Hello,
At the moment there are about 40 CommonsTickers (CT) set up. That is quite good coverage, considering that a project is likely to need a certain critical mass before it can support a CT. We have all the top 10 Wikipedias except English, of course (due to technical reasons). There are another 35 Wikipedias that have 10,000-100,000 articles and increasing our coverage there is definitely something to work on.
As CT coverage increases so does scrutiny of Commons admin actions, namely, deletion of images that are still being used.
Why does this happen? Not because "Commons admins are arrogant and don't care about local projects" (gee, that's defensive :)) but because it's too much menial and manual work that arguably should not fall on our shoulders. Or at least not solely.
I think we should adopt a clear policy that images shown to be in use by CheckUsage should not be deleted unless: * the image is currently being used by a vandal in a mass vandal attack (this is rare, but appropriate to stop a vandal) * [[en:w:WP:OFFICE]]-style intervention from Jimbo et al.
And also, we should create further ways of sharing responsibility with the local projects and reducing menial tasks required by delinking.
One way which might help a bit, would be to create a tag (possibly invisible) that would trigger a notice on CTs that said, "please delink this image now or risk redlinks!" At the moment it seems projects are not paying enough attention, perhaps. For example... Image:Princesymbol.png - on 30th June I re-tagged this as a copyvio, in an attempt to get the dozen-odd projects linking to it, to stop doing so. On the 4th August it was deleted by another admin. Today, on the 7th of August, it's _still_ being used by two projects (despite being deleted) - ja: and fr:. Two of the top 5 projects!
So on one hand we have local projects upset at us for deleting images in use and on the other we have projects who seem not to even care when we notify them. It is a difficult balance to walk.
Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking for us. User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.
If projects complain about an unregistered bot, they can a) get a CT and delink themselves b) live with redlinks the only exception being en.wp where the bot should be registered. (because en.wp technically can't have a CT yet, no other reason)
Having this policy ("images shown to be in use by CheckUsage should not be deleted") will do a few things: * send a clear message to projects that we are not interested in damaging them * allow us as a community to start examining our own actions more clearly. Commons at the moment has no process or practice to discourage reckless admin actions, partly because we've had this ambiguous policy of allowing used-images to be deleted (ambiguous in that it is policy, but can be very damaging). If we are clear that this is not acceptable, we can be clear when our admins are in the wrong and we can start a process, for example, "3 strikes and you're out": 3 occasions of images being used and deleted (possibly in a timeline, eg one year)-> automatic de-admin. You can forget once, CheckUsage could be lagging twice, but three times... I don't think so. (Note 3 occasions, not 3 images.) I am not saying all the fault is Commons admins and they're terrible. But we do make mistakes (as do all admins on all projects), sometimes we do screw things up, and we should be prepared to be held responsible on those occasions. That would be adult. * it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a work in progress, will never be a clean professional database - because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion. So in the long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.
Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive criticism, I welcome it.
regards, Brianna User:pfctdayelise
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
- it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a work in progress, will never be a clean professional database - because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion. So in the long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.
I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."
What should they think if we answer "yes you are right but see, our other clients (=projects) need more time"? It is not important to him. Every day we delete a copyvio earlier the risk of complains is smaller.
I know, the fight against copyvios is endless, but if we wait now for tomorrow or later, we will cumulate again. Is this in mind of the Foundation? Don't think so.
I was so happy as the restore-feature for images was introtuced, now I feel good when deleting copyvios.
The very few complains over deleted images that are really no copyvios was handled fast I think.
In all other cases I agree with you. We have to serve all other projects very carefully.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller wikis.
Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive criticism, I welcome it.
regards, Brianna User:pfctdayelise
Regards. Raymond User:Raymond_de
2006/8/7, Raimond Spekking raimond.spekking@gmail.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
- it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a work in progress, will never be a clean professional database - because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion. So in the long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.
I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."
What should they think if we answer "yes you are right but see, our other clients (=projects) need more time"? It is not important to him. Every day we delete a copyvio earlier the risk of complains is smaller.
I know, the fight against copyvios is endless, but if we wait now for tomorrow or later, we will cumulate again. Is this in mind of the Foundation? Don't think so.
I was so happy as the restore-feature for images was introtuced, now I feel good when deleting copyvios.
The very few complains over deleted images that are really no copyvios was handled fast I think.
In all other cases I agree with you. We have to serve all other projects very carefully.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller wikis.
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your images''. Vandals and people that are not interested in any cooperation will not proove the source, etc., but wise people will ask where is the problem :). Leaving copyvios for months not-deleted because of rules is very risky :)
AJF/WarX
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
Writing notes is hard when you have to do it hundreds of times; are there any decent templates which explain these things for various cases? If so, what are they and where are they listed?
On 08/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
Writing notes is hard when you have to do it hundreds of times; are there any decent templates which explain these things for various cases? If so, what are they and where are they listed?
No, but there's nothing stopping anyone creating them.
I do find time and time again, that people simply ignore generic warnings though, whereas a short, sharp, "stop doing X because Y, see policy Z, if you need help see W, if you continue to ignore this advice you may be blocked and your images deleted" tends to be more effective.
Brianna
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com schrieb:
On 08/08/06, Artur Fija³kowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images.
I
know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with
your
images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
Tell people twice? There is a big fat notice telling you what to do when you upload an image. The consequences are known (BTW red and even fat letters):
"If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice. Thanks for your understanding."
in czech in a big fat red box:
"UPOZORNĚNÍ: Pokud pravdivě neuvedete licenci a přesné informace o zdroji, vá soubor bude bez dalího varování smazán. Děkujeme za pochopení."
in german again red and even fat letters:
"Dateien mit unpassenden oder ohne ausreichende Lizenzinformationen werden ohne weitere Nachfrage gelöscht."
...
Any language I missed? At what point do people not understand? Maybe I should explain "your file will be deleted without further notice" to all people again? Sorry there is no way anyone can tell me that they did not see the big notice because I was there in the beginning of WM Commons and tried (together with Bdka who put the biggest efford into the matter) to make sure that nobody could tell us that there is no way of understanding which files are apt for commons and which are not.
Those files must be deleted! Period. You may talk to the people after the deletion. The administrators of WM-Commons and especially Bdka (many thanks to him) have done everything in the past to make sure the terms and conditions of WM-Commons are clear in any language and to the stupidest person possible (worst case). No way we have to tell them again. We can I we want to but we do not have to.
greetings
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
In 08/08/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com schrieb:
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images.
I
know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with
your
images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
Tell people twice? There is a big fat notice telling you what to do when you upload an image. The consequences are known (BTW red and even fat letters):
People are stupid and don't read instructions; Wikimedians are no exception. Of course you don't _have_ to (explain what they're doing wrong). But if you want to stop the root behaviour, I think it's more helpful than not explaining. Because if you're already at the point where you need to delete someone's work, it's pretty obvious they didn't read/understand the instructions.... isn't it?
Brianna
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Deletion of still-used images
In 08/08/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com schrieb:
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images.
I
know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with
your
images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
Tell people twice? There is a big fat notice telling you what to do when you upload an image. The consequences are known (BTW red and even fat letters):
People are stupid and don't read instructions; Wikimedians are no exception. Of course you don't _have_ to (explain what they're doing wrong). But if you want to stop the root behaviour, I think it's more helpful than not explaining. Because if you're already at the point where you need to delete someone's work, it's pretty obvious they didn't read/understand the instructions.... isn't it?
Brianna
That's very true. Some people don't even bother to get in touch with the admin who posted the warning and ask for more explanations, but if you dare to delete his/her wrong images then they rush to your talk page to moan, so I think warnings are useful in the end, sooner or later the uploaders react and break their mute attitude and try to contact with the person who warned them.
Anna. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 8/8/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your images''.
Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?! Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid making them in the future.
I subst [[Template:Speedywhat]] on the user's talk page when speedy-deleting copyvios. I think obvious copyvios and unacceptable licenses should be deleted on sight, while all non-obvious cases need to pass through Deletion Requests. As for checking usage, in obvious copyvio cases, it's a nice thing to do, but IMHO not the admin's responsibility -- someone will remove the red link soon enough.
Erik
On 11/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote: As for checking usage, in obvious
copyvio cases, it's a nice thing to do, but IMHO not the admin's responsibility -- someone will remove the red link soon enough.
There is some vehement disagreement on this point, though. It does not seem like something that should be left to the whim of the administrator, to me.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 11/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote: As for checking usage, in obvious
copyvio cases, it's a nice thing to do, but IMHO not the admin's responsibility -- someone will remove the red link soon enough.
There is some vehement disagreement on this point, though. It does not seem like something that should be left to the whim of the administrator, to me.
What we really need are links on local projects to the deletion log on Commons for the "no such image" pages... there's nothing like a redlink to make people ask "Whoa! What happened to that image?", but unless they can find a reason (cf. the deletion record on Commons saying that something was a copyvio) they're going to get angry.
On 11/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
What we really need are links on local projects to the deletion log on Commons for the "no such image" pages... there's nothing like a redlink to make people ask "Whoa! What happened to that image?", but unless they can find a reason (cf. the deletion record on Commons saying that something was a copyvio) they're going to get angry.
I just had this brainwave myself, a week ago. See [[Bugzilla:6909]]: Link to deletion logs, etc. on Special:Upload if the file once existed.
Brianna
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:04:00 +0300, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
What we really need are links on local projects to the deletion log on Commons for the "no such image" pages... there's nothing like a redlink to make people ask "Whoa! What happened to that image?", but unless they can find a reason (cf. the deletion record on Commons saying that something was a copyvio) they're going to get angry.
The red link behaviour is quote awful in my opinion, too. I'd like to mention, just in case, that CommonsTicker also tells a reason why an image was deleted. So it's always a good idea to tell the reason when deleting as file.
Samuli Lintula wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:04:00 +0300, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
What we really need are links on local projects to the deletion log on Commons for the "no such image" pages... there's nothing like a redlink to make people ask "Whoa! What happened to that image?", but unless they can find a reason (cf. the deletion record on Commons saying that something was a copyvio) they're going to get angry.
The red link behaviour is quote awful in my opinion, too. I'd like to mention, just in case, that CommonsTicker also tells a reason why an image was deleted. So it's always a good idea to tell the reason when deleting as file.
We're supposed to be doing that already.
On 08/08/06, Raimond Spekking raimond.spekking@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.
Well, how do you define a copyvio? Almost everything that we delete has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright violation. That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license images. That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once believed to be free but found out to be actually not. Because we suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."
Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds any legal weight.
I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene due to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller wikis.
I think that's a great idea!
Brianna
On 8/7/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Well, how do you define a copyvio? Almost everything that we delete has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright violation.
Actually, we also delete images uploaded that are not violations of copyright but are violations of our license policy - CC-NC-ND etc. are not copyright violations.
-Matt
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com schrieb:
On 08/08/06, Raimond Spekking raimond.spekking@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios.
In my
opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all
others
that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than
copyvios.
Well, how do you define a copyvio?
We do not define it at all. That is defined by law.
Almost everything that we delete has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright violation.
No, we do not delete because we have the suspicion! This makes the thing very tricky. Because the commons-community must prove that we have a clear copivio.
On one hand this is bad because the commons pics have been used on several pages in the internet and nobody can tell us wich pic was first. On the other hand we have the problem that people ignore the warning (and this is the more likely way things happen) and upload pics without asking people from commons first.
I therefore suggest adding to the notice "If unsure contact an administrator see Commons:Administrators".
That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license images.
Yep. And that is good!
That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once believed to be free but found out to be actually not.
Acknowledgement to the first part and but do not understand the second part. I will never delete a photo take of 2D art. Taking a picture of the e.g. "Mona Lisa" makes nobody get new copyright. Even if the museums claim it (the threshold of originality is far to low). But maybe you are talking about 3D statues?
Because we suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.
As I said we must not delete on suspicion.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for
the
violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios,
every day."
Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds any legal weight.
I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene due to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if
the
project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and
smaller
wikis.
I think that's a great idea!
greetings
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
On 08/08/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
Almost everything that we delete has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright violation.
No, we do not delete because we have the suspicion! This makes the thing very tricky. Because the commons-community must prove that we have a clear copivio.
How do you account for deletion of no source/license images? As far as I can see, they're only suspected cases. No one proves anything. (I suppot their deletion of course. Contrary to what you say, I believe the onus of proof is on the uploader, not Commons.)
Brianna
On one hand this is bad because the commons pics have been used on several pages in the internet and nobody can tell us wich pic was first. On the other hand we have the problem that people ignore the warning (and this is the more likely way things happen) and upload pics without asking people from commons first.
I therefore suggest adding to the notice "If unsure contact an administrator see Commons:Administrators".
That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license images.
Yep. And that is good!
That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once believed to be free but found out to be actually not.
Acknowledgement to the first part and but do not understand the second part. I will never delete a photo take of 2D art. Taking a picture of the e.g. "Mona Lisa" makes nobody get new copyright. Even if the museums claim it (the threshold of originality is far to low). But maybe you are talking about 3D statues?
Because we suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.
As I said we must not delete on suspicion.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for
the
violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios,
every day."
Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds any legal weight.
I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene due to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if
the
project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and
smaller
wikis.
I think that's a great idea!
greetings
Paddy
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Thank you for the input to my last post.
Here is the next one!!!!
What is the deal with trademarked images that are not procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on Commons, or should they be wiped out?
An ambitious user created template:trademarked ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked ) that he then applied to some images he did not consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of creativity". The template was applied to, for example, the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.
It was also suggested that the logotype of the Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it does not containt sufficient creative authorship.
This is all based on some persistant users alleged comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to render something copyrightable.
So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability, and what to do with images that are only trademark protected but not copyright protected?
/ Fred a.k.a. Fred-Chess
Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
Thank you for the input to my last post.
Here is the next one!!!!
What is the deal with trademarked images that are not procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on Commons, or should they be wiped out?
An ambitious user created template:trademarked ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked ) that he then applied to some images he did not consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of creativity". The template was applied to, for example, the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.
It was also suggested that the logotype of the Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it does not containt sufficient creative authorship.
This is all based on some persistant users alleged comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to render something copyrightable.
Indeed, said user (Rtc) is basically saying that all logos are free of copyright, although this is most definitely not the case in the UK.
Ed (ed_g2s)
So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability, and what to do with images that are only trademark protected but not copyright protected?
/ Fred a.k.a. Fred-Chess
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I'd say that very few logos are not copyrighted, with the exception of very old ones - and only then in their original form, old enough to be expired - the modern versions are derived works of the originals and the modern version has copyright protection for the differences between itself and any non-copyrighted version.
Given the huge amount of effort companies go through to create a logo and branding, I think the user is kidding themselves if they think there is no 'sweat of the brow' involved in a logo. Be that as it may, German copyright law is not the overriding copyright law of the project; instead US law in general and Florida law in specific is (since that is where the content physically resides and where the Foundation is based). In addition, users must obey the copyright law of the location in which they reside, but this does not over-ride that of the Foundation and servers' location.
US copyright law requires a minimal amount of creativity for copyright to hold - 'mechanical' copyrights do not exist under US law - but that's an easy bar to clear. Pretty much any logo will pass that test.
In addition to copyright law, of course, images on Commons must meet Foundation and Commons policies. I believe it was long established that we did not consider merely making a photo of a logo made it magically 'free' where copying that logo by non-camera means would not.
Photographs of a 3-D object bearing copyrighted design elements are not blanket prohibited under Commons policy, to the best of my knowledge, since under most cases these are not considered copyright violations. However, using such a picture as an 'end run' around bans on copyrighted logos is generally not considered acceptable, I believe (e.g. using a Coca-Cola truck bearing the prominent logo as a surrogate for the logo itself).
-Matt
Quoting Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se: <snip>
This is all based on some persistant users alleged comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to render something copyrightable.
<snip>
Just the opposite I believe. Merely having created something ("sweat of the brow") is enough in the UK, but does not suffice in Germany.
Will
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--- will@avery.homelinux.org skrev:
Quoting Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se:
<snip> > This is all based on some persistant users alleged > comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according > to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to > render something copyrightable. <snip>
Just the opposite I believe. Merely having created something ("sweat of the brow") is enough in the UK, but does not suffice in Germany.
Will
You're right. This misunderstanding was pointed out to me later. "Sweat of the brow" is not applied in Germany, it is other countries such as the U.K. that make use of it.
The German thinking is explained in Template:Logo-Germany ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Logo-Germany ). The template was however created only a few days ago, and is now listed for deletion.
/ Fred Fred-Chess
--- Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se schrieb:
--- will@avery.homelinux.org skrev:
Quoting Fredrik Josefsson fred_chessplayer@yahoo.se:
<snip> > This is all based on some persistant users alleged > comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according > to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to > render something copyrightable. <snip>
Just the opposite I believe. Merely having created something ("sweat of the brow") is enough in the UK, but does not suffice in Germany.
Will
You're right. This misunderstanding was pointed out to me later. "Sweat of the brow" is not applied in Germany, it is other countries such as the U.K. that make use of it.
Correct. But many logos do not get what germans call "Schöpfungshöhe" by law. There is nothing like it in other countries. So it is stupid trying to translate it even though the german article links on [[threshold of originality]] which IMHO is not the same.
I to explain with an example. I take a photograph devide it into x squares so that I can get the exact proportions on the canvas and make a raw sketch with a felt tip. Then I just fill the colors with oil paint. That is hard but dull work involving no creativaty whatsoever. Therefore no "Schöpfungshöhe" is involved. Same for scribble scatches that have their origin during a phone call with the mother in law.
The German thinking is explained in Template:Logo-Germany ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Logo-Germany ). The template was however created only a few days ago, and is now listed for deletion.
WTF! Why has it not been speedy deleted? It is commons policy not to have logos. Now we need to explain why in a deletion process? They may have discussion first and then create such a stupid template. The other way round it is totally ignoring policies that have been accepted by a brought community for years. What has happened to commons?
greetings
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Hi,
Fredrik Josefsson schrieb am 08.08.2006 02:18:
What is the deal with trademarked images that are not procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on Commons, or should they be wiped out?
An ambitious user created template:trademarked ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked ) that he then applied to some images he did not consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of creativity". The template was applied to, for example, the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.
It was also suggested that the logotype of the Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it does not containt sufficient creative authorship.
This is all based on some persistant users alleged comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to render something copyrightable.
So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability, and what to do with images that are only trademark protected but not copyright protected?
About a year ago it was common sense to delete Logos in german Wikipedia and at the Commons. This changed in german Wikipedia (I don't think this is wise) - Logos like http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:GIGAlogo.jpg are keeped and won't be deleted because the supporters argue that regarding german law the "amount of creativity" to create this logo is too low.
I am argueing, the "amount of work, money and nerves" caused by a possible law suit - which won't have to be taken by the supporters - is too high.
In my opinion theese pictures should be deleted from commons (...and de) on sight.
Bye, Tim.
About a year ago it was common sense to delete Logos in german Wikipedia and at the Commons. This changed in german Wikipedia (I don't think this is wise) - Logos like http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:GIGAlogo.jpg are keeped and won't be deleted because the supporters argue that regarding german law the "amount of creativity" to create this logo is too low.
The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term that does not exist as such in the english language. But the reason the german wikipedia does not care is because the german "Urheberrecht" (copyright) is not infringed. We do not even infringe any law including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).
I am argueing, the "amount of work, money and nerves" caused by a possible law suit - which won't have to be taken by the supporters - is too high.
I do not care about that at all. It is the responsibility of the uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even need logo images IMHO. And even if the uploader is sued I do not know on what grounds. If someone prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the stuff he infringes the "Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the uploader whatsoever.
In my opinion theese pictures should be deleted from commons (...and de) on sight.
From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about
international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues like WP de and WM commons.
greetings
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
On 8/8/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term that does not exist as such in the english language. But the reason the german wikipedia does not care is because the german "Urheberrecht" (copyright) is not infringed. We do not even infringe any law including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).
Is there solid legal precedent that under German law, trademarked logos cannot be copyrighted, under any circumstances? In other words, has more analysis gone into this than a few de: users reading the law for themselves and working out what they think it means?
I do not care about that [a lawsuit] at all. It is the responsibility of the uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even need logo images IMHO. And even if the uploader is sued I do not know on what grounds. If someone prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the stuff he infringes the "Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the uploader whatsoever.
The uploader may be the first responsible person, but not the only person who could be sued, I'm sure. If de: image policy is changed to allow such use, and it is later found to be incorrect to consider logos as uncopyrightable, it's possible that those involved in that enabling decision - or the foundation itself, or the German equivalent, could be sued. Even if such a lawsuit is unsuccessful, it would require time and money we'd rather not spend.
From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about
international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues like WP de and WM commons.
WP de needs to respect international law as well, for that matter, unless all the servers are now located in Germany and have severed all ties to the Florida-based Foundation, which I don't believe has happened.
I would especially argue caution for trademarks of non-German entities, but I think that caution is required all round.
-Matt
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com schrieb:
On 8/8/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term that does not exist as such in the english language. But the
reason
the german wikipedia does not care is because the german "Urheberrecht" (copyright) is not infringed. We do not even infringe any law including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).
Is there solid legal precedent that under German law, trademarked logos cannot be copyrighted, under any circumstances?
