Hoi, No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original copyright holder is that as well.
Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order for OTRS to function for all of us. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe