[Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

rupert THURNER-2
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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Gnangarra
noting:for give my missing any finer point my German isnt sufficient to
read the discussion without the aid of google translate

The question your asking is should the author of the image have the right
to enforce the licensing of work they have uploaded.  The position you take
is that they dont have that right which means you want all media uploaded
under an effective Public Domain License.

The de.community voted  to accept the proposal outcome based on a majority
not an absolute 2/3rd majority.    When the was discussion closed the
proposal was rejected, you have come here to Wikimedia-l to ask for a
second Common to be established to exclude work by authors who exercise
their right to uphold the license under which the work was provided and ask
that this new commons has the right to relicense an authors work under
other licenses.

As side issue is what looks like an external forum presented one side of
the argument while the discussion was on going,  your using this as
justification for asking here.

Commons has a very clear licensing page
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing of whats acceptable
licensing with media uploaded there.

To me what I see here basic forum shopping after the de.community rejected
your proposal.... IMHO if you want to change or put limitations on
licensing then discussing it on Commons would be a first step. Doing so
without a direct proposal to change licensing or delete(exclude) the works
of others would enable a wider view and other possible suitable outcomes.
I would suggest that when starting the discussion that evidence be
presented to support the accusations being made, if the google translators
choice of words are accurate then it needs to be well substantiated ....


On 2 March 2017 at 13:44, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
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" <[hidden email]> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

jmh649
We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on
Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100

They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a
CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out
to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.

Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.

James

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Peter Southwood
I cant get there through your link, maybe something is happening
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Heilman
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2017 4:47 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100

They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.

Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.

James

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14042 - Release Date: 03/01/17


_______________________________________________
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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Todd Allen
 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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" <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

jmh649
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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" <[hidden email]>
> > > 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Lodewijk
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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" <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by jmh649
that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of
such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why
they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier
for them with links.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based on
> Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100
>
> They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content under a
> CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
> are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached out
> to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being asked.
>
> Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
> should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
> refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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" <[hidden email]>
>> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Gnangarra
Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
 is well worth a read to understand the issue

On 4 March 2017 at 17:44, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]> wrote:

> that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of
> such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why
> they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier
> for them with links.
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We have a publisher who have created a few hundred thousand books based
> on
> > Wikipedia text. Here is an example of one of many
> > https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100
> >
> > They do not attribute Wikipedia and they do not release the content
> under a
> > CC BY SA 3.0 license. They claim copyright to the material themselves and
> > are selling it / misleading the people who by the books. I have reached
> out
> > to them and they refuse to comply with our license even after being
> asked.
> >
> > Should we take legal action against them? IMO yes we should. While we
> > should ask people to follow our license before taking action, if they
> > refuse than we should follow through with enforcement.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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" <[hidden email]>
> >> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
what we're actually talking about here?


- d.

_______________________________________________
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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

jmh649
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without
proper attribution.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22

James

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> what we're actually talking about here?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Rogol Domedonfors
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or should it
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without
> proper attribution.
>
> https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > what we're actually talking about here?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
<http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of
hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this
website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
find more examples and stories.

Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.

Lodewijk

2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> what we're actually talking about here?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

rupert THURNER-2
case 1:
daniel pugge has a single person enterprise, and a blog. out of
wordpress he linked to the "juice plus" wikipedia article with marco
almbauers picture on it. the wordpress preview showing the thumbnail
of the linked article. marco then used the services of kurt kulac,
former president of wikimedia austria, to send a cease and desist
letter to daniel. reason: cc-by-sa-4.0, "license not stated directly
adjacent or within the picture". daniels conclusion "don't use
wikipedia commons" is not what the movement mission is:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juice_Plus&type=revision&diff=708489448&oldid=707955254
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VSf12T37fY
* cost: this one the cheap version, 524 euro,
https://www.jurablogs.com/go/abmahnung-marco-almbauer, daniels lawyer
not included
* http://danielpugge.de/impressum/
this case i find highly disturbing - i thought he cc license is fixed
now that dummy linking by dummy persons is not dangerous any more.

case 2:
kai copied a foto, medium resolution from commons to his own
webserver. he linked to it, attributing properly. afterwards he
deleted the website including the attribution, but left the picture on
the server. it still could be found by the search indixers. from the
cc germany mailing list, getting the helpful answer in the lines of
"if you are that stupid you deserve to pay":
* http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-de/2017-January/001138.html

to give other examples of edits the vote tried to ban from de:wp are
ones of 10 or so authors considered to create a trap. e.g. change the
foto of rijksmuseum amsterdam to his own, or berlin cathedral,
sometimes including an edit war between the two camps:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rijksmuseum&diff=prev&oldid=728651441
* https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berliner_Dom&diff=next&oldid=163030993
* reporting for vandalism:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2017/02/26#Artikel_Berliner_Dom_.28erl..29

to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
"abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
Harald Bischoff, Martina Nolte, Ralf Roletschek, Alexander Savin,
Wladyslaw Sojka, Sven Teschke, Dirk Vorderstraße, Thomas Wolf.

personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
not ready for proper online usage.

rupert

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
> good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> of
> hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this
> website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
> find more examples and stories.
>
> Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>
>> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
>> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
>> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
>> what we're actually talking about here?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Steinsplitter Wiki
This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus i see no need to discuss it here again.

The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which speaks for itself.

--Steinsplitter

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen


________________________________
Von: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
An: Wikimedia Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

case 1:
<removed>
to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
"abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
<removed>

personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
not ready for proper online usage.

rupert

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
> good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> of
> hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this
> website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
> find more examples and stories.
>
> Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>
>> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
>> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
>> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
>> what we're actually talking about here?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
<grin> this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia </grin>  We know that
each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its
own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise.
That is useful.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus
> i see no need to discuss it here again.
>
> The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> speaks for itself.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von
> rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> business
>
> case 1:
> <removed>
> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> <removed>
>
> personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> not ready for proper online usage.
>
> rupert
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> in
> > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > of
> > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> or this
> > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
> to
> > find more examples and stories.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> >> what we're actually talking about here?
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Todd Allen
Thanks for the specific examples.

I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
accompanying page.

The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal
for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be
banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is
"It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.

I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the
project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project.
But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first
resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.

I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails
or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license
compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is
clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if
they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially
true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a
mistake in doing so.

Todd

On Mar 5, 2017 5:36 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> <grin> this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia </grin>  We know that
> each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its
> own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise.
> That is useful.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> thus
> > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> >
> > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > speaks for itself.
> >
> > --Steinsplitter
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> im Auftrag
> von
> > rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > business
> >
> > case 1:
> > <removed>
> > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > <removed>
> >
> > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > not ready for proper online usage.
> >
> > rupert
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> > in
> > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
> to
> > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> > aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > > of
> > > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> > or this
> > > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677>
> to
> > > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
> wikipedia"
> > to
> > > find more examples and stories.
> > >
> > > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > >> what we're actually talking about here?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - d.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

jmh649
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer.
Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.

James

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
> violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
> wrote.  What's the best way forward?  Should  the WMF represent the
> community by engaging directly with the company responsible?  Or should it
> coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
> approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
> without
> > proper attribution.
> >
> > https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > > what we're actually talking about here?
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123