No.
In other words, has more analysis gone into this than a few de:
users
reading the law for themselves and working out what they think it means?
No.
I do not care about that [a lawsuit] at all. It is the responsibility of the uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even
need
logo images IMHO. And even if the uploader is sued I do not know
on
what grounds. If someone prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the stuff he infringes the "Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the uploader whatsoever.
The uploader may be the first responsible person, but not the only person who could be sued, I'm sure. If de: image policy is changed to allow such use, and it is later found to be incorrect to consider logos as uncopyrightable, it's possible that those involved in that enabling decision - or the foundation itself, or the German equivalent, could be sued. Even if such a lawsuit is unsuccessful, it would require time and money we'd rather not spend.
They are not uncopyrightable if the "Schöpfungshöhe" is big enough. Some logos consist of a simple letter like the german telecom but in that case they need to use the german "Geschmacksmuster"-law (registered design) but we do not care about that in WM-projects AFAIK. Furthermore I think that you would need at least a whole 256 character set before you could use "Geschmacksmuster"-law. The deutsche Telekom infact tried to protect the letter and the used color but failed in a lawsuit (If you whant to know which laws I would have to do some research).
I agree on the latter that if there is a lawsuit we would see how usless these logos are in WM-projects. For companies it is the best advertising ever having an article with logo in WP. Therefore suppose the risk is so low, that it is more dangerous to cross the street a billion times. But as a german saying translates "people have seen horses throw up" (a very unlikely but possible event).
Nevertheless we do not disuss the german situation but the commons situation which must consider international law.
From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues like WP de and WM commons.
WP de needs to respect international law as well, for that matter, unless all the servers are now located in Germany and have severed all ties to the Florida-based Foundation, which I don't believe has happened.
I am not 100% sure if it is like you say. Being a german citizen writing german articles does not make me liable in a country like e.g. Australia no matter if the foundation server is in St. Petersburg or in Canberra. At least not concerning copyright matters. Otherwise it would be OK for germans to use "fair use"-images in german articles which we do not even though the server is in America.
I would especially argue caution for trademarks of non-German entities, but I think that caution is required all round.
Very wise ;-)
greetings
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Hi,
Patrick-Emil Zörner schrieb am 09.08.2006 09:41:
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com schrieb: For companies it is the best advertising ever having an article with logo in WP. Therefore suppose the risk is so low, that it is more dangerous to cross the street a billion times.
You assume that the company likes the article. Most probably this won't be the case if the article mentions unlawfull events, "bad behaviour" in history like the Third Reich or something like that.
Also the problem most probably isn't the use of the image in our articles but the use by other persons because of the license.
But as a german saying translates "people have seen horses throw up" (a very unlikely but possible event).
Offtopic: Is this possible? To throw up you need two basic features: 1) The stomach ... ah well, too complicated in english. Because offtopic, now in german: Zum kotzen brauchst du mindestens zwei zugrundeliegende Faehigkeiten: Zum einen muss sich der Magen heftig und schnell zusammenzihen koennen und gleichzeitig muss der Muskel, der Magen und Speiseroehre verbinded sich oeffnen. Bei Pferden ist es meines Wissens nicht moeglich, dass sich durch diesen Muskel Mageninhalt wieder in die Speiseroehre begibt. Aber vielleicht sollten wir das off-list weiterdiskutieren ;-)
Bye, Tim.
2006/8/7, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking for us. User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.
I am willing to offer my services here. I am an admin (even bureaucrat) on Commons, but have not been active recently simply because there's so much more to do; however, I think I can be of much use here because I already have logins on basically all Wikipedia languages, so I can act as if single logon already exists. If you can inform me of images that should be deleted but currently are not because they are still in use, I'd be happy to go around and unlink them. Letting me do so would I think be better than having a bot for it, because I will go and check whether there is any replacement available, and replacing is much harder than delinking to do by bot (because one has to check whether the subtitle is still applicable).
On 08/08/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/8/7, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking for us. User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.
I am willing to offer my services here. I am an admin (even bureaucrat) on Commons, but have not been active recently simply because there's so much more to do; however, I think I can be of much use here because I already have logins on basically all Wikipedia languages, so I can act as if single logon already exists. If you can inform me of images that should be deleted but currently are not because they are still in use, I'd be happy to go around and unlink them. Letting me do so would I think be better than having a bot for it, because I will go and check whether there is any replacement available, and replacing is much harder than delinking to do by bot (because one has to check whether the subtitle is still applicable).
