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 &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: against https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING. of when Commons. A jingles, any photos bother https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <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(a)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 &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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_matte… 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 &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea… on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <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(a)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 &lt;lebo.beland(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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 &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)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 &lt;adhair(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown &lt;pleclown(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: the or people 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. all no https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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.

- 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 &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: where their needs communities. trusted even http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-n… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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" &lt;pleclown(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: And Americans places are steven.walling(a)gmail.com of someone talk wrote: [[WP:Civility]]. to pretty unsubscribe> unsubscribe> GuidelinesWikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)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>

sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at Wikimania.

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.

On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown &lt;pleclown(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 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 &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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_coun… 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 &lt;cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net&gt; 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(a)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?

To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image.

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(a)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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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,

conversation.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>