Hi all of you.
In the last months I recogniced more and more uploaders wanted their Images to be deleted. In normal cases I delete on uploaders request, but not if someone wants to have all his images / most of them deleted. This is problematic, because all the Licenses we have are _unrevokable!_
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
I belive we should get a clear consenus about this. (For example blocking in cases as above!?) Do you have any Ideas?
Regards,
ABF
ABF write:
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
the only way i see is to file charges. Because of fraud, maybe? The problem is to show the damage done.
-- daniel
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 16:00, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
ABF write:
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
the only way i see is to file charges. Because of fraud, maybe? The problem is to show the damage done.
I suppose we'd have to prove that uploading on commons with a licence template is binding before we can file charges... Which kind of negates "assume good faith" altogether. :/
I think the answer lies in even more information towards our user base. Users of Wikimedia projects, I think, just don't *get* the *free* part for most. It's just a cool thing they do, upload their pictures for Wikipedia...
Delphine
I Think if a user is asking for deletion for one or two image's with good reassons the image can be deleted. But without very good reasson the image should stay.
for the second part. If a user ask to remove all image's because he is not the maker. We should block the user for ever. But he released the image's under a licence. He is the one getting in trouble not wmf. The image should be kept when they are used.
Houdoe, Huib Also now as SterkeBak
ABF wrote:
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
He claimed he was the creator of the images when he uploaded them, right? So it becomes "either you were lying to us then, or you're lying to us now" - without any additional evidence, we could simply choose to believe that the uploader is lying now.
We could up the ante and insist that the uploader publish an affidavit giving real name and affirming the original upload claims were fraudulent, and of course being banned forever from all Wikimedia projects. Let's see how many people really want the top Google hit on the name to be a public admission of fraud...
Stan
let us see first whether the images in question can be deleted without prejudice for our projects. Chances are that in the vast majority of the cases, they are worthless.
-- Rama
On 17/09/2008, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
ABF wrote:
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
He claimed he was the creator of the images when he uploaded them, right? So it becomes "either you were lying to us then, or you're lying to us now" - without any additional evidence, we could simply choose to believe that the uploader is lying now.
We could up the ante and insist that the uploader publish an affidavit giving real name and affirming the original upload claims were fraudulent, and of course being banned forever from all Wikimedia projects. Let's see how many people really want the top Google hit on the name to be a public admission of fraud...
Stan
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
let us see first whether the images in question can be deleted without prejudice for our projects. Chances are that in the vast majority of the cases, they are worthless.
-- Rama
Yes, if the images are random party photos, we're better with them deleted ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
let us see first whether the images in question can be deleted without prejudice for our projects. Chances are that in the vast majority of the cases, they are worthless.
-- Rama
Yes, if the images are random party photos, we're better with them deleted ;)
I would like to add as well, as Mike Godwin pointed out to me by instant message regarding another discussion, that in most jurisdictions, persons under 18 are unable to sign a contract without parental consent. Anyone under 18 can therefore demand his/her pictures be removed without prejudice.
:) In that respect, I'd like to request anyone who has uploaded images before their 18th birthday and now are over 18 now put a statement somewhere (userpage, template) saying that everything they uploaded as a minor without parental consent contains the license they originally put it as. I'm only half-joking.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
Cary Bass wrote:
I would like to add as well, as Mike Godwin pointed out to me by instant message regarding another discussion, that in most jurisdictions, persons under 18 are unable to sign a contract without parental consent. Anyone under 18 can therefore demand his/her pictures be removed without prejudice.
In such case, they wouldn't be able either to demand it being removed. We should demand the parent to do the request. Hey Dad, I entered an agreement I legally couldn't and now I want to revoke it because I don't want my photos there any more, but they don't want to because I placed it on public domain. Embarrasing at least. The parent doesn't need to punish him but wil hopefully feep an eye on his child's action.
I'm curious, did we ever have a parent finding a photo of the penis of his son?
2008/9/17 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
I'm curious, did we ever have a parent finding a photo of the penis of his son?
I believe all the contemporary photographs which focus on the penis that we currently host are of individuals over 18.
-- geni
geni wrote:
2008/9/17 Platonides
I'm curious, did we ever have a parent finding a photo of the penis of his son?
I believe all the contemporary photographs which focus on the penis that we currently host are of individuals over 18.
- geni
Luckily. And its deletion if present wouldn't be controversial.
I was focusing on 'kid posting his photos with parental disagreement' ...and penis are a topic too popular.
2008/9/18 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com:
geni wrote:
2008/9/17 Platonides
I'm curious, did we ever have a parent finding a photo of the penis of his son?
I believe all the contemporary photographs which focus on the penis that we currently host are of individuals over 18.
- geni
Luckily. And its deletion if present wouldn't be controversial.
Well there was some opposition but nothing a carefully phrased argument and the IRC cabal couldn't handle.
I was focusing on 'kid posting his photos with parental disagreement' ...and penis are a topic too popular.
Not aware of any such cases.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/17 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
I'm curious, did we ever have a parent finding a photo of the penis of his son?
I believe all the contemporary photographs which focus on the penis that we currently host are of individuals over 18.
To be honest, we "assume" this unless we've been somehow vetting all the faceless shots of genitalia in a way I haven't noticed before.
- Joe
2008/9/17 ABF wikipediabaeren@gmx.de:
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
I belive we should get a clear consenus about this. (For example blocking in cases as above!?) Do you have any Ideas?
When it's someone who's just decided they don't want to play any more, and where it's just them storming off and demanding we delete everything as they go, we can justify a somewhat blunt response (though I might not go as far as Stan's approach!). Compare enwp's response to "delete all my contributions, I don't like this project any more" requests.
I think we do need to be careful not to assume such a request is *always* bad faith, and should *always* be blocked and refused - there are entirely legitimate circumstances where someone could discover that they don't actually own the copyrights to a set of images they thought they did, and in such cases, I think we'd have to be helpful and (if at all possible) not punish them for an honest error!
Consider if someone stands up and says something like "I took these whilst working, and I didn't realise until today that under my contract, my employer owns the rights"; or perhaps "My grandfather took these pictures, and I thought I inherited the rights, but it turns out someone else did". These cases aren't the same as storming off in a pique, but they could easily look like it, especially if the person making the request is upset over it or if there are language difficulties.
A more marginal case would be someone who hasn't suddenly decided they don't want to play any more (like our original, *but* has just realised that the GFDL or a Creative Commons license wasn't quite what they thought it was.
I'm sure most of us would delete a single image for those reasons if the uploader came to us fifteen minutes after uploading and said "oh, look, I'm really sorry, but I didn't quite think this through..." - would we do it after a day? a week? a year? How about if it was two images, ten images, a hundred? Does the quality or rarity of them influence our decision?
At some point in this, it goes from being reasonable to unreasonable, and I don't think we can draw a general line very easily - it really does boil down to whether or not the person seems like they're being silly.
The quality certainly does influence the decision, in the sense that if I see a pile of, say, blurry photographs of cats, I will shortcut all the decision process and delete right away, knowing that we have better in store.
That was the essence of my remark: depending on the quality of the images in question and the ease with which they can be replaced or redone (assuming they are used at all), it might not even be worth bothering to think a lot. We can make someone happy (or at least avoid further annoying a disgruntled user) while sparing ourselves the questions on legality and principles.
-- Rama
On 17/09/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/17 ABF wikipediabaeren@gmx.de:
Yesterday there was a user who clearly wants all of his Images yust to have all his Images gone and after we opposed his CSD-request he yust said "My father/sister/whatever took the Image, so its unfree" and we had to delete them all.
I belive we should get a clear consenus about this. (For example blocking in cases as above!?) Do you have any Ideas?
When it's someone who's just decided they don't want to play any more, and where it's just them storming off and demanding we delete everything as they go, we can justify a somewhat blunt response (though I might not go as far as Stan's approach!). Compare enwp's response to "delete all my contributions, I don't like this project any more" requests.
I think we do need to be careful not to assume such a request is *always* bad faith, and should *always* be blocked and refused - there are entirely legitimate circumstances where someone could discover that they don't actually own the copyrights to a set of images they thought they did, and in such cases, I think we'd have to be helpful and (if at all possible) not punish them for an honest error!
Consider if someone stands up and says something like "I took these whilst working, and I didn't realise until today that under my contract, my employer owns the rights"; or perhaps "My grandfather took these pictures, and I thought I inherited the rights, but it turns out someone else did". These cases aren't the same as storming off in a pique, but they could easily look like it, especially if the person making the request is upset over it or if there are language difficulties.
A more marginal case would be someone who hasn't suddenly decided they don't want to play any more (like our original, *but* has just realised that the GFDL or a Creative Commons license wasn't quite what they thought it was.
I'm sure most of us would delete a single image for those reasons if the uploader came to us fifteen minutes after uploading and said "oh, look, I'm really sorry, but I didn't quite think this through..." - would we do it after a day? a week? a year? How about if it was two images, ten images, a hundred? Does the quality or rarity of them influence our decision?
At some point in this, it goes from being reasonable to unreasonable, and I don't think we can draw a general line very easily - it really does boil down to whether or not the person seems like they're being silly.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2008/9/17 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
A more marginal case would be someone who hasn't suddenly decided they don't want to play any more (like our original, *but* has just realised that the GFDL or a Creative Commons license wasn't quite what they thought it was.
This is a real-life circumstance. Such cases always have to be dealt with individually, and not being a dick about it is important. People just don't get these licenses. We've had people reach admin on en:wp without understanding that they're supposed to have licensed the work irrevocably for the whole world and not just Wikimedia.
At some point in this, it goes from being reasonable to unreasonable, and I don't think we can draw a general line very easily - it really does boil down to whether or not the person seems like they're being silly.
We have to start with the assumption they're not being.
- d.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/17 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
A more marginal case would be someone who hasn't suddenly decided they don't want to play any more (like our original, *but* has just realised that the GFDL or a Creative Commons license wasn't quite what they thought it was.
This is a real-life circumstance. Such cases always have to be dealt with individually, and not being a dick about it is important. People just don't get these licenses. We've had people reach admin on en:wp without understanding that they're supposed to have licensed the work irrevocably for the whole world and not just Wikimedia.
Does this tend to come up more on OTRS or onwiki?
- Joe
2008/9/18 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is a real-life circumstance. Such cases always have to be dealt with individually, and not being a dick about it is important. People just don't get these licenses. We've had people reach admin on en:wp without understanding that they're supposed to have licensed the work irrevocably for the whole world and not just Wikimedia.
Does this tend to come up more on OTRS or onwiki?
I have no idea about OTRS. It comes up on the wikis fairly infrequently, but often enough to need ways to deal with it.
The key point is that in most cases, the contributor didn't realise what "free content" means in all its terrible glory. Even the stroppy ones must be assumed to be thrashing about with sincere intentions, and doing what we can within reason is the way to go.
- d.