You know we are talking about thousands of images... right?
Well you can start at [[Category:Against policy]] and from there it's a long slog through [[Category:Unknown]] subcategories... all of them more than 7 days old that is. Which is most of them. You can use messages from [[User:Pfctdayelise/Translations]] in edit summaries if you like.
Brianna
2006/8/9, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
You know we are talking about thousands of images... right?
Well you can start at [[Category:Against policy]] and from there it's a long slog through [[Category:Unknown]] subcategories... all of them more than 7 days old that is. Which is most of them. You can use messages from [[User:Pfctdayelise/Translations]] in edit summaries if you like.
I know that, I am going through subcategories of [[Category:Unknown]] sometimes, and do some deletions here and there.
What I was looking for was more a list of images that would already have been deleted, if it were not being used on projects.
Based on Andre's comment I have an idea with a different approach that may help.
What if MediaWiki would have a special page indicating which linked images/files on the wiki would have no actual file available locally or on commons/a shared filestore? That way wiki administrators could more easily get insight in file/image red links and Commons administrators would have to delink 'off site' a lot less, since local wiki administrators would have a more comprehensive insight in their red links related to images/files; together with the Commons Ticker, I may even be no longer required to delink off-site if the admin 'does not feel like doing it.'
I have searched http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org and haven't been able to find a feature request for such a feature at the moment. As far as I know this feature is currently not available, although functionality may be closely related to that of Special:Wantedpages. If this approach would serve both commons admins and local wiki admins, I think it would be worth trying to get this feature built.
Cheers, Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] Namens Andre Engels Verzonden: woensdag 9 augustus 2006 15:12 Aan: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] Deletion of still-used images
<snip>
What I was looking for was more a list of images that would already have been deleted, if it were not being used on projects.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi!
On 8/9/06, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
Based on Andre's comment I have an idea with a different approach that may help.
What if MediaWiki would have a special page indicating which linked images/files on the wiki would have no actual file available locally or on commons/a shared filestore? That way wiki administrators could more easily get insight in file/image red links and Commons administrators would have to delink 'off site' a lot less, since local wiki administrators would have a more comprehensive insight in their red links related to images/files; together with the Commons Ticker, I may even be no longer required to delink off-site if the admin 'does not feel like doing it.'
I have searched http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org and haven't been able to find a feature request for such a feature at the moment. As far as I know this feature is currently not available, although functionality may be closely related to that of Special:Wantedpages. If this approach would serve both commons admins and local wiki admins, I think it would be worth trying to get this feature built.
See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
With best regards, Eugene.
On 09/08/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/8/9, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
You know we are talking about thousands of images... right?
Well you can start at [[Category:Against policy]] and from there it's a long slog through [[Category:Unknown]] subcategories... all of them more than 7 days old that is. Which is most of them. You can use messages from [[User:Pfctdayelise/Translations]] in edit summaries if you like.
I know that, I am going through subcategories of [[Category:Unknown]] sometimes, and do some deletions here and there.
What I was looking for was more a list of images that would already have been deleted, if it were not being used on projects.
Well, I strongly recommend using Magnus Manske's "Bad Old Ones" tool. You can create an automatic link to it on a category page (such as [[Category:Images with unknown source as of 11 June 2006]]) but putting the template {{delete assist}}. (I don't recommend putting it on larger categories because it takes quite a while to run.)
It reads CheckUsage and tells you if the image is being used or not. So you can easily identify "quick" deletions (not in use) as well as those that need de-linking.
Well, in theory it does. It seems a bit broken at the moment. :( Hopefully Magnus will get it up and running again soon.
cheers, Brianna
"Andre Engels" wrote:
I am willing to offer my services here. I am an admin (even bureaucrat) on Commons, but have not been active recently simply because there's so much more to do; however, I think I can be of much use here because I already have logins on basically all Wikipedia languages, so I can act as if single logon already exists. If you can inform me of images that should be deleted but currently are not because they are still in use, I'd be happy to go around and unlink them. Letting me do so would I think be better than having a bot for it, because I will go and check whether there is any replacement available, and replacing is much harder than delinking to do by bot (because one has to check whether the subtitle is still applicable).
You may find my image-unlinking monobook useful. Just link at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Platonides/Imagenes.js (it requires http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Platonides/reemplazar.js). It will list the used images on the bottom, near the used-templates, with a link to 'unlink-all' As always, use freely but please feedback. I haven't tested it but in Firefox so it may give surprises ;-)
On a related note: the next version of CommonsTicker will (optionally) post warnings on the talk pages of articles that use "endangered" or recently deleted images.
-- Daniel
"Brianna Laugher" wrote:
Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking for us.....
Returning to the idea of how to delete, and the problem communities have against 'intruder bots' i propose the following: Both if deletions are no source/license or at COM:DEL, real deletion will wait at least 7 days, so a bot would: -Wait two days as the uploader may read the message on its discussion and fix it. I have found Orgullobot removing images too early. -The third day the bot posts a {{WarningCommonsDelete|BadImage}} on the articles discussion. if someone watches that article, should notice it and be able to manually fix it. These templates would be per-project translated, as the CommonsTicker's. The following templates would be used: *Image lacks source/license. *Image has been listed for deletion, see [[...]] *Superseeded image. They would at the end explain the bot behaviour if no action is taken.
-Now the community an join to the discussion, change the article, etc.
-The sixth/seventh day the bot removes/replaces the image from the page. The community can't really complain as it ahs been warned. -The seventh day the the image is unliked (summary in the corresponding lang: Image to be deleted, see discussion) and ready to del. :-)
I find it better than CT in the way that it's not the duty of those "watching the CT " to fix them, than it's of article's users. If they don't found the warning, they wouldn't also notice vandalism... And the bot is at last setting the 'presumed good action'.
I'm sure Orgullomoore, Duesentrieb, and a few others would kindly do it. I include myself in the list :-) But before doing a bot, do we want it? Some points to dicuss: *What to do with copyvios? What should be the bot action? *Should the bot check on the discussion for a template parameter to 'avoid bot action'? (i.e. the community wants to keep the image even when it's going to be deleted :S) *What should do the bot if it doesn't find the image? (e.g. the image is generated through template syntax). *The bot probably may need a 'suggested replacement' template. If it's said on COM:DEL can't figure. *Add a user syntax to 'undo image x removal' ? *Should it be an opt-in bot, like the CommonsTicket, or should we run it for everywiki from start? Beta testing on a project-only will be needed, but i'd vote for the second. There's no much need to be done logged in, as there will be a text warning so ips could do it. Do as a user preferred, though. *Should the bot remove the warning template when the job is done? Pros: -There's no a increasing warning list with nobody reading -If users discuss it and want it to stay, can set a template parameter, so the bot doesn't remove it.
Couns: -It hides the discussion message we wanted to add.
Any more steps suggested? Comments? Merciless critiques?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:47:57 +0200, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Returning to the idea of how to delete, and the problem communities have against 'intruder bots' i propose the following: Both if deletions are no source/license or at COM:DEL, real deletion will wait at least 7 days, so a bot would: -Wait two days as the uploader may read the message on its discussion and fix it. I have found Orgullobot removing images too early. -The third day the bot posts a {{WarningCommonsDelete|BadImage}} on the articles discussion. if someone watches that article, should notice it and be able to manually fix it. These templates would be per-project translated, as the CommonsTicker's. The following templates would be used: *Image lacks source/license. *Image has been listed for deletion, see [[...]] *Superseeded image. They would at the end explain the bot behaviour if no action is taken.
<snip>
*What should do the bot if it doesn't find the image? (e.g. the image is generated through template syntax).
<snip>
That should be fairly straight forward, simply delink from all the templates fist, then you can either make the bot smart enough to check the local job que and go to sleep for a reasonable amount of time (length of job que * X seconds imedeately after delinking from the last template), and then reload the list of articles it's used in. Alternatively simply keep going though the list once it has delinked from the templates and just skip to the next one (alternatively do a null edit first if you don't feel like waiting for the job que to finish to verify that the image is gone) if the image is not found in the current article.
For bonus credit the bot might chek whatlinkshere from the templates the image is used in first and post an alternative warning message to the talk page of the articles that use it along the lines "Image XXX (included via <templatename>) is listed for deletion on Commons ..." to make it easier for editors to track it down. Only problem is it might result in some unnessesary "spam" if the image is used in something like a stub template.
There're templates made like {{countryflag|spain}} with a nice table which include [[Image:flag of {{{1}}}.svg]], so it's impossible the bot can detect why the flag is included.
Remove te mplates first is a good point.