On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Mike Dupont <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Well I found it disturbing, and i stlll find it disturbing. > > I still find that we are failing our mission if we just accept this. > Someone has to stand up and say something about this, so I guess I > will have to stand alone. > > > here are some stats on the licences in general > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metrics/License_statistics I did not > find any license stats for wikipedia or commons. > > Also a number of images are fair usage on wikipedia. > > > In any case, it is a bad example for kids, it is a bad example for > students, it is a bad example for anyone. we should not allow the > wikipedia logo and name to be used in such a manner. > > People need to check the license before you use them, advertising > agencies cannot just take pictures off the wikipedia and copy them > into your advertising, students cannot just copy them into their > homework. You need to research into them first and check the license. > I guess, this is just one of the times where things in Hollywood are a bit different than in real life. The students and kids will just have to realize that things in films are not always true to life... (Without having seen the movie, I guess a long sequence on proper licensing would have been very boring, and ad agencies in real life would have a legal team making sure the licences are alright and who would be sued if they aren't – it's not like they would take their cues from a short scene in a Smurfs movie.)
Best regards, Bence _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
