On 9/8/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
The Creative Commons Sharealike license might not require attribution of the author, but Wikipedia requires that the source of the images be provided so that we can verify the license.
How do you verify the license? If I put my grandmother's name as author are you going to look up her phone number and call her or something? Part of the whole point is that the people who made these images don't want to be bothered by this crap.
I can add you to OrphanBot's do-not-notify list, but that will just mean that the images are deleted without you ever knowing about it.
Not now. I'll have to think about this further.
Part of me thinks the best solution is to just create a sockpuppet for each person and upload the images under that, claiming authorship on them. Another part of me thinks I should make some trivial, yet copyrightable, modification to the work, claim authorship of the derivative, and upload them with myself as author. Yet another part of me thinks I should just turn off the notification and let y'all delete the damn images, because it's not worth bothering with.
So far I've just been removing the tags, mentioning that the source is anonymous, and I think most of the images have survived.
Anthony
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How do you verify the license? If I put my grandmother's name as author are you going to look up her phone number and call her or something? Part of the whole point is that the people who made these images don't want to be bothered by this crap.
...
Part of me thinks the best solution is to just create a sockpuppet for each person and upload the images under that, claiming authorship on them. Another part of me thinks I should make some trivial, yet copyrightable, modification to the work, claim authorship of the derivative, and upload them with myself as author. Yet another part of me thinks I should just turn off the notification and let y'all delete the damn images, because it's not worth bothering with.
So far I've just been removing the tags, mentioning that the source is anonymous, and I think most of the images have survived.
If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
Of course IANAL, that's just a suggestion etc.
On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
Copyright assignment might work. But is the listed source supposed to be the author or the copyright holder?
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
Copyright assignment might work. But is the listed source supposed to be the author or the copyright holder? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Usually it's both since they're one and the same, but we actually want the copyright holder. It doesn't matter to us who took it, only who owns it, since that's who would be using the license that we have to know. Same with fair use images; we want to know the copyright holder, not some random website with the image (though that is helpful if it says who the copyright owner is).
On 9/9/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
Copyright assignment might work. But is the listed source supposed to be the author or the copyright holder?
Usually it's both since they're one and the same, but we actually want the copyright holder. It doesn't matter to us who took it, only who owns it, since that's who would be using the license that we have to know. Same with fair use images; we want to know the copyright holder, not some random website with the image (though that is helpful if it says who the copyright owner is).
I guess that sounds like a reasonable request, then. After all, one might need to contact the copyright holder in order to ask them for a different license (by-sa instead of GFDL, GPL instead of by-sa, etc).
I'll have to think of the best way to accomplish this if I want to go that route.
Anthony
Rory Stolzenberg wrote:
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
Copyright assignment might work. But is the listed source supposed to be the author or the copyright holder?
Usually it's both since they're one and the same, but we actually want the copyright holder. It doesn't matter to us who took it, only who owns it, since that's who would be using the license that we have to know. Same with fair use images; we want to know the copyright holder, not some random website with the image (though that is helpful if it says who the copyright owner is).
Who owns the copyright is clearly more important than who owns the picture or who physically took the picture. Former copyright ownership should even be shown for PD images to help establish that they are in fact PD.
Grandma's assignment could be a positive step forward, but asking her to do that doesn't help if grandma's dead. The problem could continue for another 70 years. While she was alive grandma was never concerned about who took the pictures in the family album, and the copyrights that might go along with those pictures. She never bothered to make a will, because she never had anything of monetary value. In the simplest posthumous situation grandma had two children, who are both still alive, but can't get along with each other on anything. One wants to protect what he believes to be the sacred memory of grandma by allowing nothing to be made public; the other considers it a celebration of grandma to publish everything. As the number of children and grandchildren increases things can only get worse. In fact, any one of the children (and any one of the grandchildren whose parent is deceased) can release the material without regard to the others' claims of copyright.
Ec
I believe its assumed that you are either the owner of the copyright as uploader (in which case you would tag the image as such) or the owner of the copyright is listed (unless it is in the public domain, although it should be listed anyway), as the author may be different from the copyright owner (professional photographers working for a business?).
On 9/10/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
If the original author doesn't care about attribution, or their rights as photographer, or what happens to the image, then get them to assign the copyright to someone else in a deed. Then the other person can do whatever they want with the image, since they own the copyright.
Copyright assignment might work. But is the listed source supposed to be the author or the copyright holder? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
I believe its assumed that you are either the owner of the copyright as uploader (in which case you would tag the image as such) or the owner of the copyright is listed (unless it is in the public domain, although it should be listed anyway), as the author may be different from the copyright owner (professional photographers working for a business?).
