Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia Germany
- 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
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)
(split from Fastily thread)
Re: Fastily's clandestine lecture videos
Somebody needs to ask Sue Gardner on her talk page to confirm if this is true, which I just did.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.
Re: Fastily's clandestine lecture videos
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?
- piku
- Critic
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
- Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip
The Bundesarchiv collaboration
It is a separate issue. New thread?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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFp5kEEaCo at 14:37 is about problems. People selling copies on eBay, for example.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:46 pm
- Wikipedia User: rd232
- Wikipedia Review Member: rd232
Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration
: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).piku wrote:It is a separate issue. New thread?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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFp5kEEaCo at 14:37 is about problems. People selling copies on eBay, for example.
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.
- 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
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.rd232 wrote::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).piku wrote:It is a separate issue. New thread?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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFp5kEEaCo at 14:37 is about problems. People selling copies on eBay, for example.
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.
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration
That sounds like he saying that cloning out the watermarks was a problem for them, is that right?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.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
- 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
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.lilburne wrote:That sounds like he saying that cloning out the watermarks was a problem for them, is that right?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.
- 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
The image in that blog post somehow suits Commons.
ADN-ZB/ Archiv Berlin, Juni 1924: Vorbereitung zur Eröffnung der Großen Berliner Kunstausstellung. (Foto: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S29554 / CC-BY-SA)
ADN-ZB/ Archiv Berlin, Juni 1924: Vorbereitung zur Eröffnung der Großen Berliner Kunstausstellung. (Foto: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S29554 / CC-BY-SA)
- 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
Someone must know who the sculptor was.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)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novembergruppe
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration
Might not have been eBay, or at least not only eBay. They did that on Commons too: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.
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
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
-
- 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
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.
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.
- 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
I should say that the blog is deeply disturbing, being as it doesn't start off with 'Hoi'.
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.
Freetardery.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.
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
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
-
- Retired
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:46 pm
- Wikipedia User: rd232
- Wikipedia Review Member: rd232
Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration
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.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
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.
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: The Bundesarchiv collaboration
Did you not once have a policy NOT to remove watermarks etc. then later decide to just do it any way?rd232 wrote: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.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
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
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
- 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
You could ask Mathias Schindler; he'd probably know.rd232 wrote: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.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
- David Richter
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:08 am
Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German
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.
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
David Richter
- 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
That is legally difficult, I think. Only the copyright holder has standing in court to be able to sue.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.
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.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German
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.piku wrote:That is legally difficult, I think. Only the copyright holder has standing in court to be able to sue.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.
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.
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.
- 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
Welcome, David. Glad you could join us!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.
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.
Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German
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.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.piku wrote:That is legally difficult, I think. Only the copyright holder has standing in court to be able to sue.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.
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.
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.
- 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
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.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.
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.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31777
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German
The WMF can control what goes on its servers.piku wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
- 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
Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.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?
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.
- 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
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.piku wrote:Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.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?
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
- 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
People seem to have systematically gone through the files to remove the white stripe at the bottom with the source info. Example:lilburne wrote: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.piku wrote:Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.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?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... 09&month=2
-
- 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
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.
- 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
Thanks, well spotted.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"
- David Richter
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:08 am
Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German
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.HRIP7 wrote:lilburne wrote:They are complaining about the removal of attribution, from the image.piku wrote:Bundesarchiv is not complaining about its images on Commons. It is not pleased by most of the usage by third parties.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?
Grüße
David Richter
David Richter
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: Blog on Bundesarchiv collaboration with Wikimedia German
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 copyrightDavid 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.
lawsuit to get them to react, in any way.