Wikipedia Sucks!

Arthur, is it correct the GDPR is not value for private persons? Because that is what I read somewhere.

But, if a private person give a picture free onder the Commons CC licence, is it still not under the GDPR? Because you give permision for any use, also commercial, what is under GDPR.
Or better is it still posible to give a picture free under the CC licence if there is any person on it who didn't give permision? And does someone not have to give permision for re-use in general? Or is this a strange thought?

Did you see this arrest of a German court by the way?

Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung wrote:Pricht ein Museum ein Fotografierverbot aus, dürfen Besucher keine eigenen Bilder von Gemälden aufnehmen und diese ins Internet stellen.

Some Wikipedian had made a scan of the pictures, and altough the belong to the public domain, the museum has the right to forbid to load up the pictures on the internet/Commons. Or better, it is forbidden to do. The pictures contains a bestimmte kommerzielle Zwecke in that case. And that is the point I want to make, a license change the purpose of a picture. And you can be almost sure every European judge will follow this vision. You can't give away the bicycle of your neighbour. A CC licence is in Europe only suitable for something if you own the rights, in short if it is your own unique create work, or if you have permision from the owner of the work. Even in the public domain sometimes.

It is not a picture taken by a private person anymore according to this German judge. Or a scan in this matter. The license have given it a commercial element. Ever thought about this site effect?

The GDPR has no effect whatsoever on copyright itself, the copyright changes are all bundled in the Copyright Directive, but the effects of the GDPR on information that may be copyrighted indirectly changes some legal principles.

The GDPR affects information, it doesn't matter if the information is copyrighted or not, it just has to be information, and it has to in some way be about a person or linked to a person.

Pictures of a person for example are always personal information because there is a person in the image, this means that there are moral and personality rights as well as copyright and data protection or GDPR.

This means that if you give someone some information under a CC license, you can get them to delete it with the GDPR, even if they still have the CC copyright license to the information, indeed even if the information is PD with no copyright at all.

It also does mean that if someone gives a CC image away with other people in it, those other can can use GDPR to restrict it, based on their GDPR and personality rights, even if the copyright is valid.

It doesn't affect the issue of reproducing copyrighted images of public domain paintings, a problem because in America, that type of copyright doesn't exist. The only reason the landscape is changing in this kind of law is that European courts are feeling bold enough to make judgments against people in different jurisdictions making content available globally over the internet.

It took a long time for judges and legislators to understand the internet, it has been a pirates haven for a long time, but this is changing now.

It are not only the judges and legislators, the biggest problem are the self nominated wiki/ICT lawyers. Because in our legal system a judge hardly investigate. That is the job of the lawyer or the prosecutor. He or she must bring the facts and proofs in, if a car is red, and you say he is yellow and I say it is green and can make that plausible I win, it doesn't mater what colour the car really is. That is again a very tricky aspect of the code Napoleon system.

This is of course a extreem and absurd example, but it is the principe. The judge can say, gentleman, I think that car is red, but I am no expert, so he is green. That is all the judge can do. He is only a servant. A case must brought to court ready to eat, otherwise you lose.

Once a judge said to me something in Latin. I looked at him and he saw the question in my eyes. Take my right hand and he is not sweet, or take my left hand and he is not salted. You can ask Ausma, he was next to me. And of course we won. I wish I new what he had said to me in Latin, do you know that, Arthur?

Dysklyver wrote:

Kumioko wrote:So using myself as an example, if I were to say that I no longer want to participate in creative commons licensing, as the owner of the content I uploaded, would I have the right for that content to be removed?

Basically no.

Russavia is probably European, so he could get some content removed.

Only if it is personal information. Things like his username, SPI page, userpage history, and within reason any comments made by himself or others on talk pages that could be linked to him personally.

Like courtesy vanishing, only they are legally obligated to do it so it's not really a courtesy.

I am pretty sure he would win this in court in Europe anyway.

Hold on Arthur! I agree, BUT......

I can forbid WMW to use my work. I can withdrawn my licence for them, only for them, what I did after there SanFanBan. They took my licence, I took there. And from that moment on my work is.......copyvio!

By the way, Midsize Jack, you are just a toddler as Katherine who was whimpering on twitter about the fact she didn't have here teddy bear back before Christmas, because otherwise she couldn't sleep. People lost everything in the wildfires caused by the global heating according to her, and even lost there life sometimes. But no, no, no. Madam Maher her luggage was delayed by her last effort to rise the temperature a bit extra.
Your muting on WO of Crow and me, so we can not answer there is just as insane as Katherine her teddy bear where she is crying about.

You muting of us is insane, stupide and immature. Childish in one word.