Gregory Maxwell wrote:
We need to be mindful that one of the major
differentiators between
commons and other user contributed online image repositories is our
responsiveness to copyright infringement concerns. We are remarkably
more responsive than most other user contributed image repositories,
and and automated image-live-mirror system without automated
revocation puts that status in jeopardy.
I think the problem is that our image table has no metadata information
about the image, it only knows if we have it or not. We would need at
least another bit: a good/bad flag.
We could have more states:
- Not found.
- Untagged/Unknown.
- Copyright violation.
- No source/license.
- Fair use
- Non suitable license for commons (nd, nc...)
- Duplicated
- Superseded
- Free license
Added within the templates we use, the change could be transparent for
the users.
They could even be available for the deleted images (identified by their
sha1 on the FileStore).
When we have this data ready we will be able to do a better job.
Images without a valid license wouldn't be shared via IntantCommons, and
could apply to WMF projects too (can't show the image because it doesn't
have enough information, give it a "Copyrighted" style...).
InstantantCommons users should check (with a maintencance script) their
images are still free, and decide upon the reason (eg. delete fair use,
keep superseded) what to do. We should also provide an automatic system
to automatically check the files once a month, with 'proper' defaults
(they will always be able to keep violations, but don't make easy that
configuration).