SA is not defined by what Wikipedia is doing. CC-BY-SA is only
defined by its legal code.

2. If the licences states "You must"[0] it means that "YOU Yourself need
to do this". And You yourself simply don't give "appropriate credit", if
you do not provide it yourself, but link to a third party website, you
don't have any control on and that maybe gone someday. Since one is not
liable for the content behind an external link, one cannot use it to
comply personal legal duties, on the other hand.

The attribution you give (Author and Licence) legally is the price you
pay for using this image. And if you do not give that attribution
yourself, you don't have any right to use that content.

3. You need to diffenciate between the practice within the wikimedia
projects and the one outside. No matter if the Wikipedia itself strictly
fullfills the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (some law experts
even doubt that)[1], most authors uploaded there work here by themself
knowing how Wikipedia is going to use them. Therefore we have something
call an "implied-in-fact contract"[2] that might legalise the use inside
Wikipedia anyway.

[0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (Section 4c)
[1]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung.2FUrheber-Nennung.2FWikipedia_gibt_schlechtes_Beispiel
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract



> And even under this strict reading of the license, the original post refers
> to a blogger "who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in
> mouseover", i.e. attributing _on the same webpage_ (together with linking
> to the image source with full credit and license information), even though
> not visibly without pointing the mouse on the photo.

Afaik there was no proper attribution on mouseover only a backlink to
Commons. And according to a recent judgment[3] of a court in Munich it
is not even sufficent to provide attribution via mouse over anyway.

[3]
http://irights.info/webschau/lg-muenchen-creative-commons-lizenzen-mouseover-namensnennung/25887


// Martin


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
>... The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in
> any reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects,
> while also licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that
> explicitly states that a sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink
> (where possible) or URL to the page or pages that you are re-using....

If it's easy to find the correct image attribution with an image
search, use on the web without explicit textual attribution is
reasonably properly attributed, for values of reasonableness which
involve the actual ease with which the source may be found by someone
exercising a minimal amount of diligence.

Alternatively, printed use with something like "photo by Joe Smith"
would be far less reasonable even though it purports to name the
credited party. My only motivation here is that of the reputation of
the projects.

The German legal system is fascinating to me. I wish we had 3rd party
standing in the US. Then we would probably get as much sustainable and
power-to-gas energy as Germany has. They are way ahead of everyone
there.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Lilburne
In reply to this post by Mormegil
On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:

> Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]" appear
> in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
> specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
> attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
> upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
> the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any
> reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
> licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
> sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
> the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
> that lists all authors and editors)".]


Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses.
Not 2.5, 3.0,
or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.

The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a
v4.0 license. Many
photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as
a result. So
you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0.
Those running
flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to
v3.0 unless they
are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a
hyperelink is sufficient for
attribution. They all say that:

                            You must keep intact all copyright notices
for the Work and
                            give the Original Author credit reasonable
to the medium or
                            means You are utilizing by conveying the
name (or pseudonym
                            if applicable) of the Original Author if
supplied; the title of the
                            Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
practicable, the
                            Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that
Licensor specifies to be
                            associated with the Work, unless such URI
does not refer to the
                            copyright notice or licensing information
for the Work



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Amazon Sec. Team messages-noreply@amazon.com
I would be interested to see the example of "Flickr2Commons-uploaded images
which marked license as CCLv3". AFAIK, all images I had to review had
proper CCLv2 template, or it was... (one of the below)
- Copyvio
- Human error (mistake of user)
- It was licensed under NC or ND in fact.

I haven't been much active as I used to be in Commons this year, so bot
code may have been changed. Yet bot shouldn't do that stupid thing (marking
v2 stuff as v3).

--
Revi - commons admin hat here.
https://revi.me
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 7. 30. 오전 2:33에 "Lilburne" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:

> On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:
>
>> Really? Neither the word "instititution" nor "third party [website]"
>> appear
>> in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
>> specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
>> attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
>> upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
>> the same? The license requires only that the credit "be implemented in any
>> reasonable manner". [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
>> licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
>> sufficient attribution is "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
>> the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history
>> page
>> that lists all authors and editors)".]
>>
>
>
> Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses.
> Not 2.5, 3.0,
> or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.
>
> The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a
> v4.0 license. Many
> photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as a
> result. So
> you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0.
> Those running
> flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to
> v3.0 unless they
> are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a
> hyperelink is sufficient for
> attribution. They all say that:
>
>                            You must keep intact all copyright notices for
> the Work and
>                            give the Original Author credit reasonable to
> the medium or
>                            means You are utilizing by conveying the name
> (or pseudonym
>                            if applicable) of the Original Author if
> supplied; the title of the
>                            Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
> practicable, the
>                            Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that
> Licensor specifies to be
>                            associated with the Work, unless such URI does
> not refer to the
>                            copyright notice or licensing information for
> the Work
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
On Jul 27, 2015 5:33 PM, "Robert Rohde" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> This still leaves me
> > wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
> > reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
> > license terms as they understood them on Commons.
>
> <snip>
> >
>
> Acting in good faith will, at best, mitigate against damages.  It isn't
> actually a defense against liability.  If people are getting sued after
> doing absolutely everything right, then I could maybe imagine getting
> involved.  However, in many licensing disputes there is a legitimate case
> that the reuser violated the terms of the license (e.g. by neglecting
> details regarding authorship / attribution / etc.), often due to ignorance
> of what the license requires.  In many such cases, the reuser may well
face
> a likelihood of losing if the case ever made it to court.  In a world of
> "good faith" we might expect that reusers who made mistakes out of
> ignorance to be treated kindly, but the legal system isn't exactly geared
> towards kindness.
>
> I think that we (the community + the WMF) should do more to help ensure
> license compliance and educate reusers about appropriate attribution, etc.
> However, I don't think that WMF Legal should get involved in cases where
> someone wanted to do the right thing but failed.  There is no need to
waste
> our resources on third-party cases where there is a significant risk of
> losing.

Robert, and Jan Bart,  what the lawyer did in harald Bischof s Name is
something common. There might be hundreds or thousands of cases, and there
are maybe the same number of images concerned. Google reveals that lawyers
did this on behalf of at least 4 authors in the last 10 years or so. There
is no sign that this will stop in future.

Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.

Best
Rupert
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
> an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
> independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
> reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
> automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
> image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
> of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.
>

It's not impossible but a hairy problem. It's being tracked under T5361
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T5361>.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:34 PM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> <snip>
>
Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
> an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
> independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
> reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
> automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
> image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
> of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.
>

For a short answer, I think there is no way that attribution which only
appeared within image metadata would be regarded as legally adequate under
current CC licenses.  Such metadata is not sufficiently discoverable to
meet standards for "reasonable" attribution under the few cases that have
addressed the issue.

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12