On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works, then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
conversation.
Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly, the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all of the options appear to suck.)
This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what we can do together.
But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA, not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.
So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't see that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside world.
Agreeing , but I can replace Commons with 'English Wikipedia' in your email and it is equally or more true, as Wikipedia has the option for fair use which is a minefield when someone from the 'non-free deletionists camp' there takes an issue with an image (or , often they go through every upload looking for issues - super fun). Both projects, and probably all others, are constantly improving their policies and guidelines as the community develops a better understanding of these issues. Usually that process involves many deletions and undeletions and a few tears along the way (mine too; I've had images deleted and it isnt fun), but it is how the system works at this scale - bad decisions are made all the time, but they are vastly outnumbered by the good decisions and the commons does continue to grow. If we tried to make the 'correct' legal decision every time, it would be a whole lot less fun and productive.
-- John Vandenberg