Well, yeah. Closest I've come to this is e.g. uploading an image by [[:en:User:Arkady Rose]] (my girlfriend) to Commons because she can't be bothered creating Yet Another Login. I uploaded it myself and said it was by her and put there under copyleft-self (dual GFDL and CC-by-sa) with her permission. If some hardworking wikilawyer started claiming the image must therefore be deleted as a risk to the project (what if EVERYONE did this?) then I fear my legendary patience and calm might slip.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
... Closest I've come to this is e.g. uploading an image by [[:en:User:Arkady Rose]] (my girlfriend) to Commons because she can't be bothered creating Yet Another Login. I uploaded it myself and said it was by her and put there under copyleft-self (dual GFDL and CC-by-sa) with her permission.
And then there's the related case of photographs taken "under direction" (my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button). This has a sort of "work for non-hire" feel to it, and I'm sure it's been discussed at length, too. I mention it now because I just came across an amusing example: [[Image:Thisisspinaltap.jpg]]. Summary (by [[User:Brainhell]]): "this is my picture of me getting a spinal tap".
On 9/11/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And then there's the related case of photographs taken "under direction" (my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button). This has a sort of "work for non-hire" feel to it, and I'm sure it's been discussed at length, too.
I don't think it has been discussed, and such images have been deleted in the past - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Minneapolis_meetup_2005.jpg
I guess such images are fair use if you never asked the person using your camera to license the image.
Angela.
What if you ask someone to take a photo of you at a tourist attraction? We have to account for things like that. You can't say, "Can you please take a photo of me and my wife? Here's my camera. Oh, and while your're at it, could you release all rights to that?"
On 9/11/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And then there's the related case of photographs taken "under direction" (my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button). This has a sort of "work for non-hire" feel to it, and I'm sure it's been discussed at length, too.
I don't think it has been discussed, and such images have been deleted in the past - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Minneapolis_meetup_2005.jpg
I guess such images are fair use if you never asked the person using your camera to license the image.
Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/11/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
What if you ask someone to take a photo of you at a tourist attraction?
You are in a legal grey area.
We have to account for things like that. You can't say, "Can you please take a photo of me and my wife? Here's my camera. Oh, and while your're at it, could you release all rights to that?"
Why not?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 9/11/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
We have to account for things like that. You can't say, "Can you please take a photo of me and my wife? Here's my camera. Oh, and while your're at it, could you release all rights to that?"
Why not?
Because finding the equivalent of a notary in a foreign country is a pain, and I sometimes discover that I've forgotten to bring along the pack of release forms that the fetishists demand.
- -- Sean Barrett | I'm tired of getting the fuzzy sean@epoptic.com | end of the lollipop. --Sugar Kane
On 9/11/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And then there's the related case of photographs taken "under direction" (my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button). This has a sort of "work for non-hire" feel to it, and I'm sure it's been discussed at length, too.
I don't think it has been discussed, and such images have been deleted in the past - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Minneapolis_meetup_2005.jpg
I guess such images are fair use if you never asked the person using your camera to license the image.
I'd say you don't have to ask for permission. If you came up with the idea, then you are at least a joint author.
Anthony
David Gerard wrote:
Well, yeah. Closest I've come to this is e.g. uploading an image by [[:en:User:Arkady Rose]] (my girlfriend) to Commons because she can't be bothered creating Yet Another Login. I uploaded it myself and said it was by her and put there under copyleft-self (dual GFDL and CC-by-sa) with her permission. If some hardworking wikilawyer started claiming the image must therefore be deleted as a risk to the project (what if EVERYONE did this?) then I fear my legendary patience and calm might slip.
The key here is: we trust you to have done the right thing.
We can do that with people we know and trust.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_5934.JPG
is an image I uploaded for someone else.
--Jimbo
On 11/09/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Well, yeah. Closest I've come to this is e.g. uploading an image by [[:en:User:Arkady Rose]] (my girlfriend) to Commons because she can't be bothered creating Yet Another Login. I uploaded it myself and said
The key here is: we trust you to have done the right thing. We can do that with people we know and trust. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_5934.JPG is an image I uploaded for someone else.
Yeah. Regular editors, we should be taking their word for it.
I suppose the problem is if a reuser gets strife in a case where it turns out the author didn't give said permission, or doesn't think they did, and they've used it in print so that the obvious remedy of just taking it down isn't possible and there may be actual damages payable. To what extent do we need to ensure against this? Perhaps an added note on the reusers' FAQ as to the importance of checking for oneself.
- d.