In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:42:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
Let's not do that again - if you don't think your problem is being addressed, please restate it more clearly>>
-------------------- We allow fair-use images. We allow them. That's my position.
Running bots to tag improperly tagged images (11,000 in two days) and then asking admins to run through with meat cleavers and weed-whackers, was incredibly irresponsible. Now we have to go back, and reload many images improperly deleted because admins were given an impossible task.
I didn't bring this issue up. It was and is a serious problem. Some corrections have been made. I don't think however we've seen the end of it. And the insistence that there isn't a problem, doesn't make it go away.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
We allow fair-use images. We allow them. That's my position.
Well, yes, we do ...
Running bots to tag improperly tagged images (11,000 in two days) and then asking admins to run through with meat cleavers and weed-whackers, was incredibly irresponsible. Now we have to go back, and reload many images improperly deleted because admins were given an impossible task.
Despite me repeatedly requesting you do so, you've yet to name even one case of such, let alone many. Let alone one (or many) that were somehow irrecoverable due to admins going through with meat cleavers and weed-whackers.
I didn't bring this issue up. It was and is a serious problem. Some corrections have been made. I don't think however we've seen the end of it. And the insistence that there isn't a problem, doesn't make it go away.
I'm still utterly unconvinced it's more than a public relations problem with BetacommandBot's presentation, problems that Betacommand has in fact been addressing. Because, you know, the bot really isn't doing anything that's actually contrary to the wording *or* the spirit of the non-free images policy.
- d.
On 02/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Running bots to tag improperly tagged images (11,000 in two days) and then asking admins to run through with meat cleavers and weed-whackers, was incredibly irresponsible. Now we have to go back, and reload many images improperly deleted because admins were given an impossible task.
Despite me repeatedly requesting you do so, you've yet to name even one case of such, let alone many. Let alone one (or many) that were somehow irrecoverable due to admins going through with meat cleavers and weed-whackers.
Hey, Will! You've been answering every other post, I'm still waiting for your answer on this one.
Could you please reply with:
(a) a list of cases of improperly-tagged images? (b) images in (a) that have been deleted? (c) images in (b) that were somehow not easily recoverable, and why?
And I mean an actual list, posted by you here, rather than a vague reference to some other page written by someone else where you go "it's all there, trust me."
This will go a lot further toward establishing that your complaints about BetacommandBot/the Foundation licensing policy/the en:wp non-free images policy/whatever else are about an actual problem, rather than a theoretical one.
Thanks!
- d.
Will Johnson wrote:
We allow fair-use images. We allow them. That's my position.
See, there's your problem.
This used to be my problem, too. Here's how I fixed it (by which I mean, here's how I arranged that it isn't a problem that bugs me any more). As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia's image policy is:
We don't allow fair-use images. We don't allow them. We allow only free images.
Now there are two teensy problems with this position: (a) I don't like it, and (2) it's not, strictly, absolutely, 100.000% correct.
a. Well, that's too bad. There are a number of things in this world of ours that I don't like. But it's now abundantly clear, on this issue, either that I'm in the minority, or that while I might be in some silent majority, the vocal minority (which is vociferously in favor of removing everything but free images) has so vastly much more time and energy on its hands that I'm never, ever going to win. So I concede, and sleep easy. I am not, in fact, so devoted to Wikipedia's perfection that I consider it my problem that [[Ruth Gordon]] now has a "No free image" box where the fair-use one I'd once uploaded for her used to be.
2. I claimed, "Wikipedia doesn't allow fair-use images". Now, how different is this paraphrase from the actual image policy?
From my perspective, at least, it's not very different (which is
how I can get away with it.) For one thing, the exceptions (the fair-use images that Wikipedia does allow) seem pretty narrow. For another thing, the bureaucracy one has to go through to justify a fair-use image is far too tedious for me to go through at all. And finally -- but this one deserves another paragraph.
In any system large enough to be interesting, the rules are never perfect. There's always a discrepancy between _de jure_ policy and _de facto_ practice. Oftentimes, the rules are slightly stricter than reality, and the enforcers tend to give you a break. (For example, on most highways in the U.S., it's generally understood that the speed limits are only enforced if you're going at least 5, and more likely 10, mph over the limit.)
However, in the case of images on Wikipedia, there are evidently lots and lots of people who really, really wish the policy *were* "no fair-use images at all". And they're the very same ones who are enforcing the bureaucracy surrounding the exceptions which do (nominally) permit fair use. So the red tape is only going to get worse, the bar is only going to get higher, until there are so many ever-shifting requirements that fair use be properly justified, and so many hair-trigger bots vigilantly watching for the slightest transgression, that it's just not worth it. If the _de facto_ policy isn't "no fair-use images" today, it will be soon enough.
