[Commons-l] [Fwd: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia]

Florian Straub flominator at gmx.net
Wed Jun 25 18:15:34 UTC 2008

Hi folks,

as some of you might have noticed, we've had some problems with our 
tools Flinfo/Magnus Upload Bot and the latest additions to Flick's The 

Meanwhile George Oates from Flickr contacted us with some ideas of his 
own (see below). I'd like to discuss them with you, especially #3 and #4.

I'd also like to see some more contributions at the delition request for 

I'm all ears on ideas how (/if?) we should continue uploading pictures 
from Flickr's The Commons.

Best regards,


np:  Baddiel And Skinner & Lightning Seeds - Three Lions
Language is the dress of thought.
- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia
Datum: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:49:04 +0100
Von: George Oates <glo at yahoo-inc.com>
An: Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net>
CC: Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com>,        Heather Champ 
<hchamp at yahoo-inc.com>

Hi Florian -

Thanks for following up -sorry for my slow reply, but I've been travelling
without internet. That conversation on the deletion request looks
interesting :)

The trouble is, not every participant in The Commons will be like LOC. Not
all imagery is public domain.

I've also added Flickr's Director of Community, Heather Champ, to this email
- she's interested in how Commons content is being represented on Wikimedia
as well.

Feel free to post to the list if you wish - I won't be able to keep up with
it though.


