We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it, As some people may have noticed last week(ish) I went though and tag most (if not all) of the uploads from this year that didn't have the licensing data. The current figures stand at:
* Tagged as being from this year : 182 * From "Cat:Files with unknown copyright status" : 28 (Minus this years) * From "Cat:Images with unknown copyright status" : 66 TOTAL TAGGED : 276 Files
Now the question is where to head from now, Personally I would like to use this as a warning message and start deleting them soon (We already threaten to do this on the Upload page for files missing License & Source data) starting at the oldest, But I didn't look at the uploaders closely and I know a few of them are active when I was tagging but I know a few of them have automatic license stalemates on their user pages and don't put license statements on their uploads unless nudged.
So the floor is open! What course of action should we take?
-Peachey
Am 31.12.2011 11:25, schrieb K. Peachey:
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it,
So the floor is open! What course of action should we take?
I suggest you create a mw page with the file names of these files.
1. Category:Images with unknown copyright status https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Category:Images_with_unknown_copyright_status 2. Category:Files with unknown copyright status https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status
Op 31-12-2011 11:25, K. Peachey schreef:
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it,
So the floor is open! What course of action should we take?
* Notify all uploaders with unknown copyright files * Sort out https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status * Move all good files to Commons * Delete all bad files * Disable local uploads
You probably want to get some Commons users involved. This is not the first time this is happening.
Maarten
Am 31.12.2011 12:21, schrieb Maarten Dammers:
Op 31-12-2011 11:25, K. Peachey schreef:
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it,
So the floor is open! What course of action should we take?
- Notify all uploaders with unknown copyright files
- Sort out
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status
- Move all good files to Commons
- Delete all bad files
- Disable local uploads
You probably want to get some Commons users involved. This is not the first time this is happening.
Maarten
and please send a pointer to a concise page with the most important license templates
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:> * Notify all uploaders with unknown copyright files> * Sort out> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status%... * Move all good files to Commons> * Delete all bad files> * Disable local uploads>> You probably want to get some Commons users involved. This is not the> first time this is happening.>> MaartenHow should we sort out the unknown copy right status category?
We can't move anything to commons unless we know the license status (which we don't if its in that category (there is a couple of small exceptions in that list of MW screenshots))
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Thomas Gries mail@tgries.de wrote:
and please send a pointer to a concise page with the most important license templates
I normally link to Category:License_templates https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:License_templates when I see people upload and message them on their talk pages, Which has the same list as templates as the upload page as well as a couple of extras.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nlwrote:
Op 31-12-2011 11:25, K. Peachey schreef:
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it,
So the floor is open! What course of action should we take?
- Notify all uploaders with unknown copyright files
- Sort out
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status
- Move all good files to Commons
- Delete all bad files
- Disable local uploads
You probably want to get some Commons users involved. This is not the first time this is happening.
I would hesitate on that -- Commons seems a highly hostile environment for the sort of ad-hoc screenshots that we expect and use on a wiki dedicated to software documentation and development like mediawiki.org.
-- brion
I don't feel strongly about use of Commons - but have posted some MW images there myself (I think...). Any images used in the public domain help section I'd advocate for using there - if for no other reason than it's more accessible to others wikis using them. Regarding MW.org only documentation (like Manual and extensions) - brion makes a good point about the potential problems caused by an overzealous (but well intentioned) Commons admin cleaning up important images that are mis or incompletely labeled.
I'm glad Peachey brought this issue up. :) I'd be willing to join others in volunteering to sort through these. Sounds like the steps might be: 1. Check userpages of file's uploader to see if they have a notice there - if so - post that notice on file's page 2. Post a notice on the talk page for uploaders of remaining files giving 2 weeks to correct (more since it's MW.org?) 3. After the two(?) weeks - attempt to tag photos used in documentation or extensions - such as screenshots (which I imagine are the vast majority) and remove (then delete) any images on those pages which are not clear (logos, etc.) from those pages 4. Any files not used in documentation (manual or extensions), explained sensibly by the uploader during this process, or files not easily tagged are then deleted 5. Lather, rinse and repeat in six months
Here's a template I tweaked from enWP to use on user talk pages if it helps with consistency: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Unknown_copyright-notice
Also put together a project page to display the templates. I tend to agree that for most folks using MW.org a category should probably be enough - but if it helps a few more folks add tags...I'll give it a try. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:File_copyright_tags
Perhaps we should revisit the conversation of an image policy mentioned here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Fair_use_policy
There didn't seem to be consensus on a fair use policy - but the start of an actual image policy is there.
Thoughts?
-greg aka varnent
PS. Happy new year!!
On Dec 31, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nlwrote:
Op 31-12-2011 11:25, K. Peachey schreef:
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it,
So the floor is open! What course of action should we take?
- Notify all uploaders with unknown copyright files
- Sort out
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_unknown_copyright_status
- Move all good files to Commons
- Delete all bad files
- Disable local uploads
You probably want to get some Commons users involved. This is not the first time this is happening.
I would hesitate on that -- Commons seems a highly hostile environment for the sort of ad-hoc screenshots that we expect and use on a wiki dedicated to software documentation and development like mediawiki.org.
-- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
K. Peachey (2011-12-31 11:25):
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it, As some people may have noticed last week(ish) I went though and tag most (if not all) of the uploads from this year that didn't have the licensing data. The current figures stand at:
- Tagged as being from this year : 182
- From "Cat:Files with unknown copyright status" : 28 (Minus this years)
- From "Cat:Images with unknown copyright status" : 66 TOTAL TAGGED : 276 Files
This is probably because of UploadWizard - I was recently uploading a file which was based on other file from Commons and there was no way too choose the correct licence (PD). I had to change it afterwards. Also category wasn't added to page although I did add it. I wasn't sure it would reproducible and didn't reported it.
Most people probably won't notice such things as UploadWizard gives you the code to paste to wiki in the process and so you don't even see the image page.
Cheers, Nux.
I considered it in the past, but left when looking at the large amount of files without copyright tags. The problem of mediawiki.org is that they have many files whose copyright status is unknown, but that -unlike wikipedia- were uploaded by there authors (with high probability).
There are old files with unactive authors which would be a pity to lose, screenshots including logos, files with no license by wmf employees...
However, I think it's a good time to begin being strict with the license of newly uploaded images.
Happy New Year!
Le Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:25:23 +0100, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com a écrit:
We currently have a large number of file uploads with no licensing data on MW wiki! And we should really start doing something about it, As some people may have noticed last week(ish) I went though and tag most (if not all) of the uploads from this year that didn't have the licensing data. The current figures stand at:
Hello,
Just consider that those files have been created by their uploader and that they granted a license for use on mediawiki.org
Whatever you do, please do not migrate to commons, or we will surely loose materials in the process due to their licensing strictness.
On 03/01/12 15:26, Antoine Musso wrote:
Hello,
Just consider that those files have been created by their uploader and that they granted a license for use on mediawiki.org
Whatever you do, please do not migrate to commons, or we will surely loose materials in the process due to their licensing strictness.
We should prefer having the files in commons if possible. Just not move it if you know they are going to be deleted, of course.
Why is it important having them in commons? Consider for instance a screnshot of Extension foo, which is then used in Help pages in multiple wikis.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Just consider that those files have been created by their uploader and that they granted a license for use on mediawiki.org
I'm pretty sure we can't assume anything with licensing, The uploader must state the license they want it to be under.
Whatever you do, please do not migrate to commons, or we will surely loose materials in the process due to their licensing strictness.
Their licensing shouldn't be any more strict than any other project, If they are rejecting files for bad licensing, We probably should be as well since we all should be using the same interruption by the foundation.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:49 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can't assume anything with licensing, The uploader must state the license they want it to be under.
If something is uploaded by a WMF employee or contractor and was produced in the course of their work for WMF, you can probably safely assume it's CC-BY-SA 3.0+, because it's down in our contracts (or at least mine) that "publicly shared content will be licensed under an applicable free content license, typically CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later". Also, some people (like Tim Starling) have a user page with a blanket statement that anything they publish with no explicit licensing information is licensed under XYZ.
But it probably doesn't hurt to ask people. As for me, everything I may have uploaded to mw.org without licensing information is hereby licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0+ .
Roan
A caveat: if the images uploaded include any of the Wikipedia trademarks (such as the puzzle globe) they've got a different copyright.
On 1/3/12 3:32 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:49 PM, K. Peacheyp858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can't assume anything with licensing, The uploader must state the license they want it to be under.
If something is uploaded by a WMF employee or contractor and was produced in the course of their work for WMF, you can probably safely assume it's CC-BY-SA 3.0+, because it's down in our contracts (or at least mine) that "publicly shared content will be licensed under an applicable free content license, typically CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later". Also, some people (like Tim Starling) have a user page with a blanket statement that anything they publish with no explicit licensing information is licensed under XYZ.
But it probably doesn't hurt to ask people. As for me, everything I may have uploaded to mw.org without licensing information is hereby licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0+ .
Roan
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 04/01/12 00:43, Brandon Harris wrote:
A caveat: if the images uploaded include any of the Wikipedia trademarks (such as the puzzle globe) they've got a different copyright.
