Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] 4.0: misc changes and date for closing public discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Cc <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] 4.0: misc changes and date for closing public discussion
  • Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:42:15 +0000

On 01/11/2013 01:45, Rob Myers wrote:
On 31/10/13 11:58 AM, Cc wrote:

The problem arises as the idiots over on wikipedia now seem
to think that they can delete the attribution and original
title, and still be in compliance with the license given
that the stuff will remain in the deletion history.

Do you have an example of that which doesn't involve attribution being
abused to advertise products on Wikipedia as described in the talk page
you link to?

They are already cloning out watermarks

Wikipedia is not a free promotional site for photographers. Removing
adware from images is an improvement.


They have two options not hosting the work, or complying with the license terms.


There certainly is abuse happening here, but it looks more like
Wikipedia are defending against it than perpetrating it...


Again they have two options not hosting the work, or complying with the license terms.

Who determines whether a title or attribution is promotional or not? Where are the license terms that say that these terms are void if the re-users decides that they don't like the attribution name?

Could creationwiki decide not to attribute to a photographer that goes by the name of ChildOfSatan? How about anti-Semitic groups refusing to attribute to someone called Cohen?






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page