I just trialed the form
How does one abort the upload process if at the license stage they dont have
the information, without it we are going to end with 1,000's of media with
false licensing.
If they do what I just did and that is click on the main page icon or
another tool the image is already uploaded and there is no licensing
information....Upload shouldnt happen before license selection, and there
should be an abort/cancel option so that if one chooses the wrong file,
realises it orientated the wrong way, or notices some other issue they are
able to back out. Without the processes while quicker it isnt an improvement
as it will create more work for Commons admins cleaning up after the event.
Also what with the file names I up loaded MM_gnangarra_14.jpg and got
*File:Gnangarra
1281231969909 MM gnangarra 14.jpg** *in return...if there an admin around
that file needs to be *deleted ASAP it has not been released under a free
license.....
*
On 8 August 2010 02:15, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7 August 2010 18:25, Guillaume Paumier
<gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Greetings,
For those of you who don't usually follow the Wikimedia blog, here's a
link to the latest update about the Multimedia usability project and the
upload wizard:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/prototype-upload-wizard/
Thanks,
"I, , the copyright holder of this work, hereby irrevocably grant
anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, as long as they
credit me and share derivative work under the same terms.
This means you release your work under a Creative Commons Attribution
ShareAlike license."
No it doesn't. It means you release you release your work under a
homebrew license consisting of:
"I, , the copyright holder of this work, hereby irrevocably grant
anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, as long as they
credit me and share derivative work under the same terms."
This has a number of problems:
1)It doesn't clearly allow for derivative works
2)Poor handling of the derivative works issues complicates the who to
credit issue with regards to derivative works
3)no equiv of "a later version of this License" which given the above
problems and that CC-BY-SA 3.0 itself contains a typo is a bad thing
4)No equiv of "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical
work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in
timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an
Adaptation for the purpose of this License."
There are other issues but I hope you get the point. Homebrew licenses
are a BAD THING. Additionally the people who wrote CC-BY-SA know far
more about copyright than you thus it's best not to fiddle.
Lack of links out to the license is also a problem.
"a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license" is also imprecise
as it means any one of 3 separate licenses (and thats before we
consider people saying things like "version 1.0 only".
On a separate point taking out the traps tempting as it is is a bad
idea. Remember most people think we are like youtube who only pretend
to care about copyright. The traps are one of a number of weapons we
use to deal with that.
Technical:
Your video thumbnailing is broken.
System locks up when you try and upload a duplicate and won't let you
go backwards.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Gn. Blogg: