Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to look at.
A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing Commons hosted files. These benefits could be delivered without any reliance on external databases.
The Article 17 aspect is from my perspective a large tangent. The WMF opposing those systems does not stop us from using automation and databases to identify potential copyright issues for our own purposes.
Fae
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 20:44, Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright directive. Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their blog post https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-intern... I presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on their projects.
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe