In mingle on 2014-09-19 at 11:31:01, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

I think that the attribution info is useful even in cases where the attribution is not mandatory (we may adjust the language for those cases).

In mingle on 2014-09-19 at 11:43:04, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

I don't understand one of the proposed changes. In the "click for attribution and license", Why do we add the "license" part? I think the user just wants the needed text to credit the author (which may include the license) but adding those details seem only to add confusion.

In mingle on 2014-09-25 at 23:06:04, @Fabrice_Florin wrote:

Hi Pau, there are many cases in which both the attribution AND the license are required: over 60% of images on Commons are Creative And there are cases where only the attribution is required, as pointed out by Gergo.

So card #842 tries to clarify that a bit more, but would need to be conditional, based on the specific license terms of each file.

Note that Luis didn’t consider this to be a ‘must-have’ from a legal perspective — though it may be helpful from a casual user perspective.

In mingle on 2014-09-25 at 23:14:17, @Fabrice_Florin wrote:

Sorry, my previous message was saved before I could correct it, and I could not find a way to edit or delete it. Here it is again.

There are cases in which both the attribution AND the license are required, as pointed out by Luis: over 60% of files on Commons are licensed under Creative Commons, which requires the downloader to display the license terms. So this is why I think we need to include the word 'license' in the prompt for these files.

But there are cases where only the attribution is recommended, as pointed out by Gergo: public domain files, for example.

So we would ideally want this prompt to be conditional, based on the specific license terms of each file. Something like:

For CC files:
'You must credit the author: Here's the attribution and license'

For PD files:
'You should credit the author: Here's the attribution info.'

In mingle on 2014-09-29 at 09:19:45, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

My point is that with a message such as "show how to attribute" we are basically communicating "here is the text you need to put next to the image". Exposing the technical parts that compose that text (attribution, license) seems not meaningful or helpful for the user to know what to do next.

Mass-removing the Multimedia tag from MediaViewer tasks, as this is now being worked on by the Reading department, not Editing's Multimedia team.

I'm not sure if this should be added to this task or a separate one created, currently the text given to attribute files is misleading.

To explain I will use the example
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro,_Teruel,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2014-01-10,_DD_11-12_HDR.JPG

When you click on the 'You need to attribute the author' button you get this

'''"Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 11-12 HDR" by Diego Delso. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro,_Teruel,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2014-01-10,_DD_11-12_HDR.JPG#/media/File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro,_Teruel,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2014-01-10,_DD_11-12_HDR.JPG'''

To attribute an image you only need to include the author and the license, the wording implies that the title of the work and the giant url is a legal requirement for the license which it is not. The legally required license is:

'''Diego Delso. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0'''

I would suggest having such a large description would discourage people from reusing the image especially for offline media, the length of the attribution is simply to long to be practical.

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to have a few options for the text to generate where the legally required information is always present but the title and Wikimedia URL are optional.

The wording implies that you need to attribute the author, which is correct. (We make an effort to not show it for images where you don't actually need to do so.) If you want to change the wording of the attribution, please get consensus on Commons and I'll be happy to change (as long as it's technically feasible).

I don't disagree about the length, but the HTML version is shorter, and why wouldn't anyone use HTML these days? (Maybe we should show that by default.) Having an URL *is* a legal requirement; up to CC 3.5 including the title is one, too (although whether the page/file name should count as a title is arguable).

@Tgr People wouldn't use HTML when creating printed media. Can you point to where it is a requirement to include the URL? I can't find this information anywhere.

Thanks

@Tgr is there any way to not include a bare URL in the attribution and have it as one of the links? The bare doesn't look very good.

In T77720#2560148, @Mrjohncummings wrote:

Can you point to where it is a requirement to include the URL?

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#URI_required I'd guess.

In T77720#2560154, @Mrjohncummings wrote:

@Tgr is there any way to not include a bare URL in the attribution and have it as one of the links? The bare doesn't look very good.

It's certainly possible. It will eventually be a short URL though (once those are fully integrated with MediaWiki), which IMO looks much more reasonable.

It looks like someone has replaced the bare URL with <a href="URL">Link</a>, which looks much much better :)

it's a totally optional feature request

The feature is optional, but the goal isn't (respecting attribution requirements is legally necessary; allowing our users to respect the law is strongly recommended).

that would only affect a pretty small subset of files

The scope of the task got quite messy, but the description talks about public domain files, which are millions on Commons.

I think T71557 takes care of most cases where reuse takes *extra* care, so this task can be made to be about suggesting a less verbose reuse string where possible, which seems to be the main concern of T77720#830336 and T77720#1768418.

In T77720#2560309, @Aklapper wrote:

In T77720#2560148, @Mrjohncummings wrote:

Can you point to where it is a requirement to include the URL?

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#URI_required I'd guess.

URI is not the same as URL. Various identifiers are normally used, other than the URL of the license.