Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia Commons.
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com
Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia Commons.
Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright. :-(
Alex
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com
Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting
contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia Commons.
Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright. :-(
Alex
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the
contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright.
Well, I took a look to the files linked by those templates - they are few and mainly images of logos. So, I worried for (almost) nothing. :-)
Alex
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright.
Well, I took a look to the files linked by those templates - they are few and mainly images of logos. So, I worried for (almost) nothing. :-)
If this idea floats this time around - then everything would all work as it does now - a MediaWiki site can have multiple foreign repositories, so multi-Commons is not a problem - AIUI it'd just be the technical nuisance of (a) setting up a new wiki just for the WMF content (b) adding it to the config on 700 wikis as a second foreign repo. (If I am wrong, anyone is welcome to correct me.) That is, quite a chunk of tedium. So then it's a question of importance on the tech to-do list. Which is rather full, but then it always is.
There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged with a central repository.
- d.
I guess it would be just on edit to add a second "commons" to all 700 wiki's because of the shared settings. That wouldn't take much time.
Best,
Huib
2011/2/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged with a central repository.
I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/2/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged with a central repository.
I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
If it's only for Wikimedia copyrighted logos/files, you have my support.
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/2/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged with a central repository.
I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Wait, so we're moving a few 100 files, creating a new project, and adding onto the burden of our already overworked technical team so we can remove two sentences from project policy? The "staying true to our colors" reasoning sounds obsessive-compulsive.
I'll ask again because I may very well be missing something here: why exactly should we start the "allrightsreserved" project?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Manuelt15 manuelt15.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
If it's only for Wikimedia copyrighted logos/files, you have my support.
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/2/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged with a central repository.
I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about those images) then the Foundation should address the issue.
Why start a "project" unless the project has scope for media outside of what can be handled internally by Foundation Office staff
On 2 February 2011 05:27, Blurpeace blurpeace@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so we're moving a few 100 files, creating a new project, and adding onto the burden of our already overworked technical team so we can remove two sentences from project policy? The "staying true to our colors" reasoning sounds obsessive-compulsive.
I'll ask again because I may very well be missing something here: why exactly should we start the "allrightsreserved" project?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Manuelt15 manuelt15.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
If it's only for Wikimedia copyrighted logos/files, you have my support.
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com
2011/2/1 Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
2011/2/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/1 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged with a central repository.
I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 1 February 2011 23:41, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about those images) then the Foundation should address the issue.
There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility images as well as the free media.
This is a reasonable viewpoint to hold. But no, I agree with you - mostly people aren't that worried.
I note only that technically it would be feasible, the idea would just be considered unnecessary faff by most of the people who'd be involved in actually doing the work.
- d.
But. there's no reason why the two should be technically separated. It's already been practically divided by categories. It's not considered unnecessary faff just by techs; any pragmatic person would agree.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2011 23:41, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about those images) then the Foundation should address the issue.
There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility images as well as the free media.
This is a reasonable viewpoint to hold. But no, I agree with you - mostly people aren't that worried.
I note only that technically it would be feasible, the idea would just be considered unnecessary faff by most of the people who'd be involved in actually doing the work.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi,
Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 00:03 +0000, David Gerard a écrit :
There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility images as well as the free media.
A possible solution raised in the past was to use meta as a file repository for unfree Wikimedia logos and other marketing stuff (presentations including fair use materials, etc.).
The main advantage being that meta already exists and already has a focus on internal marketing stuff.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org wrote:
A possible solution raised in the past was to use meta as a file repository for unfree Wikimedia logos and other marketing stuff (presentations including fair use materials, etc.).
The Foundation wiki might be better, as it already hosts all the Foundation's other stuff and is full of uneditable content.
The Foundation wiki might be better, as it already hosts all the Foundation's other stuff and is full of uneditable content.
No, that will not work, as this is not only about a bunch of logos, but about a lot of screenshots containing logos. Many of them used to illustrate Mediawiki features UI elements and JavaScript gadgets. Daniel
On 02/02/2011 01:03 AM, David Gerard wrote:
There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility images as well as the free media.
The obvious solution is that WMF should free license its logotypes. I'm sick and tired of having to deal with this crazy policy as soon as our chapter wants to print t-shirts or anything such. I made a design for a copyright-free alternative logotype for Wikimedia Sverige, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMSE_threecrowns.png and I think we could go on to design our own logotype for the Swedish Wikipedia. Why not?
We're lucky Creative Commons doesn't claim copyright to its logo. It's used in millions of places on WMF sites.
On 1 February 2011 22:27, Blurpeace blurpeace@gmail.com wrote:
so we can remove two sentences from project policy?
Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than just “able to use”, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply distinguish the non-free files from the free rest).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]