Full Version: Photo courtesy of Wikipedia - Examiner.com
•Photo courtesy of Wikipedia
Examiner.com -22 minutes ago
It was another gorgeous winter's day here in Phoenix. 68 degrees with an ever so slight breeze and the sun warm upon my face. I'm walking my elderly border ...
View the article
"Photo courtesy of Wikipedia" isn't really proper credit for the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 1.0 license (which that particular image, of a common starling, is licensed under), since it doesn't mention the specific creator or license. "Wikipedia" (or Wikimedia Commons, where that image actually resides) doesn't own the image or have authority to give permission or "courtesy" for its use, the actual image creator does. However, the image links to the Wikipedia image page, so that might perhaps comply with licensing rules, though it's a bit of a gray area.
It's also hotlinked.
The linking is incorrect - the attribution should be - according to the terms of the licence - attributed to the photographer not Wikipedia(and an email is also required though this may or may not have occurred). I also note that it is not Wikipedia that should be credited but WikiMedia Commons for the provision of its repository (but it does not determine the licensing).
So fail to the publication, and fail to those who think a link has solved the attribution - it rather shows that clicking a link doesn't count for much - a bit of reading is then required
So fail to the publication, and fail to those who think a link has solved the attribution - it rather shows that clicking a link doesn't count for much - a bit of reading is then required
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:54pm) 
The linking is incorrect - the attribution should be - according to the terms of the licence - attributed to the photographer not Wikipedia(and an email is also required though this may or may not have occurred).
The e-mail requirement was in the initial upload but does not appear to be in the current license - The later edits by the uploader (admins can verify) changed the license terms to not include that.
Wikipedia's position has IIRC always been that attribution on the image description page, with usage of the image including a link to the image, is sufficient when no more specific requirement for the manner of attribution has been provided, but that argument may hinge on the fact that image description pages are part of wikipedia (whereas it is not part of this other site)
QUOTE(Random832 @ Thu 5th February 2009, 5:35pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:54pm)
The linking is incorrect - the attribution should be - according to the terms of the licence - attributed to the photographer not Wikipedia(and an email is also required though this may or may not have occurred).
The e-mail requirement was in the initial upload but does not appear to be in the current license - The later edits by the uploader (admins can verify) changed the license terms to not include that.
Wikipedia's position has IIRC always been that attribution on the image description page, with usage of the image including a link to the image, is sufficient when no more specific requirement for the manner of attribution has been provided, but that argument may hinge on the fact that image description pages are part of wikipedia (whereas it is not part of this other site)
To be fair, there are some other issues, like the contact link that doesn't work. I suspect that the uploader didn't really realise what he had given away with the "copyright asserted" statement on that page. My guess is that in 2006 he thought he was giving it to Wikipedia, not to the world. Perhaps it might be interesting to ask.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.