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,
On 7 August 2010 18:25, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@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.
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@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 August 2010 18:25, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Gnangarra wrote:
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.....
Yes, it is renamed to the final at the end. It is a known issue that has a number of drawbacks but was easy to implement. It is expected to not produce that first upload in the final version.