Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users
hi,

may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from
commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.

there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
states "comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=143679802
"komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"

harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
attributing in mouseover:
http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/

what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?

to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
should either fix the software, or the license.

best,
rupert

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
I would agree - it has annoyed me for years that on Dutch Wikipedia, if you
use a painting image from Commons in an article, you may attribute the
painter (though it's not required) but you may NOT attribute the painting's
owner (often a museum and this seems ridiculous to me). I agree we should
reopen the discussion about image attributions on all projects.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner@gmail.com>
wrote:

> hi,
>
> may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
> case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from
> commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.
>
> there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
> states "comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
> here:
>
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=143679802
> "komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
> andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"
>
> harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
> and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
> who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
> attributing in mouseover:
>
> http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/
>
> what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
> i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
> website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
> differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
> only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
> link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
> cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?
>
> to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
> does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
> should either fix the software, or the license.
>
> best,
> rupert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
What do you mean by legalize? The license is what the license is, while we
might influence future versions of the license, we don't really control how
current licenses are interpreted. That is an issue for the courts.

There is a modest ambiguity in CC BY-SA 3.0 about the attribution clauses
(e.g. "you must ... provide" attribution and license information) that at
least allows for an argument that reusers should be personally providing
author and license information. In CC BY-SA 4.0, clauses were added to
make explicit that linking to a page that includes that information is
sufficient (at least in cases where using a hyperlink is "reasonable").

I am unaware of any legal cases that have actually delved into the issue of
what is sufficient attribution, which in practice means we don't really
know how the attribution requirements will be applied by the courts. In
practice, most people are friendly about it and publishers work with
content creators (within reason) to satisfy the creator's expectations
about attribution. However, this would not be the first case of a
publisher getting and paying a monetary demand on the basis of not meeting
a content creator's expectations about attribution.

Are you suggesting that we stop using older CC licenses (and GFDL, etc.)
that don't explicitly say that a hyperlink to the source can be sufficient
attribution? If not, what are you actually asking for?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
***note this reply is entirely in my personal capacity and in no way
represents anything official***

On Jul 20, 2015 3:09 AM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thurner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
> differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo.

Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC,
we follow the same rules as anyone else.

If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald
bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as
incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual
interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of
suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjorsch@wikimedia.org
> wrote:
<snip>

> Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC,
> we follow the same rules as anyone else.
>

Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line
accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in
articles. See below.


> If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald
> bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as
> incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual
> interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of
> suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out.
>

Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an explicit
credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g.

"You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work
or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to
them..."
"[R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line"

And recommends credit lines of the form: "John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0", with
an included link to the license.

As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to
mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded compensation
from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually
says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that
Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
Commons actually recommends that they do. His behavior is either A) a
mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting
against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights
under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose,
hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just
sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0 license
requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome).
Would that change how we viewed his behavior?

CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and
license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such a
link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring
doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking
issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an
attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to be
written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the
history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's
thinking here.)

I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a behavior
(i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit
lines).

-Robert Rohde

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to
litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license
terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing
without requested attribution information after warnings.

Has anyone directly contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing
and why?

Regards,
Newyorkbrad


On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
bjorsch@wikimedia.org
>> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as
CC,
>> we follow the same rules as anyone else.
>>
>
> Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line
> accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in
> articles. See below.
>
>
>> If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald
>> bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as
>> incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual
>> interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of
>> suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out.
>>
>
> Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an
explicit
> credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g.
>
> "You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work
> or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to
> them..."
> "[R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line"
>
> And recommends credit lines of the form: "John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0", with
> an included link to the license.
>
> As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to
> mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded
compensation
> from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually
> says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that
> Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind
the
> notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
> Commons actually recommends that they do. His behavior is either A) a
> mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting
> against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights
> under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose,
> hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just
> sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0
license
> requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome).
> Would that change how we viewed his behavior?
>
> CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and
> license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such
a
> link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring
> doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking
> issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an
> attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to
be
> written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the
> history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's
> thinking here.)
>
> I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a
behavior
> (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit
> lines).
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> [1]
>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
> [2]
>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
Poking around I found the following related discussions listed below (all
in German) dealing with the current issue and a similar 2013 complaint. In
the second link Harald responds a couple times to the 2013 complaint. The
Google translate versions of the linked discussions are somewhat hard to
follow so I'll leave it to someone with a native understanding to
summarize. As far as I can tell no one has raised the current issue on his
talk page (either at DE or Commons).

It is also worth noting that Harald has about 800 photos on Commons, mostly
of athletes or minor celebrities. Spot checking a couple dozen suggests
that the majority of his photos are unused, but at least a small fraction
are widely used across many Wikipedias.

Current German Wikipedia Discussion:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9#In_eigener_Sache_.E2.80.94_Fast_900_Euro_Verlust:_Die_Freiheitsliebe_wurde_abgemahnt.21

2013 German Wikipedia Discussion about Harald's behavior:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen/Archiv/2013/08#WP:URF.23Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F

2013 Commons Discussion about same:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum/Archiv/2013/August#de:WP:URF.23Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F

-Robert Rohde

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to
> litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license
> terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing
> without requested attribution information after warnings.
>
> Has anyone directly contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing
> and why?
>
> Regards,
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
> On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> bjorsch@wikimedia.org
> >> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as
> CC,
> >> we follow the same rules as anyone else.
> >>
> >
> > Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line
> > accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in
> > articles. See below.
> >
> >
> >> If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald
> >> bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as
> >> incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual
> >> interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of
> >> suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out.
> >>
> >
> > Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an
> explicit
> > credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g.
> >
> > "You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work
> > or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to
> > them..."
> > "[R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line"
> >
> > And recommends credit lines of the form: "John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0", with
> > an included link to the license.
> >
> > As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to
> > mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded
> compensation
> > from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually
> > says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that
> > Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind
> the
> > notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
> that
> > Commons actually recommends that they do. His behavior is either A) a
> > mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by
> fighting
> > against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights
> > under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose,
> > hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just
> > sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0
> license
> > requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome).
> > Would that change how we viewed his behavior?
> >
> > CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and
> > license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such
> a
> > link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring
> > doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking
> > issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an
> > attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to
> be
> > written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the
> > history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's
> > thinking here.)
> >
> > I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a
> behavior
> > (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e.
> credit
> > lines).
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> >
> > [1]
> >
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
> > [2]
> >
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

> it is also hard for me to get behind the
> notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
> Commons actually recommends that they do.

It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
termed)

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
I think the next step is for someone to notify him that he's being talked
about. :-)
On 20 Jul 2015 13:39, "Andy Mabbett" <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it is also hard for me to get behind the
> > notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
> that
> > Commons actually recommends that they do.
>
> It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
> reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
> termed)
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:

> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it is also hard for me to get behind the
> > notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
> that
> > Commons actually recommends that they do.
>
> It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
> reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
> termed)
>

There are two ways of looking at it though. In one narrative you block
Harald and delete his images to protect reusers, but in another narrative
you are telling content creators that the few rights they are nominally
granted by the required license (e.g. attribution) are worthless because if
they try to enforce those rights we'll kick them out.

Ultimately though, I wonder if this mailing list is rather a poor venue for
this discussion. Isn't it more an issue for Commons?

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
***note this reply is still entirely in my personal capacity and in no way
represents anything official***
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as
> CC,
> > we follow the same rules as anyone else.
> >
>
> Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line
> accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in
> articles. See below.
>

Sigh.

I think I'll refrain from further comment on Commons' statement.


On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

> but in another narrative
> you are telling content creators that the few rights they are nominally
> granted by the required license (e.g. attribution) are worthless because if
> they try to enforce those rights we'll kick them out.
>

No, we'd just be telling them that a non-standard reading of the CC
license's requirements on attribution (namely the reading that "You must
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" in the *non-binding
description* of the license means the creator is allowed to specify exactly
how and where the attribution appears,[1] rather than "in any reasonable
manner", "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing", and "at
least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" as
the license actually says) aren't welcome.


[1]: To the extent of "magenta 24pt Comic Sans", presumably.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> it is also hard for me to get behind the
>> notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
>> Commons actually recommends that they do.
> It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
> reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
> termed)
>

If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users
absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.

Why?

Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and
license that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like
that is a fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing
attribution/license on your site. Quite another to link to some other
site you have no control over for the attribution/license.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne <lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
> On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>
>> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> it is also hard for me to get behind the
>>> notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
>>> that
>>> Commons actually recommends that they do.
>>
>> It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
>> reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
>> termed)
>>
>
> If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users
> absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.
>
> Why?
>
> Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license
> that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a
> fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on
> your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over
> for the attribution/license.

the link is good enough imo, commons does not throw away the record
that the foto was there and everything can be reconstructed in case of
trouble. but - i'd love that this gets solved on a technical level.
every media file in commons either contains the author, or it is set
by wikipedia software into the metadata. resizing and storing retains
this information. after a while all toolchains will retain such
information and the problem of wikipedia as cause of cease and desist
letters (german: abmahnung) [0] will cease to exist. even for offline
wikipedia (kiwix, and similar) and direct links to media. there was a
non-wikipedia case a while ago [1], where the court says even in
direct links to the image you should be able to see the author and
license. it was dragged on to a higher instance but i could not find
what the final judgement was.

another challenge in this context are "user defined licenses". those
were used by lawyers cease and desist letters bearing a 600-1500 eur
price tag. there seems to be even a business in fighting such letters,
naming wikipedia authors [2][3]. just as example, one of the mentioned
users images has Permission={{User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2}} as foto
license. [4]. different author, same strategy, outcome "You must
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"
for a cc-by-sa 3.0 foto [5]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung
[1] http://www.chip.de/news/LG-Koeln-Copyright-Urteil-schafft-neue-Abmahn-Falle_66923908.html
[2] http://www.abmahnung.de/abmahnung-rechtsanwalt-dr-iur-hans-g-muesse-im-auftrag-eines-rechteinhabers.html
[3] http://www.obladen-gaessler.de/wikipedia-abmahnung-durch-ra-dr-hans-g-muesse-fuer-alexander-savin/
[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farmer_plowing_in_Fahrenwalde,_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,_Germany.jpg
[5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-06-08_Projekt_Hei%C3%9Fluftballon_-_Highflyer_DSCF7768.jpg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On 21/07/2015 08:00, rupert THURNER wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne <lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
>> On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> it is also hard for me to get behind the
>>>> notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
>>>> that
>>>> Commons actually recommends that they do.
>>> It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
>>> reputation (from being" brought into disrepute", as it might be
>>> termed)
>>>
>> If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users
>> absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license
>> that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a
>> fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on
>> your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over
>> for the attribution/license.
> the link is good enough imo, commons does not throw away the record
> that the foto was there and everything can be reconstructed in case of
> trouble.


You shouldn't need to reconstruct anything. The attribution should be
there. If someone has linked to the attribution on Commons and Commons
admins have deleted the page in some snit then the attribution is no
longer there. Regardless as to whether linking to attribution is finally
considered by a court as OK. The link is no longer to the attribution.
Even CC v4 licenses don't say that it is OK to link to a page where the
attribution may or may not be, or where the attribution may upon request
be reconstructed, or hunted down. If people are relying on the
attribution being at the end of the links then you can't effectively 404
the links.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
It looks to me like Harald Bischoff is making Money with this. If you google his Name,
you find a lot of Blogposts related his "Abmahnungen [1]".

According to jurablogs he is also sending such "Abmahnungen" when a link to the license text itself is missing [2].

Bischoff is sending the Abmahnungen though an Attorney which is asking the affected persons to sign a cease and desist letter. Apart from that the affected person is requested to pay for damages and attorneys fees[2].

The complains are all over the web, this is imho a very bad reputation for wiki(p/m)edia.
I am wondering if his behavior is violating the terms of use.

Regards,
Steinsplitter

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung
[2] http://www.jurablogs.com/2015/04/28/abmahnung-wegen-unberechtigter-bildnutzung-des-herrn-harald-bischoff-auch-ins-ausland
[3] https://www.betterplace.org/de/fundraising-events/freiheitsliebe-abmahnung-durch-bischoff

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner at gmail.com>
wrote:
> hi,
>
> may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
> case "do it like wikipedia does". somebody who refers to images from
> commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.
>
> there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
> states "comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created",
> here:
>
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=143679802
> "komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder
> andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation"
>
> harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license,
> and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger
> who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and
> attributing in mouseover:
>
> http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/
>
> what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model,
> i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any
> website. the distinction "because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
> differently to commons than anybody else" needs to go away imo. be it
> only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a
> link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought
> cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway?
>
> to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case "do it as wikipedia
> does" when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we
> should either fix the software, or the license.
>
> best,
> rupert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
As this may be a good opportunity to discuss the case as test of
Commons policies, this has been raised on the Wikimedia Commons
administrators noticeboard.[1] Please feel free to add evidence or
viewpoints there.

Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff

Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
I don't know whether this is a mistranslation in the title thread, but if this wikimedian is "advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users" that would seem to me a different thing to taking images for himself but releasing a CC-BY-SA version on Wikimedia Commons. That wouldn't make any difference if he was taking photos of mountains or wildlife, but if he is using the foundation's name to get access to celebrities then that would be different. Taking photos for himself but releasing a copy on Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA is slightly different and someone who speaks his language might need to suggest that to him.

I would also be interested to know whether he is suing people who are taking the same interpretation of the CC licenses that Wikipedia uses, or only those who are not following the reuse guidelines in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

It isn't clear to me at present whether he is:

1 insisting on his undisputed licence rights
2 strictly enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one Wikimedia project and don't ourselves breach as a movement
3 enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one Wikimedia project but breach on another.

I and perhaps others whose German skills are like mine barely adequate to order a beer, would be grateful if a German speaker on this list could clarify this.

Regards

WereSpielChequers



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users [ In reply to ]
On Jul 28, 2015 9:37 AM, "WereSpielChequers" <werespielchequers@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It isn't clear to me at present whether he is:
>
> 1 insisting on his undisputed licence rights
> 2 strictly enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one
Wikimedia project and don't ourselves breach as a movement
> 3 enforcing licence rights which we acknowledge on at least one Wikimedia
project but breach on another.

Could you please give an example for the three, to make easier for people
not so acquainted with nuances of the English language?

Rupert
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>