Hello all,
Today several pictures that were uploaded for Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium which are considered monuments by the Belgian government have been deleted because we do not have a clear description on Commons about the copyright-situation in Belgium on buildings that are younger than 70 years (or architect died less then 70 years ago). If this continues thousands of pictures on Commons can be deleted on some vague text that seems to be based on what people do not understand about the copyright in Belgium.
The Belgian laws on this matter are complicated and we should urgently get a more clear picture of how the actual copyright laws should be conducted.
I think we can get a clear picture if we consult Belgian a lawyer(s) who can handle this subject. I have two questions:
1. Who knows a lawyer or firm who/which can help us with the question how the Belgian law actually is on this matter?
2. If this will cost anything, who can help us with funding to get this answer clear?
Who can help us with this or has ideas about it?
Other ideas are also very welcome!
Greetings - Romaine
(Organizing Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium / Luxembourg) (Intitiave for organizing Wikimedia belgium)
Romaine, I am afraid this can't be fixed before September 30, no matter how hard you may try! You may be able to categorize these photos and "undelete" them next year if and when you get legislation passed, but what you are talking about is really way too complicated for our little contest to handle (but publicizing this problem in the Belgian newspapers may help!!!). I was astounded to find that this problem also exists in France. good luck, Jane
2011/9/21 Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com
Hello all,
Today several pictures that were uploaded for Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium which are considered monuments by the Belgian government have been deleted because we do not have a clear description on Commons about the copyright-situation in Belgium on buildings that are younger than 70 years (or architect died less then 70 years ago). If this continues thousands of pictures on Commons can be deleted on some vague text that seems to be based on what people do not understand about the copyright in Belgium.
The Belgian laws on this matter are complicated and we should urgently get a more clear picture of how the actual copyright laws should be conducted.
I think we can get a clear picture if we consult Belgian a lawyer(s) who can handle this subject. I have two questions:
- Who knows a lawyer or firm who/which can help us with the question how
the Belgian law actually is on this matter?
- If this will cost anything, who can help us with funding to get this
answer clear?
Who can help us with this or has ideas about it?
Other ideas are also very welcome!
Greetings - Romaine
(Organizing Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium / Luxembourg) (Intitiave for organizing Wikimedia belgium)
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:11:50 +0200, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Romaine, I am afraid this can't be fixed before September 30, no matter how hard
you
may try! You may be able to categorize these photos and "undelete" them next year if and when you get legislation passed, but what you are talking
about
is really way too complicated for our little contest to handle (but publicizing this problem in the Belgian newspapers may help!!!). I was astounded to find that this problem also exists in France. good luck, Jane
The problem exists as well in Italy, some Scandinavian countries, many of the East European countries, and, as far as I understand, it was one of the main barriers which delayed the participation of Russia. The best practice is actually not to delete the pictures but to transfer them to the projects as fair use (obviously, it could only be done in the projects which accept fair use, German and Spanish Wikipedias do not qualify).
Cheers Yaroslav
2011/9/21 Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com
Hello all,
Today several pictures that were uploaded for Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium which are considered monuments by the Belgian government have been deleted because we do not have a clear description on Commons about the copyright-situation in Belgium on buildings that are younger than 70 years (or architect died less then 70 years ago). If this continues thousands of pictures on Commons can be deleted on some vague text that seems to be based on what people do not understand about the copyright in Belgium.
The Belgian laws on this matter are complicated and we should urgently get a more clear picture of how the actual copyright laws should be conducted.
I think we can get a clear picture if we consult Belgian a lawyer(s)
who
can handle this subject. I have two questions:
- Who knows a lawyer or firm who/which can help us with the question
how
the Belgian law actually is on this matter?
- If this will cost anything, who can help us with funding to get this
answer clear?
Who can help us with this or has ideas about it?
Other ideas are also very welcome!
Greetings - Romaine
(Organizing Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium / Luxembourg) (Intitiave for organizing Wikimedia belgium)
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
as far as I understand, it was one of the main barriers which delayed the participation of Russia.
No. The problem was a base with a Lenin monuments of XIX century. Fear of lack of FOP is one of the reasons of small activity of existing users - so we have big activity of new users. We see that they make mistakes in this area, but even from them the count of errors is very small and the jury given the task to solve it carefully.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:54:28 +0400, Анастасия Львова stasielvova@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
as far as I understand, it was one of the main barriers which delayed the participation of Russia.
No. The problem was a base with a Lenin monuments of XIX century. Fear of lack of FOP is one of the reasons of small activity of existing users - so we have big activity of new users. We see that they make mistakes in this area, but even from them the count of errors is very small and the jury given the task to solve it carefully.
