I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING. It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of when some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of Commons. A huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork, jingles, etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but any photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows CC/public domain licensing would allow.
We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give photos to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr) would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to bother uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill out a form for fair use rationales.
In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING. It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of when some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of Commons. A huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork, jingles, etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but any photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows CC/public domain licensing would allow.
We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give photos to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr) would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to bother uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill out a form for fair use rationales.
In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
My takeaway from this mail was that someone finally noticed that Commons does, in fact, thank you for your uploads now. That was a positive byproduct of Wiki Loves Monuments in 2011-2012!
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
against
photos of packaging:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
of
an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
when
some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
Commons. A
huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
jingles,
etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
any
photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows CC/public domain licensing would allow.
We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
photos
to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr) would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
bother
uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill out a form for fair use rationales.
In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
against
photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
of
an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
when
some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
Commons. A
huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
jingles,
etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
any
photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows CC/public domain licensing would allow.
We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
photos
to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr) would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
bother
uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill out a form for fair use rationales.
In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_... about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
against
photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
of
an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
when
some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
Commons. A
huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
jingles,
etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
any
photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows CC/public domain licensing would allow.
We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
photos
to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr) would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
bother
uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill out a form for fair use rationales.
In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_... about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels on useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general principles seem to hold.
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter...
But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to be considered.
Jane
FoP may or may not cover it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Tunisia states the work has to be permanently located in a public place. It could also depend on the purpose of the photo.
Nathan
I'm sorry, but I can't believe you were seriously talking about a logo on the tractor which isn't basically visible in the original photo you showed. It's call "de minimis" in the photo on Commons. To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. There is another aspect of "de minimis" that needs to be considered. You can't walk into a bookshop and take photos of a rack of magazine covers (which would be copyrighted) and upload those to Commons, as in that context of that photo each individual part can not be separated from the overall motif of the photograph. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DM might be nice reading for you.
Steven
There's seriously so many aspects that we have to consider on Commons, and the entire VOLUNTEER community does it's best. It's not good to attack the entire community as you did in your opening post, when the editor who nominated the image for deletion did so in good faith, and in fact the issue of COM:PACKAGING deletions was being discussed in #wikimedia-commons for some hours. You make it sound that we love deleting people's uploads just to piss them off, and I guarantee you that is not the case. If you ever want to have a civilised discussion on the issues, go on project and start that discussion. Just don't approach the issue by calling us all extremists, because you'll simply be ignored, not only by myself, but by others too I would imagine.
I've got nothing more to say here I think.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:25 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_... about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels on useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general principles seem to hold.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 December 2014 at 18:04, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter...
The packaging in Steve's photo is 3D and to quote the significant bit of the case:
"We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act."
The Steve's photo shows the whole of the packaging not just the images on it. The packaging is clearly functional and his photo has captured the packaging in its entirety. Commons policy does not overule the ninth circuit in this area.
But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to be considered.
Having to? I think not. In any case long standing commons practice is only to consider the location of the photographer not the place of origin of the work or artist. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. applies unless you are going to try and claim the packaging is not a useful article.
Russavia wrote "To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
JP aka Amqui
2014-12-11 11:04 GMT-07:00 Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter...
But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to be considered.
Jane
FoP may or may not cover it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Tunisia states the work has to be permanently located in a public place. It could also depend on the purpose of the photo.
Nathan
I'm sorry, but I can't believe you were seriously talking about a logo on the tractor which isn't basically visible in the original photo you showed. It's call "de minimis" in the photo on Commons. To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. There is another aspect of "de minimis" that needs to be considered. You can't walk into a bookshop and take photos of a rack of magazine covers (which would be copyrighted) and upload those to Commons, as in that context of that photo each individual part can not be separated from the overall motif of the photograph. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DM might be nice reading for you.
Steven
There's seriously so many aspects that we have to consider on Commons, and the entire VOLUNTEER community does it's best. It's not good to attack the entire community as you did in your opening post, when the editor who nominated the image for deletion did so in good faith, and in fact the issue of COM:PACKAGING deletions was being discussed in #wikimedia-commons for some hours. You make it sound that we love deleting people's uploads just to piss them off, and I guarantee you that is not the case. If you ever want to have a civilised discussion on the issues, go on project and start that discussion. Just don't approach the issue by calling us all extremists, because you'll simply be ignored, not only by myself, but by others too I would imagine.
I've got nothing more to say here I think.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:25 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_...
about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels
on
useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general principles seem to hold.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia wrote "To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a free photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A and paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise...
Cruccone
We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not "trademark" that are too simple to be copyrightable would be considered but they are not. The reason the logo would become unacceptable on Commons is based on copyright.
2014-12-13 4:27 GMT-07:00 Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia wrote "To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a free photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A and paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise...
Cruccone
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
You cannot crop a minor trademark element, eg. logo, incidentally located within a "free" photographic image and upload it to Commons as a free use instance of that trademark / logo.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/13/14, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not "trademark" that are too simple to be copyrightable would be considered but they are not. The reason the logo would become unacceptable on Commons is based on copyright.
2014-12-13 4:27 GMT-07:00 Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia wrote "To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a free photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A and paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise...
Cruccone
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
That comment is unhelpful and inappropriate.
Oh cry me a river Nathan.
What is inappropriate is that we have Steven ranting and raving about a project on which me and others bust our humps on developing.
If people can't understand http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DW then I am actually wondering how in hell they were an admin on that project anyway.
If he wants to change these core policies whinging about them on wikimedia-l isn't gonna do anything. Start an RfC on Commons and change it.
Thanks
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
That comment is unhelpful and inappropriate. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Shut up, Russavia.
I wouldn't normally be so curt with someone I just put on moderation, but apparently you think that's an appropriate tone to use on this list.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Oh cry me a river Nathan.
What is inappropriate is that we have Steven ranting and raving about a project on which me and others bust our humps on developing.
If people can't understand http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DW then I am actually wondering how in hell they were an admin on that project anyway.
If he wants to change these core policies whinging about them on wikimedia-l isn't gonna do anything. Start an RfC on Commons and change it.
Thanks
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
That comment is unhelpful and inappropriate. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of them). If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say, please do.
In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly received loud, sustained applause for.
Luis
Luis,
I know all about that applause Jimmy received.
http://i.imgur.com/SKX3P8J.gif
Steven, is that you in the middle? :>
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of them). If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say, please do.
In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly received loud, sustained applause for.
Luis
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm not having a bad day Nathan. It shits me to tears when we continually hear of Commons being broken; when in fact it works very well.
I will say that the person who is doing the packaging DR's is going thru them, with our Commons policies in mind. You are attacking that person on a public mailing list, instead of querying it with them first.
If you don't like Commons policies, take it to the project and start an RfC. Nothing good is going to come out of anything which is said on this list in relation to the issue.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe Russavia is having a bad day and needs a time out. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Luis,
I know all about that applause Jimmy received.
http://i.imgur.com/SKX3P8J.gif
Steven, is that you in the middle? :>
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of
them).
If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say,
please
do.
In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly received loud, sustained applause for.
Luis
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For
more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the restrictions on the use of copyrighted logos and design elements apply to any photographs in which they are featured? That would seem to be the case based on the Trademark policy.
is it a correct logical extension of the rule to say that any photograph which features a copyrighted element, where the owner of the copyrighted element is not the uploader or has not otherwise released the element under a compatible license, must be deleted?
Another example - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-12-14_Provinzial-Demo.JPG
In that photo, the logo of Fendt, a farm equipment manufacturer, appears. Based on the trademark policy, should this be deleted?
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental
In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be. It would depend.
Mario
If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are ways to go about this. Otherwise https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn upon here.
Cheers
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the restrictions on the use of copyrighted logos and design elements apply to any photographs in which they are featured? That would seem to be the case based on the Trademark policy.
is it a correct logical extension of the rule to say that any photograph which features a copyrighted element, where the owner of the copyrighted element is not the uploader or has not otherwise released the element under a compatible license, must be deleted?
Another example - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-12-14_Provinzial-Demo.JPG
In that photo, the logo of Fendt, a farm equipment manufacturer, appears. Based on the trademark policy, should this be deleted? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental
In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be. It would depend.
Mario
If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are ways to go about this. Otherwise https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn upon here.
Cheers
Russavia
The logo is not a text logo - see here for a clearer rendering: http://pictures.tractorfan.nl/groot/f/fendt/795254-logo-fendt.jpg
So perhaps in this case the fact that the design logo can't be seen clearly is a defense against deletion, but what if it were clearer and more squarely in frame? Surely there are many thousands of images where this comes up - a design element included in a photo of an object, scene or person that is copyrighted. In photos of Wikimedia events, there are individuals wearing clothing with copyrighted design elements. Delete?
I don't think Commons has a clear stand in this matter. I see many old DRs closed as kept.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beer_bottles
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bottle_of_...
Regards, Jee
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental
In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be. It would depend.
Mario
If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are ways to go about this. Otherwise https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn upon here.
Cheers
Russavia
The logo is not a text logo - see here for a clearer rendering: http://pictures.tractorfan.nl/groot/f/fendt/795254-logo-fendt.jpg
So perhaps in this case the fact that the design logo can't be seen clearly is a defense against deletion, but what if it were clearer and more squarely in frame? Surely there are many thousands of images where this comes up - a design element included in a photo of an object, scene or person that is copyrighted. In photos of Wikimedia events, there are individuals wearing clothing with copyrighted design elements. Delete? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on the user's talk page.
I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile environment?
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Belgian_pra... * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Categor...
Alternatively, you can work to improve policies and guidelines on commons. One key benefit is that if photographs you uploaded were deleted under old policies but could be kept under new policies, they can all be considered for undeletion. I suggest a good starting point is better guidelines to interpret what "significant doubt" means in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
P.P.S. It might be politic for WMF employees to avoid using their staff accounts to join in with whatever the latest witch-hunt happens to be. I find it disturbing to see official accounts being used to inflame arguments, when in other circumstances the same accounts are used to give "official" positions that affect the whole Wikimedia community.
