Dear Yann,
I understand your incomprehension but perhaps the photograph is dead less than 75 years ago (french limit for copyright holder) so by precaution the file must be deleted. But for that he will have aproximatively the same age as M Fournier (28 years in 1904)
M Fournier on the picture is dead in 1914 more than 75 years. I presume that in 6 years will could import this picture without problem because both photograph and M Fournier will be dead more than the 75 years ago...
Gdgourou
2008/5/14 commons-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org:
Send Commons-l mailing list submissions to commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to commons-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at commons-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- 100 years old images (Yann Forget)
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:01:39 +0200 From: Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net Subject: [Commons-l] 100 years old images To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 482AD4A3.6010304@forget-me.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hello,
Recently a photo of Alain-Fournier from 1904 was deleted because "no proof of PD" [1]. I don't understand the rationale being this decision. AFAIK, we have accepted such images upto now, why do we refuse them now?
I think we need to get this clear once and for all. Seeing what was the life expectancy 100 years ago (about 50-55 years in USA / Europe [2] [3]), a limit of 100 years seems reasonable to me. The figures I found are actually lower than I expected (60 years). While we accept a lot of content which is much less safe than this, it seems unreasonable to me to refuse this kind of images. It is in the public domain in USA anyway.
Rocket000 said [4] "I think it's very safe to assume it's PD or can be treated like it is, but that's different than allowing it on Commons." That's exactly the point: if it is very safe to assume it's PD, why should we refuse them? Why setting different standards? This goes against our mission.
Regards,
Yann
[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Alain_four... [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html [3] http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/55/6/1196S.pdf [4]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#100_years_old_images
-- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Biblioth?que libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
End of Commons-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 4
Sylvain Dufour wrote:
Dear Yann,
I understand your incomprehension but perhaps the photograph is dead less than 75 years ago (french limit for copyright holder) so by precaution the file must be deleted. But for that he will have aproximatively the same age as M Fournier (28 years in 1904)
M Fournier on the picture is dead in 1914 more than 75 years. I presume that in 6 years will could import this picture without problem because both photograph and M Fournier will be dead more than the 75 years ago...
Gdgourou
Sorry, but you are wrong on several points: 1. The French law is 70 years pma. 2. Alain-Fournier is born in 1882, and was 18 years old in 1904. 3. The picture was made in 1904, on Alain-Fournier's 18 birthday.
But most important, you didn't answer my point: While we accept a lot of content which is much less safe than this, it seems unreasonable to me to refuse this kind of images.
Regards,
Yann
Hello, Recently a photo of Alain-Fournier from 1904 was deleted because "no proof of PD" [1]. I don't understand the rationale being this decision. AFAIK, we have accepted such images upto now, why do we refuse them now? I think we need to get this clear once and for all. Seeing what was the life expectancy 100 years ago (about 50-55 years in USA / Europe [2] [3]), a limit of 100 years seems reasonable to me. The figures I found are actually lower than I expected (60 years). While we accept a lot of content which is much less safe than this, it seems unreasonable to me to refuse this kind of images. It is in the public domain in USA anyway. Rocket000 said [4] "I think it's very safe to assume it's PD or can be treated like it is, but that's different than allowing it on Commons." That's exactly the point: if it is very safe to assume it's PD, why should we refuse them? Why setting different standards? This goes against our mission. Regards, Yann [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Alain_fournier.jpg [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html [3] http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/55/6/1196S.pdf [4] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#100_years_old_images
Sorry, but you are wrong on several points:
- The French law is 70 years pma.
- Alain-Fournier is born in 1882, and was 18 years old in 1904.
- The picture was made in 1904, on Alain-Fournier's 18 birthday.
So... how old was the *photographer* when the image was taken? Let's use the exmaple from the deletion request. If the photographer was 40 in 1904 and lived to be 74 (not unreasonable), so he died in 1938, the Photo would only become PD next year (70 years *pma*). If he was only 30 when he took the image and died in 1948, it's in copyright for another 10 years. This is not taking into account the extensions of copyright given for the time of the world wars by french law -- a total of nearly 15 extra years of copyright. If the creator was killed in either war, there's even an extension of 30 years.
So, assuming PD for an image that is 100 years old means assuming the photographer lived no more than 30 years after taking the picture -- not a safe bet. For France, the situation is even worse, because of the extensions mentioned above.
I think some rule of thumb was established at some point, but I'm not sure what is was. I think 200 years would be safe, and perhaps 150 are also. but even 120 are not enough, IMHO.
Anyway... you said we accept content that is a lot less safe than this. Like what, exactly?
-- Daniel
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong on several points:
- The French law is 70 years pma.
- Alain-Fournier is born in 1882, and was 18 years old in 1904.
- The picture was made in 1904, on Alain-Fournier's 18 birthday.
So... how old was the *photographer* when the image was taken? Let's use the exmaple from the deletion request. If the photographer was 40 in 1904 and lived to be 74 (not unreasonable), so he died in 1938, the Photo would only become PD next year (70 years *pma*). If he was only 30 when he took the image and died in 1948, it's in copyright for another 10 years. This is not taking into account the extensions of copyright given for the time of the world wars by french law -- a total of nearly 15 extra years of copyright. If the creator was killed in either war, there's even an extension of 30 years.
So, assuming PD for an image that is 100 years old means assuming the photographer lived no more than 30 years after taking the picture -- not a safe bet. For France, the situation is even worse, because of the extensions mentioned above.
I think some rule of thumb was established at some point, but I'm not sure what is was. I think 200 years would be safe, and perhaps 150 are also. but even 120 are not enough, IMHO.
Anyway... you said we accept content that is a lot less safe than this. Like what, exactly?
The US allows the assumption that copyright has expired 120 years after a work was created in cases where the author's date of death has never been recorded with the copyright office. In other words, the US default position is that authors live 50 years after creating their work in the absense of evidence to the contrary.
France may have a similar escape clause, but I don't know.
-Robert rohde
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Robert Rohde wrote:
| | | The US allows the assumption that copyright has expired 120 years after | a work was created in cases where the author's date of death has never | been recorded with the copyright office. In other words, the US default | position is that authors live 50 years after creating their work in the | absense of evidence to the contrary. | | France may have a similar escape clause, but I don't know. | | -Robert rohde
DOH!
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Kinzler wrote: |> Sorry, but you are wrong on several points: |> 1. The French law is 70 years pma. |> 2. Alain-Fournier is born in 1882, and was 18 years old in 1904. |> 3. The picture was made in 1904, on Alain-Fournier's 18 birthday. | | So... how old was the *photographer* when the image was taken? Let's use the | exmaple from the deletion request. If the photographer was 40 in 1904 and lived | to be 74 (not unreasonable), so he died in 1938, the Photo would only become PD | next year (70 years *pma*). If he was only 30 when he took the image and died in | 1948, it's in copyright for another 10 years. This is not taking into account | the extensions of copyright given for the time of the world wars by french law | -- a total of nearly 15 extra years of copyright. If the creator was killed in | either war, there's even an extension of 30 years. | | So, assuming PD for an image that is 100 years old means assuming the | photographer lived no more than 30 years after taking the picture -- not a safe | bet. For France, the situation is even worse, because of the extensions | mentioned above. | | I think some rule of thumb was established at some point, but I'm not sure what | is was. I think 200 years would be safe, and perhaps 150 are also. but even 120 | are not enough, IMHO. | | Anyway... you said we accept content that is a lot less safe than this. Like | what, exactly? | | -- Daniel
In the United States, anonymous or pseudonymous works are protected for 120 years from date of creation--this addresses this issue, and would be a reasonable safety margin. Besides, if someone does come back and say, "WHOA, that's my father's estate, you can't publish it!" we'd what...take it down? 120 years is a very good place to draw the line.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
In the United States, anonymous or pseudonymous works are protected for 120 years from date of creation--this addresses this issue, and would be a reasonable safety margin. Besides, if someone does come back and say, "WHOA, that's my father's estate, you can't publish it!" we'd what...take it down? 120 years is a very good place to draw the line.
As far as I know, a 120-year-clause does not exist in most european countries -- i could be wrong though. Anyway, just taking it down may be enough in some cases, but not all. Consider this case: someone finds an image on commons which is labeled PD, and decides to use it as a book cover. After the book has been published, it turns out that it's not PD at all, and the copyright holder sues the book's author/publisher for 100k$ and wins. The books publisher then turns on us (the foundation, the uploader, the reviewing admins) for compensation. Do we have legal safeguards against that case? I don't think we do. But it's a question for the lawyers, I guess.
Anyway, we had the "draw the line somewhere" discussion repeatedly before, in all length and width, with, as far as I know, no definite outcome, besides maybe that 200 years are probably enough. The first (afaik) thoughough discussion about this was actually started by me in early 2006: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_1#Assume_PD_for_Images_older_than_100_years. See especially the commenty by Rama and David on the con side (and Arnomane and Histo on the pro side).
Basically: 100 years is not enough, and it's not quite clear what number of years *would* be enough. I heard about some rule of thumb being established at some point, but i don't know if it's actually written down somehwere.
-- Daniel
Le 5/15/08 9:49 AM, Daniel Kinzler a écrit :
Basically: 100 years is not enough, and it's not quite clear what number of years *would* be enough. I heard about some rule of thumb being established at some point, but i don't know if it's actually written down somehwere.
The German Wikipedia has a {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} template which states something like "the period of protection for this work has likely expired according to the provisions of German law and therefore is considered as PD". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100
Pictures older than 150 years seem to be automatically tagged as PD-old.
Marie-Lan
Jastrow wrote:
The German Wikipedia has a {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} template which states something like "the period of protection for this work has likely expired according to the provisions of German law and therefore is considered as PD". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100
Pictures older than 150 years seem to be automatically tagged as PD-old.
This was the basis for my proposal from 2006, and it was rejected for commons, and probably rightly so. 150 years might be reasonable, though if something was recently published for the first time, that may mean an even longer copyright period in some countries (including the US).
What bother me most is the de facto tolerance for pictures of fairly recent French buildings, for which the French law has no similar exception. See for instance pictures of buidings by Jean Nouvel (Institut du Monde arabe and so on). It's true we also have loads of pictures of copyrighted outdoor artworks taken in countries where freedom of panorama does not apply.
And they should all be deleted, IMHO. We have done this before several times for the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre Pyramid and the Atomium. I don't know how french law deals with "ordinary" buildings though.
-- Daniel
Le 5/15/08 12:11 PM, Daniel Kinzler a écrit :
And they should all be deleted, IMHO.
Amen.
We have done this before several times for the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre Pyramid and the Atomium.
We still have pictures of the Louvre Pyramid and other buildings such as the Grande Bibliothèque under the so-called "Terreaux jurisprudence" (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#France). Roughly, the courts traditionally admit an exception to copyright if the protected artwork is accessory compared to the main represented subject. I feel the extent of this exception is sometimes stretched a bit too thin ("the main subject is to show the neighbourhood; see, there are three cars parked near that big copyrighted building").
The case of the Eiffel Tower is slightly different: the company providing the lighting claims copyright over the lighting design, which is a bit bold IMO. I don't know whether the claim has been tested in court.
I don't know how french law deals with "ordinary" buildings though.
Buildings are protected by intellectual property law as long as they're "works of the spirit" ("oeuvres de l'esprit"). Jurisprudence is rather restrictive: buildings seem to be protected only if they have a definite artistic character ("caractère artistique certain") and provided they don't belong to a series. This is a bit peculiar as the threshold of originality has proved to be disturbingly low for other creations: protection has been granted to a salad-shaker and a bottle-opener.
Marie-Lan
On Thu, May 15, 2008 11:10 am, Jastrow wrote:
The German Wikipedia has a {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} template which states something like "the period of protection for this work has likely expired according to the provisions of German law and therefore is considered as PD". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100
This template is quite a nice and useful tool for the german wikipedia, since they are creating an encyclopaedia. However, the project goal of commons is to become a repository of free media, so we should be really concerned about the actual copyright status of files and not only about the probability of legal steps against the uploader or the foundation.
While talking about this deletion request, I just want to add that Yann, Checkuser and Admin, behaved in a most flagrant way and misused is sysop rights not only against consensus but also in his own interest. Sad.
regards, Codeispoetry
Codeispoetry wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 11:10 am, Jastrow wrote:
The German Wikipedia has a {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} template which states something like "the period of protection for this work has likely expired according to the provisions of German law and therefore is considered as PD". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100
This template is quite a nice and useful tool for the german wikipedia, since they are creating an encyclopaedia. However, the project goal of commons is to become a repository of free media, so we should be really concerned about the actual copyright status of files and not only about the probability of legal steps against the uploader or the foundation.
While talking about this deletion request, I just want to add that Yann, Checkuser and Admin, behaved in a most flagrant way and misused is sysop rights not only against consensus but also in his own interest. Sad.
I think you got it all wrong. I have no personal interest here. My only interest is to create and publish free content. I think that your interpretation of what is free and what is not free goes against our mission: that this content should be available to everybody.
Beside that, I don't understand how you can advocate different copyright rules for Wikipedia and for Commons. This is beyond any legal and objective argument: this content is hosted on the same computers, managed by the same organisation. What this content is used for does not change in anyway its copyright status. Therefore if this content is allowed on the German Wikipedia, there is no reason it should not be allowed on Commons.
I also think that your attitude of excessive copyright interpretation is the main reason why Commons is not more widely used by the different projects: they have no garantee that the content they allow and they need will be kept on Commons.
regards, Codeispoetry
Regards,
Yann
My only interest is to create and publish free content. I think that your interpretation of what is free and what is not free goes against our mission: that this content should be available to everybody.
Our mission is to collect and make available Free content. That is content which can be used for any purpose without a fee, can be modified at will, and whose modified version must be available under the same terms.
"Available to everybody" is not Free. It is what is on the Web. Yann, you should really be more rigourous before suggesting that people have "got it all wrong".
Also, this has been discussed over and over and over again, can we *please* move on ? -- Rama
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 19. Mai 2008 um 10:29 geschrieben:
Our mission is to collect and make available Free content. That is content which can be used for any purpose without a fee, can be modified at will, and whose modified version must be available under the same terms.
"Available to everybody" is not Free. It is what is on the Web. Yann, you should really be more rigourous before suggesting that people have "got it all wrong".
Also, this has been discussed over and over and over again, can we *please* move on ?
No we can't. As Daniel said unless you make a rule 160 years after publication there is always a theoretical risk that an anonymous work is copyrighted. This would be a new rule and require some consensus.
Personnally I think the 100 year rule is safe as things can be safe in life. It is practiced in many other wikis and by many big commercial publishers.
If Commons decides for a 120 or 160 year rule we can adapt Mediawiki so that images for example from German Wikipedia can be used everywhere. They have a 100 year rule.
We have a tendency to interpret laws to the disadvantage of ourselves. Clever people wouldn't do that.
Regards
Robin
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:38 AM, contact@robinschwab.chcontact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
<snip> We have a tendency to interpret laws to the disadvantage of ourselves. Clever people wouldn't do that.
Actually, a core issue is that we are really interpreting laws for the benefit of other people. While you or I might be willing to accept some risk in our private lives (and interpret things generously), as a community we naturally want to be cautious in deciding how much risk we are going to tell others to take, and to communicate those risks fairly if they exist.
-Robert Rohde
We have a tendency to interpret laws to the disadvantage of ourselves. Clever people wouldn't do that.
Actually, a core issue is that we are really interpreting laws for the benefit of other people. While you or I might be willing to accept some risk in our private lives (and interpret things generously), as a community we naturally want to be cautious in deciding how much risk we are going to tell others to take, and to communicate those risks fairly if they exist.
-Robert Rohde
My monitor has just detected pure wisdom in this matter.
2008/5/19 contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch:
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 19. Mai 2008 um 10:29 geschrieben:
Our mission is to collect and make available Free content. That is content which can be used for any purpose without a fee, can be modified at will, and whose modified version must be available under the same terms.
"Available to everybody" is not Free. It is what is on the Web. Yann, you should really be more rigourous before suggesting that people have "got it all wrong".
Also, this has been discussed over and over and over again, can we *please* move on ?
No we can't. As Daniel said unless you make a rule 160 years after publication there is always a theoretical risk that an anonymous work is copyrighted. This would be a new rule and require some consensus.
No no new rule.
Personnally I think the 100 year rule is safe as things can be safe in life. It is practiced in many other wikis and by many big commercial publishers.
100 years is not remotely safe. Photographers are not going to be remotely average life expectancy wise. They survived childhood and while there may be some issues with some of the chemicals but industrial illness levels are likely lower than say a coal miner. They are likely to be the type that lives out their 3 score and 10. Assuming carers start at 20 that gives you 120 years. Hobbyists are even worse. The kit was not cheap so again higher social class so longer life expectancy and maybe they let the kids take a few photos.
Now consider a famous case. The Cottingley Fairies were taken 90 years ago. Under your rule we would consider them PD in about 2018. The true date under UK law is around 2058 (which is why they should be deleted from commons).
If Commons decides for a 120 or 160 year rule we can adapt Mediawiki so that images for example from German Wikipedia can be used everywhere. They have a 100 year rule.
No. A centeralised holding of non free images is not useful.
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
In the United States, anonymous or pseudonymous works are protected for 120 years from date of creation--this addresses this issue, and would be a reasonable safety margin. Besides, if someone does come back and say, "WHOA, that's my father's estate, you can't publish it!" we'd what...take it down? 120 years is a very good place to draw the line.
As far as I know, a 120-year-clause does not exist in most european countries -- i could be wrong though.
True - the corresponding term in Europa is 70 years. For example in Germany, anonymous works are protected only for 70 years after publication. But a work is not considered anonymous, is the author identified himself anywhere, at any time. So that clause is almost unusable for Wikipedia, because no one can know, if that particular author maybe signed a copy of this work in fall 1974 that is now in possession of the son-in-law of his former editor.
Henning (User:H-stt)
2008/5/15 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de:
cases, but not all. Consider this case: someone finds an image on commons which is labeled PD, and decides to use it as a book cover. After the book has been published, it turns out that it's not PD at all, and the copyright holder sues the book's author/publisher for 100k$ and wins. The books publisher then turns on us (the foundation, the uploader, the reviewing admins) for compensation. Do we have legal safeguards against that case? I don't think we do. But it's a question for the lawyers, I guess.
Publishers are already this paranoid :-) I've seen quite a few exchanges with OTRS which boil down to:
"Can I have permission to use X image?" "You don't need permission, it's public domain" "Please show us the paperwork..." [or] "We'd still like your agreement"
Anyway, we had the "draw the line somewhere" discussion repeatedly before, in all length and width, with, as far as I know, no definite outcome, besides maybe that 200 years are probably enough.
Definitely enough. The worst-case scenario I can imagine is the juvenile work of a very long-lived author in a country with life+70.
Work created at 15; author survives to 100; that's date of creation plus 85. Then another seventy years, total of plus 155.
I think we can safely say that anything over 120 is broadly likely to be public domain; anything over 150 is almost certainly public domain; by 170 it's virtually a cast-iron guarantee. Big caveat, as usual, with French works and those weird wartime extensions.
However! This is vastly, vastly, *vastly* complicated by the unpublished works rule, which gives a varying degree of protection based on *date of publication* not of author's copyright, and so we need to show it was published quite a while back...
I think that it all comes down to two observations:
1) We aim at a good precision; recall is irrelevant. In other terms, we must never present an unfree work as being Free, but missing some Free work is of no consequences.
2) 100 years might be a very long time compared to Human lifespan, but it is not compared to typical periods related to copyright.
This being given, it becomes logical to start from a 150 or 170 years figure. -- Rama
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 19. Mai 2008 um 14:51 geschrieben:
I think that it all comes down to two observations:
- We aim at a good precision; recall is irrelevant.
In other terms, we must never present an unfree work as being Free, but missing some Free work is of no consequences.
Objection. You loose thousands of images. If we have to wait hundreds of years to digitalize those old annymous works we will loose a significant number of the originals. Forever.
- 100 years might be a very long time compared to Human lifespan, but it is
not compared to typical periods related to copyright.
Sad but true: There will be a day where we have found a reason to delete the last image on our server. And if somebody uses our images without complying with the license we say it's below the level of creativity. You lack guts!
Regards
Robin
2008/5/19 contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch:
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 19. Mai 2008 um 14:51 geschrieben:
I think that it all comes down to two observations:
- We aim at a good precision; recall is irrelevant.
In other terms, we must never present an unfree work as being Free, but missing some Free work is of no consequences.
Objection. You loose thousands of images. If we have to wait hundreds of years to digitalize those old annymous works we will loose a significant number of the originals. Forever.
This is true but not something we have a mandate to do anything about. Commons is not in any case much involved in large scale digitalisation.
There are also better attack lines than PD-presumed if you want to get into the business of preserving and digitalising decaying works.
Sad but true: There will be a day where we have found a reason to delete the last image on our server.
Doubtful. In any case there are very large numbers of solidly PD works that we have not even begun to tap.
And if somebody uses our images without complying with the license we say it's below the level of creativity.
We do no such thing.
You lack guts!
You miss the point. The level of risk we are prepared to accept individually may be quite high but the project by it's very nature must be prepared to play fairly safe
geni schrieb:
And if somebody uses our images without complying with the license we say it's below the level of creativity.
We do no such thing.
