Wikimedia Commons, like many Wikimedia Projects, doesn't generally
block anonymizing (i.e. services/servers that could be used to hide
your identity) proxies unless they are causing problems.
Since commons is less often a target for troublemakers than some other
projects with the same policy, we often seem to have much fewer
proxies blocked. This also important because of the blocking practices
of some governments. Generally our practices do not seem to cause us
too much trouble, but there are some implications.
For one, it means that proxy-blocked users on other projects can get a
'second life' out of their proxies by harassing their target projects
via commons. It also enables various forms of split project
sock-puppetry, and the larger project block logs become handy proxy
directories for troublemakers willing to go after the smaller
projects.
It may eventually become a PR issue with our customer projects, ...
they can't be happy when their troublemakers come back via commons. It
certainly would be if we ever stopped our practice of blocking
troublemaking proxies once they were found.
As a result of these issues, we're slowly blocking proxies over time
... after all, eventually each one will have been a trouble maker at
some point.
This result in another issue: Since we're generally permissive about
the proxies there are a non-trivial number of apparently good
contributors who edit via these proxies. As we block proxies we
continually frustrate and impede these users, who expected commons to
continue working.
I don't know that there is much we can do about this now but I wonder
if other commonslisters had some comments on the matter.
I ran across a typical badly-attributed derivative of Wikimedian
images and corrected the page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_Legislatures.png). However, one
of the source images is GFDL/cc-by-sa multilicensed and another is
GFDL-en licensed only. Is the GFDL compatible with GFDL-en for the
purposes of derivative works - and if so should the combined license
be GFDL or GFDL-en (preserving those disclaimers)?
Unfortunately, the author of the GFDL-en licensed work has gone, but
the multi-licensed picture's author is active - so the image could be
preserved by getting permission for GFDL-en. That's sub-optimal, but
it still beats deleting....
Hi folks,
as some of you might have noticed, we've had some problems with our
tools Flinfo/Magnus Upload Bot and the latest additions to Flick's The
Commons.
Meanwhile George Oates from Flickr contacted us with some ideas of his
own (see below). I'd like to discuss them with you, especially #3 and #4.
I'd also like to see some more contributions at the delition request for
{{Flickr-no_known_copyright_restrictions}}
I'm all ears on ideas how (/if?) we should continue uploading pictures
from Flickr's The Commons.
Best regards,
Flo
np: Baddiel And Skinner & Lightning Seeds - Three Lions
--
Language is the dress of thought.
- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia
Datum: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:49:04 +0100
Von: George Oates <glo(a)yahoo-inc.com>
An: Florian Straub <flominator(a)gmx.net>
CC: Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>, Heather Champ
<hchamp(a)yahoo-inc.com>
Hi Florian -
Thanks for following up -sorry for my slow reply, but I've been travelling
without internet. That conversation on the deletion request looks
interesting :)
The trouble is, not every participant in The Commons will be like LOC. Not
all imagery is public domain.
I've also added Flickr's Director of Community, Heather Champ, to this email
- she's interested in how Commons content is being represented on Wikimedia
as well.
Feel free to post to the list if you wish - I won't be able to keep up with
it though.
Cheers,
George
On 6/22/08 11:35 AM, "Florian Straub" <flominator(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> as another quick solution for your topic #1 I created a (license) tag
> for the uploaded images, so I wouldn't have to use pd-because again:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr-no_known_copyright_restri…
> ons
>
> Unfortunately it was requested for deletion:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Flickr…
> _known_copyright_restrictions
>
>
> The link to the rights pages (#2) shouldn't be a problem. It might just
> take some time to implement it (will have to finish my diploma thesis
> next week first).
>
>
> This thing is getting to big for me (especially #3 and #4, but #1 as
> well). I'd like to discuss your email with the community on commons-l,
> the list Magnus mentioned below. May I forward your email to the list?
> As Magnus mentioned it might also be a good idea for you to join the list.
>
> Thanks in advance and best regards,
>
>
> Florian
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia
> Von: George Oates <glo(a)yahoo-inc.com>
> An: flominator(a)gmx.net
> Datum: tue, 17 jun 2008 10:29:15 +0100
>
>> Hi Flominator -
>>
>> I work at Flickr, and am heading up the new Commons program there... I wrote
>> to Magnus a little while ago to see about changing the way you guys are
>> explaining the "no known copyright restrictions."
>>
>> I had made a couple of edits to the Brooklyn Museum's content, which I since
>> notice have been removed.
>>
>> I have written detailed notes below Magnus' reply - please take a moment to
>> review them... The important thing is that you've assumed these photos are
>> in the public domain because *Flickr* claims it, and that's simply
>> incorrect.
>>
>> Please, have a look and let me know what you think!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/5/08 7:15 AM, "Magnus Manske" <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi George,
>>>
>>> thanks for the mail - good to know that people at flickr care as much
>>> as "we" do :-)
>>>
>>> Now, the situation at hand is even more complicated than you think...
