Re: Wikimedia as stock photo source

[Andrew Turvey]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

The "EU Observer" web newspaper seems to be a regular re-user of Wikimedia images. From their current edition of stories:

http://euobserver.com/9/28853
http://euobserver.com/7/28767
http://euobserver.com/7/28830
http://euobserver.com/7/28668
http://euobserver.com/13/28677
http://euobserver.com/22/28824

All marked (credit:Wikipedia), no link or mention of license.

----- "David Gerard" <dgerard@...> wrote:

> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard@...>
> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009 15:14:02 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: [Commons-l] Wikimedia as stock photo source
>
> Is anyone keeping track of these?
>
> http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Police-Man-didnt-get-gun-used-pliers-instead/Eyp1QAdMXUOMiwlVU1AcXg.cspx
>
> Not perfect - credit but no licence - but far better than nothing!
>
> This is interesting to me because it's just a plain stock photo being
> used as illustration for design purposes.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Nicolas Guérin-3]

Well, there's no really need to cite Wikipedia, because the license said that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should be mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is welcome but not necessary.

I think that by writing "Photo: Wikipedia" they have good intentions, they just don't know how to proceed correctly.
So it will be good just to send them a friendly e-mail which explains them how to cite correctly the source (e.g.: Photo by name of the photographer, CC-BY-SA-3.0)


   Guérin Nicolas

2009/10/22 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>

The "EU Observer" web newspaper seems to be a regular re-user of Wikimedia images. From their current edition of stories:

http://euobserver.com/9/28853
http://euobserver.com/7/28767
http://euobserver.com/7/28830
http://euobserver.com/7/28668
http://euobserver.com/13/28677
http://euobserver.com/22/28824

All marked (credit:Wikipedia), no link or mention of license.

----- "David Gerard" <dgerard@...> wrote:
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard@...>
> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009 15:14:02 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: [Commons-l] Wikimedia as stock photo source
>
> Is anyone keeping track of these?
>
> http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Police-Man-didnt-get-gun-used-pliers-instead/Eyp1QAdMXUOMiwlVU1AcXg.cspx
>
> Not perfect - credit but no licence - but far better than nothing!
>
> This is interesting to me because it's just a plain stock photo being
> used as illustration for design purposes.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Lars Aronsson]

Nicolas Guérin wrote:

> Well, there's no really need to cite Wikipedia, because the license said
> that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should be
> mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is welcome but not necessary.

Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to
you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org


--
  Lars Aronsson (lars@...)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Py mouss]

The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?

2009/10/22 Lars Aronsson <lars@...>

Nicolas Guérin wrote:

> Well, there's no really need to cite Wikipedia, because the license said
> that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should be
> mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is welcome but not necessary.

Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to
you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org


--
 Lars Aronsson (lars@...)
 Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Gnangarra]

Yeah its incompatible, SA license requires

• Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

the is an exception that the copyright holder may waiver any condition of a SA license.

The site licensing clearly isnt the same, similar or compatible.  Interestingly if the images are individually licensed cc-by-3.0 then they are able to reuse without restriction or requesting a waiver.

The image in http://euobserver.com/7/28830 is a cc-by-3.0 license while the attribution isnt correct the resue is compatible
While the image in http://euobserver.com/7/28767 is a satalite photograph, which I have yet to locate on en:WP or Commons but the its either a PD license or its a government agency license either way attribution shouldnt be to WP

the other are proving a little difficult to track down for the purpose of giving example in this email that the image may be reusable under a different license than cc-by-sa

2009/10/23 Py mouss <pymouss44@...>

The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?

2009/10/22 Lars Aronsson <lars@...>

Nicolas Guérin wrote:

> Well, there's no really need to cite Wikipedia, because the license said
> that the author (the person who took the picture) and the license should be
> mentionned. To cite "Wikipedia" is welcome but not necessary.

Maybe we should just rename Wikimedia Commons to
you-are-free-to-reuse-it.org


--
 Lars Aronsson (lars@...)
 Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

--
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Yann Forget-2]

Py mouss wrote:
> The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be
> incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?

What the license of the site has to do with the image ?
The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the
relation.

Regards,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Andrew Turvey]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

----- "Yann Forget" <yann@...> wrote:
> From: "Yann Forget" <yann@...>
>
> Py mouss wrote:
> > The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems to be
> > incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?
>
> What the license of the site has to do with the image ?
> The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the
> relation.

Whilst I'd never pretend to know anything about copyright, that would also be my interpretation. The "SA" in CC-BY-SA refers to derivative works - i.e. where you change, modify, etc the picture itself. Merely putting the CC-BY-SA picture next to text doesn't create a derivative work, so the text would not have to be CC-BY-SA'd

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Platonides]

Andrew Turvey wrote:
> The "EU Observer" web newspaper seems to be a regular re-user of
> Wikimedia images. From their current edition of stories:
>
> http://euobserver.com/9/28853
PD-Self
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aias_body_Akhilleus_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_1884.jpg


> http://euobserver.com/7/28767
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scandinavia_M2002074_lrg.jpg PD-NASA

> http://euobserver.com/7/28830
CC-BY/GFDL
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:01CFREU-Preamble-crop.jpg

> http://euobserver.com/7/28668
GFDL/CC-BY-SA (migrated)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operating_theatre.jpg

> http://euobserver.com/13/28677
PD-user-en
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warsaw_-_Royal_Castle_Square.jpg


> http://euobserver.com/22/28824
>
> All marked (credit:Wikipedia), no link or mention of license.