Yes we do. This was thought as a hint for Rama. He complained in this ML about the newspaper Le Matin Bleu taking his picture [1] a few months ago. So I organized a lawyer over Wikimedia CH. He recommended to write a nice letter and ask for a small compensation. Wikimedia CH would have paid all the fees and organize all the administrative stuff. But Rama refused to sign the necessary letter of attorney because he thought his work did not reach the level of creativity. He might be right about that but it's a good illustration that we interpret laws to the disadvantage of ourselves. No question we would delete the picture [2] if no license is given because of copyright violation!
Regards
Robin
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama/who_uses_my_images [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SIG220-Morges.jpg
Assuming the worst case for yourself and the best case for your adversary is a good way not to be surprised. It is safe.
I do not see why we could possibly would like to do otherwise, unless someone wants to wage a crusade in courthouses.
-- Rama
Rama Neko wrote:
Assuming the worst case for yourself and the best case for your adversary is a good way not to be surprised. It is safe.
Actually, it borders on paranoia, as in copyright paranoia. What if the "adversary" succeeds in getting both the GFDL and CC licenses ruled invalid - there are plenty of companies who might like to profit from that, maybe they'll make the investment in lawyers. What if a country like Greece or Egypt retroactively extends copyright back 3,000 years, and international law requires that everybody else follow suit, and effectively abolish the public domain? Once paranoia has you in its grip, then all manner of ridiculous things seem possible and even likely. Lawyers know all this, and if you actually talk to one, it's clear that the line of OK / not-OK is a very fluid one, changing on a regular basis, and that's fine with them. While we can come up with a set of rules for commons that seems generally workable at the moment, it's simply not possible to come up with a set of rules that will work in perpetuity no matter what, short of the previously-mentioned repository emptying. :-)
Stan
Stan Shebs, you are using a straw man argument.
I did say "worst case", which indicates that I do believe that a floor exists. I also stress "safe", which indicates that I do believe that some things are actually safe. My argument is not, and has never been, that nothing can be considered to be Free. My argument is: in doubt, it is better to be safe than sorry.
I am not willing to crusade in court to triumph on evil "companies" (or alternatively become of martyr) because I have better things to do with my time. Commons is not about judicial battles either. Some individuals might want to play the copyright Russian roulette for the greater good of the Cause, fair enough; this is their business. Commons, on the other hand, is about collecting and making available Free material -- *demonstrably* Free material. -- Rama
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 20. Mai 2008 um 02:03 geschrieben:
Cause, fair enough; this is their business. Commons, on the other hand, is about collecting and making available Free material -- *demonstrably* Free material.
Commons is also an image repository for Wikipedia. So we should encourage users to upload things to commons and not to the local wikipedias.
However due to discussions like this one people have lost confidence. In German Wikipedia and presumably many others use {{NoCommons}} [1] to prevent images being moved here.
And even me as one of the top uploaders here do fear that my work wil get deleted how shall newcomers trust Commons? There is something wrong with the system here.
Regards
Robin
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM, contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 20. Mai 2008 um 02:03 geschrieben:
Cause, fair enough; this is their business. Commons, on the other hand, is about collecting and making available Free material -- *demonstrably* Free material.
Commons is also an image repository for Wikipedia. So we should encourage users to upload things to commons and not to the local wikipedias.
Commons is not an image repository for Wikipedia. Commons is an image repository consisting of *free* images for all Wiki_m_edia projects. I agree that we should encourage to upload as much as possible to Commons, but some things simply don't fit in Commons' free content mission which other projects don't necessarily care as much about.
Bryan
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM, contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
...
Commons is also an image repository for Wikipedia. So we should encourage users to upload things to commons and not to the local wikipedias.
Commons is not an image repository for Wikipedia. Commons is an image repository consisting of *free* images for all Wiki_m_edia projects. I agree that we should encourage to upload as much as possible to Commons, but some things simply don't fit in Commons' free content mission which other projects don't necessarily care as much about.
Specifically, we should advocat that only truly free content is used on any WMF project.
-- Daniel
Le 5/20/08 10:15 AM, contact@robinschwab.ch a écrit :
Commons is also an image repository for Wikipedia. So we should encourage users to upload things to commons and not to the local wikipedias.
Sure.
However due to discussions like this one people have lost confidence. In German Wikipedia and presumably many others use {{NoCommons}} [1] to prevent images being moved here.
In my experience, people lose confidence when they realize copyright laws are much more restrictive than they imagined.
Why would one put something on the Web if one didn't want it used by others? Why can't I publish the picture of this statue by John Doe (d. 2007) which stands in a public place and which was paid with my tax money? Why can't I upload the picture of my very own Pokémon(tm) t-shirt? How the heck am I supposed to get pictures for my article about this very popular manga if Commons won't accept screenshots from the anime? Why can't I upload some press pictures which can be seen on a ton of different websites? Those are valid questions.
Commons would be much more popular if the policy was more lax. No doubt about it. Yet I fear that this {{NoCommons}} thing has much to do with FUD -- you know, the "those Commons guys are freaking nuts who'll delete just about everything, just upload your copyvio picture here, and no one will bother you" line of talk.
And even me as one of the top uploaders here do fear that my work wil get deleted how shall newcomers trust Commons? There is something wrong with the system here.
Why would you fear about your uploads?
Jastrow
Jastrow schrieb:
Why would you fear about your uploads?
I did a few reproductions myself. They are not anonymous - I have the name of all authors. They are all within 100 and 150 years old. If we extend the limit for {{PD-old}} to 150 years you will delete them and every old work that is a) anonym or b) the year of death of the author is not known. Otherwise there is no so called safety. You would force me to move my work back to German Wikipedia...
To find out the year of death of a person who published an image 150 years ago this might take several working days sitting in an archive somewhere around the globe. This is a de facto no-go for PD-old images.
