[Openglam_members] Finnish Wartime Archive licensing
joris.pekel at okfn.org
Thu May 2 11:47:26 UTC 2013
I think they mainly were thinking about the 'our data is going to be used
by Nazis' argument to not open up.. Which indeed has never stopped anybody
using images in an inappropriate way.
Nice case study: Mathias Schindler of Wikimedia Germany once sued a group
of neo-nazis who used one of his photos, that were available under a cc-by
license, without attributing him. He won.
2013/5/2 Adam Green <adam.green at okfn.org>
> These are great! Do you have any more info about what
> such inappropriate usage might be? I'm struggling to imagine. I expect that
> anyone wanting to any really inappropriate stuff with them maybe wouldn't
> care about obeying licensing restrictions so much anyway, but I may be
> On 2 May 2013 11:53, Maarten Brinkerink <mbrinkerink at beeldengeluid.nl>wrote:
>> Think I wouldn't hurt to at least point them to the fact that this makes
>> them incompatible with other open knowledge initiatives like for instance
>> Op 2 mei 2013, om 12:39 heeft Marttila Sanna-Maria <
>> sanna.marttila at aalto.fi> het volgende geschreven:
>> > Hey Joris, all
>> > It is a wonderful collection of photos isn't it. It has been so popular
>> that the servers were down for many days. This was actually the collection
>> that i was referring to, that they have "home-made" license information,
>> they allow free and open use and re-use, but want to restrict the use in
>> "inappropriate" (what ever that means). Me and Petri Kola (probably you met
>> in Helsinki during the OKFestival) are planning workshops with users and
>> developers to link these pictures with Finnish army's records etc.
>> > However that you reminded me!
>> > all the best,
>> > Sanna
>> > On 1.5.2013, at 22.22, Joris Pekel <joris.pekel at okfn.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi all, and particularly Sanna,
>> >> I was just looking at this great collection of World War II photos
>> from Finland. Really nice footage. The licensing here is again a bit weird,
>> it basically says it is a CC-BY-SA license, although it is not mentioned.
>> Sanna, might be worth getting in touch with explaining a bit and mention
>> the fact that using the CC license will make a much stronger legal case?
>> >> http://sa-kuva.fi/neo?tem=webneoeng
>> >> Cheers!
>> >> Joris
>> >> --
>> >> Joris Pekel
>> >> Community Coordinator
>> >> Open Knowledge Foundation
>> >> http://okfn.org/
>> >> http://twitter.com/jpekel
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenGLAM_Members mailing list
>> >> OpenGLAM_Members at lists.okfn.org
>> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openglam_members
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenGLAM_Members mailing list
>> > OpenGLAM_Members at lists.okfn.org
>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openglam_members
>> OpenGLAM_Members mailing list
>> OpenGLAM_Members at lists.okfn.org
> Adam Green
> Editor, The Public Domain Review
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> OpenGLAM_Members mailing list
> OpenGLAM_Members at lists.okfn.org
Open Knowledge Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openglam_members