Well, I obviously have smth to say about this - and I will post it on October 1, so that we do not get distracted from the current activity. But just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the one you cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors - the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments of non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of wooden churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be great). On the other hand, the FoP is a real issue - the images which violate FoP are subject to deletion on Commons, and you do not want a new user to start his/her participation in Wikipedia with a deletion review notice on his/her talk page. The fraction of non-free images is obviously small, since most of the monuments of cultural heritage protected in Russia were created before 1917 and thus are PD-RusEmpire. I believe (but did not check) that this fraction is even lower in Saint-Petersburg.
Cheers Yaroslav
We should definitely stick to our usual procedures on Commons - and make sure that the law is followed. Of course WLM is a good argument why Freedom of Panorama is a Good Thing but that is another discussion.
It would be very helpful if uploaders can early in the prrocess identify which buildings will be protected, and which are possible to be photographed of course.
Lodewijk (who is very happy that NL has Freedom of Panorama)
No dia 22 de Setembro de 2011 11:24, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruescreveu:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:54:28 +0400, Анастасия Львова stasielvova@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
as far as I understand, it was one of the main barriers which delayed the participation of Russia.
No. The problem was a base with a Lenin monuments of XIX century. Fear of lack of FOP is one of the reasons of small activity of existing users - so we have big activity of new users. We see that they make mistakes in this area, but even from them the count of errors is very small and the jury given the task to solve it carefully.
Well, I obviously have smth to say about this - and I will post it on October 1, so that we do not get distracted from the current activity. But just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the one you cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors - the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments of non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of wooden churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be great). On the other hand, the FoP is a real issue - the images which violate FoP are subject to deletion on Commons, and you do not want a new user to start his/her participation in Wikipedia with a deletion review notice on his/her talk page. The fraction of non-free images is obviously small, since most of the monuments of cultural heritage protected in Russia were created before 1917 and thus are PD-RusEmpire. I believe (but did not check) that this fraction is even lower in Saint-Petersburg.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Lodewijk, I totally agree with you (a big Hurrah for FOP in NL!!) and let me just say how impressed I am with the result so far despite problems such as the ones Yaroslav mentions. Browsing the photo's daily as they come in, I am often awed at the inspiring "monuments" that are being added to Commons. I am also highly impressed at the number of new users (thanks to the tool by Nuno I have an impression of how many of these there are).
I shudder to think about the reactions of users when they see a request for deletion with a "NO FOP" message - is there any way we can get admins to somehow link to the proper explanation in the user's language? Or perhaps the deletion requests can be forwarded to some WLM intermediary? How big IS this problem? I wish I could see how often this is happening, because I would hate to see our new users disillusioned so quickly in their Wiki Commons upload experience.
Jane
2011/9/22 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
We should definitely stick to our usual procedures on Commons - and make sure that the law is followed. Of course WLM is a good argument why Freedom of Panorama is a Good Thing but that is another discussion.
It would be very helpful if uploaders can early in the prrocess identify which buildings will be protected, and which are possible to be photographed of course.
Lodewijk (who is very happy that NL has Freedom of Panorama)
No dia 22 de Setembro de 2011 11:24, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru
escreveu:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:54:28 +0400, Анастасия Львова
stasielvova@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru
wrote:
as far as I understand, it was one of the main barriers which delayed the participation of Russia.
No. The problem was a base with a Lenin monuments of XIX century. Fear of lack of FOP is one of the reasons of small activity of existing users - so we have big activity of new users. We see that they make mistakes in this area, but even from them the count of errors is very small and the jury given the task to solve it carefully.
Well, I obviously have smth to say about this - and I will post it on October 1, so that we do not get distracted from the current activity. But just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the one you cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors
the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments of non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of wooden churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be great). On the other hand, the FoP is a real issue - the images which violate FoP are subject to deletion on Commons, and you do not want a new user to start his/her participation in Wikipedia with a deletion review notice on his/her talk page. The fraction of non-free images is obviously small, since most of the monuments of cultural heritage protected in Russia were created before 1917 and thus are PD-RusEmpire. I believe (but did not check) that this fraction is even lower in Saint-Petersburg.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Hello Jane,
I recently started with collecting the deletion request pages in the categories for Belgium and Luxembourg, France exists longer. This just the top of the iceberg, but is a start to get insight how big the problem is. Many earlier deletion requests still need to be put in the categories.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sorted_deletion_requests
Greetings - Romaine
--- On Thu, 9/22/11, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] FOP-Research urgently needed To: "Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition" wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 9:35 AM
Lodewijk, I totally agree with you (a big Hurrah for FOP in NL!!) and let me just say how impressed I am with the result so far despite problems such as the ones Yaroslav mentions. Browsing the photo's daily as they come in, I am often awed at the inspiring "monuments" that are being added to Commons. I am also highly impressed at the number of new users (thanks to the tool by Nuno I have an impression of how many of these there are).