The earliest photograph dates from 1826. The new 150 year rule means that works are protected back to 1858. This means you'd only keep this couple of photographs from 1826-1858 for anonymous works.
Commons would be much more popular if the policy was more lax. No doubt
True. That's why we are unpopular despite the good quality of the works. To me there is no compulsive reason why we should be stricter than the big commercial publishers. Take the 228 years old newspaper NZZ in Switzerland. They publish your examples mentioned above (Pokemon t-shirt simple photographs etc.) as Public Domain. No press license! They redistribute it in their archive. No one ever sued them or would do this currently. You could get much more money from the commercial NZZ then from nonprofit Wikimedia. Let's find the good examples for our young database. And let's not be paranoid.
Regards
Robin
Robin Schwab wrote:
The earliest photograph dates from 1826. The new 150 year rule means that works are protected back to 1858. This means you'd only keep this couple of photographs from 1826-1858 for anonymous works.
Note that there is a difference between a work published anonymously, and a work whos author is unknown. Anonymous works are not problematic if the date of publication is known: copyright generally ends 70 years later. If the author is unknown, however, 100 yeas is too short a period. Again: you can't assume the creator did not live longer than 30 years after creating the work. That's simply not safe to assume.
This is true no matter where you upload it. Should the hires of the creators decide to sue, you (the uploader and creator of a derivative) got a problem. And possibly, we do too.
Take the 228 years old newspaper NZZ in Switzerland. They publish your examples mentioned above (Pokemon t-shirt simple photographs etc.) as Public Domain. No press license! They redistribute it in their archive. No one ever sued them or would do this currently.
They distribute it on its own, claiming you can use it for any purpose? really? got a link?
A newspaper can use a lot of material in editoral context. That is fair use. To an image repository, however, this does not apply.
In addition to that, Switzerland has a relatively high threashold of originality required for a photo to be copyrightable. I don't know whoe they deal with character copyright, which would also apply in the case of Pokemon.
-- Daniel
Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de hat am 21. Mai 2008 um 10:20 geschrieben:
Note that there is a difference between a work published anonymously, and a work whos author is unknown. Anonymous works are not problematic if the date of publication is known: copyright generally ends 70 years later. If the author is
AFAIK most countries don't have such a paragraph. Germany has one but even there the heirs can say it's the picture of their ancestor and then the 70 years p.m.a. applies.
Therefore my conclusion is true and extending the copyright for anonymous works to 150 years would result in the biggest mass deletion request we've ever seen on Commons.
Take the 228 years old newspaper NZZ in
...
They distribute it on its own, claiming you can use it for any purpose? really? got a link?
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/wsj_chefredaktor_1.739127.html Robert Thomsons image.
Regards
Robin
contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de hat am 21. Mai 2008 um 10:20 geschrieben:
Note that there is a difference between a work published anonymously, and a work whos author is unknown. Anonymous works are not problematic if the date of publication is known: copyright generally ends 70 years later. If the author is
AFAIK most countries don't have such a paragraph. Germany has one but even there the heirs can say it's the picture of their ancestor and then the 70 years p.m.a. applies.
Several countries do, including the US, afaik. But yes, post-factum authorship claims are a problem. However, some countries (including, according to Wikipedia, Switzerland buzt not Germany) have the rule that such claims must be made within 70 years of the anonymous publication. Sone once they are over, you would be safe.
Take the 228 years old newspaper NZZ in
...
They distribute it on its own, claiming you can use it for any purpose? really? got a link?
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/wsj_chefredaktor_1.739127.html Robert Thomsons image.
I see an low-res image used in editorial context, showing a person of interest, not something copyrighted on its own; this may be fair use (a pokemon shirt would be, under the same circumstances). The photo copytion sais "pd" without any explanation what is meant by that. Might even be the photographers initials, who knows. I can't see why this Image would be legally PD anyway.
-- Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
|> http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/wsj_chefredaktor_1.739127.html Robert |> Thomsons image. | | I see an low-res image used in editorial context, showing a person of interest, | not something copyrighted on its own; this may be fair use (a pokemon shirt | would be, under the same circumstances). The photo copytion sais "pd" without | any explanation what is meant by that. Might even be the photographers initials, | who knows. I can't see why this Image would be legally PD anyway.
I would see this as the photograph being credited to a staff member with initials "pd" rather than Public Domain (what is the term for Public Domain in German anyway?). I would expect Public Domain to be explicitly written, not "pd".
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Cary Bass wrote: | Daniel Kinzler wrote: | | |> http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/wsj_chefredaktor_1.739127.html | Robert | |> Thomsons image. | | | | I see an low-res image used in editorial context, showing a person of | interest, | | not something copyrighted on its own; this may be fair use (a pokemon | shirt | | would be, under the same circumstances). The photo copytion sais "pd" | without | | any explanation what is meant by that. Might even be the photographers | initials, | | who knows. I can't see why this Image would be legally PD anyway. | | I would see this as the photograph being credited to a staff member with | initials "pd" rather than Public Domain (what is the term for Public | Domain in German anyway?). I would expect Public Domain to be | explicitly written, not "pd". |
After speaking with a Swiss German user--he seems to be under the impression that "pd" stands for "Pressdokumentation"; literally "Press documentation" or "Press kit" as we commonly refer to it in the US. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
2008/5/21 Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org:
After speaking with a Swiss German user--he seems to be under the impression that "pd" stands for "Pressdokumentation"; literally "Press documentation" or "Press kit" as we commonly refer to it in the US.
