On 8/25/07, James Duncan Davidson <james(a)duncandavidson.com> wrote:
In any case, I think the fundamental disagreement is
what is considered to
be fair attribution. I consider Wikipedia's current practice to be lacking.
It can be interpreted to be within the scope of the CC license, but I don't
consider it to be fair. You consider it to be fair and acceptable, though
indicate it could be done better. I don't think there's any easy resolution.
I personally think that *at the very least* we should make it obvious
that credits and licensing can be obtained by clicking on the image,
even if we don't put a credit on the page itself. Otherwise, we're
engaging in mystery linking. The only thing that's remotely obvious
about clicking on a small clickable image is that you might get a
bigger version by so doing.
The one thing I'm concerned about about is the
statement that attribution
could be changed to Wikipedia with a change to terms of service. I'm puzzled
by that. If I'm not the one uploading a CC-licensed image, how have I as an
original Author or Licensor designated another party for attribution? If
that's true, then the attribution requirement means very much less than what
I thought it meant.
I think that you or the person stating that is mistaken. Even text
contributions to Wikipedia do not require assignment of copyright to
Wikimedia/Wikipedia. They are all copyright their original
contributors. This definitely goes for images as well.
-Matt