On 11/12/2014 17:18, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@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.
This starts to be interesting, I think Katherine is making a good point. Is copyright law really so strict, or is Commons taking the strictest interpretation? In this case, we are in a situation where the copyright owner will probably prefer to have is rights "violated" by Wikipedia showing its products than having them "respected" by deleting the file. But we are "the free encyclopedia", and respect of copyright law is one of the principles we're based on, no matter how fair and convenient going round it it can be.
There is a view rightly or wrongly that many of these deletion debates are orchestrated as some form of revenge for some other action elsewhere. Which could well be what happened with the OP maybe not in the nomination, but in who decides to participate in the discussion.
The other dominate view is the conceit that Commons is some form of legal clearing house for free media files. I suspect that no one is going to be betting the farm on whether the Commons regulars are right as regards the legal status of images. Much of the content there has been uploaded by 3rd parties from other websites. In the case of flickr sourced material, the flickr uploader is rarely still active.
I can't imagine a publisher taking the risk on web images that some un-contactable anon uploaded. Imagine printing 1000s of copies of a book and then discovering that you don't have the rights to the images. No one does this in the real world, its a Commons fantasy.