That sounds a substantially simpler explanation!
Cary Bass wrote:
After speaking with a Swiss German user--he seems to be under the impression that "pd" stands for "Pressdokumentation"; literally "Press documentation" or "Press kit" as we commonly refer to it in the US.
Yes, that context would be more reasonable since other pictures on this website (as far as I have checked them) have e.g. ''Reuters'' instead of ''pd'' ( http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/international/suedafrikas_praesident_bietet_ar...). And Reuters definitely is not a licence, but the source/author.
Cecil
AFAIK most countries don't have such a paragraph. Germany has one but even there the heirs can say it's the picture of their ancestor and then the 70 years p.m.a. applies.
No. "Anonymous", is this sense, has a precise meaning. It does only not mean "we don't know the name of the author", it means that the author deliberately published the work without associating his name to the work. This cannot be changed even if the author is later identified, it is a choice made by the author. On the other hand, simply not knowing who the author is does not make a work anonymous.
really? got a link?
They distribute it on its own, claiming you can use it for any purpose?
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/wsj_chefredaktor_1.739127.html Robert Thomsons image.
What is that supposed to mean ? 1) Does "pd" mean "public domain" here, for a start ? for what I know, it might be the initials of the photographer. The publication is in German, why would they say "Public domain" rather than "Gemeinfreiheit" ? 2) Assuming "PD" means "public domain", where does this image come from ? For what we know, it might well have been taken by a journalist of the newspaper, which is then entitled to releasing it in the public domain if they see it fit. 3) This image is not problematic. It is an original portrait of a person, and might well have an original value under Swiss law, or not. It is not a case where the person displays a Pokemon t-shirt as was the example.
Do you have precisions, or maybe another link ? -- Rama
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK most countries don't have such a paragraph. Germany has one but even there the heirs can say it's the picture of their ancestor and then the 70 years p.m.a. applies.
No. "Anonymous", is this sense, has a precise meaning. It does only not mean "we don't know the name of the author", it means that the author deliberately published the work without associating his name to the work. This cannot be changed even if the author is later identified, it is a choice made by the author.
It indeed a choice of the author, but a revocable one (at least in the Netherlands): In The Netherlands an author can decide to deanonimize within the 70 years after publication (Auteurswet 1912 artikel 38.3). It is unclear whether this applies as well if the author is identified after his death, but from the exact reading I would say that only the author himself can decide to deanonimize himself.
Bryan
Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com hat am 21. Mai 2008 um 12:30 geschrieben:
No. "Anonymous", is this sense, has a precise meaning. It does only not mean "we don't know the name of the author", it means that the author deliberately published the work without associating his name to the work. This cannot be changed even if the author is later identified, it is a choice made by the author.
And how do you prove that nobody identified the author within the 70 years after publication?
Anyway I was mainly talking about the fact that you'd need the year of death for all author with PD-old works.
They distribute it on its own, claiming you can use it for any purpose?
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/wsj_chefredaktor_1.739127.html Robert Thomsons image.
What is that supposed to mean ?
- Does "pd" mean "public domain" here, for a start ? for what I know, it
might be the initials of the photographer. The publication is in German, why would they say "Public domain" rather than "Gemeinfreiheit" ?
Yes it does mean Public Domain. German language often uses English terms and "Gemeinfreiheit" is rather a term from Germany.
- This image is not problematic. It is an original portrait of a person,
and might well have an original value under Swiss law, or not. It is not a case where the person displays a Pokemon t-shirt as was the example.
I'm laughing here! Isn't there a clear consensus that pictures like this require a license? I could upload it to commons and you would speedy delete it. No matter this is a Swiss website. It's available worldwide just as commons is.
Of course you'll find just breadcrumbs on the online version. If you're really interested you'd have to look at the original version where you'll find the Tomb Raider promotional image published as Public Domain.
Regards
Robin
2008/5/21 contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch:
Of course you'll find just breadcrumbs on the online version. If you're really interested you'd have to look at the original version where you'll find the Tomb Raider promotional image published as Public Domain.
I'm a little confused here - so this other website Gets Copyright Wrong and is apparently quite confused over what "public domain" means. This is not at all rare on the Internet - why does it impact what Commons should or shouldn't be doing?
Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com hat am 21. Mai 2008 um 14:37 geschrieben:
2008/5/21 contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch:
Of course you'll find just breadcrumbs on the online version. If you're really interested you'd have to look at the original version where you'll find the Tomb Raider promotional image published as Public Domain.
I'm a little confused here - so this other website Gets Copyright Wrong and is apparently quite confused over what "public domain" means. This is not at all rare on the Internet - why does it impact what Commons should or shouldn't be doing?
You misunderstood. It's not a website. It's the oldest (228y) newspaper in Switzerland and the one with the best reputation. They have their own legal service with copyright specialists.
I'm so happy we have plenty of legal experts who know it better here... I really feel like talking against a wall.
Regards
Robin
contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
[...] It's the oldest (228y) newspaper in Switzerland and the one with the best reputation. They have their own legal service with copyright specialists.
Most likely they requested permission and received it. I regularly get requests for permission to use my images in all sorts of publications, even though the images are already tagged with free licenses. One time when I mentioned that, I got a reply back saying "yes, we know the image is free, but we always make the request anyway". Granting permission to use promotional images is so routine that we have to phrase our requests for a free-license image carefully, so that they understand that we are asking for far more than simple permission to use.