Fae
Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he appears to be speaking in his staff role.
Risker/Anne
On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on the user's talk page.
I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile environment?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Belgian_pra...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Categor...
Alternatively, you can work to improve policies and guidelines on commons. One key benefit is that if photographs you uploaded were deleted under old policies but could be kept under new policies, they can all be considered for undeletion. I suggest a good starting point is better guidelines to interpret what "significant doubt" means in < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_princi...
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
P.P.S. It might be politic for WMF employees to avoid using their staff accounts to join in with whatever the latest witch-hunt happens to be. I find it disturbing to see official accounts being used to inflame arguments, when in other circumstances the same accounts are used to give "official" positions that affect the whole Wikimedia community.
Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I knew who was staff when I sent my email.
Luis, could you confirm that your emails are to be read as part of your representation of the WMF?
Thanks, Fae
On 11 December 2014 at 18:22, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he appears to be speaking in his staff role.
Risker/Anne
On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on the user's talk page.
I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile environment?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Belgian_pra...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Categor...
Alternatively, you can work to improve policies and guidelines on commons. One key benefit is that if photographs you uploaded were deleted under old policies but could be kept under new policies, they can all be considered for undeletion. I suggest a good starting point is better guidelines to interpret what "significant doubt" means in < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_princi...
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
P.P.S. It might be politic for WMF employees to avoid using their staff accounts to join in with whatever the latest witch-hunt happens to be. I find it disturbing to see official accounts being used to inflame arguments, when in other circumstances the same accounts are used to give "official" positions that affect the whole Wikimedia community.
Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki). Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no excuse.
James
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki). Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the right place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where people would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki). Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Just on the same page as Pipo, thank you Steven for this nice troll.
2014-12-11 21:39 GMT+01:00 Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the right place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where people would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki). Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the right place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where people would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator because I don't actually care much about the individual instance. Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it or comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of Commons is telling them to do.
The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the community focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear that the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was correct in this individual case or something like that.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki). Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors". And this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as Americans do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations (even if they do not work properly imo).
As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this places and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects are using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of
the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson
or
Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the right place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
people
would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator because I don't actually care much about the individual instance. Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it or comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of Commons is telling them to do.
The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the community focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear that the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was correct in this individual case or something like that.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty
all
too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki). Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's
no
excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their misguided interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities. Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not moved to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off terribly and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 07:56, Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors". And this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as Americans do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations (even if they do not work properly imo).
As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this places and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects are using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of
the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons,
and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
Hogdson
or
Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the
right
place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
people
would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo
chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start,
and
quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator because I don't actually care much about the individual instance. Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it
or
comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of
Commons
is telling them to do.
The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the
community
focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear
that
the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was
correct
in this individual case or something like that.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least
get
on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander <
jamesofur@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to
my
ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow
volunteers
might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty
all
too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on
wiki).
Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but
it's
no
excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their misguided interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities. Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not moved to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off terribly and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-na...
Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large batches of semi-automated edits.
-- John Vandenberg
- You must change. - Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how we can fix it. - No, you must change first.
Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a friend...
This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking "why don't you want to be my friend ?"
Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
aware
of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
misguided
interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities. Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
moved
to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
terribly
and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia- and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large batches of semi-automated edits.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions to enrage those who happen to not agree with you. In fact, it describes the behaviour of you and your ilk more than that of your opponents.
Disgustedly yours,
André Engels
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
- You must change.
- Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how
we can fix it.
- No, you must change first.
Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a friend...
This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking "why don't you want to be my friend ?"
Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
aware
of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
misguided
interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities. Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
moved
to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
terribly
and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia- and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large batches of semi-automated edits.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the "impact factor", it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my blogpost.
I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements. I have in the past published many times about strategies of improving the quality of Wikidata. I have worked with people on implementing such strategies as well.
So what is your point ? Am I evil ?? If so, fine. When you have better strategies for adding statements to Wikidata speak up. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 09:08, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
aware
of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
misguided
interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities. Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
moved
to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
terribly
and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-na...
Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large batches of semi-automated edits.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard, Thanks for adding all of those statements to Wikidata! Thanks to you, I have been able to match up thousands of artists in Mix-n-Match! Like you, I am not afraid of a 1%-3% error margin, especially when tools like Mix-n-Match mean we can uncover such mistakes quickly and efficiently. Mix-n-Match is fast becoming a tool where large database owners like GLAMs can come pick up their data inconsistencies and learn from Wiki projects, instead of the other way around. ...and stop reading this email list before you've had a second cup of coffee.... Kudos, Jane
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the "impact factor", it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my blogpost.
I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements. I have in the past published many times about strategies of improving the quality of Wikidata. I have worked with people on implementing such strategies as well.
So what is your point ? Am I evil ?? If so, fine. When you have better strategies for adding statements to Wikidata speak up. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 09:08, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
aware
of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation
where
someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and
their
only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what
needs
to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
misguided
interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our
communities.
Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
moved
to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
terribly
and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not
trusted
and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with
even
more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-na...
Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large batches of semi-automated edits.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama?
Cheers, Craig Franklin On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, "Pipo Le Clown" pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors". And this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as Americans do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations (even if they do not work properly imo).
As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this places and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects are using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of
the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons,
and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
Hogdson
or
Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the
right
place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
people
would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo
chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start,
and
quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator because I don't actually care much about the individual instance. Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it
or
comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of
Commons
is telling them to do.
The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the
community
focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear
that
the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was
correct
in this individual case or something like that.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]]. (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least
get
on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander <
jamesofur@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to
my
ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow
volunteers
might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty
all
too soon passes into memory, sigh.
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on
wiki).
Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but
it's
no
excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.
C'est facile de se moquer dans sa langue maternelle, de jouer sur les mots et d'entourer ses insultes d'un joli emballage. Ça n'est pas vraiment ma manière d'être, alors dans une langue étrangère...
C'est facile de venir taper sur Commons sur cette liste, mais quand on vous met le nez dans votre merde, c'est une attaque...
Oui, la communauté de Commons n'est pas parfaite. En attendant, c'est 22 millions de fichiers libres qui sont à disposition, avec des personnes qui travaillent pour produire ces images, les importer d'autres sources, les catégoriser, etc. Pour le bien commun.
Si pour une fois, au lieu de pleurer parce que machin a été méchant en proposant votre image à la suppression, vous proposiez des choses constructives, des améliorations possibles du logiciel par exemple, ou une façon de reconnaître le travail des wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent les descriptions, ... Mais il est plus facile de crier au loup. Et c'est d'autant plus facile que ça vous permettra d'être bien vu.
Alors oui, vous pouvez tous aller vous faire foutre, avec vos généralisations et vos insultes voilées.
Vous traduirez si vous le souhaitez, ou vous resterez confits dans vos certitudes, je m'en fous.
Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 10:44, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net a écrit :
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama?
Cheers, Craig Franklin On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, "Pipo Le Clown" pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors".
And
this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as
Americans
do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations (even if they do not work properly imo).
As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this
places
and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects
are
using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling <
steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest
of
the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons,
and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
Hogdson
or
Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because
someone
proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the
right
place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
people
would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo
chamber...
So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start,
and
quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking disgrace.
Pleclown
To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator because I don't actually care much about the individual instance. Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it
or
comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of
Commons
is telling them to do.
The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the
community
focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear
that
the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is
talk
about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was
correct
in this individual case or something like that.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com
wrote:
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember
[[WP:Civility]].
(Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least
get
on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander <
jamesofur@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote: > > P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy
to
my
> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow
volunteers
> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and
pretty
all
> too soon passes into memory, sigh. >
Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on
wiki).
Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but
it's
no
excuse.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
GuidelinesWikimedia-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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 12 December 2014 at 09:59, Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
Si pour une fois, au lieu de pleurer parce que machin a été méchant en proposant votre image à la suppression, vous proposiez des choses constructives, des améliorations possibles du logiciel par exemple, ou une façon de reconnaître le travail des wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent les descriptions, ... Mais il est plus facile de crier au loup. Et c'est d'autant plus facile que ça vous permettra d'être bien vu.
It's not "crying wolf" when Commons admins' behaviour is causing serious and documented damage to Wikimedia's relations with cultural archives, who are correctly perceiving Commons as not a safe or sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at Wikimania.
Commons is observably behaving pathologically, and causing actual damage. This is not "crying wolf".
- d.
2014-12-12 12:37 GMT+00:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com: ...
sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at Wikimania.
I was in the front front row at that Wikimania presentation, and happen to be good friends with the presenter who is a lot of fun to hang out with. Due to my background, I'm sympathetic to issues that the Israeli chapter have experienced.
So, I'm genuinely afraid to say it was more of an emotive response. The extensive criticism of Commons administrators made was not well founded. That images had to be removed and that there were consequences was an issue that should have been better managed. The law and evidence presented (or its inadequacy in terms of verifiability) is not the fault of Commons administrators as a class, in practice this was a complex case and a highly politically charged one, Commons should not be hung out to dry because of it.
Fae
On 12 December 2014 at 12:47, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
So, I'm genuinely afraid to say it was more of an emotive response. The extensive criticism of Commons administrators made was not well founded. That images had to be removed and that there were consequences was an issue that should have been better managed. The law and evidence presented (or its inadequacy in terms of verifiability) is not the fault of Commons administrators as a class, in practice this was a complex case and a highly politically charged one, Commons should not be hung out to dry because of it.
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.
- d.
On 12 December 2014 at 13:04, David Gerard dgerard@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.
On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.
Just because you're writing in your native language of French doesn't mean that civility is optional - just as it should not be for native speakers of English. As *The Matrix *films identified https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnmkgmUDW4, French is a very excellent language to swear in. However, we are not playing a game of "who can make the most offensive comment in order to prove that they were offended by someone else's comment" - even though several people here seem to think we are...
