"How my copyright photo got into the public domain", Because Commons said so... Options

[the fieryangel]

and don't you dare complain either, because if you do, we'll ban you.

(the moral of the story is never, ever believe the release notices on commons. Always contact the photographer and ask for permission. They apparently think that everything on Flickr is free and it just ain't so...)

[One]

and don't you dare complain either, because if you do, we'll ban you.

(the moral of the story is never, ever believe the release notices on commons. Always contact the photographer and ask for permission. They apparently think that everything on Flickr is free and it just ain't so...)

I have almost no experience on Commons, but I did recently observed an incident where users block-voted to retain an obvious screenshot later proved to be a copyright violation. It suggests that it's trivially easy to appropriate copyrighted work as a pseudonym's "personal photograph." I suspect this is quite common.

This post has been edited by One: Sat 4th April 2009, 6:01pm

[JoseClutch]

and don't you dare complain either, because if you do, we'll ban you.

(the moral of the story is never, ever believe the release notices on commons. Always contact the photographer and ask for permission. They apparently think that everything on Flickr is free and it just ain't so...)

I have almost no experience on Commons, but I did recently observed an incident where users block-voted to retain an obvious screenshot later proved to be a copyright violation. It suggests that it's trivially easy to appropriate copyrighted work as a pseudonym's "personal photograph." I suspect this is quite common.

As an admin, you do not really need any kind of consensus to delete a copyright violation. It is a speedy deletion criterion on commons, same as en as everywhere else. If anyone complains, you can give them instructions on how to make a mobius style beast with a single, all-encompassing back.

[Son of a Yeti]

and don't you dare complain either, because if you do, we'll ban you.

(the moral of the story is never, ever believe the release notices on commons. Always contact the photographer and ask for permission. They apparently think that everything on Flickr is free and it just ain't so...)

It's weird that the history of the photo was oversighted.

But the guy does not claim they wanted to ban him for complaining. Rather for sending a bill. I assume they meant legal threats.

[CharlotteWebb]

Use a “wikimedia-only” license to prevent spread of copyright violations beyond wikimedia.

We already thought of that. You'll be delighted to know we have a template which says:

The use of this file is permitted only on Wikipedia.
Dear uploader: This media file, which you just uploaded, has been listed for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_deletions]speedy deletion[/url] because you indicated that only Wikipedia has permission to use this file.

[thekohser]

and don't you dare complain either, because if you do, we'll ban you.

(the moral of the story is never, ever believe the release notices on commons. Always contact the photographer and ask for permission. They apparently think that everything on Flickr is free and it just ain't so...)

I have almost no experience on Commons, but I did recently observed an incident where users block-voted to retain an obvious screenshot later proved to be a copyright violation. It suggests that it's trivially easy to appropriate copyrighted work as a pseudonym's "personal photograph." I suspect this is quite common.

I think it's important to observe that the Commons "community's" first reaction to the upload was to "notify of insufficient information". BUT THEN, the uploader simply tried again, changing the file information to "own work" and the license to "public domain".

What kind of project fails to detect and fails to prohibit a user from responding to a legitimate warning of possible rights transgression, by trying again with a BALD-FACED LIE?

(Hint: maybe a project that was "solely founded" by a liar?)

[Luís Henrique]

What kind of project fails to detect and fails to prohibit a user from responding to a legitimate warning of possible rights transgression, by trying again with a BALD-FACED LIE?

(Hint: maybe a project that was "solely founded" by a liar?)

Or a project based on "AGF"? After all, even a project founded by a liar could reserve the rigth to lie solely to its founder...

Luís Henrique

[CharlotteWebb]

What kind of project fails to detect and fails to prohibit a user from responding to a legitimate warning of possible rights transgression, by trying again with a BALD-FACED LIE?

I agree this seems straightforward enough for the flickr-reviewer bot or even the abuse filter to pick up and automatically revert on the basis that "we already know better than that".

Or a project based on "AGF"? After all, even a project founded by a liar could reserve the rigth to lie solely to its founder...

Depends on who he's lying with to this week.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Sat 4th April 2009, 10:29pm

[the fieryangel]

There are some interesting comments, including several long exchanges between the author and Gregory Maxwell, who's trying the old Here, have some delicious koolaid routine. I'm waiting for the answer to comment number 13 where the author asks a number of interesting questions including :

Please explain why I should be nice to an organization which violates the copyright of my image?

and finally :

Anyway, when treated with respect, I respond nicely. From what you are saying I sense that your ideology is more important to you than respect of people. That does not provide me with a reason to be nice to you. Actually, I do not think you learned the lesson that you say you have learned.

Why is it so difficult to say "we're sorry" and to try to find a solution instead of saying "it's not our fault", when it clearly is their fault?

[EricBarbour]

I posted a link to this thread, and WMF's address for service of legal notification.
Not that this is worth pursuing.

[Cla68]

and don't you dare complain either, because if you do, we'll ban you.

(the moral of the story is never, ever believe the release notices on commons. Always contact the photographer and ask for permission. They apparently think that everything on Flickr is free and it just ain't so...)

I have almost no experience on Commons, but I did recently observed an incident where users block-voted to retain an obvious screenshot later proved to be a copyright violation. It suggests that it's trivially easy to appropriate copyrighted work as a pseudonym's "personal photograph." I suspect this is quite common.

Commons, the way it's currently structured, does seem to facilitate the "washing" of copyrighted images into non-copyrighted-licensed ones. I guess it's good that Commons generally immediately deletes images after it's notified that they are copyvios. That comments section under the blog post is very interesting, if anyone here hasn't read it already.

[Luís Henrique]

Depends on who he's lying with to this week.

[Jimbo Wales singing to Green Day's melody]I lie alone, I lie alone, I lie alone...[/Jimbo Wales singing to Green Day's melody]

But this, as we know, is also a lie.

Luís Henrique