Is it currently possible and acceptable to include an image from Flickr or equivalent in
an article in any project? I don’t think I have ever seen/noticed this done.
~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: 17 June 2014 09:52 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think the concept of the project is
the problem. I'm
skeptical
that
an "Uncommons" project built around
fair use could be workable,
considering
that the validity of a fair use claim is
context-specific and no
cross-wiki
project (like Commons) is going to have an easy
time managing that
requirement.
We don't have to. As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an
image on a fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it. If
its use gets deleted on both those wikis (and anywhere else that
started using it) due to not complying with fair use, and it stays out
of use, we identify a cleanup procedure. But as long as a basically
credible "it's fair use over here" exists for 1 or more projects, it's
a candidate for Uncommons.
Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an
article using it, for example. If someone feels it's not compliant
with X wiki's local fair use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the
case, get it removed from the article(s). Uncommons would consider
deletion if all the projects which tried to use it rejected it on fair use grounds.
Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are,
may still need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example)
Argentina and Botswana apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a
process for people to report copyvios of their images to the
Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do their thing as usual would cover that.
So you want to split the role of "image repository" into two projects - one that
is freely reusable for all possible reusers, and one that is useful in the first instance
for all WMF projects and secondarily for anyone else using it in an educational context.
Ok, I get that. But there are some unanswered questions:
1) Why would our "Uncommons" be superior to Flickr or any other repository of
images that can be used under fair use doctrine? Is it that we are categorizing them? That
we might be able to select the "best" file for a particular usage, and replicate
that out in context across projects?
2) How would Uncommons not fall prey to same set of issues that have beset Commons for
years? Copyright status would still need to be investigated to some degree, FUR would need
to be policed at least a little, etc. etc.You'd attract the same people, probably,
with the same biases and prejudices and problems.
3) EDP files on projects are currently already hosted by WMF, so what we're really
talking about is pushing them into the same bucket to focus curation resources.
Considering the challenges, would it be better to just implement an easier common
architecture for these files (i.e. make discovery of files from various projects simpler
on any individual project)?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14