Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia Germany

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia Germany

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:16 am

One thing I learned yesterday on the German Dawitrichter (David Richter) blog (link, Google Translate)) is that the German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) ended its collaboration with Wikimedia in 2010 because Wikimedians violated copyright and Creative Commons licensing rules.

(split from Fastily thread)

Cla68
Habitué
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:43 pm
Wikipedia User: Cla68

Re: Fastily's clandestine lecture videos

Unread post by Cla68 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:59 pm

HRIP7 wrote:One thing I learned yesterday on the German Dawitrichter (David Richter) blog (link, Google Translate)) is that the German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) ended its collaboration with Wikimedia in 2010 because Wikimedians violated copyright and Creative Commons licensing rules.
Somebody needs to ask Sue Gardner on her talk page to confirm if this is true, which I just did.

User avatar
Rathel
Critic
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 2:34 am

Re: Fastily's clandestine lecture videos

Unread post by Rathel » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:25 pm

HRIP7 wrote:One thing I learned yesterday on the German Dawitrichter (David Richter) blog (link, Google Translate)) is that the German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) ended its collaboration with Wikimedia in 2010 because Wikimedians violated copyright and Creative Commons licensing rules.

Any specifics on how Wikimedia violated the copyright and licensing rules?

User avatar
piku
Critic
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip

The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by piku » Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:13 pm

HRIP7 wrote:One thing I learned yesterday on the German Dawitrichter (David Richter) blog (link, Google Translate)) is that the German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) ended its collaboration with Wikimedia in 2010 because Wikimedians violated copyright and Creative Commons licensing rules.
It is a separate issue. New thread?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFp5kEEaCo at 14:37 is about problems. People selling copies on eBay, for example.

rd232
Retired
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:46 pm
Wikipedia User: rd232
Wikipedia Review Member: rd232

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by rd232 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:44 pm

piku wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:One thing I learned yesterday on the German Dawitrichter (David Richter) blog (link, Google Translate)) is that the German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) ended its collaboration with Wikimedia in 2010 because Wikimedians violated copyright and Creative Commons licensing rules.
It is a separate issue. New thread?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFp5kEEaCo at 14:37 is about problems. People selling copies on eBay, for example.
:Yes, separate issue, and not obviously Wikimedia's fault (unless I'm missing something) Quote from someone who seems to be close to it: The reason why the Bundesarchiv stops making material available to us is because so many people have ignored the provisions of the CC-by-sa license when they use their images outside of the WMF projects. (source).
Yes Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Commons (delete as appropriate) has problems. No, if I don't agree with you 100% on the nature, causes and extent of those problems, that doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of those problems.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:25 pm

rd232 wrote:
piku wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:One thing I learned yesterday on the German Dawitrichter (David Richter) blog (link, Google Translate)) is that the German Federal Archive (Bundesarchiv) ended its collaboration with Wikimedia in 2010 because Wikimedians violated copyright and Creative Commons licensing rules.
It is a separate issue. New thread?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFp5kEEaCo at 14:37 is about problems. People selling copies on eBay, for example.
:Yes, separate issue, and not obviously Wikimedia's fault (unless I'm missing something) Quote from someone who seems to be close to it: The reason why the Bundesarchiv stops making material available to us is because so many people have ignored the provisions of the CC-by-sa license when they use their images outside of the WMF projects. (source).
According to the YouTube video, legal problems and complaints from rights holders that the Bundesarchiv received were the main reasons why the initiative was not continued. Sander did say the problem was not Wikimedia Germany (mentioning in particular that collaboration with Mathias Schindler was excellent), but that 95% of reuses online did not have the correct attribution required by the Commons licence, a proportion that was far higher than he had expected, and which led to them being overwhelmed with the aforementioned problems and complaints.

For example, people deleted the source information included in the images and then sold them as postcards on eBay. The images that had been donated already remained in Wikimedia Commons, but they decided not to make any further images available.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:42 pm

HRIP7 wrote: For example, people deleted the source information included in the images and then sold them as postcards on eBay. The images that had been donated already remained in Wikimedia Commons, but they decided not to make any further images available.
That sounds like he saying that cloning out the watermarks was a problem for them, is that right?
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:48 pm

lilburne wrote:
HRIP7 wrote: For example, people deleted the source information included in the images and then sold them as postcards on eBay. The images that had been donated already remained in Wikimedia Commons, but they decided not to make any further images available.
That sounds like he saying that cloning out the watermarks was a problem for them, is that right?
If I understand correctly, they don't use watermarks. But Bundesarchiv images have a white stripe with printed source information at the bottom (see e.g. link), and one of the main culprits in ebay cut those off, took "Bundesarchiv" out of the filenames, and then sold the images as a private collection.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:55 pm

The image in that blog post somehow suits Commons.

Image
ADN-ZB/ Archiv Berlin, Juni 1924: Vorbereitung zur Eröffnung der Großen Berliner Kunstausstellung. (Foto: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S29554 / CC-BY-SA)

User avatar
piku
Critic
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by piku » Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:06 pm

HRIP7 wrote:The image in that blog post somehow suits Commons.

http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.d ... eitung.jpg
ADN-ZB/ Archiv Berlin, Juni 1924: Vorbereitung zur Eröffnung der Großen Berliner Kunstausstellung. (Foto: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S29554 / CC-BY-SA)
Someone must know who the sculptor was.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novembergruppe

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:23 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
lilburne wrote:
HRIP7 wrote: If I understand correctly, they don't use watermarks. But Bundesarchiv images have a white stripe with printed source information at the bottom (see e.g. link), and one of the main culprits in ebay cut those off, took "Bundesarchiv" out of the filenames, and then sold the images as a private collection.
Might not have been eBay, or at least not only eBay. They did that on Commons too:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Bund ... eitung.jpg

so the eBay reuser could well have been innocent. It is what I was telling the freetards over there a month ago. Removing that sort of information pisses people off and you don't get any more.

Yep most (every one) of the examples here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv

were cropped on Commons. Way to go boy. LOL
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

MBisanz
Contributor
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:33 pm
Wikipedia User: MBisanz
Wikipedia Review Member: MBisanz

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by MBisanz » Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:49 pm

This is one of the aspects of free licensing that I think will limit its use in certain sectors. Professionals (or maybe even just reasonable people) have expectations that their work will be re-used in a similar context to what they created. I remember an unfortunate incident a few years ago where an image of a scouting picture was reused by a spanking website. The ability to adapt/modify content in reuse is an underlying principle of WM and, I believe, the FSF. That becomes hard to stomach when you are a national archive and people are crassly commercializing your work with barely or non-existent attribution or reusing it in ways that much of society (your target audience) finds distasteful.

For WM's purposes of getting free content out there, I don't know why we won't permit ND and NC licenses of images. I can see the argument for not permitting variations in text licensing, given the malleability of text, but encouraging people to give semi-free images that they won't give under totally free licensing seems better then having them not give any images. The idea of forcing them to make it totally free to participate and hoping their desire to participate outweighs their prudential concerns has always struck me as a bit odd.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:06 pm

I should say that the blog is deeply disturbing, being as it doesn't start off with 'Hoi'.
For WM's purposes of getting free content out there, I don't know why we won't permit ND and NC licenses of images.
Freetardery.

For media files WP as a project doesn't need all the permissions granted to it. It could quite easily have added a requirement that any media files should be licensed such that WP could sell copies of encyclopedia articles. That would have stopped much of current licensing nonsense. I suspect that they just took CC off the shelf, and someone decided on the freetard license for everything. The FSF licenses don't work for media files, they don't particularly work for anything other that software.

The good news is that WP could allow ND and NC licenses (with the proviso that artcles could be printed commercially) without affecting the project at all.

The bad news is entrenched freetardery with in the project.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

rd232
Retired
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:46 pm
Wikipedia User: rd232
Wikipedia Review Member: rd232

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by rd232 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:36 pm

lilburne wrote:Yep most (every one) of the examples here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv
were cropped on Commons. Way to go boy. LOL
True. Hard to believe that this cropping (which was bound to happen unless explicitly agreed otherwise) was never discussed during the project - but I haven't found anything.
Yes Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Commons (delete as appropriate) has problems. No, if I don't agree with you 100% on the nature, causes and extent of those problems, that doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of those problems.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:01 pm

rd232 wrote:
lilburne wrote:Yep most (every one) of the examples here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv
were cropped on Commons. Way to go boy. LOL
True. Hard to believe that this cropping (which was bound to happen unless explicitly agreed otherwise) was never discussed during the project - but I haven't found anything.
Did you not once have a policy NOT to remove watermarks etc. then later decide to just do it any way?

EDIT: BTW do we think that Mr 50%-Saibo is going to delete 80,000 images?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... watermarks
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:09 pm

rd232 wrote:
lilburne wrote:Yep most (every one) of the examples here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv
were cropped on Commons. Way to go boy. LOL
True. Hard to believe that this cropping (which was bound to happen unless explicitly agreed otherwise) was never discussed during the project - but I haven't found anything.
You could ask Mathias Schindler; he'd probably know.