What about the image less the logo? (yes, this is the reason screenshots should try to avoid WP logo... at least MW one is fine)
On 1/3/12 4:01 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 04/01/12 00:43, Brandon Harris wrote:
A caveat: if the images uploaded include any of the Wikipedia trademarks (such as the puzzle globe) they've got a different copyright.
What about the image less the logo? (yes, this is the reason screenshots should try to avoid WP logo... at least MW one is fine)
If the logo is cropped out, it's fine (and thus CC-By-SA 3.0).
When I need to show the logo, I've been doing a thing where I run a blur filter over a version of the logo and display that, which is fine and acceptable.
Thanks Roan. It's also interesting to learn about that clause. Even though it's safer to track them to make an explicit release, which shouldn't be hard to do. I only mentioned them as an example of its "jungliness".
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Roan. It's also interesting to learn about that clause.
I agree. I asked whether WMF had something like this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-August/067223.html
And they do!? very cool.
Is that clause in a publicly accessible document?
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:44 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Roan. It's also interesting to learn about that clause.
I agree. I asked whether WMF had something like this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-August/067223.html
And they do!? very cool.
Is that clause in a publicly accessible document?
I don't think so. The only place I've ever seen that clause is in my own contract. Common sense leads me to believe it appears it other people's contracts too, but I can't be fully certain of that.
In your post, you ask whether the employee owns the copyright on their own work, or whether WMF does. I don't know this for sure, because it's not explicitly mentioned in my contract, but I believe it's owned by the employee/contractor. All the WMF-written code I've seen in the past few years claims to be copyrighted by the author, and the fact that my contract requires me to license my work in a certain way seems to imply I own the copyright on that work, otherwise I wouldn't even have the power to license it.
Roan
Le Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:58:55 +0100, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com a écrit:
In your post, you ask whether the employee owns the copyright on their own work, or whether WMF does. I don't know this for sure, because it's not explicitly mentioned in my contract, but I believe it's owned by the employee/contractor. All the WMF-written code I've seen in the past few years claims to be copyrighted by the author, and the fact that my contract requires me to license my work in a certain way seems to imply I own the copyright on that work, otherwise I wouldn't even have the power to license it.
That is how I understand it. My contract enforce me to publish all my work as a contractor under a free license. I am assuming the code is still my intellectual property though.
For WMF employees, I am sure the copyright belong to the WMF.
To try and help with categorizing images used specifically for documentation (and which are specifically for extensions) - and to help explain their importance to admins before they delete - I've created a couple of headers: - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_extension_file - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_documentation_file
Counterparts on MW.org: - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Extension_file - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Documentation_file
I have not yet begun to tag files - but will be doing so in the coming weeks as I get around to reviewing extensions for compatibility and working through the unknown files, etc.
I also tend to agree that we should be better about MW.org image licensing, which may mean deleting some images if they're clear copyright violations. I also think we'll need to start using the fair-use rationales more. We have a number of files that are technically screenshots of copyright protected websites or software (which I believe may apply with or without their logo appearing - but I'm by no means a copyright lawyer). Forbidding them altogether seems like a poor solution as they often provide very helpful visual aides and their usage is totally legal with a proper fair-use rationale statement.
Also started an early draft of a proposed image policy for MW.org to help clarify all of this once there's consensus on the listserv. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Image_policy
Feedback? -greg aka varnent
On Jan 3, 2012, at 5:49 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Just consider that those files have been created by their uploader and that they granted a license for use on mediawiki.org
I'm pretty sure we can't assume anything with licensing, The uploader must state the license they want it to be under.
Whatever you do, please do not migrate to commons, or we will surely loose materials in the process due to their licensing strictness.
Their licensing shouldn't be any more strict than any other project, If they are rejecting files for bad licensing, We probably should be as well since we all should be using the same interruption by the foundation.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 04.01.2012, 7:21 Gregory wrote:
To try and help with categorizing images used specifically for documentation (and which are specifically for extensions) - and to help explain their importance to admins before they delete - I've created a couple of headers:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_extension_file
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_documentation_file
Counterparts on MW.org:
I have not yet begun to tag files - but will be doing so in the coming weeks as I get around to reviewing extensions for compatibility and working through the unknown files, etc.
I also tend to agree that we should be better about MW.org image licensing, which may mean deleting some images if they're clear copyright violations. I also think we'll need to start using the fair-use rationales more. We have a number of files that are technically screenshots of copyright protected websites or software (which I believe may apply with or without their logo appearing - but I'm by no means a copyright lawyer). Forbidding them altogether seems like a poor solution as they often provide very helpful visual aides and their usage is totally legal with a proper fair-use rationale statement.