On 6/22/08 11:35 AM, "Florian Straub" <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi George,
> as another quick solution for your topic #1 I created a (license) tag
> for the uploaded images, so I wouldn't have to use pd-because again:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr-no_known_copyright_restricti
> ons
> Unfortunately it was requested for deletion:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Flickr-no
> _known_copyright_restrictions
> The link to the rights pages (#2) shouldn't be a problem. It might just
> take some time to implement it (will have to finish my diploma thesis
> next week first).
> This thing is getting to big for me (especially #3 and #4, but #1 as
> well). I'd like to discuss your email with the community on commons-l,
> the list Magnus mentioned below. May I forward your email to the list?
> As Magnus mentioned it might also be a good idea for you to join the list.
> Thanks in advance and best regards,
> Florian
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia
> Von: George Oates <glo at yahoo-inc.com>
> An: flominator at gmx.net
> Datum: tue, 17 jun 2008 10:29:15 +0100
>> Hi Flominator -
>> I work at Flickr, and am heading up the new Commons program there... I wrote
>> to Magnus a little while ago to see about changing the way you guys are
>> explaining the "no known copyright restrictions."
>> I had made a couple of edits to the Brooklyn Museum's content, which I since
>> notice have been removed.
>> I have written detailed notes below Magnus' reply - please take a moment to
>> review them... The important thing is that you've assumed these photos are
>> in the public domain because *Flickr* claims it, and that's simply
>> incorrect.
>> Please, have a look and let me know what you think!
>> Cheers,
>> George
>> On 6/5/08 7:15 AM, "Magnus Manske" <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi George,
>>> thanks for the mail - good to know that people at flickr care as much
>>> as "we" do :-)
>>> Now, the situation at hand is even more complicated than you think...
>>> I'm running the "file upload bot", which is not really a bot, but a
>>> user name for some of my web-operated commons.wikimedia upload tools,
>>> including this one:
>>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php
>>> It does not generate the commons.wikimedia description directly, but
>>> uses yet another tool:
>>> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php
>>> which is operated by someone else:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator
>>> He also created the Brooklyn Museum template, which contains the
>>> license information:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Flickr-Brooklyn-Museum
>>> He'd be the one to talk to about changes to the license information.
>>> Or, you can edit the template yourself!
>>> For a more general discussion about licenses, inclusion of flickr
>>> images in commons.wikimedia etc., you might want to address out
>>> mailing list:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>> I didn't want to forward your mail to the list myself, but IMHO it
>>> would be nice to discuss it there.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM, George Oates <glo at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Magnus -
>>>> I work at Flickr, and am heading up The Commons project. I wanted to drop
>>>> you a line to say thank you for publishing some of the Library of Congress
>>>> &
>>>> Brooklyn Museum photos to commons.wikimedia! That's fantastic!
>>>> The thing is, I have a few questions and/or requests about the way you've
>>>> implemented it. I'd like to discuss these points with you in the hope that
>>>> we can come up with the best solution together. (Warning: This is a long
>>>> email!)
>>>> 1. The language that you've used to describe the "no known copyright
>>>> restrictions" idea we're trying to propagate stuff in The Commons is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>> Your original interpretation on all the Brooklyn Museum photos read:
>>>> +++
>>>> "This file is in the public domain, because Flickr says that there are 'No
>>>> known copyright restrictions'
>>>> In case this is not legally possible:
>>>> The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without
>>>> any
>>>> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
>>>> Please verify that the reason given above complies with Commons' licensing
>>>> policy."
>>>> +++
>>>> Actually, "no known copyright restrictions" doesn't mean that the photos
>>>> are
>>>> in the public domain. In fact, it's not even a license per se.
>>>> Basically, it would be ideal to direct people towards the "Rights
>>>> Statement"
>>>> on a) flickr.com and b) each Commons participants' documentation of their
>>>> understanding of the rights statement. There are links to everything from
>>>> here: http://flickr.com/commons/usage/
>>>> I've taken the liberty of editing the Brooklyn Museum photos to indicate
>>>> this - all of these:
>>>> ry+exact+match
>>>> The proposed new language is as follows:
>>>> +++
>>>> "This photo was released in to The Commons on Flickr using the "no known
>>>> copyright restrictions" rights statement. This does not mean it's in the
>>>> public domain. For more information, please visit
>>>> http://flickr.com/commons/usage/, and the Brooklyn Museum's information
>>>> page, http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/flickr_commons.php."
>>>> +++
>>>> Please let me know if you approve, or if I should let anyone else on your
>>>> team know?
>>>> 2. In future, if you intend to import more content from The Commons in to
>>>> commons.wikimedia, it would ideal if you could always link to the
>>>> institution-specific Rights Statement page, as linked to from
>>>> flickr.com/commons/usage. Would this be possible? I noticed you and Magnus
>>>> (?) have written Flickr import tools... be great to integrate that.
>>>> 3. It would also be ideal if you could use the same language on all of the
>>>> Library of Congress photos that have been published in The Commons on
>>>> Flickr. Several of the Bain photos should ideally get the same treatment.
>>>> These are the ones I've discovered so far:
>>>> Woodrow Wilson and Champ Clark,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2422676781/
>>>> lson%3B_Champ_Clark_%28LOC%29_%28pd%29.jpg
>>>> Sultan Mulai Hafid,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2448653737/
>>>> Prince Henry of Holland,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2448653975/
>>>> Fort Edmonton, Canada,
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2458985803/
>>>> The Czar, http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2496401489/
>>>> I looked at those pages, but couldn't work out the correct way to reference
>>>> the language I've noted in point 1 above. Can you direct me?
>>>> 4. I've spoken with my colleagues at both the Brooklyn Museum and the
>>>> Library of Congress, and we're all behind sharing images in to The Commons.
>>>> We studied the site terms and it seems they are very strict about image
>>>> licensing.  It seems like having images hosted at commons.wikimedia becomes
>>>> a problem in your own guidelines
>>>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing):
>>>> All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that
>>>> allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (see also
>>>> Commons:Criteria
>>>> for inclusion). In particular, the license must meet the following
>>>> conditions:
>>>>    * Republication and distribution must be allowed
>>>>    * Publication of derivative work must be allowed
>>>>    * Commercial use of the work must be allowed
>>>>    * Acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required.
>>>>    * Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required.
>>>>    * Use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management may
>>>> be required.
>>>> It's not always the case that photos added to The Commons will fit these
>>>> rules, so there's some doubt amongst us about whether Flickr Commons
>>>> content
>>>> is even suitable on a consistent basis.
>>>> I'd love to discuss all this with you! Again, not meaning any harm sending
>>>> along this feedback. It's a good thing that Flickr Commons content might
>>>> find a place on commons.wikipedia!
>>>> Also, please let me know if there's another person I should be talking to
>>>> about the details of the licensing etc.
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> George Oates

More information about the Commons-l mailing list