On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Maarten Dammers &lt;maarten(a)mdammers.nl&gt; wrote:> * Notify all uploaders with unknown copyright files> * Sort out> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status… * Move all good files to Commons> * Delete all bad files> * Disable local uploads>> You probably want to get some Commons users involved. This is not the> first time this is happening.>> MaartenHow should we sort out the unknown copy right status category? We can't move anything to commons unless we know the license status (which we don't if its in that category (there is a couple of small exceptions in that list of MW screenshots)) On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Thomas Gries &lt;mail(a)tgries.de&gt; wrote: I normally link to Category:License_templates <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:License_templates> when I see people upload and message them on their talk pages, Which has the same list as templates as the upload page as well as a couple of extras.

I don't feel strongly about use of Commons - but have posted some MW images there myself (I think...). Any images used in the public domain help section I'd advocate for using there - if for no other reason than it's more accessible to others wikis using them. Regarding MW.org only documentation (like Manual and extensions) - brion makes a good point about the potential problems caused by an overzealous (but well intentioned) Commons admin cleaning up important images that are mis or incompletely labeled. I'm glad Peachey brought this issue up. :) I'd be willing to join others in volunteering to sort through these. Sounds like the steps might be: 1. Check userpages of file's uploader to see if they have a notice there - if so - post that notice on file's page 2. Post a notice on the talk page for uploaders of remaining files giving 2 weeks to correct (more since it's MW.org?) 3. After the two(?) weeks - attempt to tag photos used in documentation or extensions - such as screenshots (which I imagine are the vast majority) and remove (then delete) any images on those pages which are not clear (logos, etc.) from those pages 4. Any files not used in documentation (manual or extensions), explained sensibly by the uploader during this process, or files not easily tagged are then deleted 5. Lather, rinse and repeat in six months Here's a template I tweaked from enWP to use on user talk pages if it helps with consistency: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Unknown_copyright-notice Also put together a project page to display the templates. I tend to agree that for most folks using MW.org a category should probably be enough - but if it helps a few more folks add tags...I'll give it a try. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:File_copyright_tags Perhaps we should revisit the conversation of an image policy mentioned here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Fair_use_policy There didn't seem to be consensus on a fair use policy - but the start of an actual image policy is there. Thoughts? -greg aka varnent PS. Happy new year!! On Dec 31, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

Op 31-12-2011 12:59, Maciej Jaros schreef: UploadWizard is not enabled at www.mediawiki.org. I think you're mixing up Mediawiki.org and Commons Maarten

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Antoine Musso &lt;hashar+wmf(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't assume anything with licensing, The uploader must state the license they want it to be under. Their licensing shouldn't be any more strict than any other project, If they are rejecting files for bad licensing, We probably should be as well since we all should be using the same interruption by the foundation.

A caveat: if the images uploaded include any of the Wikipedia trademarks (such as the puzzle globe) they've got a different copyright. On 1/3/12 3:32 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On 1/3/12 4:01 PM, Platonides wrote: If the logo is cropped out, it's fine (and thus CC-By-SA 3.0). When I need to show the logo, I've been doing a thing where I run a blur filter over a version of the logo and display that, which is fine and acceptable. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I agree. I asked whether WMF had something like this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-August/067223.html And they do!? very cool. Is that clause in a publicly accessible document? -- John Vandenberg

Le Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:58:55 +0100, Roan Kattouw &lt;roan.kattouw(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit: That is how I understand it. My contract enforce me to publish all my work as a contractor under a free license. I am assuming the code is still my intellectual property though. For WMF employees, I am sure the copyright belong to the WMF. -- Antoine "hashar" Musso

On 04.01.2012, 7:21 Gregory wrote: I've made a small clarification[1] to the template, though in my experience even promise of "do it and be desysopped" doesn't prevent crazy Commons admins from deleting stuff without discussion. ----- [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MediaWiki_document… -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])

I know that's what they're SUPPOSE to do - but I've heard tales of other issues as well. It hasn't been my personal experience that the Commons Admins do a lot of overzealous deletions - but if it helps to prevent even one overzealous deletion - yay. :) I tend to agree it "shouldn't" be necessary - but given people's concerns about the importance of the files - figure it's at least worth a try. :) Plus I find MaxSem's addition to be rather amusing. On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Platonides wrote:

Commons folk doesn't magically delete anything unless there is a reason, nor do they instantly delete in most cases. If peoples uploads are continently getting tagged for deletion, They should look at why they are getting tagged.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:47 AM, K. Peachey &lt;p858snake(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: For one example, recently a fellow wikipedian got a picture he had taken himself deleted because someone else had uploaded it somewhere else, so they didn't believe it was his. I myself have had pictures from US government almost deleted because I only specified which government institution it came from, not what page they could be found (saved because I happened to find them after being notified of my terrible crime). Copyright diligence is good, copyright paranoia is not. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com