On Dec 29, 2013 5:51 PM, "Fæ" &lt;faewik+commons(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Both excellent suggestions. Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a takedown notice?

Hoi Tomasz, You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you appreciate it in this way? You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better served by the continuation of the presence of images. Thanks, GerardM

I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument otherwise." One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or, the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should therefore proceed cautiously." I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the image. Newyorkbrad On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: you as (or <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage in developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to progress this. Fae On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad" &lt;newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP > I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter > although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument > otherwise." > > One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no > rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something > along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or, > the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or > whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for > re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be > disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should > therefore proceed cautiously." > > I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to > freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims > by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the > image. > > Newyorkbrad

You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you appreciate it in this way?

You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better served by the continuation of the presence of images.

Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the- case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/

On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote: I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known copyright issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be similar to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially one of "We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone complains." Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 01/01/2014 07:41, Gerard Meijssen wrote: The first thing that is wrong with the above is that copyright holders are not the Government. On 31 December 2013 20:45, ??? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, What effective claim has been made against Kim Dotcom and, THAT is your argument. Thanks, GerardM

On 1 January 2014 12:21, ??? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6965 - Release Date: 12/31/13