After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding...
Hoi, Thanks GerardM
On 3 April 2014 17:37, Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the
I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
Regards,
Yann
2014-04-03 21:07 GMT+05:30 Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do you need to take responsibility by yourself.
As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to illustrate the issue.
As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.
In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the
I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
Regards,
Yann
I just realised how packed with jargon my email was. Here's a bit of unpacking and links for those who do not regularly use this vocabulary:
*UDR: A Wikimedia Commons undeletion request (DR = deletion request)* See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests
*URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act* This is a US law that restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights. For the global projects of Wikimedia, this was controversial as it has the potential for public domain works in their home country, to be newly claimed as copyright in the USA.
*DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act* This is another US law that, among other things, better defined penalties for internet copyright theft and made it clearer for internet service providers their duties to block access to copyright infringing material when they were notified of a credible copyright claim. These claims of copyright are called "DMCA notices". Within the Wikimedia projects, the Foundation may takes action to remove material subject to DMCA notices, though there have been cases where some claim were not found legally credible. A number of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons is at < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices%3E (As far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for copyright.)
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do you need to take responsibility by yourself.
As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to illustrate the issue.
As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.
In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the
huge
majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language
issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community,
no
matter what. One admin even says that the
I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
Regards,
Yann
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Yael, et al
Unfortunately, this is a case of premature congratulation.
I have let the Bureaucrats know of this issue at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#This_p... on their individual talk pages.
Regards,
Russavia
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Any idea how will effect the India related images?
Jayanta Nath EC Wikimedia India
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Yael, et al
Unfortunately, this is a case of premature congratulation.
I have let the Bureaucrats know of this issue at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#This_p... on their individual talk pages.
Regards,
Russavia
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the
"rule
of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank
everyone
who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding...
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The crats are aware of this and are discussing it.
Michael
On 4 Apr 2014, at 01:29, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Yael, et al
Unfortunately, this is a case of premature congratulation.
I have let the Bureaucrats know of this issue at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#This_p... on their individual talk pages.
Regards,
Russavia
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Seems Jusjih confirmed closure at [1].
[1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Massive_restoration_...
-Yena Hong (Revi) Wikimedian https://keybase.io/revi -- Sent from Android -- 2014. 4. 5. 오후 6:36에 "Michael Maggs" Michael@maggs.name님이 작성:
The crats are aware of this and are discussing it.
Michael
On 4 Apr 2014, at 01:29, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Yael, et al
Unfortunately, this is a case of premature congratulation.
I have let the Bureaucrats know of this issue at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#This_p...
on their individual talk pages.
Regards,
Russavia
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il
wrote:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there
is
currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the
"rule
of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank
everyone
who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding...
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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@lists.wikimedia.org