Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo tags?
On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo tags?
Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of Wikipedia articles, such as those for notable buildings in Europe, designed in the mid 20th century onwards. It is possible to put some SQL queries together like this, but the resulting lists or statistics would only ever be a small slice of relevant articles that could be affected.
A simple analysis for Commons can be found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#number_of_files_under_FOP.3F which gives a sense of size, along with relevant Freedom of Panorama (FoP) categories. However, as noted there, keep in mind that it is probable that *most* public domain photographs that in some way rely on European FoP provisions are not categorized in a way that we can current track relevance to FoP, so statistics are going to remain less useful than educated guesstimates.
Fae
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and (for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
Newyorkbrad
On 6/22/15, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo tags?
Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of Wikipedia articles, such as those for notable buildings in Europe, designed in the mid 20th century onwards. It is possible to put some SQL queries together like this, but the resulting lists or statistics would only ever be a small slice of relevant articles that could be affected.
A simple analysis for Commons can be found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#number_of_files_under_FOP.3F which gives a sense of size, along with relevant Freedom of Panorama (FoP) categories. However, as noted there, keep in mind that it is probable that *most* public domain photographs that in some way rely on European FoP provisions are not categorized in a way that we can current track relevance to FoP, so statistics are going to remain less useful than educated guesstimates.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and (for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
No one knows for sure. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law
On 2015-06-22 19:07, Gergő Tisza wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and (for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
No one knows for sure. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law _______________________________________________
Whereas this is correct in principle, in a situation Brad describes the photo most certainly will be deleted. Also, I do not see how the photo is free in the US, due to URAA provisions.
Cheers Yaroslav
FWIW, today WIkimedia Italia had a Barcamp at the Italian Parliament to talk about Wiki Loves Monuments, FOP (which we already don't have) and related stuff. Several politicians were present and we discussed also this matter. They already alerted their MEPs. Hopefully this will contribute to the discussion.
Aubrey
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2015-06-22 19:07, Gergő Tisza wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
No one knows for sure. See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law _______________________________________________
Whereas this is correct in principle, in a situation Brad describes the photo most certainly will be deleted. Also, I do not see how the photo is free in the US, due to URAA provisions.
Cheers Yaroslav
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 our Village pump a not so active user states he called the office of Monsiuer Cavadas and talked with his secretary. And that she said the aim of the proposal is to keep status as it is today. That in France and Belgium they will keep restrictions for commercial use of panorama images, but that other EU countries can keep freedom for photos in their counties. And that the proposal should be seen as a reaction to the Reda report which proposed free images should be mandatory for all counties
I can not verify these statements as facts, but it could be an explanation of why now this proposal (still being awful)
Anders
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:17 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo tags?
It could be quite hard to figure out what exactly is affected (which is one of the ways in which this would harm Wikipedia, assuming the change would be retroactive - and copyright changes usually are - as sifting through all potentially affected images would be a huge undertaking). For anything built in the last 150 years, you would have to figure out who designed it and when that person died. And even if the architect has been dead for more than 70 years, that still does not necessarily mean the building is not affected Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, for example, but the Eiffel Tower is still not free to photograph at night.
You could find candidates in the most popular images and tag them by hand.
If it seems /possible/ that the image is affected, it could be faded out. As you say, that might be enough for it to be removed. If it is /likely/ that it is affected, it could be lightboxed or replaced.
Julia Reda, the Pirate in the European Parliament, has a fantastic blog post summary: https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:17 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo tags?
It could be quite hard to figure out what exactly is affected (which is one of the ways in which this would harm Wikipedia, assuming the change would be retroactive - and copyright changes usually are - as sifting through all potentially affected images would be a huge undertaking). For anything built in the last 150 years, you would have to figure out who designed it and when that person died. And even if the architect has been dead for more than 70 years, that still does not necessarily mean the building is not affected Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, for example, but the Eiffel Tower is still not free to photograph at night. _______________________________________________ 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 introduce you FopThreat.js https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ricordisamoa/FopThreat.js, which blackens Commons files whose description pages include one of the FoP templates https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:FoP_templates. It uses Tool Labs so it may not be properly suitable for production... ;-)
Il 22/06/2015 19:01, Sam Klein ha scritto:
You could find candidates in the most popular images and tag them by hand.
If it seems /possible/ that the image is affected, it could be faded out. As you say, that might be enough for it to be removed. If it is /likely/ that it is affected, it could be lightboxed or replaced.
Julia Reda, the Pirate in the European Parliament, has a fantastic blog post summary: https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org