I know what you're thinking. If I claim to believe that fair-use images would be acceptable in Wikipedia, if I claim not to like their eradication, then I'm clearly a spineless moral coward to be rolling over and accepting it like this. And you'd be right, I would be a coward, except: although I think it's overzealous and unnecessary, the goal of having only free images *is* a noble one. And since the only problem I'm personally aware of that results from the overzealous de-facto policy is that [[Ruth Gordon]] doesn't have a picture any more -- that's not the end of the world, I *can* sleep easy, I still remember what she looked like. (All the rest of the images I care about, all the rest I've uploaded, are with one exception my own work and in the public domain, so they're fine.)
So, Will, if you're still with me after all this blather, my advice to you is: listen to Reinhold Niebuhr. Accept with serenity the reality that for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia doesn't allow free images. If you hear someone criticizing Wikipedia for having articles with fuzzy or missing images, say, "Yeah, there are some overzealous nuts on the project." If one of your articles is poorer for having a missing image, say... no, wait a minute, none of us have any articles of our own. The first strategy is sufficient.
Let me make a few points:
1. we have about 292,000 Non-Free images (give or take 3,000) 2. en.wikipedia does not have a fair use policy 3. en.wikipedia does have a non-free content policy 4. en.wiki's non-free policy covers what would be called "fair use" material 5. Wikimedia's goal is to provide free content 6. en.wikipedia's goal is to provide a free encyclopedia 7. en.wiki realizes that in a few certain cases non-free material needs to be used in oder to cover the material in question. 8. en.wikipedia do that degree created an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) 9. one of the key parts to the EDP is ensuring that the image in question cannot be replaced with a free image. 10. it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they can just sue you for everything you have. 11. if a user wants to use non-free content they need to be able to say why they need that image on that page. if they dont have good reason then that image should be deleted. 12. just because a person stops editing that doesnt mean that our policies stop applying to their edits. 13. other projects dont allow any non-free content, so be glad that we allow as much as we do
Betacommand
On 03/03/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
Let me make a few points:
All absolutely true, except I'd question this one:
- it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia
Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they can just sue you for everything you have.
I think this is way overstating the dangers - we are BIG (even if the Foundation is actually tiny) and we have a *lot* of friends. If WMF was in serious danger from a greedy lawyer making an overreaching claim, the greedy lawyer would be crushed by a tsunami of donated money.
Of course, that's no reason to be cavalier with non-free content.
Although BetacommandBot hasn't done anything *wrong*, it's clear a lot of people just don't get it. So the problem is not one of actions, but public relations.
A couple of questions (for anyone who knows the answers):
* What's the rate of non-free upload? * What's the rate of unjustified non-free upload? How fast would BetacommandBot have to flag unjustified non-free content to stay at steady-state? * Is the list of flagged images logged, for the interested to check over? (or is [[Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot]] sufficient, i.e. does it do nothing other than flag unjustified non-free images?) * Is there anything else that those objecting to the way BetacommandBot does its stuff would like to make this vital work upset less people, other than not doing it at all?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
Let me make a few points:
All absolutely true, except I'd question this one:
- it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia
Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they can just sue you for everything you have.
I think this is way overstating the dangers - we are BIG (even if the Foundation is actually tiny) and we have a *lot* of friends. If WMF was in serious danger from a greedy lawyer making an overreaching claim, the greedy lawyer would be crushed by a tsunami of donated money.
Of course, that's no reason to be cavalier with non-free content.
Indeed, the argument is just plain alarmist. A religious salesman who happens to be canvassing your neighborhood could trip on your child's toy, break his neck and sue.
If we build a public history of favorable responses to takedown notices that would likely be a factor in any judge's decision. (It's one more reason why all proper takedown notices received should be made a matter of public record.) To sue, the plaintiff will have a high burden of proof to prove actual damages. He needs to take into account his own costs, and to a greedy lawyer probability of winning will be a big factor in his decision to take a case on a contingency basis. If the complaint is found to be unnecessarily vexatious the plaintiff and the greedy lawyer also need to weigh in the possibility that they may need to pay our costs. For a lawyer (especially a greedy one) that can loom large.
Although not a lawyer, I have argued cases in court, and strange things can happen there. It's always tougher for plaintiffs to prove their case.
If a case does arise, a fair-use claim need not have been made on the page to be fair use. As a defence it need not even be mentioned until there is an actual case; the plaintiff who is unprepared for that argument has a case in trouble.
Those who have never been involved in a legal case seem to have the impression that one only needs to look at a statute and everything will be as clear as a revelation from the Messiah. That view is seriously disconnected from reality.
Ec
On 03/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If we build a public history of favorable responses to takedown notices that would likely be a factor in any judge's decision. (It's one more reason why all proper takedown notices received should be made a matter of public record.)
FWIW, I actually asked Mike Godwin about this recently - he says we get very few DMCA notices indeed. Basically, I think, because we're so good at handling these things proactively. Occasionally to a paranoid extent. But Geni is quite correct to call us the web 2.0 project that gives a damn about copyright. (He said "only", but I'd hope others would start.)
To sue, the plaintiff will have a high burden of proof to prove actual damages. He needs to take into account his own costs, and to a greedy lawyer probability of winning will be a big factor in his decision to take a case on a contingency basis. If the complaint is found to be unnecessarily vexatious the plaintiff and the greedy lawyer also need to weigh in the possibility that they may need to pay our costs. For a lawyer (especially a greedy one) that can loom large.
For something like the ridiculous threat model we're talking about, suing Wikipedia would be up there with suing cute fluffy kittens.
Those who have never been involved in a legal case seem to have the impression that one only needs to look at a statute and everything will be as clear as a revelation from the Messiah. That view is seriously disconnected from reality.
I've spent the last four and a half years reading Groklaw. I recommend this to anyone who wants to know just what [[Eben Moglen]] means when he talks about the law being "squishy". And why lawyers are a bunch of *geeks* as into intricate constructions as any computer geek.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If we build a public history of favorable responses to takedown notices that would likely be a factor in any judge's decision. (It's one more reason why all proper takedown notices received should be made a matter of public record.)
FWIW, I actually asked Mike Godwin about this recently - he says we get very few DMCA notices indeed. Basically, I think, because we're so good at handling these things proactively. Occasionally to a paranoid extent. But Geni is quite correct to call us the web 2.0 project that gives a damn about copyright. (He said "only", but I'd hope others would start.)
Publicising those notices those notices would help in making it clear how few there are, and give anybody the opportunity to personally dispute them *on their own dime.* (There is nothing in the law that says that it has to be by the person who originally put up the material.)
Geni is probably right about that observation.
To sue, the plaintiff will have a high burden of proof to prove actual damages. He needs to take into account his own costs, and to a greedy lawyer probability of winning will be a big factor in his decision to take a case on a contingency basis. If the complaint is found to be unnecessarily vexatious the plaintiff and the greedy lawyer also need to weigh in the possibility that they may need to pay our costs. For a lawyer (especially a greedy one) that can loom large.
For something like the ridiculous threat model we're talking about, suing Wikipedia would be up there with suing cute fluffy kittens.
I may be away from the mainstream in believing that going to court can be fun. 8-)
Those who have never been involved in a legal case seem to have the impression that one only needs to look at a statute and everything will be as clear as a revelation from the Messiah. That view is seriously disconnected from reality.
I've spent the last four and a half years reading Groklaw. I recommend this to anyone who wants to know just what [[Eben Moglen]] means when he talks about the law being "squishy". And why lawyers are a bunch of *geeks* as into intricate constructions as any computer geek.
Indeed! And most judges are not legal scholars, despite the well-crafted reasoning that you may get from the highest courts. I find the it's-fair-use-because-I-wanna crowd devoid of intellectual stimulation. I'm far more intrigued by those who make the effort to produce original interpretations of the law consistent with what they are trying to accomplish. The paranoids just put in a lot of effort working against themselves.
Ec
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
- it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia
Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they can just sue you for everything you have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitat...
The Wikimedia Foundation almost certainly qualifies as a service provider, as we don't generate the content (editors do).
Someone can just sue without a takedown - Under DMCA, however, if you're plausibly a service provider, and you didn't get a takedown notice, you generally can just take it down and file for summary judgement under DMCA and win and get fees, so no plaintiffs' attorney would realistically do so.
On 3/3/08, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
- one of the key parts to the EDP is ensuring that the image in
question cannot be replaced with a free image. 10. it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they can just sue you for everything you have. 11. if a user wants to use non-free content they need to be able to say why they need that image on that page. if they dont have good >reason then that image should be deleted.
However, if a fair use image is used in [[article A]] with a valid rationale and in [[Article B]] without one, then the image should be removed from [[article B]], not tagged for deletion. The responsibility for providing a rationale for [[Article B]] should lie with the editors of [[Article B]] more so then the original uploader or the editors of [[Article A]].
IMHO, fair use images should not be autotagged for deletion if they contain a valid rationale for one of the articles they are used in. Their use in additional articles should be reviewed by a "human" and either removed from such articles or a valid rationale added.
- just because a person stops editing that doesnt mean that our
policies stop applying to their edits.
But the original uploader is not always the best user to notify. Perhaps BCB could notify the original uploader, the 3 editors with the most recent edits in the article in question, as well as leave a note on the article's talk page.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/08, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
- one of the key parts to the EDP is ensuring that the image in
question cannot be replaced with a free image. 10. it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they
can
just sue you for everything you have. 11. if a user wants to use non-free content they need to be able to say why they need that image on that page. if they dont have good reason then that image should be deleted.
However, if a fair use image is used in [[article A]] with a valid rationale and in [[Article B]] without one, then the image should be removed from [[article B]], not tagged for deletion. The responsibility for providing a rationale for [[Article B]] should lie with the editors of [[Article B]] more so then the original uploader or the editors of [[Article A]].
IMHO, fair use images should not be autotagged for deletion if they contain a valid rationale for one of the articles they are used in. Their use in additional articles should be reviewed by a "human" and either removed from such articles or a valid rationale added.
I believe that Betacommandbot has only been tagging images for which no valid fair use rationale is present, and ignoring "used in more articles than there are rationales" and so forth.
Those situations require human intervention to assess properly.