I've started a discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_C... regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a recognised chapter.
Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.
Please comment there.
Regards,
Andrew
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
I've started a discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_C... regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a recognised chapter.
Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.
For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more than one shared media repository simultaneously.
My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.
This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository. The latter is my preference. Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects exactly as they are now.
I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories.
-Robert Rohde
2009/6/4 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.
This has been proposed more than once and rejected.
If our mailing list archives were searchable in Google I'd track down what the rationales for the rejections were ... does anyone remember off the top of their heads?
- d.
Hi!
I agree that Meta is good place for WMF-owned logos. At least many purist talks on Commons will be finaly resolved.
Eugene.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
I've started a discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_C... regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a recognised chapter.
Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.
For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more than one shared media repository simultaneously.
My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.
This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository. The latter is my preference. Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects exactly as they are now.
I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories.
-Robert Rohde
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fil...)
Either would be acceptable. The status quo is not.
-Mike
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:16 -0700, Robert Rohde wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
I've started a discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_C... regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a recognised chapter.
Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.
For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more than one shared media repository simultaneously.
My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.
This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository. The latter is my preference. Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects exactly as they are now.
I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories.
-Robert Rohde
Mike.lifeguard a écrit :
Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fil...) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikiwiki_logo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=22003706%29
Either would be acceptable. The status quo is not.
-Mike
Another instance where our policies run contrary to our mission. We definitely need to reinvestigate why we are so much in a rush to delete images such as these which provide no liability on Commons whatsoever, where the distribution of the logo is entirely acceptable and does not water down the copyright.
Cary
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Mike.lifeguard a écrit :
Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fil... )
<
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fil...
Either would be acceptable. The status quo is not.
-Mike
Another instance where our policies run contrary to our mission. We definitely need to reinvestigate why we are so much in a rush to delete images such as these which provide no liability on Commons whatsoever, where the distribution of the logo is entirely acceptable and does not water down the copyright.
Cary
once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair use lane on commons. Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine we won't get in trouble"
2009/6/4 Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com:
once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair use lane on commons. Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine we won't get in trouble"
He's talking about WMF chapter images, not any random crap! Claiming this is a "slippery slope" danger is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.
- d.
2009/6/5 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/6/4 Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com:
once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair use lane on commons. Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine we won't get in trouble"
He's talking about WMF chapter images, not any random crap! Claiming this is a "slippery slope" danger is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.
Zee problem kicks in with defineing chapeter images. Meetup pic for example. In practice is is probably something better dealt with through the foundation chapter agreement but it involves elements that commons doesn't really have control over.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/4 Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com:
once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair use lane on commons. Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine we won't get in trouble"
He's talking about WMF chapter images, not any random crap! Claiming this is a "slippery slope" danger is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.
Chapter images? Like ... educational works authored by the chapters?
…
The best way to avoid wanky idiocy is to *BE* *SPECIFIC*. If you can't be specific then perhaps slippery slope arguments do apply.
I suggest a simple criteria: How about we allow copyright restricted uploads only of trademarked marks from organizations with a trademark licensing agreement with the WMF? I think that limits the whom it applies to without needlessly special casing chapters, and it removes any slippery slope argument because it tightly confines the scope.
Hello,
This is maybe a kind of other point of view.
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example.
I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
cc license can be used on Commons without problems.. But how can a organisation support free media and upload there own material under a non free license..
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hello,
This is maybe a kind of other point of view.
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example.
I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
cc license can be used on Commons without problems.. But how can a organisation support free media and upload there own material under a non free license..
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hello,
This is maybe a kind of other point of view.
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example.
I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
cc license can be used on Commons without problems.. But how can a organisation support free media and upload there own material under a non free license..
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hoi, I really think that you should learn a bit more about trademarks. Your assume that it is acceptable for graphics that identify an organisation or a project to be used by everyone. This is not the case. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/5 Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hello,
This is maybe a kind of other point of view.
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example.
I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
cc license can be used on Commons without problems.. But how can a organisation support free media and upload there own material under a non free license..
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
No actually, I meant what I said. What I said was "keeping all rights reserved" on our logo's or other material seems a bit odd with our mission.
Trademarks is another restriction on uses, and this we should not abandon.
But I was speaking about copyright
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
It is the law that forces us to do this.
