to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every
transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific
wording, it declines
permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets
decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when
Commons started was that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What
happens is Commons asks for
the
subject to obtain permission from the
photographer and submit that to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer
cant prove that the photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons
who have learnt the
policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the
permissions queue doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential
solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still
enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs <michael(a)maggs.name> wrote:
> This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons
> supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
>
> As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that
is
> used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is
always considered
> educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
>
> Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any
of
> the projects, and an image that is
acceptable to Wikidata is by design
> acceptable to Commons.
>
> If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is
not
acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for
self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and
hence
> the link to the image on Commons.
>
> Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise
> educational).
>
> None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’
as
used on
the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers.
OTRS has so far as I
know
> no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if
they
are
indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
> On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We
> > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information.
The
> best
> > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted
at
> > Commons.
> >
> > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects.
The
> projects who operate to different standards
who have notability
criteria
> > different from English Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2020
August 5 to 9
hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania:
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2020
August 5 to 9
hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: