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> (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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.