Note: Trying to find a photo by knowing the topic and browsing
categories suck.


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[David Gerard-2]

Meanwhile, here's a rather more prestigious reuser, with correct
attributions and licenses:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/


- d.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Daniel Kinzler]

Andrew Turvey schrieb:

>
> ----- "Yann Forget" <yann@...> wrote:
>> From: "Yann Forget" <yann@...>
>>
>> Py mouss wrote:
>> > The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems
> to be
>> > incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?
>>
>> What the license of the site has to do with the image ?
>> The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the
>> relation.
>
> Whilst I'd never pretend to know anything about copyright, that would
> also be my interpretation. The "SA" in CC-BY-SA refers to derivative
> works - i.e. where you change, modify, etc the picture itself. Merely
> putting the CC-BY-SA picture next to text doesn't create a derivative
> work, so the text would not have to be CC-BY-SA'd

This is a matter of much debate and disagreement, as old as copyleft licenses.
It's "strong" or "viral" copyleft vs. "weak" or "soft" copyleft. Traditionally,
the FSF takes teh side of strong copyleft with the GFDL, and the CC crowd tends
more towards the weak variant, implying that the share-alike requirement does
not apply to "aggregate" works, only "true" derivatives. To me, that makes more
sense in practice, even though it may be less desierable in principle. The
distinction is tricky, however.

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Alex Brollo]

2009/10/25 Daniel Kinzler <daniel@...>

This is a matter of much debate and disagreement, as old as copyleft licenses.
It's "strong" or "viral" copyleft vs. "weak" or "soft" copyleft. Traditionally,
the FSF takes teh side of strong copyleft with the GFDL, and the CC crowd tends
more towards the weak variant, implying that the share-alike requirement does
not apply to "aggregate" works, only "true" derivatives. To me, that makes more
sense in practice, even though it may be less desierable in principle. The
distinction is tricky, however.

I can't force anyone, but I'll post my own contributions as PD, if allowed, and I encourage other to post their contributions as PD too, if they like.

Alex

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Andrew Turvey]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Interesting - thanks for sharing this information.

Wikimedia UK is currently starting up a "workplace learning" project, which is going into companies - predominently media companies - and talking to them about issues such as how they can add to and re-use our content. One of the specific questions that we will be answering is how people like EU Observer can reuse Wikimedia Commons photos in a way that is copyright compliant. Note that the BBC, for instance, has a policy of not reusing our content specifically because no one can give them a clear answer to that question.

What we will say will be carefully worded to make sure people don't treat it as legal advice or some kind of permission beyond the terms of the license - important as we're not the copyright owners although some people may think we are! I was thinking of wording it along the lines of "here's the kind of things that other people do" (answers.com for instance).

Have you got any more information about the aggregate/weak vs derivative/viral argument? Am I right to presume the migration from GDFL to CC-BY-SA of wikipedia will strengthen the former argument? Are GDFL images on Commons migrating to CC-BY-SA at the same time?

Thanks for any help you could give.

Regards,

----- "Daniel Kinzler" <daniel@...> wrote:

> From: "Daniel Kinzler" <daniel@...>
> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@...>
> Sent: Sunday, 25 October, 2009 09:19:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Wikimedia as stock photo source
>
> Andrew Turvey schrieb:
> >
> > ----- "Yann Forget" <yann@...> wrote:
> >> From: "Yann Forget" <yann@...>
> >>
> >> Py mouss wrote:
> >> > The license of the site (http://euobserver.com/static/terms) seems
> > to be
> >> > incompatible with the use of pictures licensed CC-BY-SA, no ?
> >>
> >> What the license of the site has to do with the image ?
> >> The site is certainly not a derivative of the image, so I don't see the
> >> relation.
> >
> > Whilst I'd never pretend to know anything about copyright, that would
> > also be my interpretation. The "SA" in CC-BY-SA refers to derivative
> > works - i.e. where you change, modify, etc the picture itself. Merely
> > putting the CC-BY-SA picture next to text doesn't create a derivative
> > work, so the text would not have to be CC-BY-SA'd
>
> This is a matter of much debate and disagreement, as old as copyleft licenses.
> It's "strong" or "viral" copyleft vs. "weak" or "soft" copyleft. Traditionally,
> the FSF takes teh side of strong copyleft with the GFDL, and the CC crowd tends
> more towards the weak variant, implying that the share-alike requirement does
> not apply to "aggregate" works, only "true" derivatives. To me, that makes more
> sense in practice, even though it may be less desierable in principle. The
> distinction is tricky, however.
>
> -- daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[geni]

2009/10/22 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>:

> The "EU Observer" web newspaper seems to be a regular re-user of Wikimedia
> images. From their current edition of stories:
>
> http://euobserver.com/9/28853
> http://euobserver.com/7/28767
> http://euobserver.com/7/28830
> http://euobserver.com/7/28668
> http://euobserver.com/13/28677
> http://euobserver.com/22/28824
>
> All marked (credit:Wikipedia), no link or mention of license.
>

Technically better than pink news:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/23/comment-guilty-bystanders-and-alpha-male-eunuchs/

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Football_iu_1996.jpg

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l