On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote: The template was invented only recently, and has been applied to FlickrLickr images even more recently. FlickrLickr images are reviewed & correctly licensed (they were all under CC-BY when my bot spidered them); CC licenses are not revocable. The justification here is that "Another look can't hurt"; I'm worried that it will cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: *Sigh* Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics. We *depend* on the goodwill of content creators for our success. We will squander our good will by taking advantage of simple mistakes made by people who couldn't be expected to know any better. Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder. Part of our review process thanks Flickr users for their selection of a free licenses. This serves three purposes: It increases our confidence that no mistake was made, it promotes free licenses over non-free ones, and it raises awareness of our project and encourages people to become direct contributors. I hope that you can see the advantages of review and will withdraw your objections. No one is asking you to do any work on it... and the end result should be a healther collection of content and a larger community. I think it's a good tradeoff for verses a tiny number of potentially ambiguously copyrighted images that we'll lose.

IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a dropdown box. Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr user. A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images uploaded directly to Commons. Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to do.

2007/2/20, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>: Not really, there is a link to the image description page on Flickr, but I rarely use it. In general all you see is the photograph, description and tags (not the comments). The only way I sometimes notice copyvios on FlickrLickr is that there is a series of images (the images are shown in order of posting to Flickr, so if one person posts a series to Flickr, it usually shows up close to each other in FlickrLickr) that seems 'too good to be true'. Then I might go and check, and find that it indeed is. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is no dropdown on the upload screen. Licensing is a user preference, and not an easy to find one (I just took about 3 minutes to find it again, even though I've been there several times -- it's under "Your account|Privacy & Permissions|Defaults for new uploads"). The main problem is that Flickr does not indicate the currently selected license on the upload screen (though it does show it once the file has been uploaded), and that it makes it easy to "change" the licensing retroactively as many times as the user wants. But I find any claim of accidental CC licensing on Flickr very hard to believe, as it takes significant effort and understanding to use the CC option in the first place. I encourage copyright review and verification on all resources hosted on Wikimedia projects. The Flickrreview process is strangely specific, especially given that FlickrLickr _already_ involves human volunteer reviewers. When repeated copyvios from a particular Flickr user are pointed out to me, I also delete all their metadata from my database, so that no further images are shown for review. We should work towards a solution that is not specific to one resource. The underlying principles will be similar to the "stable version" idea: if a user is not trusted, all their uploads will have to undergo copyright review. Such review could take two stages - smell test, and detailed review. The smell test would be the check for obvious signs of copyvio: promo photo, screenshot, etc. The detailed review could involve contacting the copyright holder. The smell test is mandatory, whereas the review is optional (but desirable). A first way to implement this approach without special software would be to only use positive tagging for pictures that _have_ undergone in-depth copyright review, rather than trying to negative-tag all those which are semi-suspicious. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

On 2/23/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: I would agree that it's vanishingly unlikely that a Flickr user would accidentally select a Creative Commons license rather than 'All rights reserved'. The latter is the default; changing the upload default isn't the most obvious thing in the Flickr interface, as Erik says. Changing the license on an image post-update is easier, but again unlikely to be done accidentally. I suspect that what Greg is concerned about is that someone may intend a CC license but inadvertently select one that is different from the one they intended, or one they do not understand the implications of. Since no compensation has been given to the Flickr user, no implied contract exists and thus we don't have that protection against accidental mis-licensing as Greg says. I'd suspect Wikipedia and our user who uploaded it would be fairly protected against any lawsuit for damages, but it would still be an irritation for all. I suspect you're both right here; Erik, that checking the status of FlickrLickr images is a lower priority, and Greg, that it's still ideally worth doing. -Matt