For example according to the american trademark law if we don't effectively take strength to defend our trademark, we will lose the right on them. Which would mean that one day everyone, every company can use our name and our logo to do EVERYTHING. This is one issue. The other issue is that other companies could occupy the name and the logo and register it as their trademark, so that one day we will lose the right to use them. This thread is real. There were companies who tried to register the name Wikipedia in China. And the logo of the german newspaper Taz was once occupied by another company in Germany.
Abigor wrote:
No actually, I meant what I said. What I said was "keeping all rights reserved" on our logo's or other material seems a bit odd with our mission.
Trademarks is another restriction on uses, and this we should not abandon.
But I was speaking about copyright
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Ting Chenwing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
It is the law that forces us to do this.
For example according to the american trademark law if we don't effectively take strength to defend our trademark, we will lose the right on them. Which would mean that one day everyone, every company can use our name and our logo to do EVERYTHING. This is one issue. The other issue is that other companies could occupy the name and the logo and register it as their trademark, so that one day we will lose the right to use them. This thread is real. There were companies who tried to register the name Wikipedia in China. And the logo of the german newspaper Taz was once occupied by another company in Germany.
The Apache Foundation logo is a registered trademark AND licensed under the Apache license. A number of very old companies hold trademarks on logos that have passed into the public domain under copyright law due to age (Coca-Cola for example). Other companies hold trademarks that are ineligible for copyright to begin with due to lack of creativity. Commons has a very large collection of such marks [1].
It is entirely possible to vigorously defend a trademark against confusion in the marketplace (e.g. the traditional domain of trademark law) while also relaxing copyright restrictions to create an authorized use regime. For example, creating guidelines on when Wikimedians are allowed to use WMF logos inside and outside the projects would be a start.
The fact that all our logos remain "all rights reserved" is very unbecoming for a Foundation committed to free content creation and dissemination.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Company_logos
Hello,
This is maybe a kind of other point of view.
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example.
I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
cc license can be used on Commons without problems.. But how can a organisation support free media and upload there own material under a non free license..
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hello,
This is maybe a kind of other point of view.
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example.
I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
cc license can be used on Commons without problems.. But how can a organisation support free media and upload there own material under a non free license..
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
2009/6/5 Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.com:
I believe that the mission for the chaptors is to support free media.. But with keeping logo's protected under all right reserved that aren't giving a good example. I can understand that the official Wikimedia logos aren't free. But a logo for pikiwiki for example can easy be released under cc-by or cc-by-sa and that would also give a example for other company's how they should license there logo's and photo's.
I'd like you to answer this question:
How could Commons be a more effective service project for other Wikimedia projects, including the chapters and Foundation?
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
I'd like you to answer this question:
How could Commons be a more effective service project for other Wikimedia projects, including the chapters and Foundation?
- d.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2156 - Release Date: 06/05/09 06:24:00
Hello,
I think there need to change a few things, and that will not be the most easy job since Commons is a big ship and can just make a 180 degrees turn without having to deal with problems, discussions or other drama.
A big thing that need to be changed is communication to new projects, there is a lot of info about the policies om Commons. The only real problem is that we don't have a page that gives info to projects, A great improvement could be a help page with some content that could help projects dealing with our policies. That page could give information about: ; How Commons wants there source information. ; What the best way is to deal with permission and some info about our OTRS system. ; Information how to find info about FAQ ; And a talk page where the can ask questions.
A other way to go is making the new projects ask "permission" before the start with uploading on Commons, by asking permission I mean that the make a announcement about how the gonna deal with permissions, source info and who we can contact when we (Commons) needs help. This would give the Commons also a change to ask questions about the project and give tips about the best way to go.
A great problem that I noticed is language, However English is the main language on Commons it could still cause trouble. We need to remember that not every body can speak English very well or even the can not understand it at all. Now there are babel templates but we can not expect from new users that the know how to use babel templates, It could be a option to make some list with trusted user that can help in there Native language.
I don't really have noticed problems with chapters and Commons. The one problem that is happening now can be solved easily but it is a big change also. We could update the Commons Licensing policy and make it possible for chapters to uploaded copyrighted material, However I still believe that Chapters are created with the mission to support free media and need to protect with copyright only when its really really needed.
I have a lot more of ideas but I think it is kind of Off-topic in this thread
Huib