What to do with [[Category:Own work]]? Instead of asking each and every author for a license (with many authors probably unreachable), how about this:
1. People who upload their own work at the commons obviously want them to be realeased under a free license (otherwise, they'd go to flicker or something) 2. As they didn't chose a license, they either didn't know they have to, and/or don't care about these "legal technicalities" 3. In order to grant their obvious wish to release these images under a free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images 4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly 5. Where the author is easily reachable, leave them a note what we did
Wikimedia projects live on "assume good faith", and IMHO we should do so where peoble uploaded their own images and just forgot to add {{GFDL}}.
Magnus
- In order to grant their obvious wish to release these images under a
free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images 4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly
That's not a bad idea actually. As long as we leave {{OwnWork}}. With all our bots running around now there should be far fewer cases.
Probably I would just make it {{GFDL}} though. I think it'd be stretching it to put a CC license, just because we like them. :) Whereas it's much more likely they're aware that Wikipedia is GFDL.
At the moment {{own work}} actually says it is depreciated to NLD. :| I rather disagree with this but I understand the need for it. These OwnWorks just hang around forever...
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
- In order to grant their obvious wish to release these images under a
free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images 4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly
That's not a bad idea actually. As long as we leave {{OwnWork}}. With all our bots running around now there should be far fewer cases.
Probably I would just make it {{GFDL}} though. I think it'd be stretching it to put a CC license, just because we like them. :) Whereas it's much more likely they're aware that Wikipedia is GFDL.
At the moment {{own work}} actually says it is depreciated to NLD. :| I rather disagree with this but I understand the need for it. These OwnWorks just hang around forever...
Brianna
At the German Wikipedia a similar template ({{Bild-wahrscheinlich-GFDL}}, "Image likely to be GFDL") has been deleted recently because it was not clear in some cases whether the user really wanted to release it under this license. de:User:Historiograf stated that one should not simply assume a license under which a picture is released, especially it a user did not understand the "legal technicalities".
The whole discusson can be found at http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen&...
Matthias wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
- In order to grant their obvious wish to release these images under a
free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images 4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly
That's not a bad idea actually. As long as we leave {{OwnWork}}. With all our bots running around now there should be far fewer cases.
Probably I would just make it {{GFDL}} though. I think it'd be stretching it to put a CC license, just because we like them. :) Whereas it's much more likely they're aware that Wikipedia is GFDL.
At the moment {{own work}} actually says it is depreciated to NLD. :| I rather disagree with this but I understand the need for it. These OwnWorks just hang around forever...
Brianna
At the German Wikipedia a similar template ({{Bild-wahrscheinlich-GFDL}}, "Image likely to be GFDL") has been deleted recently because it was not clear in some cases whether the user really wanted to release it under this license. de:User:Historiograf stated that one should not simply assume a license under which a picture is released, especially it a user did not understand the "legal technicalities".
Germans are strange people. Oh wait...
The whole discusson can be found at http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen&...
I quote what seems to be the central argument: "Zu behaupten, dass jedem genau die Konsequenzen eines Hochladens absolut klar sein müssen, ist reine Heuchelei." roughly "Claiming that everyone realizes the exact consequences of uploading images is pure hypocrisy."
I don't agree with that statement. What if someone uploads an image on commons, chosing "GFDL" as a license, then comes back a year later, claiming "I didn't know what that meant, I want the image removed"? What if the image is used on a dozen wikipedias? Do we just delete it? I think not.
The upload page clearly startes that only images under a free license (or PD) are acceptable at commons. If someone uploads an image, we have to assume that (s)he understands that. It's like a contract - if you change your mind later, too bad for you.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be as forthcoming as possible in individual cases; neither does it mean we shouldn't try whatever we can to find and ask the author directly. *But*, if there's no apparent way to contact the author, we should either * delete the image if it looks fishy (less dramatic soon through the image undeletion function) OR * put it under a free license, as it was intended by the uploader (intention proved by uploading the image, thus agreeing to our conditions)
Otherwise, we'd continue presenting an unfree image on our site, which is the worst option IMHO.
We should keep a note about this, though, in case the original author comes back one day. (S)he might decide to release it additionally under another license, for example.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
- People who upload their own work at the commons obviously want them
to be realeased under a free license (otherwise, they'd go to flicker or something) 2. As they didn't chose a license, they either didn't know they have to, and/or don't care about these "legal technicalities" 3. In order to grant their obvious wish to release these images under a free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images 4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly 5. Where the author is easily reachable, leave them a note what we did
I am on a train right now, and so I can't see what the {{OwnWork}} template says, but in general making any sort of assumption about what a user might have meant, with respect to licensing, is a very dangerous idea. This should be doubly true for commons, which tries to be the gold standard for freely licensed images, and which can not rely on "fair use" rationales in the same way that some-language Wikipedia currently do.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
- People who upload their own work at the commons obviously want them
to be realeased under a free license (otherwise, they'd go to flicker or something) 2. As they didn't chose a license, they either didn't know they have to, and/or don't care about these "legal technicalities" 3. In order to grant their obvious wish to release these images under a free license, we add GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 to all of these images 4. We leave {{OwnWork}} and change it into a notice that the license information below is assumed, and if the author doesn't agree, (s)he should write a note on the talk page or fix it directly 5. Where the author is easily reachable, leave them a note what we did
I am on a train right now, and so I can't see what the {{OwnWork}} template says, but in general making any sort of assumption about what a user might have meant, with respect to licensing, is a very dangerous idea. This should be doubly true for commons, which tries to be the gold standard for freely licensed images, and which can not rely on "fair use" rationales in the same way that some-language Wikipedia currently do.
I am not claiming "fair use", I'm trying to back up the user's intention (release under a fair license) with a concrete implementation (GFDL).
Basically, we have three options: * Find the user who uploaded the image and make him/her chose a license (great!) * User can't be found, assuming good faith and calling it GFDL * User can't be found, assuming nothing and deleting the image
Magnus
Basically, we have three options:
- Find the user who uploaded the image and make him/her chose a license
(great!)
- User can't be found, assuming good faith and calling it GFDL
- User can't be found, assuming nothing and deleting the image
Fourth option: Store them virtually indefinitely with a disclaimer, occupying some uncertain limbo between freeness and unfreeness.
Oh wait... that's what we're doing ;)
I have to reluctantly agree that we shouldn't assume anything when it comes to licensing. So maybe delete them as free alternatives are created. (So deleting the orphans should be ok...)
Brianna