checkuser-l is chasing cross-wiki vandals. Problems we've noticed:
1. Flickr review just checks whether an image is marked on Flickr as cc-by or cc-by-sa. 2. There's no protection against someone changing the licensing.
The actual threat model is someone bringing a case of copyright infringement. Would screenshots of the licence as was be enough for 2.?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
checkuser-l is chasing cross-wiki vandals. Problems we've noticed:
- Flickr review just checks whether an image is marked on Flickr as
cc-by or cc-by-sa. 2. There's no protection against someone changing the licensing.
The actual threat model is someone bringing a case of copyright infringement. Would screenshots of the licence as was be enough for 2.?
- d.
It's a flickr problem on not preserving logs for license changes. We're flickr reviewing to be sure if that image was free or not. So it can be reviewed either by a) The bot b) An admin or trusted user (and it is in checked that the template was set by a trusted user).
Both of which are trustable. If any of them would be willing to trick the system, they could easily fake a screenshot as well.
Also, we have no way of dealing with people uploading copyvios to flickr, then taking here with flickr as source (other than manual reviewing).
There is an additional problem that a license change may legitimately be a correction rather than malfeasance. It's not the world's most common problem, but I have seen several instances where a Flicker user copied a CC-SA or CC-NC work from someone else but mis-stated the license as PD or CC-BY, etc.
In a couple cases where it has happened with my own works, I've contacted the Flickr user to get a correction.
This goes to the general question of how much are you willing to rely on the accuracy of statements made by largely anonymous people on the internet, really? And do you really want to be in the business of assuming that their first statement was more correct than their current one.
Personally, if you can't establish authorship more specifically than an online screenname, I'm inclined to favor deleting images when things like ambiguous/contradictory licensing claims come up.
Also, it's worth noting that even if you have ironclad documentation that a legitimate license had been communicated, that only addresses that you were acting in good faith. Good faith actions eliminate the possibility for punitive damages, but if you rely on a license declaration that is incorrect (for example because the Flickr user stole it from someone else), you are still potentially liable for actual and/or statutory damages. Which is why professional publishers usually expect a clearer chain of authorship to avoid getting duped.
-Robert Rohde
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
checkuser-l is chasing cross-wiki vandals. Problems we've noticed:
- Flickr review just checks whether an image is marked on Flickr as
cc-by or cc-by-sa. 2. There's no protection against someone changing the licensing.
The actual threat model is someone bringing a case of copyright infringement. Would screenshots of the licence as was be enough for 2.?
- d.
It's a flickr problem on not preserving logs for license changes. We're flickr reviewing to be sure if that image was free or not. So it can be reviewed either by a) The bot b) An admin or trusted user (and it is in checked that the template was set by a trusted user).
Both of which are trustable. If any of them would be willing to trick the system, they could easily fake a screenshot as well.
Also, we have no way of dealing with people uploading copyvios to flickr, then taking here with flickr as source (other than manual reviewing).
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
Also, it's worth noting that even if you have ironclad documentation that a legitimate license had been communicated, that only addresses that you were acting in good faith. Good faith actions eliminate the possibility for punitive damages, but if you rely on a license declaration that is incorrect (for example because the Flickr user stole it from someone else), you are still potentially liable for actual and/or statutory damages. Which is why professional publishers usually expect a clearer chain of authorship to avoid getting duped.
P.S. If found liable, you could subsequently sue the Flickr user to recover your losses, if you could find him... But that's more trouble and risk than I think most professionals would want.
-Robert Rohde
On 30/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
checkuser-l is chasing cross-wiki vandals. Problems we've noticed:
- Flickr review just checks whether an image is marked on Flickr as
cc-by or cc-by-sa. 2. There's no protection against someone changing the licensing.
The actual threat model is someone bringing a case of copyright infringement. Would screenshots of the licence as was be enough for 2.?
No. Legaly we have about 3 options:
1)kill all such images 2)We get every such review signed off by a notary public 3)Rely on the fallback option that if it really matters the bot operator could give a sworn statement that they didn't mess with the bot for that image. Or if human reviewed reviewer provides a sworn statement.
Or a combination of the above. Given the cost of 2 we rely on a mixture of 1 and 3. Mostly people are not actually going to go to court over this kind of thing/
The problem, I've seen, with the Flickr system is that when trusted users spot a Flickrvio and template it accordingly, they can't delete it, and it goes into the "possibly unfree cat". That cat also contains all the images where the Flickr user has change the image's license (the thing they're not allowed to do but still do), so it's very difficult to check the cat for always-unfree images, compared to once-free images, simply because it's so full.
At least, that's what I've seen. I may be wrong, since I just delete the Flickrvios when I review them.
Solutions to this? I don't know...we need the trusted users to help with the backlogs, but we don't trust them to delete, yet. Create a new category for those they tagged as unfree? I'm sure there are other issues with Flickr license issues, that way.
Thoughts?
Alex G wrote:
The problem, I've seen, with the Flickr system is that when trusted users spot a Flickrvio and template it accordingly, they can't delete it, and it goes into the "possibly unfree cat". That cat also contains all the images where the Flickr user has change the image's license (the thing they're not allowed to do but still do), so it's very difficult to check the cat for always-unfree images, compared to once-free images, simply because it's so full.
At least, that's what I've seen. I may be wrong, since I just delete the Flickrvios when I review them.
Solutions to this? I don't know...we need the trusted users to help with the backlogs, but we don't trust them to delete, yet. Create a new category for those they tagged as unfree? I'm sure there are other issues with Flickr license issues, that way.
Thoughts?
Change the way to do flickr reviewing. If the image differs from flickr, put {{speedy}} I use to delete those images with flickr source which don't have a free license, because it's too improbable that an image uploaded two days ago has changed its flickr license to an unfree one.
Hmm, yeah, that's a feasible solution. Changing the attitudes/instructions might take a while, but it'd probably be worth it in the end.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Change the way to do flickr reviewing. If the image differs from flickr, put {{speedy}} I use to delete those images with flickr source which don't have a free license, because it's too improbable that an image uploaded two days ago has changed its flickr license to an unfree one.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
We do need tackle this problem somehow, but I'm not sure what I'd think is the best way to do it.
I think redirecting the possibly unfree category to {{speedy}} is a mistake - simply because its such a vast change. Note also there are files awaiting review that were uploaded in 2007, so the backlog is still a nuisance; and with files coming through other wikimedia projects that problem isn't going to go away either.
I do think that we should try our best to empty Commons of "possibly unfree Flickr images" in their entirety, not just the recent additions. The proposals here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Flickr_images#Reviving might be appropriate. Overly bureaucratic maybe, but I'd rather have a process that is administratively difficult, but the community can accept, than a slicker process that annoys the community. That strongly indicates a "slow" deletion process to me - maybe a variant on {{no permission since}}.
As an aside: Flickr users are perfectly entitled to cease to offer an image under a free license, and instead use a non-free on, but they can't stop other people distributing it under the license if they got it freely. That makes using Flickr a pain in the neck for any downstream user, like us, as we cannot prove the license here was ever valid.. (and round in circles we go)
On 01/04/2008, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, yeah, that's a feasible solution. Changing the attitudes/instructions might take a while, but it'd probably be worth it in the end.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Change the way to do flickr reviewing. If the image differs from flickr, put {{speedy}} I use to delete those images with flickr source which don't have a free license, because it's too improbable that an image uploaded two days ago has changed its flickr license to an unfree one.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Von: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote on sun, 30 mar 2008 23:18:49 +0100:
- There's no protection against someone changing the licensing.
What about the reviewer bot emailing a screenshot of the checked flickr page to a special, direct to archives OTRS queue?
Just an idea,
Flo
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Von: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote on sun, 30 mar 2008 23:18:49 +0100:
- There's no protection against someone changing the licensing.
What about the reviewer bot emailing a screenshot of the checked flickr page to a special, direct to archives OTRS queue?
Just an idea,
Flo
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Screenshots are as much fakeable as everything else. In fact we once had a user who "proved" that an image was free by sending a fake screenshot.
Bryan
Yes, it is ridiculous the lengths to which some people will go. I've had success using the Internet Wayback Machine to stomp on them.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Screenshots are as much fakeable as everything else. In fact we once had a user who "proved" that an image was free by sending a fake screenshot.
Bryan
Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on wed, 2 apr 2008 10:48:26 +0200:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What about the reviewer bot emailing a screenshot of the checked flickr page to a special, direct to archives OTRS queue?
Screenshots are as much fakeable as everything else. In fact we once had a user who "proved" that an image was free by sending a fake screenshot.
I know, but not, when a bot takes them.
Regards,
Flo
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Screenshots are as much fakeable as everything else. In fact we once had a user who "proved" that an image was free by sending a fake screenshot.
I know, but not, when a bot takes them.
Regards,
Flo
And how to you prove a bot took it?
-- Daniel
If you can prove that it's safe because taken by a bot, you can equally prove that the bot recognised that license. CLOSE WONTFIX