>>>
>>> I'm running the "file upload bot", which is not really a bot, but a
>>> user name for some of my web-operated commons.wikimedia upload tools,
>>> including this one:
>>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php
>>>
>>> It does not generate the commons.wikimedia description directly, but
>>> uses yet another tool:
>>> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php
>>>
>>> which is operated by someone else:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator
>>>
>>> He also created the Brooklyn Museum template, which contains the
>>> license information:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Flickr-Brooklyn-Museum
>>>
>>> He'd be the one to talk to about changes to the license information.
>>> Or, you can edit the template yourself!
>>>
>>> For a more general discussion about licenses, inclusion of flickr
>>> images in commons.wikimedia etc., you might want to address out
>>> mailing list:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>>
>>> I didn't want to forward your mail to the list myself, but IMHO it
>>> would be nice to discuss it there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM, George Oates <glo(a)yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Magnus -
>>>>
>>>> I work at Flickr, and am heading up The Commons project. I wanted to drop
>>>> you a line to say thank you for publishing some of the Library of Congress
>>>> &
>>>> Brooklyn Museum photos to commons.wikimedia! That's fantastic!
>>>>
>>>> The thing is, I have a few questions and/or requests about the way you've
>>>> implemented it. I'd like to discuss these points with you in the hope that
>>>> we can come up with the best solution together. (Warning: This is a long
>>>> email!)
>>>>
>>>> 1. The language that you've used to describe the "no known copyright
>>>> restrictions" idea we're trying to propagate stuff in The Commons is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Your original interpretation on all the Brooklyn Museum photos read:
>>>>
>>>> +++
>>>> "This file is in the public domain, because Flickr says that there are 'No
>>>> known copyright restrictions'
>>>>
>>>> In case this is not legally possible:
>>>> The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without
>>>> any
>>>> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
>>>>
>>>> Please verify that the reason given above complies with Commons' licensing
>>>> policy."
>>>> +++
>>>>
>>>> Actually, "no known copyright restrictions" doesn't mean that the photos
>>>> are
>>>> in the public domain. In fact, it's not even a license per se.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, it would be ideal to direct people towards the "Rights
>>>> Statement"
>>>> on a) flickr.com and b) each Commons participants' documentation of their
>>>> understanding of the rights statement. There are links to everything from
>>>> here: http://flickr.com/commons/usage/
>>>>
>>>> I've taken the liberty of editing the Brooklyn Museum photos to indicate
>>>> this - all of these:
>>>>
>>>>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=brooklyn+museum&go=>>>>
T
>>>> ry+exact+match
>>>>
>>>> The proposed new language is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> +++
>>>> "This photo was released in to The Commons on Flickr using the "no known
>>>> copyright restrictions" rights statement. This does not mean it's in the
>>>> public domain. For more information, please visit
>>>> http://flickr.com/commons/usage/, and the Brooklyn Museum's information
>>>> page, http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/flickr_commons.php."
>>>> +++
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if you approve, or if I should let anyone else on your
>>>> team know?
>>>>
>>>> 2. In future, if you intend to import more content from The Commons in to
>>>> commons.wikimedia, it would ideal if you could always link to the
>>>> institution-specific Rights Statement page, as linked to from
>>>> flickr.com/commons/usage. Would this be possible? I noticed you and Magnus
>>>> (?) have written Flickr import tools... be great to integrate that.
>>>>
>>>> 3. It would also be ideal if you could use the same language on all of the
>>>> Library of Congress photos that have been published in The Commons on
>>>> Flickr. Several of the Bain photos should ideally get the same treatment.
>>>> These are the ones I've discovered so far:
>>>>
>>>> Woodrow Wilson and Champ Clark,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2422676781/
>>>>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Library_of_Congress_-_Woodrow_W>>>>
i
>>>> lson%3B_Champ_Clark_%28LOC%29_%28pd%29.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Sultan Mulai Hafid,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2448653737/
>>>>
>>>> Prince Henry of Holland,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2448653975/
>>>>
>>>> Fort Edmonton, Canada,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2458985803/
>>>>
>>>> The Czar, http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2496401489/
>>>>
>>>> I looked at those pages, but couldn't work out the correct way to reference
>>>> the language I've noted in point 1 above. Can you direct me?
>>>>
>>>> 4. I've spoken with my colleagues at both the Brooklyn Museum and the
>>>> Library of Congress, and we're all behind sharing images in to The Commons.
>>>> We studied the site terms and it seems they are very strict about image
>>>> licensing. It seems like having images hosted at commons.wikimedia becomes
>>>> a problem in your own guidelines
>>>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing):
>>>>
>>>> All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that
>>>> allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (see also
>>>> Commons:Criteria
>>>> for inclusion). In particular, the license must meet the following
>>>> conditions:
>>>>
>>>> * Republication and distribution must be allowed
>>>> * Publication of derivative work must be allowed
>>>> * Commercial use of the work must be allowed
>>>> * Acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required.
>>>> * Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required.
>>>> * Use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management may
>>>> be required.
>>>>
>>>> It's not always the case that photos added to The Commons will fit these
>>>> rules, so there's some doubt amongst us about whether Flickr Commons
>>>> content
>>>> is even suitable on a consistent basis.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to discuss all this with you! Again, not meaning any harm sending
>>>> along this feedback. It's a good thing that Flickr Commons content might
>>>> find a place on commons.wikipedia!
>>>>
>>>> Also, please let me know if there's another person I should be talking to
>>>> about the details of the licensing etc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> George Oates
>>>>
>>>>
>>
I moved it to <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr-Brooklyn-Museum-image>
Unfortunately I have some difficulties determining the PD-ness of most
images tagged with this tag (which is exactly why such tags should not
be used!) See: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Flickr-Bro…>
Bryan
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Florian Straub <flo(a)ramselehof.de> wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> do you now want to move
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Flickr-Brooklyn-Museum to
> somewhere else or don't you?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Flo
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: [Commons-l] Flickr: Brooklyn Museum
> Datum: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:03:34 +0200
> Von: Florian Straub <flominator(a)gmx.net>
> An: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> "Straub, Florian" <flo(a)ramselehof.de>
> Referenzen: <4842C49F.40503(a)gmx.net>
> <2348bfc90806020721m18302e7ei2c8b1f43ec9db85d(a)mail.gmail.com>
> <2348bfc90806020733o755cebe0n8e9f5f5a7c4bd845(a)mail.gmail.com>
> <3aee7aba0806021153r15d59507oea80eb724b12bc5c(a)mail.gmail.com>
> <4846C70A.80506(a)gmx.net>
> <d20d84ea0806041929w121a68c4i9c1af6257fe68b26(a)mail.gmail.com>
> <fd5886130806070200v231b04a1g724d90b0621d172a(a)mail.gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote on sat, 7 jun 2008 11:00:28
> +0200
>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Brianna Laugher
>> <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2008/6/5 Florian Straub <flominator(a)gmx.net>:
>>>>
>>>> Since I'm trying to find a solution for Flinfo
>>>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Flinfo) which cannot
>>>> choose things based on the picture. I think I will stick to PD-because
>>>> with "Brooklyn Museum tagged it as no known copyright restrictions on
>>>> Flickr". Any objections?
>>>
>>> Arg... We should try to discourage use of PD-because, not make it part
>>> of an automated process!
>>>
>>> At least make a custom PD-Flickr-BrooklynMuseum tag or something, so
>>> they can be easily distinguished....
>
>> I missed part of the discussion, but PD-XYZ tags should only be used
>> if XYZ is the author. We don't want any PD-NARA disasters again.
>
> Seem like almost everyone who had something to say did :)
>
> Please move it somewhere else and tell me what I should change the template
> name in Flinfo to.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Flo
>
>
> np: Stanfour - For All Lovers
> --
> We are not victims of the world we see,
> we are victims of the way we see the world.
> - Shirley MacLaine (* 1934)
>
>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam(a)benfinney.id.au>
Date: 2008/6/16
Subject: Ghost Works survey - Chilling effects of copyright
To: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
Howdy all,
The Question Copyright folks are launching a new effort around the
chilling effect of copyright: specifically, the effect of works where
the only thing stopping the work getting out is the cloud of copyright
questions.
They use the term "Ghost Works" for these never-made or never-released
works <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/ghost_works_survey>:
In the article "Seen Any Ghost Works Lately?", we defined a ghost
work as a creative work that never got made, or was made but not
released, because copyright concerns prevented it from being
started or from being distributed. Since then, informal
conversations with artists, publishers and others have made it
very clear that such suppression is a common event, much more
common than most people think. But the public rarely hears about
it, because no one does publicity for a work that doesn't exist.
The purpose of the Ghost Works Survey is twofold: to demonstrate
the scope and scale of this phenomenon by gathering and
organizing as much data about it as we can, and to highlight
compelling individual stories of artists and other creators who
had their work thwarted by copyright restrictions. The survey
will not attempt to catalogue every ghost work — there are
likely far too many, given that almost every artist we've talked
to so far has a story of a work they had to alter or lay aside
due to copyright concerns. Rather, we'll focus on qualitative
results: we want to collect enough stories to discern large-scale
patterns, so we can understand and publicize the effects of
copyright suppression. For more information, see the projects
page.
--
\ "I thought I'd begin by reading a poem by Shakespeare, but then |
`\ I thought 'Why should I? He never reads any of mine.'" -- |
_o__) Spike Milligan |
Ben Finney
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi!
I discovered that Panoramio started to support Creative Commons
licenses 3.0. Looks like my e-mail back into the June 2007 had some
influence :-) See http://www.panoramio.com/user/519353 as example but
please don't export - all of this photos are in Commons already :-)
Unfortunately licenses are revocable as in Flickr.
I also don't aware of the simple way to filter CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
images only. Web interface doesn't have this feature.
Original Panoramio blog announcement:
http://www.panoramio.com/blog/new-update-around-600000-new-photos-from-pano…
Eugene.
Hi!
I think will be great to nominate Commons geocoded featured images in
Panoramio contest (http://www.panoramio.com/contest/). It'll help to
promote Commons (like full resolution image link) and also authors
could receive prizes :-)
Eugene.
