On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem
(question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
conversation.
Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about
interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a
large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does
the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly,
the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the
views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A
process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better
odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we
operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all
of the options appear to suck.)
This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by
shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in
plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and
off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what
we can do together.
But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or
no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert
contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much
rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA,
not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but
because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say
that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us
legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.
So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't
see
that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the
specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons
thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside
world.
Agreeing , but I can replace Commons with 'English Wikipedia' in your
email and it is equally or more true, as Wikipedia has the option for
fair use which is a minefield when someone from the 'non-free
deletionists camp' there takes an issue with an image (or , often they
go through every upload looking for issues - super fun). Both
projects, and probably all others, are constantly improving their
policies and guidelines as the community develops a better
understanding of these issues. Usually that process involves many
deletions and undeletions and a few tears along the way (mine too;
I've had images deleted and it isnt fun), but it is how the system
works at this scale - bad decisions are made all the time, but they
are vastly outnumbered by the good decisions and the commons does
continue to grow. If we tried to make the 'correct' legal decision
every time, it would be a whole lot less fun and productive.
--
John Vandenberg