User avatar
David Richter
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:08 am

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by David Richter » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:42 pm

I made a translation of my blog for You, please report mistakes!

link

In my opinion the crux is: The Wikipedia community is responsible for prosecuting the abuse of pictures in commons, because their swarm-abilities are needed.
Grüße

David Richter

User avatar
piku
Critic
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by piku » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:36 pm

David Richter wrote:In my opinion the crux is: The Wikipedia community is responsible for prosecuting the abuse of pictures in commons, because their swarm-abilities are needed.
That is legally difficult, I think. Only the copyright holder has standing in court to be able to sue.

Wikimedia does not own the copyright. Nor does the Bundesarchiv for many of those uploads.

Maybe some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collection_society? But then one would need to sign over rights to them.

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:55 pm

piku wrote:
David Richter wrote:In my opinion the crux is: The Wikipedia community is responsible for prosecuting the abuse of pictures in commons, because their swarm-abilities are needed.
That is legally difficult, I think. Only the copyright holder has standing in court to be able to sue.

Wikimedia does not own the copyright. Nor does the Bundesarchiv for many of those uploads.

Maybe some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collection_society? But then one would need to sign over rights to them.
I think that you may be misunderstanding what David Richter is suggesting, I think he is simply saying that the community needs to take responsibility for managing the abuse of pictures.

It may be legally tricky, but the principle is sound in the context of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia content is to be created by the masses, the masses have to be responsible for ensuring that it is compliant with law (as set out in guidance to the community) and policy. If the community are not prepared to take on that role, then Wikipedia should not exist, as the alternative is that the WMF has to fund a massive review process which they simply are not prepared to do. It is no good the WMF shrugging their shoulders and saying "We want to do the right thing, but we don't control the community, and they have decided to act inappropriately", they have created Frankenstein and they have to take responsibility for their monster's actions.
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by HRIP7 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:29 pm

David Richter wrote:I made a translation of my blog for You, please report mistakes!

link

In my opinion the crux is: The Wikipedia community is responsible for prosecuting the abuse of pictures in commons, because their swarm-abilities are needed.
Welcome, David. Glad you could join us!

One thing that may be of interest to you: on Jimbo Wales' talk page, Wikipedia administrators are currently openly discussing how best to circumvent German anti-pornography law (Verbreitung pornographischer Schriften). The discussion is here (permalink), and it relates to the German court case described in the prior section.

So far, I am sorry to say, I see no sign that Jimbo disapproves of this use of his talk page. I would like it if a German journalist could ask him if he has seen this discussion, and what he thinks of it.

User avatar
Rathel
Critic
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 2:34 am

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by Rathel » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:34 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:
piku wrote:
David Richter wrote:In my opinion the crux is: The Wikipedia community is responsible for prosecuting the abuse of pictures in commons, because their swarm-abilities are needed.
That is legally difficult, I think. Only the copyright holder has standing in court to be able to sue.

Wikimedia does not own the copyright. Nor does the Bundesarchiv for many of those uploads.

Maybe some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collection_society? But then one would need to sign over rights to them.
I think that you may be misunderstanding what David Richter is suggesting, I think he is simply saying that the community needs to take responsibility for managing the abuse of pictures.

It may be legally tricky, but the principle is sound in the context of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia content is to be created by the masses, the masses have to be responsible for ensuring that it is compliant with law (as set out in guidance to the community) and policy. If the community are not prepared to take on that role, then Wikipedia should not exist, as the alternative is that the WMF has to fund a massive review process which they simply are not prepared to do. It is no good the WMF shrugging their shoulders and saying "We want to do the right thing, but we don't control the community, and they have decided to act inappropriately", they have created Frankenstein and they have to take responsibility for their monster's actions.
Wasn't OTRS set up to handle copyright matters? Perhaps OTRS fails because everything is kept secret and there are no public records for oversight of their actions.

User avatar
piku
Critic
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by piku » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:59 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:I think that you may be misunderstanding what David Richter is suggesting, I think he is simply saying that the community needs to take responsibility for managing the abuse of pictures.

It may be legally tricky, but the principle is sound in the context of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia content is to be created by the masses, the masses have to be responsible for ensuring that it is compliant with law (as set out in guidance to the community) and policy. If the community are not prepared to take on that role, then Wikipedia should not exist, as the alternative is that the WMF has to fund a massive review process which they simply are not prepared to do. It is no good the WMF shrugging their shoulders and saying "We want to do the right thing, but we don't control the community, and they have decided to act inappropriately", they have created Frankenstein and they have to take responsibility for their monster's actions.
The Bundesarchiv itself requires log-in with a real name to access its collections, and one needs to promise to respect copyright. They can keep tabs on their customers. But the WMF cannot control the world. Nor do newspapers exercise any control on images on their web pages. When an image is published in digital form, one has lost control.

By the way, it was Commons users that found copyright problems with a few of the images that Bundesarchiv had released: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... chland.jpg. Bundesarchiv was a bit slow in responding.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:07 pm

piku wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:I think that you may be misunderstanding what David Richter is suggesting, I think he is simply saying that the community needs to take responsibility for managing the abuse of pictures.

It may be legally tricky, but the principle is sound in the context of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia content is to be created by the masses, the masses have to be responsible for ensuring that it is compliant with law (as set out in guidance to the community) and policy. If the community are not prepared to take on that role, then Wikipedia should not exist, as the alternative is that the WMF has to fund a massive review process which they simply are not prepared to do. It is no good the WMF shrugging their shoulders and saying "We want to do the right thing, but we don't control the community, and they have decided to act inappropriately", they have created Frankenstein and they have to take responsibility for their monster's actions.
The Bundesarchiv itself requires log-in with a real name to access its collections, and one needs to promise to respect copyright. They can keep tabs on their customers. But the WMF cannot control the world. Nor do newspapers exercise any control on images on their web pages. When an image is published in digital form, one has lost control.

By the way, it was Commons users that found copyright problems with a few of the images that Bundesarchiv had released: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... chland.jpg. Bundesarchiv was a bit slow in responding.
The WMF can control what goes on its servers.
How about, "First violation of copyvio leads to a 30 day block. Second is indef." type of rule?
DO you suppose that people would be a bit more careful?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
piku
Critic
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by piku » Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:14 pm

Vigilant wrote:The WMF can control what goes on its servers.
How about, "First violation of copyvio leads to a 30 day block. Second is indef." type of rule?
DO you suppose that people would be a bit more careful?
Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.

By the way, Ashley Van Haeften is trying something similar in the UK. But see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... scuits.jpg: he gets very upset when it is suspected that the TWAM museum may have released images for which it does not own the rights.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by lilburne » Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:20 pm

piku wrote:
Vigilant wrote:The WMF can control what goes on its servers.
How about, "First violation of copyvio leads to a 30 day block. Second is indef." type of rule?
DO you suppose that people would be a bit more careful?
Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.
They are complaining about the removal of attribution, from the image. The one example that they give had the attribution removed on Commons. It is not known, however, whether the eBay reseller did their own cropping of the attribution information, or simple reused the cropped Commons image. I suspect, that the lazy sod, would have done the latter.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by HRIP7 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:26 pm

lilburne wrote:
piku wrote:
Vigilant wrote:The WMF can control what goes on its servers.
How about, "First violation of copyvio leads to a 30 day block. Second is indef." type of rule?
DO you suppose that people would be a bit more careful?
Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.
They are complaining about the removal of attribution, from the image. The one example that they give had the attribution removed on Commons. It is not known, however, whether the eBay reseller did their own cropping of the attribution information, or simple reused the cropped Commons image. I suspect, that the lazy sod, would have done the latter.
People seem to have systematically gone through the files to remove the white stripe at the bottom with the source info. Example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... 09&month=2

rd232
Retired
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:46 pm
Wikipedia User: rd232
Wikipedia Review Member: rd232

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by rd232 » Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:54 pm

The current Signpost has an article on this topic, which even mentions the Bundesarchiv in passing: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"
Yes Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Commons (delete as appropriate) has problems. No, if I don't agree with you 100% on the nature, causes and extent of those problems, that doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of those problems.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by HRIP7 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:51 am

rd232 wrote:The current Signpost has an article on this topic, which even mentions the Bundesarchiv in passing: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"
Thanks, well spotted. :)

User avatar
David Richter
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:08 am

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by David Richter » Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:56 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
lilburne wrote:
piku wrote:
Vigilant wrote:The WMF can control what goes on its servers.
How about, "First violation of copyvio leads to a 30 day block. Second is indef." type of rule?
Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.
They are complaining about the removal of attribution, from the image.
Like current vandal patrolling the community should equally patrol for copy-vio outside wikimedia and especially inside ebay and photo-selling sites. If wikimedia pays the trials no author should be afraid of suing.
Grüße

David Richter

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:38 pm

David Richter wrote:Like current vandal patrolling the community should equally patrol for copy-vio outside wikimedia and especially inside ebay and photo-selling sites. If wikimedia pays the trials no author should be afraid of suing.
Sadly, it should be obvious by now that WMF has no intention of spending its money on any such thing. It will probably take a successful copyright
lawsuit to get them to react, in any way.

Post Reply