and not the authority to push them without 'community consent'. Sysops on Commons arent just handed the tools they first must seek a level of trust from the community that trust is because there are times when a person must act in the interest of Commons. As a long term sysop on Commons and one the higher end contributors sysops do have a level of authority and need to exercise their judgement more frequently without discussion then other larger projects (like de,en) one the problems is that at times there arent the experienced people around to enable a thorough discussion before acting. This is a particluar problem with local copyright issues as an Australian I got a good understand of OZ law and know where to get more info, I also gained a fair understanding of US over time and out of necessity but I have a very limited smattering of it for elsewhere when there is the necessity to make a move if I cant get independent opinions/help then I would defer to safest solution for Commons As Andrew said The Foundation has a significant authority to step in to issues and take the lead or if necessary dictate the end result. The reason being is that The Foundation can and does have a legal responsability, it would be also be the target of any action and initial Point of Call on documents. The up coming GLAM event in Canberra <http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/GLAM> is going to touch on this very issue, if you arent already aware of it it'd be worth see what this event achieves 2009/6/15 Andrew Turvey &lt;andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com&gt; -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

And this is more or less exactly what I see on top of the front page of Commons: "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a database of 4,584,458 media files to which anyone can contribute and be sued about 10% of the time". The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and categories. Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too. -- Rama On 15/06/2009, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

2009/6/15 David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; Commons foundation is as a service project, its also more than just that its also a community where some very talented artistic people choose to use their skills to improve many projects at once. This community is probably the most aware when it comes to an artists rights, the protection of those rights and its also the most exposed to violation of those rights. There is no grey area to work in if its a violation then its deleted end of story, if an account is to frequently a source of such problems then it gets going to get blocked, but a block on Commons isnt as stigmatised as it is on other projects that is because the community does realise that sometimes a block is a necessary evil while we find someone to help translate and ensure that person undestands whats happening. Commons admins Insular not really, derisive definately absolutely not, cynical absolutely especially with claims of I've got the permission of my neighbour but its not in english so you cant read it anyway. Do we need a big talkfest on how Commons should be managed, of course we need it because at the moment there is a general lack of understanding in the wider 'pedia community about copyright and its variants between countries. We also need to approach bulk upload issues with a less bold approach we need to have a way of ensuring copyright is addressed at source before the files arrive on our(foundation) servers when it does it meets US laws. The Pikiwiki incident shows that our communitcation in this area is lacking, it also shows our admins are cautious and err on the side of protecting the project. In the end if we are going to fix the problems highlighted by this incident we need to work together, we dont need insults, witch hunts, crusades etc. Commons is unique for many reasons its multilingual, it supports all other projects directly, an action there could be seen in every project within moments, its the only project in this situaution it would benefit from a Foundation person like Cary is to OTRS. For these bulk collection type events this foundation person could provide a point of contact to ensure that the copyright and source details are sorted before uploads occur, this would also give a degree of privacy to the source making public announcements a possible publicity event. If an issue is observed then the uploading account has a notice directing the Commons admin as to what is happening, who to speak with and in what language again offering some privacy and continuaty in communications. It also means that an admin can let the Foundation person know theres an issue so that someone is able to ensure things get resolved in a timely fashion and isnt dependent on the admin or some public specticle like Pikiwiki experienced. -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

David Gerard wrote: I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material that is not mine to give away. For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues. Stan

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Stan Shebs&lt;stanshebs(a)earthlink.net&gt; wrote: I don't have this feeling. There's some misunderstanding, though, with different conversations happening on different wikis. A better facility for discussion pages that are not tied to a particular wiki (or are replicated on more than one) would help mediate this. Fuzzy party pictures are an icon of the times. David Gerard writes: Yikes. I find the Commons community to be rewardingly inclusive... Absolutely. This is a contamination problem that affects most online media sites. (Jamendo is one I can think of off-hand that does the cleanest job of trying to confirm licensing of its free works) Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons. In a similar vein, I'd like a wiki quarantine where I could post material that is mostly free but contains some non-free parts (a logo or something that needs removal) -- to allow a community of editors to see and revise it to make it freely available, without reinventing tools such as revision control, RC, &c. The idea of all of this would be to move towards 100% free projects and contents, but without the strain imposed by the current sharp edge. Right. Except there's no need to tie the advantages of gradual migration tot eh dsiadvantages and duplicated effort of local upload... SJ

Eusebius schrieb: This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other jurisdictions, depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial context. In a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have the images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use, otherwise, it's not fair use, it's simply distribution. -- daniel

Gerard, When you say you want a policy to upload non free logo's on Commons you need to start a discussion on internal-l or a other foundation channel. The foundation has decided that every wiki can make his own "fair use" (Don't know the right word) policy, but also decided to doesn't give that right to Commons. So even if the communety wants fair use logo's on Commons it is not possible by a Foundation resolution. So the Foundation has made it impossible for Commons to make a exeption for logo for Pikiwiki (just a example). So instead repeating your point about logo's you could direct it to the right people. Huib -- Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor

2009/6/16 Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: There is no point in discussing that, it is (and has been) allowed on Commons. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:With_trademark As has been already said in this discussion, the trademark protection is not the problem. The copyright status of the trademark is: a logo can be (and often is) *both* trademarked and copyrighted. That is why there is that huge red © on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

Hi Stan; I looked through some of the pictures you uploaded recently from Icebox Canyon. Nice work! I have good memories of that hike. I have a vague memory, perhaps wrong, that you are in the Bay area. Andrea and I were down that way last week. I returned with some good pictures of Cupressus sargentii and Cupressus macnabiana taken east of the north end of Indian Valley Reservoir. Neither species is represented by images on Commons. Best wishes, Walt

2009/6/15 Huib Laurens &lt;Abigor(a)forgotten-beauty.com&gt;om>: Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing Commons needs. (and this is something of what I meant when asking for constructinve suggestions on what to do to improve things - in both directions.) cc to wikitech-l - do you have a bug number for this? - d.

If commons is not a service project, what is it? Unlike other projects which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a repository of free images. It is therefore very much a service project as it serves other projects through storage of images. I think the discussion here is especially important as this is the Wikimedia Commons discussion list. That being said, I feel that there should be an RfC/Poll on Commons about how it should change. ________________________________ From: Huib Laurens &lt;Abigor(a)forgotten-beauty.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List &lt;commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34:38 AM Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons Hello, I don't think we need to see Commons as a Service project, All Wikimedia projects need the other projects. Wikimedia is build on all the projects and saying that a project is only a service project can make the people feel bad that are working on that project. I think the view that Rama uses can be seen in a lot of ways, and regarding the point of view that you uses you can make all projects into a service project. We have now a discussion in a "private" place about how people have to change Commons, isn't it a better idea to make this a discussion on Commons or on Meta (if you want a neutral place). Commons has a great communety with people that are spending all there time on Commons, and whe have photographers that can easely make money with there pictures but chooses to release it under a free license.. I rather see a onwiki discussion so we can hear there say's also.. Just my view here but I cant send the email without a notice about this.. I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or other important information because the file was already deleted local, there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough? Huib _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Hoi, When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need it provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not want to fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to Commons. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde &lt;geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com&gt;

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, David Gerard&lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I hope that this isn't the view of admins outside the Commons community. Seriously with this kind of discussion we end up nowhere. Perhaps it would be more useful to actually get to the points of problem or just stop discussing at all. Bryan