The concept of an "Uncommons" as defined as either a new set of rules, or
as an alternate to WMF-hosted websites is not going to solve our current
problem of lacking images to support our educational goals. We should be
discussing how we can continue our mission to disseminate the sum of all
knowledge when we are handicapped by copyright laws, period.
Fruitful discussions deteriorated when the issue of the "URAA-restored
copyrights" [1] launched the Commons discussion in 2012 [2] which led to
mass deletions. Since then we have seen some undeletions, but in general
the whole drama of it has become too complicated to explain to the people
we care most about, which is our dwindling body of contributors across
projects. I tend to contribute well within our current Commons hosting
parameters, but every now and then I step out of my comfort zone and feel
as Fae has described in his mail above.
I really like Gerard's idea of somehow linking images on WikiData, which
will help significantly with discovery by readers and also serve as
self-explanatory templates for multi-language users. However, though I
firmly agree that we should proceed along those lines, this still won't
solve the core problem, because even on WikiData we cannot make interwiki
links to *all* images we need and I personally believe we shouldn't try.
I think that the only real solution for our educational mission going
forward is to let WikiData take a similar approach to what Europeana is
doing for European museums. There are lots of specific organizations on the
internet working on exactly the same copyright problems we are, but they
have a huge advantage that we don't have, which is that they are focussed
on a finite set of images. We often end up talking in circles because we
want locally hosted images for "everything". If we take a collaborative
approach, we can either include a link to a file, serve our readers a
reduced preview of a file or serve a full-fledged image-viewer-enabled
version of a file, all depending on whether the physical location of the
file is in the Wikiverse or not. If we set this up, we might make it
possible to "cross-load" individual files from Wikipedia and vetted
external projects via WikiData to Commons rather than force people to
upload with the default Commons uploader.
What I think we need is a good illustration of the scale of the problem,
which admittedly is hard to show. Personally I was very upset when images
of artworks by Leo Gestel were deleted last year [3], even though I was not
the uploader who put all the work into all of those artwork templates on
those files. My niche interest on Wikipedia is 17th-century painters, but I
have also worked on colleagues of Leo Gestel whose works cannot be shown at
all in their Wikipedia articles, just because they "forgot" to date their
paintings. I have noticed a "copyright gap" occurring when Wikipedians give
up trying to illustrate such articles.
When that happens, we all lose. Not only are we missing the Commons images,
we are missing work on the corresponding Wikipedia articles. I made a
comparison of Wikipedia artists matched against a dataset of painters which
illustrates a small piece of this "copyright gap".[4] Another interesting
gap occurs when you look at the work of painters vs. artists who ventured
beyond two dimensions, such as sculptors, furniture makers, porcelain
artists, and instrument makers. We cover painters and printmakers so much
better, thanks to Bridgeman vs. Corel, as long as we ignore the fine
print.[5] The OTRS system for image release by an artist's direct heirs is
the only alternate route, and there is no alternate available for orphan
works that I know of.[6]
In general, Wikipedia has much better coverage of "really dead" people as
opposed to "not so dead" people. Discussion regarding the problems of BLP's
is often made without realizing that they are actually edge cases compared
to the large group of people born after 1800 and who died before Wikipedia
began. This is a combination of the copyright gap and the frustrations of
experienced contributors who have had their hands slapped on Commons and
other projects.
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copy…
[3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Post-1923_work…
[4]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WP_entities_for_artists_vs_PCF_Marc…
[5]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/01#Bri…
[6]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just a thought as bad this is, WMF could just run a
server in a
juristiction where copyright isnt an issue but WMF does need to act in a
socially responsible way and with the highest standards of respect for our
goals, our community and the laws.
Maybe it would be possible to have a limited fair use type provision on
Commons for important images where they are out of copyright in the country
of origin, but not in the US, with a minimum requirement of the work being
used in two different language wikipedias. It'll be complicated to enforce
and will take a lot of discussion to work out the policy and processes....
On 18 June 2014 20:39, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of
investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be
even feasible.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta <freedom.ne0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First SOPA, now This !
US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could
be Public Domain around the World.
...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion
on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko <ramaneko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can
guarantee are Free. It
is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could
imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we
harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an
image that does not belong on Commons, period.
As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore
opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue,
and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes
and militants.
To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find
national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against
users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws,
we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the
argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and
secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear
whenever convenient to their interests.
-- Rama
On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta <freedom.ne0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except
> by artists & photographers.
> I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a
> hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain
> impossible.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country
>> and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question
>> is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to
>> the URAA.
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l