...vous proposiez des choses constructives, des améliorations possibles du
logiciel par exemple, ou une façon de reconnaître le travail des wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent les descriptions...
The request for constructive ways to improve the software (and give positive recognition for people's work) is something that was implied by Steven's first email too:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification [of deletion]... No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
I see both your messages (Pipo & Steven) as asking for the same thing [and I've removed the insulting words from both quotes]. Commons could use some specifically-tailored features to help improve its 'humanity' and make all the positive work that people do more visible. Just like the way the "thank" extenstion https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks was created when it was realised that the only semi-automated feedback tools we had on Wikipedia are for "negative" feedback (block, ban, delete, warn...).
There are at least three independent *software *projects that are underway which will hopefully help to address this issue:
- Erik Zachte has been promoting this RFC on mediawiki.org https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_counts to improve the media file statistics infrastructure. The GLAMwiki community (among others) have been clamouring for usable metrics for years, and this looks like the best opportunity yet to see something happen. This will make it easier to identify the re-use and visibility of our work. - The Single User Login finalisation project https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SUL_finalisation, if I understand correctly, should mean that we will have the architecture in place to make "global" echo https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo_(Notifications)-notifications (e.g. "your image was used in...", global-talkpages (c.f. Flow https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow), watchlists... This should mean that even if you don't visit a wiki regularly, there would be more methods of being kept in contact. - The Structured Data project https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data will move much of the metadata handling, currently done locally on Commons, to Wikidata. If I understand correctly, this will greatly increase the usability of Commons to non-English speaking users and also decrease the learning-curve of Commons for new-users.
However, none of these software improvements, by themselves, will help overcome the perception that Commons (and Wikimedia in general) is an *intransigent *and* pugilistic *culture. In the GLAMwiki outreach community we spend a lot of time talking to GLAMs about the value of sharing their content with Wikimedia - but they are often fearful of us because of this stereotype. The way this conversation has degenerated into arguments which I will paraphrase as "I'm not intransigent, you are!" only consolidates that stereotype.
It's like we all feel like we're the one being attacked - like some kind of mutual siege-mentality - and where victim-blaming is the first response to any perceived threat. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step to solving it. However conversations like this make it seem that some people feel the only problem is other people saying that there's a problem...
Finally, following Craig's comment: From: Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama?
Not just that, but also... Am I the only one that sees the irony in how this thread started by arguing that the Commons community "...cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge", and then the conversation quickly veered off into an omnibus of WikiLawering about strict free-licensing minutiae: Tunisian Freedom-of-Panorama, Tractor logos and Israeli Government Works!?!
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
Ha! Thanks Liam, let me be the first to admit that I'm guilty as charged! I would have used the clip of Paul Newman from Cool Hand Luke on communication, but maybe that just shows my age. I have one comment on your comment about Wikidata metadata handling. Yes this is currently done locally on Commons, and moving as much as possible of it to Wikidata will greatly increase the usability of Commons to non-English speaking users and also decrease the learning-curve of Commons for new-users. That said, the most valuable thing it will do is give non-english-speaking Commons volunteers a structured way to inform uploaders about their images in a language they can understand. So it won't all be one-way communication.
And who knows, maybe one day I will be able to read about all the copyrights regarding media created outdoors that don't fall under fop
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown pleclown@gmail.com wrote:
Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.
Just because you're writing in your native language of French doesn't mean that civility is optional - just as it should not be for native speakers of English. As *The Matrix *films identified https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnmkgmUDW4, French is a very excellent language to swear in. However, we are not playing a game of "who can make the most offensive comment in order to prove that they were offended by someone else's comment" - even though several people here seem to think we are...
...vous proposiez des choses constructives, des améliorations possibles du
logiciel par exemple, ou une façon de reconnaître le travail des wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent les descriptions...
The request for constructive ways to improve the software (and give positive recognition for people's work) is something that was implied by Steven's first email too:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification [of deletion]... No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
I see both your messages (Pipo & Steven) as asking for the same thing [and I've removed the insulting words from both quotes]. Commons could use some specifically-tailored features to help improve its 'humanity' and make all the positive work that people do more visible. Just like the way the "thank" extenstion https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks was created when it was realised that the only semi-automated feedback tools we had on Wikipedia are for "negative" feedback (block, ban, delete, warn...).
There are at least three independent *software *projects that are underway which will hopefully help to address this issue:
- Erik Zachte has been promoting this RFC on mediawiki.org
< https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_count...
to improve the media file statistics infrastructure. The GLAMwiki community (among others) have been clamouring for usable metrics for years, and this looks like the best opportunity yet to see something happen. This will make it easier to identify the re-use and visibility of our work.
- The Single User Login finalisation project
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SUL_finalisation, if I understand correctly, should mean that we will have the architecture in place to make "global" echo https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo_(Notifications)-notifications (e.g. "your image was used in...", global-talkpages (c.f. Flow https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow), watchlists... This should mean that even if you don't visit a wiki regularly, there would be more methods of being kept in contact.
- The Structured Data project
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data will move much of the metadata handling, currently done locally on Commons, to Wikidata. If I understand correctly, this will greatly increase the usability of Commons to non-English speaking users and also decrease the learning-curve of Commons for new-users.
However, none of these software improvements, by themselves, will help overcome the perception that Commons (and Wikimedia in general) is an *intransigent *and* pugilistic *culture. In the GLAMwiki outreach community we spend a lot of time talking to GLAMs about the value of sharing their content with Wikimedia - but they are often fearful of us because of this stereotype. The way this conversation has degenerated into arguments which I will paraphrase as "I'm not intransigent, you are!" only consolidates that stereotype.
It's like we all feel like we're the one being attacked - like some kind of mutual siege-mentality - and where victim-blaming is the first response to any perceived threat. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step to solving it. However conversations like this make it seem that some people feel the only problem is other people saying that there's a problem...
Finally, following Craig's comment: From: Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama?
Not just that, but also... Am I the only one that sees the irony in how this thread started by arguing that the Commons community "...cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge", and then the conversation quickly veered off into an omnibus of WikiLawering about strict free-licensing minutiae: Tunisian Freedom-of-Panorama, Tractor logos and Israeli Government Works!?!
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
2014-12-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com:
From: Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama?
Not just that, but also... Am I the only one that sees the irony in how this thread started by arguing that the Commons community "...cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge", and then the conversation quickly veered off into an omnibus of WikiLawering about strict free-licensing minutiae: Tunisian Freedom-of-Panorama, Tractor logos and Israeli Government Works!?!
So we're incapable to focus on the main issues. That happens when everyone has it's on "main" problem. That doesn't mean we have to dismiss the whole thread. Branching on smaller problems might help.
2014-12-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com:
There are at least three independent *software *projects that are underway which will hopefully help to address this issue:
They sound great, but they will take years [1], time that we don't know if we have. You might convince GLAMs to collaborate with you later on, but not individual contributors. A person "lost" for the Wikimedia community is most likely lost for good. We need an solution sooner, and it needs to involve some social networking - tech is never the only solution when it comes to interactions between people.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview#What_is_...
2014-12-12 13:56 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
Some of the structure of Commons is frustrating, often because of the clumsy workflow for file uploading, moving, deleting. I hope to see many improvements over the next two years. As there are only around 150 active admins on Commons (a tenth of the English Wikipedia's), it is worth asking one for help, the response you get will tend to be personal and common sense rather than bureaucracy or wikilawyering.
You keep speaking about moving, deleting and other administrative tasks, while this thread was about making Commons a place where it is at least predictable if a file will be kept or not, or better yet, about making Commons a real alternative to Flickr Commons and similar repositories. I am sorry, but your messages do not offer any solution in that direction.
I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in the past. If you are familiar with IRC, it sometimes helps to discuss an issue in real time on the Commons channel before responding to issues on-wiki.[2]
I had more than one bad experience, with some downright incredible. Luckily for me, I happened to be a Wikipedian long before I started uploading to Commons, so I was prepared for most of it. But the average newcomer that comes through, say, WLM but wants to continue contributing will not have the kind of patience it takes to upload and keep a debatable image from being deleted.
Does that happen on Wikipedia as well? Yes, with the notable difference that Commons should have a somewhat lower entry barrier than English Wikipedia at this point (uploading an image is easier that adding to articles that are either quite big or on difficult subjects). So it should be much easier to get external people to contribute to Commons and then to Wikipedia than the other way around. Unfortunately, we are currently light-years away from this, and this is easily visible in the percentage of conversions from WLM.
Strainu
2014-12-11 20:14 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on the user's talk page.
Solving individual problems will not solve the real, underlying problem: Commons has become an independent project with a obvious copyright paranoia that cares less about the people actually using their product (Wiki* projects and 3rd party reusers) and more about their own interpretations of the rules.
This goes beyond copyright: how can one, in good faith, encourage non-English speaking contributors to go to a project that is not truly multi-lingual? How can I explain to occasional users why some of their pictures were deleted, while others were kept, even though they pictured the same subject, the main difference being the person that closed the discussion?
I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile environment?
Commons IS a hostile environment for non-permanent residents. I've given up on commenting in deletion request, finding it's much less time-consuming to just copy the picture back to Wikipedia and figure it out over there.
Strainu
On 12 December 2014 at 11:29, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote: ...
I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile environment?
Commons IS a hostile environment for non-permanent residents. I've given up on commenting in deletion request, finding it's much less time-consuming to just copy the picture back to Wikipedia and figure it out over there.
Strainu
On the language point, please do have a go at making comments in DRs or on noticeboards in your first language. Commons *is* an international and multilingual project, so we encourage non-English contributions.[1] Just expect others to be using Google translate to understand the point, so write in a plain way. ;-)
Some of the structure of Commons is frustrating, often because of the clumsy workflow for file uploading, moving, deleting. I hope to see many improvements over the next two years. As there are only around 150 active admins on Commons (a tenth of the English Wikipedia's), it is worth asking one for help, the response you get will tend to be personal and common sense rather than bureaucracy or wikilawyering.