I shudder to think about the reactions of users when they see a request for deletion with a "NO FOP" message - is there any way we can get admins to somehow link to the proper explanation in the user's language? Or perhaps the deletion requests can be forwarded to some WLM intermediary? How big IS this problem? I wish I could see how often this is happening, because I would hate to see our new users disillusioned so quickly in their Wiki Commons upload experience.
Jane
2011/9/22 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
We should definitely stick to our usual procedures on Commons - and make sure that the law is followed. Of course WLM is a good argument why Freedom of Panorama is a Good Thing but that is another discussion.
It would be very helpful if uploaders can early in the prrocess identify which buildings will be protected, and which are possible to be photographed of course. Lodewijk (who is very happy that NL has Freedom of Panorama)
No dia 22 de Setembro de 2011 11:24, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru escreveu:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:54:28 +0400, Анастасия Львова
stasielvova@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru
wrote:
as far as I understand, it was one of the
main barriers which delayed the participation of Russia.
No. The problem was a base with a Lenin monuments of XIX century. Fear
of lack of FOP is one of the reasons of small activity of existing
users - so we have big activity of new users. We see that they make
mistakes in this area, but even from them the count of errors is very
small and the jury given the task to solve it carefully.
Well, I obviously have smth to say about this - and I will post it on
October 1, so that we do not get distracted from the current activity. But
just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the one you
cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors -
the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database
but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an
obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments of
non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major
success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of wooden
churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be great). On
the other hand, the FoP is a real issue - the images which violate FoP are
subject to deletion on Commons, and you do not want a new user to start
his/her participation in Wikipedia with a deletion review notice on his/her
talk page. The fraction of non-free images is obviously small, since most
of the monuments of cultural heritage protected in Russia were created
before 1917 and thus are PD-RusEmpire. I believe (but did not check) that
this fraction is even lower in Saint-Petersburg.
Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:28:34 +0200, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
We should definitely stick to our usual procedures on Commons - and make sure that the law is followed. Of course WLM is a good argument why
Freedom
of Panorama is a Good Thing but that is another discussion.
It would be very helpful if uploaders can early in the prrocess identify which buildings will be protected, and which are possible to be photographed of course.
To my understanding, the uploaders are usually not qualified to determine this. Marking the non-FoP images should be the task of the teams who prepare the lists (for WLM-2011 this is relevant for France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Romania, and Russia). It is too late to do anything right now, one week before the finish line, but I believe this could be a major attention point next year.
Cheers Yaroslav
But just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the one you cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors - the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments of non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of wooden churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be great).
Yes, I know about the base. That's why we started after proposition of restriction of the territory only (and we choose the city which we could check), that's why we have disclaimers and prooflinks on every page with lists. And we have not received an official response from the Ministry of Culture with the momre correct base, although we did the request.
On the other hand, the FoP is a real issue - the images which violate FoP are subject to deletion on Commons, and you do not want a new user to start his/her participation in Wikipedia with a deletion review notice on his/her talk page. The fraction of non-free images is obviously small, since most of the monuments of cultural heritage protected in Russia were created before 1917 and thus are PD-RusEmpire. I believe (but did not check) that this fraction is even lower in Saint-Petersburg.
This is what I mean when I speak about task for jury - attempt to trace and explain; the most violations of FOP from participators in ru-WLM I see for those participators who upload monuments that not from the base, without a correct ID (who use ID like '1' or smth like this). I hope that everything will be alright in the end, the problem is not so large in scale.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:36:59 +0400, Анастасия Львова stasielvova@gmail.com wrote:
But just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the
one
you cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors - the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments
of
non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of
wooden
churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be
great).
Yes, I know about the base. That's why we started after proposition of restriction of the territory only (and we choose the city which we could check), that's why we have disclaimers and prooflinks on every page with lists. And we have not received an official response from the Ministry of Culture with the momre correct base, although we did the request.
OK, let us return to this issue in a week. I believe they just do not have a better database anyway.
Cheers Yaroslav
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org