On 08/08/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
Almost everything that we delete has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright violation.
No, we do not delete because we have the suspicion! This makes the thing very tricky. Because the commons-community must prove that we have a clear copivio.
How do you account for deletion of no source/license images? As far as I can see, they're only suspected cases. No one proves anything. (I suppot their deletion of course. Contrary to what you say, I believe the onus of proof is on the uploader, not Commons.)
Brianna
On one hand this is bad because the commons pics have been used on several pages in the internet and nobody can tell us wich pic was first. On the other hand we have the problem that people ignore the warning (and this is the more likely way things happen) and upload pics without asking people from commons first.
I therefore suggest adding to the notice "If unsure contact an administrator see Commons:Administrators".
That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license images.
Yep. And that is good!
That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once believed to be free but found out to be actually not.
Acknowledgement to the first part and but do not understand the second part. I will never delete a photo take of 2D art. Taking a picture of the e.g. "Mona Lisa" makes nobody get new copyright. Even if the museums claim it (the threshold of originality is far to low). But maybe you are talking about 3D statues?
Because we suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.
As I said we must not delete on suspicion.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for
the
violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios,
every day."
Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds any legal weight.
I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene due to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if
the
project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and
smaller
wikis.
I think that's a great idea!
greetings
Paddy
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l