[Foundation-l] Instant Commons : INCORRECT

[GerardM]

Hoi,
Either it is a resource there to used or it is not. You dodge this
questions with arguments that have nothing to do with the point. The
point is: it is there to be used or it is not.

If it is not safe to use, we cannot use it either. Once we have
checked content, we can stamp it with the "Commons stamp of approval"
or we can do whatever. My point is that if Commons is to be a public
resource it should be allowed to be a public resource. It being a
resource that is approached by machines allows people to respect the
license by providing correct license information. At this moment you
are lucky when they attribute Commons and it is rare when all the
relevant info is properly posted.

InstantCommons is one way to improve the fulfillment of the
requirements that licenses define. I could even be so bold and say
that InstantCommons is the best way to ensure that usage of the
Commons material will be properly attributed. I can even be so bold
and say that what you see as the weakness of Commons is the strength
of InstantCommons; We can register where a file was downloaded to.
When this file is found to be a copyvio, people will see that it is
also at Commons and this will allow them to remedy the situation.
Remote Wikis can be informed as to the problematic content they
downloaded.

Yes, Commons is responsive and needs to stay that way. When content is
removed, it is no longer available. When content is marked as
problematic, it needs not to be available for InstantCommons. We can
record what was downloaded from Commons by what Wiki. We can do
whatever. There are two things that should be clear: we can inform a
non-WMF wiki about problematic material but it is up to the management
of this Wiki to take the appropriate action.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Yes, all this is very much a re-hash. Most/All of these things have
been said before.

On 6/8/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/8/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do however want to address Amgine's point. There is one important
> > difference between Commons and Napster. On Commons people are actively
> > engaged in ensuring that content is properly labeled and licensed.
> > This is in marked contrast with Napster where the defence was that
> > they were only providing a service and that it was not THEIR content.
>
> Considering that we've had violations persist for months after they
> were tagged and even brought up in a Wikimedia board meeting, I'd say
> that our position is even weaker than napsters.
>
> At least napster was obviously at-your-own-risk.   As things stand
> today I think it would be irresponsible for us to encourage others to
> use content taken from commons automatically.  Yes, people can browse
> commons and upload, but that means at least one person other than the
> uploader has had a chance to consider the copyright impact.  With
> instant commons, some drive-by anonymous editor types in
> [[Image:Cat.jpg]] and you may suddenly have a violation.
>
> > Given that everything is done to make Commons free of copyrighted
> > articles and given that Commons explicitly aims to be a public
> > resource for Free material. It is stupid to suggest that this cannot
> > be because not everything has been 100% checked. Either it is a public
> > resource or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> I don't follow.   Instant commons as proposed would enable the
> automated propagation of content without any real human oversight.
> That seems quite dangerous.
>
> Consider.
> Sue holds the copyright to a book cover which includes pretty flowers.
>
> John is not bright and uploads it to commons as pretty_flowers.jpg
> tagged as "Public Domain".
> Because our interface is so helpful, his tagging looks well formed and valid.
>
> Over several months various Wiki's pick it up via instant commons.
>
> Sue notices, and asks us to take down this obvious violation. We do,
> but now sue is left playing wack-a-mole with hundreds, if not
> thousands, of sites. Many of whom are still distributing the content
> with a notice that it's public domain.
>
> What a mess.
>
> We've avoided a lot of problems with copyright holders on media by
> simply being very responsive. While we've had instances of people
> quite angry at us over mirrored text that we can't control.  Images
> are an especially weak point for us from a copyright perspective, so
> our ability to be more responsive (due to a lack of mirroring) has
> been fortunate.
>
> > What InstantCommons does is nothing more than make the material that
> > is there as a public resource available in a convenient way.
>
> As proposed it is also a vehicle where any irresponsibility on our
> part can lead to greatly increased harm.  Care should be taken to
> avoid this.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>