[Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Fæ]

The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
progress this.

Fae
On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
> otherwise."
>
> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
> therefore proceed cautiously."
>
> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
> image.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
> On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi Tomasz,
> >>
> >> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> >> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can
> you
> >> appreciate it in this way?
> >>
> >> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument
> as
> >> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> >> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> >> Thanks,
> >>      GerardM
> >>
> >>
> > No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices
> (or
> > lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>