I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg
This, as noted in the text, is a crop of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg which is found to be public domain.
Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image also has special code in the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image. Nevertheless the image got flagged.
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack of intelligence, in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time would be to simply reference the given link, and add the appropriate information.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
on a related note admins (who i suspect are the bulk of this lists members) should remember that anyone can throw any tag they like onto a page. When deleting an image because of a tag imo an admin should at MINIMUM.
1: follow any links on the page (especially ones within wikimedia) looking for obvious license/source information 2: check the page history (in case the source/license info was removed by vandals) 3: check that (if applicable) the correct steps to notify the uploader (as mentioned in the no source/license tags) were actually carried out (btw do you think we should change the policies to require notifying users on what appears to be thier primary wiki as well as on commons, i know i only log into commons occasionally atm because i'm not actively involved in any goings on there since the really unused list became unusable). If they weren't notified then the most reasonable course of action is probablly to notify them and reset the clock). 4: perform a check usage (we really need a proper check usage tool that checks all wikis without causing huge server load) and deal with (at least remove and if possible replace) any usage of the image.
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of stevertigo Sent: 10 July 2006 22:33 To: commons-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg
This, as noted in the text, is a crop of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg which is found to be public domain.
Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image also has special code in the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image. Nevertheless the image got flagged.
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack of intelligence, in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time would be to simply reference the given link, and add the appropriate information.
Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I dont know about all that. All I advocate is a basic bonehead level reading of whats posted with the image. It would appear that some are using bots to find and autopost flags and comments. Dunno if thats as useful.
S
--- peter green plugwash@P10Link.net wrote:
on a related note admins (who i suspect are the bulk of this lists members) should remember that anyone can throw any tag they like onto a page. When deleting an image because of a tag imo an admin should at MINIMUM.
1: follow any links on the page (especially ones within wikimedia) looking for obvious license/source information 2: check the page history (in case the source/license info was removed by vandals) 3: check that (if applicable) the correct steps to notify the uploader (as mentioned in the no source/license tags) were actually carried out (btw do you think we should change the policies to require notifying users on what appears to be thier primary wiki as well as on commons, i know i only log into commons occasionally atm because i'm not actively involved in any goings on there since the really unused list became unusable). If they weren't notified then the most reasonable course of action is probablly to notify them and reset the clock). 4: perform a check usage (we really need a proper check usage tool that checks all wikis without causing huge server load) and deal with (at least remove and if possible replace) any usage of the image.
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of stevertigo Sent: 10 July 2006 22:33 To: commons-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg
This, as noted in the text, is a crop of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg which is found to be public domain.
Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image also has special code in the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image. Nevertheless the image got flagged.
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack of intelligence, in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time would be to simply reference the given link, and add the appropriate information.
Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi,
peter green schrieb am 10.07.2006 23:48:
4: perform a check usage (we really need a proper check usage tool that checks all wikis without causing huge server load) and deal with (at least remove and if possible replace) any usage of the image.
For the first half of the sentence, we have this: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php
The problem is that the en-wp is broken and have to be checked by hand. Hopefully this will be fixed soon.
Bye, Tim.
"stevertigo" wrote:
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack of intelligence,
Yes, you're right. That image was automatically flagged as no-license by Orgullobot, so there's automation and bots are not very intelligent ;-)
The good notice is that nobody lost time flagging it, maybe it wasn't even check by a human before you arrived. The uploader got a message but didn't correct it.
For more info about Orgullobot, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Orgullobot *Collects newly uploaded files from Special:Newimages, waits two hours, and if by then it is obviously not properly tagged, marks it as such and requests that the user who uploaded it clarify its copyright status.
Now, i have set the image information.
Platonides
On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home wiki(s).
It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate users where needed.
Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
Cheers!
Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] Namens Platonides Verzonden: dinsdag 11 juli 2006 13:00 Aan: commons-l@wikimedia.org Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
"stevertigo" wrote:
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack of intelligence,
Yes, you're right. That image was automatically flagged as no-license by Orgullobot, so there's automation and bots are not very intelligent ;-)
The good notice is that nobody lost time flagging it, maybe it wasn't even check by a human before you arrived. The uploader got a message but didn't correct it.
Its not an issue of determining responsibility. Its an issue of efficiency, as it is more efficient to read the image for information.
S
--- Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home wiki(s).
It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate users where needed.
Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
Cheers!
Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] Namens Platonides Verzonden: dinsdag 11 juli 2006 13:00 Aan: commons-l@wikimedia.org Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
"stevertigo" wrote:
This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack of intelligence,
Yes, you're right. That image was automatically flagged as no-license by Orgullobot, so there's automation and bots are not very intelligent ;-)
The good notice is that nobody lost time flagging it, maybe it wasn't even check by a human before you arrived. The uploader got a message but didn't correct it.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/11/06, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home wiki(s).
It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate users where needed.
Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
In my opinion the way to go would be to use common sense. If an image description says it's a crop of another image, looking at that image description would be a common sense thing to do.
Of course, if common sense isn't required, and any image without a tag is immediately deletable without any further checks, then images shouldn't be allowed to be uploaded without tags in the first place.
Anthony
It does seem a little silly that people can upload images without a license tag. This functionality could easily be added - perhaps any upload without a tag selected from the drop down or an appropriate template in the summary should not be able to be uploaded.
It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly easy for us in the case of old photographs).
On 11/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/11/06, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible
for
correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty
for an
admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons
admin
chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his
home
wiki(s).
It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur,
to
notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and
educate
users where needed.
Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
In my opinion the way to go would be to use common sense. If an image description says it's a crop of another image, looking at that image description would be a common sense thing to do.
Of course, if common sense isn't required, and any image without a tag is immediately deletable without any further checks, then images shouldn't be allowed to be uploaded without tags in the first place.
Anthony _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
It does seem a little silly that people can upload images without a license tag. This functionality could easily be added - perhaps any upload without a tag selected from the drop down or an appropriate template in the summary should not be able to be uploaded.
at first that sounds like a nice idea but it has two problems.
1: very often for large groups of images from the same (particularlly PD) source a new tag is created both to save the uploader time and to provide a usefull sorting of such images. Any mechanism like this would put a lot of beuracry in the
2: we will most likely end up with a lot of people picking tags at random which is a much harder behaviour to deal with than people not tagging at all.
These two points seem very clear now that you mention them. I can't really see a compromise between my proposal and the situations you mention. Such is brainstorming!
On 11/07/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
It does seem a little silly that people can upload images without a
license tag.
This functionality could easily be added - perhaps any upload without a
tag
selected from the drop down or an appropriate template in the summary
should
not be able to be uploaded.
at first that sounds like a nice idea but it has two problems.
1: very often for large groups of images from the same (particularlly PD) source a new tag is created both to save the uploader time and to provide a usefull sorting of such images. Any mechanism like this would put a lot of beuracry in the
2: we will most likely end up with a lot of people picking tags at random which is a much harder behaviour to deal with than people not tagging at all.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Crossposted to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of dynamic likage (ie. categories).
"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would seem to defy convention. Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages, or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
Steven
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
Crossposted to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of dynamic likage (ie. categories).
"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would seem to defy convention. Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages, or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
"Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on Commons.
I concur. I only use categories, not sure why anyone uses articles.
On 12/07/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Crossposted to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of dynamic likage (ie. categories).
"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would seem to defy convention. Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages, or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
"Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on Commons.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
"Articles" as they exist on Commons are used almost exclusively for gallery purposes. It is a preferred method of image display for a large number of commons users who often prefer the ability to customize image display and provide image discription that galleries offer.
Cary Bass Bastique
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Oldak Quill Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:13 AM To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Radical proposal
I concur. I only use categories, not sure why anyone uses articles.
On 12/07/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Crossposted to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and
that articles here do not
require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it
possible to make article
pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage
(ie. articles) in favor of
dynamic likage (ie. categories).
"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace,
though I agree that would
seem to defy convention. Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could
fit into category pages,
or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration
campaign would be required.
"Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on Commons.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi,
Quoting Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
I concur. I only use categories, not sure why anyone uses articles.
Articles are useful for sorting images within a category. One can place of all of a particular painter's paintings of trees into one gallery, for instance, or sort portraits chronologically. When we have hundreds of images in one category, articles can be used to highlight the best ones. Further, our search feature priveleges articles. They have some uses; we just shouldn't be trying to make article space replace category space or vice versa.
Jkelly
I find it very disappointing that folks here don't find human driven presentation of content to be valuable. Will we now be deleting the commons main page and simply redirecting it to a category?
This will force projects to build their own true gallery pages rather than build them on commons. Because of the difficulty of building truly multilingual things on commons the incentive to avoid working on commons already exists... this will just increase it further. :(
On 7/11/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Crossposted to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of dynamic likage (ie. categories).
"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would seem to defy convention. Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages, or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
Steven
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 13/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very disappointing that folks here don't find human driven presentation of content to be valuable. Will we now be deleting the commons main page and simply redirecting it to a category?
This will force projects to build their own true gallery pages rather than build them on commons. Because of the difficulty of building truly multilingual things on commons the incentive to avoid working on commons already exists... this will just increase it further. :(
I wouldn't worry too much. I expect... um... MS Windows to be released under the GPL before an implementable solution to this problem is found.
As I said on the Village pump, anyone who is seriously thinking of implementing some new solution absolutely must make the system multilingual. That challenge should be enough to keep anyone busy until the Microsoft-FSF alliance.
Brianna
I'm not agree to disable article function because Commons wouldn't be a multilingual project and all it would be only in English, according to the language policy about naming categories. People from others wikiprojects in non-English language would find a lot of problems to find images for their articles.
2006/7/13, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
On 13/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very disappointing that folks here don't find human driven presentation of content to be valuable. Will we now be deleting the commons main page and simply redirecting it to a category?
This will force projects to build their own true gallery pages rather than build them on commons. Because of the difficulty of building truly multilingual things on commons the incentive to avoid working on commons already exists... this will just increase it further. :(
I wouldn't worry too much. I expect... um... MS Windows to be released under the GPL before an implementable solution to this problem is found.
As I said on the Village pump, anyone who is seriously thinking of implementing some new solution absolutely must make the system multilingual. That challenge should be enough to keep anyone busy until the Microsoft-FSF alliance.
Brianna _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
There are some images that are protected from "commercial exploitation", although they are not restricted in commercial editorial use such as Wikipedia, newspapers, magazines and books on the subject.
A current case are Norwegian sculptures. Norwegian copyright law says: § 24. [..] Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially.
If I undestand it correctly, such images are for example protected from being: postcards , sold separately and used in advertisement.
What is the view of the Wikimedia foundation about such images?
/ Fred
--- Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se wrote:
There are some images that are protected from "commercial exploitation", although they are not restricted in commercial editorial use such as Wikipedia, newspapers, magazines and books on the subject.
So you give the answer yourself. They are not 100% commercial. What is "commercial exploitation"? Sell things to get rich. Well that is why you sell stuff.
If I undestand it correctly, such images are for example protected from being: postcards , sold separately and used in advertisement.
It could mean anything. That is the reason why commons wants pictures that where we can clearly say they are free (Even though we turn a blind eye on the GFDL ;-)
What is the view of the Wikimedia foundation about such images?
It is not only a matter of the foundation but also a matter of the community. Because if these will be allowed on commons I will stop doing my adminstrative work there and make use of my right to leave.
regards
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
It seems as though this is a form of fair use, and as such would be allowable on projects (such as en.wp) that allow fair use but not on Commons and others which don't.
Chris
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Patrick-Emil Zörner wrote:
--- Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se wrote:
There are some images that are protected from "commercial exploitation", although they are not restricted in commercial editorial use such as Wikipedia, newspapers, magazines and books on the subject.
So you give the answer yourself. They are not 100% commercial. What is "commercial exploitation"? Sell things to get rich. Well that is why you sell stuff.
If I undestand it correctly, such images are for example protected from being: postcards , sold separately and used in advertisement.
It could mean anything. That is the reason why commons wants pictures that where we can clearly say they are free (Even though we turn a blind eye on the GFDL ;-)
What is the view of the Wikimedia foundation about such images?
It is not only a matter of the foundation but also a matter of the community. Because if these will be allowed on commons I will stop doing my adminstrative work there and make use of my right to leave.
regards
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
There is a similar issue with the photographs produced by various organisations: these organisations would allow commercial use for e.g. informations, encyclopedias, education, but not for making advertisements.
In some instances, this is a case of protection of image: they don't want their image to be associated with products or political campaigns without their authorisation, and it's much easier for them to act on grounds of copyright infringement than on other grounds (especially since in some cases they cannot claim trademark protection).
This will probably have to be addressed in a satisfactory fashion. Currently, we deal with such images by allowing them on some Wikipedias (en: in particular) by claiming "fair use". However, many projects don't allow "fair use", though their communities would perhaps appreciate being able to use such images.
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:01:59 +0200, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
There is a similar issue with the photographs produced by various organisations: these organisations would allow commercial use for e.g. informations, encyclopedias, education, but not for making advertisements.
In some instances, this is a case of protection of image: they don't want their image to be associated with products or political campaigns without their authorisation, and it's much easier for them to act on grounds of copyright infringement than on other grounds (especially since in some cases they cannot claim trademark protection).
This will probably have to be addressed in a satisfactory fashion. Currently, we deal with such images by allowing them on some Wikipedias (en: in particular) by claiming "fair use". However, many projects don't allow "fair use", though their communities would perhaps appreciate being able to use such images.
While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something is allowed on Commons.
Sherool wrote:
While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something is allowed on Commons.
Not really, even CC-BY-SA isn't compatible with GFDL.
On 8/14/06, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something is allowed on Commons.
These are unfree licenses. Like any other 'non commercial' license they create a huge area of grey... For example, if we sell a Wikipedia DVD to help fun the project is that commercial exploitation?
This is no new revelation. Photographs of copyrighted art must be released under a free license by all copyright holders. Photographs which incidentally include copyrighted works do not concern us.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
These are unfree licenses. Like any other 'non commercial' license they create a huge area of grey... For example, if we sell a Wikipedia DVD to help fun the project is that commercial exploitation?
One problem is that "commercial" does not mean the same to everyone. I've discussed with people for whom evidently "commercial" meant "advertisement", and encyclopedias, news articles and other educational books, even distributed commercially, were not "commercial".
This is no new revelation. Photographs of copyrighted art must be released under a free license by all copyright holders. Photographs which incidentally include copyrighted works do not concern us.
Have you checked internationally whether this last sentence applies, and to which extent? There was a famous case in France when an architect/sculptor sued a postcard publisher, and the supreme court ruled against him by saying that the sculpture happened to be there but was not in itself the topic of the photo, but the fact that it had to be decided so high in the court system shows that it's a potentially litigious area.
-- DM
Sherool wrote:
While such licences are free-ish I don't think they would fall fully within the definition of free content (thouh IANAL). Either way they would not be compatable with the GFDL licence, since it does not put any restrictions on who can use a work or for what purpose, and unless I'm mistaken GFDL compatability is the acid test for wether or not something is allowed on Commons.
Note that we already have "free" content on the Commons that is, really, unfree to use in some ways for reasons other than copyright. For instance, take a free photograph of somebody and use it in an advertisement; in many countries, you can get sued for abusive use of that person's image.
Whether content free for educational and informational usage but not for advertisement should be accepted on commons is a different question from whether they should be accepted in the projects. My personal point of view is that the projects should accept such content, for this content is on a much sounder legal ground than a lot of our "fair use" claims.
-- DM
On 8/14/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Note that we already have "free" content on the Commons that is, really, unfree to use in some ways for reasons other than copyright. For instance, take a free photograph of somebody and use it in an advertisement; in many countries, you can get sued for abusive use of that person's image.
The problem is that accepting this sort of restriction without a very clearly spelled out license is bad news. Copyleft licenses should not be usable by people to enact legal retribution if they do not approve of the use. As you've noted, usage is regulated in many places by other laws, which is just fine. We should not allow extensions of that sort of regulation into the realm of copyright, though -- it is not an appropriate place for it, and it makes it a risky license addition, IMO.
Whether content free for educational and informational usage but not for advertisement should be accepted on commons is a different question from whether they should be accepted in the projects. My personal point of view is that the projects should accept such content, for this content is on a much sounder legal ground than a lot of our "fair use" claims.
Yes but you're mixing apples and oranges. Non-free licenses are unacceptable because they are non-free, not because they have shakey legal grounds. Whether fair use is really "free" is debateable (I go back and forth on this), and much of that distinction depends on whether you are considering "free" in a prescriptive sense or a de facto sense.
The strangest phenomena IMO is when the non-commercial are converted to fair use tagging. It's clearly just an artifact of the image policies, and is completely unrelated to their copyright status. "We at Wikipedia believe that we can use this image freely and disregard its license, even though we know damn well that we are within the terms of its license. In fact, we just put up 'fair use' here because that's what a commercial re-user would have to claim. We're not actually claiming that ourselves, since we are still in the terms of the license." I mean, saying that you're going to ignore a license even though you know you're following it to the letter seems like somewhat of a joke to me.
FF (Hi all. I finally joined this list. Thought I'd just jump right in...)
"David Monniaux" a écrit:
In some instances, this is a case of protection of image: they don't want their image to be associated with products or political campaigns without their authorisation, and it's much easier for them to act on grounds of copyright infringement than on other grounds (especially since in some cases they cannot claim trademark protection).
GFDL is in fact really strong. If a GFDL image was used to advertise Coke, then the whole advertisement could be claimed to be under GFDL. Now think about the legal issues a company could have putting their logo next to the GFDL image... I highly doubt to found in my snail mail an ad saying "Buy XYZ", with three GFDL pages appended. Would be a nice paper to keep though ;)
It's more a matter of license-knowing, so instead of accepting material under such _irregular_ license (what would decide the use limits?), it'd better to inform the copyright holders and ask them to free it. Plus, not allowing fair use, thus saying "the only way to have this on wikipedia" is also a good wayy of receiving images that would be otherwise forced to the fair use.
On 8/15/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
GFDL is in fact really strong. If a GFDL image was used to advertise Coke, then the whole advertisement could be claimed to be under GFDL
This is, in fact, a common misunderstanding with copyleft licenses. If coke managed to make a derived work from a strongly copyleft image their choices are to copyleft their derived work, to distribute the work in violation of copyright law, or to not distribute it at all.
Nothing about a copyleft license can cause an accidental loss of the protect privileges of another copyright holder.
[snip]
Plus, not allowing fair use, thus saying "the only way to have this on wikipedia" is also a good wayy of receiving images that would be otherwise forced to the fair use.
This is quite true.
Because of automatic copyright protection the vast majority of copyrighted works are materials which no one has any need or desire to protect through copyright. Friction, both in the form of the acceptance policies of popular forums (like wikipedia) and in the requirements for derived works in copyleft licenses, is useful to encourage people to release otherwise exclusive rights for their works which they do not actually want or need.
On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly easy for us in the case of old photographs).
1 in maybe 100 would be such nice cases, the other 99 would be explaining that random stuff off the web is copyrighted. I would prefer people find out the license BEFORE uploading. It would save a lot of work. We have a [[commons:Help desk|]] for this purpose.
Brianna
For more experienced users not selecting a licence is actually easier if you know exactly which template to use, because you can prepare the complete description page in the upload form, without having to move the category to the bottom or correcting a too generic tag afterwards. A show preview button whould be nice though.
Although I agree with Brianna/pfctdayelise that people should look into licenses before uploading, I think having a "I don't know option" is preferable over people just randomly picking a license. When just 1 in 100 people is honest so be it, but that at least makes it obvious that more attention is needed. Too many people just slap on a license without thinking or take things too easily for granted, see the World Cup images from Flickr which are obviously copyvio's.
~~~~ (hmppf, doesn't work ;-)). NielsF
From: "Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@wikimedia.org To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:58:27 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mail.wikimedia.org ([207.142.131.221]) by bay0-mc11-f9.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:58:30 -0700 Received: from [10.0.0.9] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073C218F9AF;Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:58:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172])by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC8F1856CFfor commons-l@wikimedia.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so53738ugffor commons-l@wikimedia.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.136.7 with SMTP id j7mr43710hud;Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.150.13 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3V+RpxXTk3VdTi4sVGjal2P2ofMt1EeiM= X-Original-To: commons-l@wikimedia.org Delivered-To: commons-l@wikimedia.org References: e900bg$7p3$1@sea.gmane.org 005b01c6a50a$b4b19230$0c00000a@SMLT171cd4dd90607111049h3b28b5ercabf75fd7cce80dc@mail.gmail.com54f6f2050607111105i3bc2919eld6f1b80bd101e99f@mail.gmail.com X-BeenThere: commons-l@wikimedia.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l.wikimedia.org> List-Unsubscribe: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l,mailto:commons-l-request@wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l List-Post: mailto:commons-l@wikimedia.org List-Help: mailto:commons-l-request@wikimedia.org?subject=help List-Subscribe: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l,mailto:commons-l-request@wikimedia.org?subject=subscribe Errors-To: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org Return-Path: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2006 23:58:31.0346 (UTC) FILETIME=[E961B920:01C6A545]
On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly
easy
for us in the case of old photographs).
1 in maybe 100 would be such nice cases, the other 99 would be explaining that random stuff off the web is copyrighted. I would prefer people find out the license BEFORE uploading. It would save a lot of work. We have a [[commons:Help desk|]] for this purpose.
Brianna _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 7/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly easy for us in the case of old photographs).
1 in maybe 100 would be such nice cases, the other 99 would be explaining that random stuff off the web is copyrighted. I would prefer people find out the license BEFORE uploading. It would save a lot of work. We have a [[commons:Help desk|]] for this purpose.
Using [[commons:Help desk]] certainly isn't very easy either, though. And clicking the delete button isn't very much work.
It would be nice if there was some temporary place that people could upload images which they weren't really sure about. It could be kept separate from the other images so articles couldn't include them. Of course getting the copyright paranoid group to agree to this is probably impossible.
Anthony