Stan
Le 5/21/08 5:01 PM, contact@robinschwab.ch a écrit :
You misunderstood. It's not a website. It's the oldest (228y) newspaper in Switzerland and the one with the best reputation. They have their own legal service with copyright specialists.
The French National Library has a legal service with copyright specialists. Yet the terms of use on their website are crap, as they're claiming copyright over mechanical reproduction. That's because their terms of use were not written by their legal service. Their senior legal officer admitted it clearly in a meeting.
Concerning NZZ, I don't understand the purpose of your example (it's not an attack, I honestly don't understand). They publish a picture described as PD. Is it the case or not? I admit I don't know where the picture comes from. Could you elaborate on "they redistribute it in their archive"? As far as I can see, they're only using it to illustrate a paper.
Mistakes happen. I found my pictures published under a wide variety of inaccurate licenses on the Web, even by very serious newspapers. The Wiener Zeitung states for instance that the picture of Ségolène Royal used here is GPL: http://www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4800&Alias=wahlen&... It's actually CC-BY: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Meeting_Royal_2007_02_06_n12.jpg
I'm so happy we have plenty of legal experts who know it better here... I really feel like talking against a wall.
I really feel that we don't have the same idea about what Commons should be. You apparently wish Commons to be a media repository handily gathering pictures that can reasonably be used and reused without major legal threat. IMO, Commons should be a place where each picture can reasonably be considered as Free -- which is not the same thing. I grant you it's a heavy constraint, much harshly felt for pictures than for text.
Jastrow
2008/5/21 contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch:
Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com hat am 21. Mai 2008 um 14:37 geschrieben:
2008/5/21 contact@robinschwab.ch contact@robinschwab.ch:
Of course you'll find just breadcrumbs on the online version. If you're really interested you'd have to look at the original version where you'll find the Tomb Raider promotional image published as Public Domain.
I'm a little confused here - so this other website Gets Copyright Wrong and is apparently quite confused over what "public domain" means. This is not at all rare on the Internet - why does it impact what Commons should or shouldn't be doing?
You misunderstood. It's not a website. It's the oldest (228y) newspaper in Switzerland and the one with the best reputation. They have their own legal service with copyright specialists.
All the better! That suggests to me that:
a) those copyright specialists are a bit sloppy; or
b) 'public domain' in their parlance fundamentally isn't what we think it is; or
c) we're wildly misinterpreting what they claim as the rights of the image, and no-one's actually claiming it to be public domain.
A seems pretty unlikely. B is possible - I know enwp regularly has faff when people see sentences like. "This information is in the public domain. Copyright ---" and assume it means no copyright rather than, say, a non-copyright meaning of 'public domain', such as 'not secret'. However, it seems unlikely for a *newspaper* to emphasise that.
C seems the most likely to me - because we deal fundamentally and primarily in individual image licenses we tend to see everything in those contexts, and tend to interpret metadata that way. But the rest of the world doesn't tag every image used with its license, doesn't attribute everything upfront, even when they obey the letter of the law - they just do things differently.
[Likewise 'publishing' and 'distributing' these images - they may not even consider it exists as a seperable unit from the text article!]
Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net hat am 20. Mai 2008 um 00:14 geschrieben:
Rama Neko wrote:
Assuming the worst case for yourself and the best case for your adversary is a good way not to be surprised. It is safe.
Actually, it borders on paranoia, as in copyright paranoia. What if the "adversary" succeeds in getting both the GFDL and CC licenses ruled invalid - there are plenty of companies who might like to profit from that, maybe they'll make the investment in lawyers. What if a country like Greece or Egypt retroactively extends copyright back 3,000 years, and international law requires that everybody else follow suit, and effectively abolish the public domain? Once paranoia has you in its grip, then all manner of ridiculous things seem possible and even
Stan you took the words right out of my mouth. A typical symptom of that paranoia is that you start knowing things better than your lawyer. Even if the lawyer was involved with the local adaption of the Creative Commons license. This was the case when we wanted to do something about Ramas picture used in a newspaper. But let's stop talking about this.
Another symptom of the paranoia is that the patients start looking around for other reasons why an image could be unfree if they can't find a copyright paragraph. What about personality rights? And moral rights? Religious feelings? The paranoia patients will find a reason for every image why it's forbidden in one of our globes countries.
Maybe we should develop an immunization :-)
Regards
Robin
Stan you took the words right out of my mouth. A typical symptom of that paranoia is that you start knowing things better than your lawyer. Even if the lawyer was involved with the local adaption of the Creative Commons license. This was the case when we wanted to do something about Ramas picture used in a newspaper. But let's stop talking about this.
The point is that I do *not* have a lawyer, precisely. :) But I fail to see where I would know things better than a lawyer. I will cheerfully admit that a lawyer knows better than me how legal matters work. And you surely will return the favour admitting that I know better than you what I want to do with my time.
You are welcome to engage in legal crusades yourself if you have time to lose; you are also to offer to recruit me if you see it fit. But you are not entitled to draft me into one.
Another symptom of the paranoia is that the patients start looking around for other reasons why an image could be unfree if they can't find a copyright paragraph. What about personality rights? And moral rights? Religious feelings? The paranoia patients will find a reason for every image why it's forbidden in one of our globes countries.
Please stay focused. With the 100-year timespan, there is not reason to look outside the bounds of the very copyright, really. --Rama
contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
Sad but true: There will be a day where we have found a reason to delete the last image on our server. And if somebody uses our images without complying with the license we say it's below the level of creativity. You lack guts!
Regards
Robin
Feel free to transfer those pictures to your own repository for safekeeping.
-- Daniel