On 12 December 2014 at 13:04, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Commons was raising quasi-legal objections that literally nobody else
considered a plausible threat model. It's your fault as long as you
continue to defend it.
In fairness a simple statement from the Israeli government is all that is
needed. For the record the UK government has already stated it views crown
copyright expired as a world wide thing (this was before the open
government license became a thing).
However as interesting as these discussions about individual copyright they
don't really get to the core problems.
1)How strict should we be about copyright. While I tend towards fairly I
accept the wider community may differ. If so we need a well drafted board
level statement outlining how strict commons should be. Its a complex
problem and will need some real actual lawyers working with some of our
more experienced community members
2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified
intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia
talk page for a semi active editor.
3)Lack of positive feedback. I'm not sure there is any way around this.
Automated notices that image you uploaded is being used on project Y would
get annoying for some users. I guess having it as a well advertised feature
that people could turn on would be an option. Use by third parties is even
harder to track. Short of googling your nic+ "CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even
that only turns up a limited subset of users mind.
4)third parties choosing other projects. Thing is for large dumps of poorly
curated content with messy copyright issues things like the internet
archive are probably a better match.
5)Some commons admins are behaving problematically. Yes but I'm not sure
what to do about that.
--
geni