I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in the past. If you are familiar with IRC, it sometimes helps to discuss an issue in real time on the Commons channel before responding to issues on-wiki.[2]
Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Language_policy 2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Internet_Relay_Chat
Fae
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image.
I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car. The logo. The boards with demonstration slogans. The clothes. The gate. Anything that has some kind of creative design is copyrighted. Which just goes to show "nothing copyrighted" is not a workable way to set our limits.
On 12/11/14, 8:14 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image.
I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car. The logo. The boards with demonstration slogans. The clothes. The gate. Anything that has some kind of creative design is copyrighted. Which just goes to show "nothing copyrighted" is not a workable way to set our limits.
That's true. I think we do need some attempt at workable limits which try to avoid pushing too hard on fair use that essentially only qualifies Wikipedia-like entities, but also avoids deleting files that are exceedingly unlikely to result in a successful copyright suit.
I'd take the pragmatic justification for being copyright-sticklers on Commons to be: so we can provide a free-media repository that our reusers can use, even commercially and world-wide, in the reasonably secure belief that their reuse is legal, because this is truly freely licensed media.
How does one go about trying to fulfill that goal? I fear it *is* actually a fairly high bar, because there are a lot of pitfalls in copyright law through which a reuser may be successfully sued, if we are too sloppy with what we allow into our "free media repository". But it's certainly possible to also exclude things that have absolutely no chance of being a problem. Which is in itself quite difficult to predict.
-Mark
fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the restrictions on the use of copyrighted logos and design elements apply to any photographs in which they are featured? That would seem to be the case based on the Trademark policy.
is it a correct logical extension of the rule to say that any photograph which features a copyrighted element, where the owner of the copyrighted element is not the uploader or has not otherwise released the element under a compatible license, must be deleted?
Another example - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-12-14_Provinzial-Demo.JPG
In that photo, the logo of Fendt, a farm equipment manufacturer, appears. Based on the trademark policy, should this be deleted? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 December 2014 at 17:32, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
fop
Not as the term is generally understood. The relevant concept would be "useful articles" (at least under US and UK law I've not spent enough time digging through other legal systems). The concept can be slightly messy but until we start supporting 3D objects it can be thought of as meaning that derivative copyright isn't an issue for something that actually does something useful. The classic example is that you are free to take photos of steam engines no matter how pretty they are.
but fop trumps all else when you are outside
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:38 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 17:32, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
fop
Not as the term is generally understood. The relevant concept would be "useful articles" (at least under US and UK law I've not spent enough time digging through other legal systems). The concept can be slightly messy but until we start supporting 3D objects it can be thought of as meaning that derivative copyright isn't an issue for something that actually does something useful. The classic example is that you are free to take photos of steam engines no matter how pretty they are.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 December 2014 at 17:54, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
but fop trumps all else when you are outside
Not under any legal system I've looked into. Even UK law isn't that liberal.
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay! But this was Tunisia, which apparently has no fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 17:54, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
but fop trumps all else when you are outside
Not under any legal system I've looked into. Even UK law isn't that liberal.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them - these all fall under fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom of panorama:
"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"
Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained: "Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting, building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a [design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."
Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds - insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.
André
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them - these all fall under fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There must be tens of 1000's out there by now
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom of panorama:
"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"
Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained: "Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting, building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a [design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."
Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds
- insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under
part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.
André
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them
these all fall under fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I don't think those pictures are going to be deleted - there are plenty of pictures of cars on commons, and I haven't seen a movement to get them all deleted (I don't spend much time on commons, though, so I might have missed it). I do think it would be a good thing to keep them, but fop should not be the argument.
In my opinion, the relevant issue here would be that the copyright holder is in no way disadvantaged by the creation, copying and publication of the image. However, it is hard to put that type of reasoning into a workable criterion.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There must be tens of 1000's out there by now
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom of panorama:
"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"
Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained: "Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting, building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a [design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."
Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds
- insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under
part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.
André
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them
these all fall under fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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. Steven makes a good point when saying that it's more likely to be blamed for a mistake than to be thanked for doing 1000 things well, but that's happens everytime in life. Russavia is answering maybe too rudely, but he's perfectly right. Really, when I read copyright claims based on "I own the object", that's nothing to discuss, RTFM is the best answer. Now, we may wonder why our strict policies on copyright, which highlight the absurdities it leads to, have no impact on copyright law (which generally tends to change to more restrictive). EDP's may be partly responsible for this, but probably not so much.
Cruccone
Marco there's hope! http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/102821/ip-minefield-monkey-makes-copy...
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com 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. Steven makes a good point when saying that it's more likely to be blamed for a mistake than to be thanked for doing 1000 things well, but that's happens everytime in life. Russavia is answering maybe too rudely, but he's perfectly right. Really, when I read copyright claims based on "I own the object", that's nothing to discuss, RTFM is the best answer. Now, we may wonder why our strict policies on copyright, which highlight the absurdities it leads to, have no impact on copyright law (which generally tends to change to more restrictive). EDP's may be partly responsible for this, but probably not so much.
Cruccone
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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.
On 13 December 2014 at 20:34, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
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.
I don't know about books but Private eye (circulation 200K) has used a commons image at least once.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, 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.
Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly, the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all of the options appear to suck.)
This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what we can do together.
But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA, not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.
So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't see that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside world.
Sincerely- Luis
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, 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.
Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly, the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all of the options appear to suck.)
This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what we can do together.
But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA, not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.
So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't see that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside world.
Agreeing , but I can replace Commons with 'English Wikipedia' in your email and it is equally or more true, as Wikipedia has the option for fair use which is a minefield when someone from the 'non-free deletionists camp' there takes an issue with an image (or , often they go through every upload looking for issues - super fun). Both projects, and probably all others, are constantly improving their policies and guidelines as the community develops a better understanding of these issues. Usually that process involves many deletions and undeletions and a few tears along the way (mine too; I've had images deleted and it isnt fun), but it is how the system works at this scale - bad decisions are made all the time, but they are vastly outnumbered by the good decisions and the commons does continue to grow. If we tried to make the 'correct' legal decision every time, it would be a whole lot less fun and productive.
-- John Vandenberg
Hi luis, I could understand liams mail, and the links russavia sent. Could you match the this somehow from a legal standpoint?
Rupert On Dec 11, 2014 5:55 PM, "Luis Villa" lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of them). If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say, please do.
In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly received loud, sustained applause for.
Luis
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It would be nice to have a cross-wiki Echo notification when an image you've created or uploaded is used, I do hope such a system could be included when we eventually get cross-wiki Echo notifications.
I'm disappointed you needed to call the users on Commons "fussy neckbeards" and I trust someone in your position will apologise unreservedly for such an attack on a whole community.
Luis - the image in question is believed to be https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg, perhaps you could provide some legal advice on the copyright status and any potential issues surrounding the use of that image, and in turn, the Commons packaging policy.
Thanks, Nick
On 11 December 2014 at 16:40, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING. It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of when some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of Commons. A huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork, jingles, etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but any photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows CC/public domain licensing would allow.
We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give photos to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr) would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to bother uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill out a form for fair use rationales.
In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Steven Walling, 11/12/2014 17:40:
I just noticed
Really? The day after tomorrow is the 12th birthday of https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avoid_copyright_paranoia&ol... !
Nemo
On 11 December 2014 at 16:40, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote: ...
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of when some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message about downloads for free reuse.
...
I'm reflecting on this, certainly having uploaded 700 times more images than Steven, I get far more hassle over weak categorization and minor format issues than I ever receive thanks. However I do appreciate unexpected thanks, even for long past upload projects. As an example, unbeknown to others, all year I have regularly recieved thank you notifications from Tokorokoko for photographs I uploaded yonks ago from the U.S. Department of Defense taken in Japan, which is jolly nice considering I have no other connection to them, it leaves me with a warm glow. Anyway, so from my own experience I agree that those of us that spend more time contributing content barely get any thanks. In practice as we are more active, it is a sad fact that we are far more likely to be challenged, be investigated by trusted users, have our time sucked up by others looking for help and sometimes by those who are desperate for drama and can't resist poking the bear.
With regard to having my uploads deleted, as of today I have had over 2,000 files deleted (the database shows 19,402 of my files deleted, however 17,000 were probably due to the same project error and I requested them deleted). I mostly agree with the deletions, I have gradually learned to accept that this is part of the risk we take in understanding and protecting the copyright due to original artists.
In comparison, Steven has as of today 1,215 files uploaded to Commons. Of these he is fortunate that only 19 have been deleted. 2 were at his own request while 6 were duplicates or scaled-down versions of files already on Commons. This leaves 11. I think a less than 1% deletion rate on your first 1,000 uploaded files shows that the project is not such a bad place to share images for their educational benefit.
I took a closer look due to the original "thousands of uploads" comment which seemed incongruous with Steven not appearing on my active users list.[1] Hopefully if he continues, the rate of deletions will keep on decreasing, I suspect that is a natural pattern for everyone uploading to Commons. For those of us who have been in many copyright discussions, the one thing we are sure about is that it is always changing and nobody is always right, including our assessment of the copyright of our own photographs.
Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Userlist
P.S. with regard to being "young and handsome", please consider that struck per James' earlier objection. Let's presume nobody has any views about facial hair, age or similar personal attributes and that maybe one day soon Steven will feel able to apologise for defaming all of us unpaid volunteer Commonsists. As for me I am fabulous, and you are welcome to say so.
Thanks, Fae
On 12/12/14 03:40, Steven Walling wrote:
Commons should really just have stayed a database shared among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
I don't know what that would technically look like. Commons was always a wiki with a community and a mission, it has never been just a database, so there is no obvious precedent to follow. If you have a central repository, then you at least need someone to review uploads.
It would be technically trivial to make a second central image repository wiki, explicitly for fair use images. So maybe that is a solution.
-- Tim Starling
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org