Also started an early draft of a proposed image policy for MW.org to help clarify all of this once there's consensus on the listserv. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Image_policy
Feedback? -greg aka varnent
I've made a small clarification[1] to the template, though in my experience even promise of "do it and be desysopped" doesn't prevent crazy Commons admins from deleting stuff without discussion.
----- [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MediaWiki_documenta...
On 04/01/12 11:49, Max Semenik wrote:
On 04.01.2012, 7:21 Gregory wrote:
To try and help with categorizing images used specifically for documentation (and which are specifically for extensions) - and to help explain their importance to admins before they delete - I've created a couple of headers:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_extension_file
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_documentation_file
Counterparts on MW.org:
I've made a small clarification[1] to the template, though in my experience even promise of "do it and be desysopped" doesn't prevent crazy Commons admins from deleting stuff without discussion.
Those statements of "refrain from deleting it unless absolutely necessary" are useless. If they have the copyright correctly set, they wouldn't be deleted. And if they are copyvios, they would be nonetheless. It's fine to put a template explaining what is it used for, but that text makes the sysop looks a bit dumb.
I know that's what they're SUPPOSE to do - but I've heard tales of other issues as well. It hasn't been my personal experience that the Commons Admins do a lot of overzealous deletions - but if it helps to prevent even one overzealous deletion - yay. :)
I tend to agree it "shouldn't" be necessary - but given people's concerns about the importance of the files - figure it's at least worth a try. :) Plus I find MaxSem's addition to be rather amusing.
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Platonides wrote:
On 04/01/12 11:49, Max Semenik wrote:
On 04.01.2012, 7:21 Gregory wrote:
To try and help with categorizing images used specifically for documentation (and which are specifically for extensions) - and to help explain their importance to admins before they delete - I've created a couple of headers:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_extension_file
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MediaWiki_documentation_file
Counterparts on MW.org:
I've made a small clarification[1] to the template, though in my experience even promise of "do it and be desysopped" doesn't prevent crazy Commons admins from deleting stuff without discussion.
Those statements of "refrain from deleting it unless absolutely necessary" are useless. If they have the copyright correctly set, they wouldn't be deleted. And if they are copyvios, they would be nonetheless. It's fine to put a template explaining what is it used for, but that text makes the sysop looks a bit dumb.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum admin@wikiqueer.org wrote:
I know that's what they're SUPPOSE to do - but I've heard tales of other issues as well. It hasn't been my personal experience that the Commons Admins do a lot of overzealous deletions - but if it helps to prevent even one overzealous deletion - yay. :)
I tend to agree it "shouldn't" be necessary - but given people's concerns about the importance of the files - figure it's at least worth a try. :) Plus I find MaxSem's addition to be rather amusing.
If people at Commons can't see the importance of such files then I'd suggest we just leave them on mw.org then.
Cleaning up unlicensed stuff on mw.org is a good idea, but the rest I'm afraid is a solution in search of a problem.
-Chad
Commons folk doesn't magically delete anything unless there is a reason, nor do they instantly delete in most cases. If peoples uploads are continently getting tagged for deletion, They should look at why they are getting tagged.
On 05.01.2012, 4:47 K. wrote:
Commons folk doesn't magically delete anything unless there is a reason, nor do they instantly delete in most cases. If peoples uploads are continently getting tagged for deletion, They should look at why they are getting tagged.
I've seen them delete on sight screenshots of FLOSS Windows software "because Windows UI is copyrighted". Even though Commons policies don't mandate anything like this, lots of their sysops have an urge "to protect copyright" without any actual knowledge in this area, unfortunately.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:47 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Commons folk doesn't magically delete anything unless there is a reason, nor do they instantly delete in most cases. If peoples uploads are continently getting tagged for deletion, They should look at why they are getting tagged.
For one example, recently a fellow wikipedian got a picture he had taken himself deleted because someone else had uploaded it somewhere else, so they didn't believe it was his. I myself have had pictures from US government almost deleted because I only specified which government institution it came from, not what page they could be found (saved because I happened to find them after being notified of my terrible crime). Copyright diligence is good, copyright paranoia is not.
On 04/01/12 20:53, Gregory Varnum wrote:
I know that's what they're SUPPOSE to do - but I've heard tales of other issues as well. (...)
I tend to agree it "shouldn't" be necessary - but given people's concerns about the importance of the files - figure it's at least worth a try. :) Plus I find MaxSem's addition to be rather amusing.
A request like "please contact [[Sumana]] before deleting this" would be more appropiate than a "don't do this", since if they are going to delete them, they *think* it's the right thing to do.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org