This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA. Somewhere where the
copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be kept. Images can be tagged for where
they are free and where they are not free.
~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: 17 June 2014 09:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think the concept of the project is the
problem. I'm skeptical
that an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable,
considering that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific
and no cross-wiki project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time
managing that requirement.
We don't have to. As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an image on a fair-use
project, and someone else wants to share it. If its use gets deleted on both those wikis
(and anywhere else that started using it) due to not complying with fair use, and it stays
out of use, we identify a cleanup procedure. But as long as a basically credible
"it's fair use over here" exists for 1 or more projects, it's a
candidate for Uncommons.
Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an article using it, for
example. If someone feels it's not compliant with X wiki's local fair use
criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the case, get it removed from the article(s).
Uncommons would consider deletion if all the projects which tried to use it rejected it on
fair use grounds.
Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, may still need to be
removed even if fair-use in (for example) Argentina and Botswana apply, which is
unfortunate, but we have a process for people to report copyvios of their images to the
Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do their thing as usual would cover that.
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of
Commons admins;
time and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when
it comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers
have required, incidentally.
It's not surprising that the locus of the dispute often revolves
around community members who have been banned on other projects but
reached positions of authority on Commons. Perhaps Commons social
structures haven't evolved enough to deal with people who are both
productive and deeply disruptive, and who are not uncivil but
contribute to a toxic environment.
I understand, and applaud those who still want to attempt to reform that.
The curation of the free content is affected along with the spillover into fair use
content.
That said, it's time to move on, for a large bulk of the content hosting role. The
fight now engaged on Commons is not the fight that content creators and curators on
projects need or want to be engaged in.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14