On 12/11/11 16:00, geni wrote:
> On 12 November 2011 14:34, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: William Allen Simpson<william.allen.simpson(a)gmail.com>
>> Date: 12 November 2011 14:11
>> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Overzealous Commons deletionists
>> To: Wikimedia developers<wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>,
info-AeOJrEpdGNeGglJvpFV4uA(a)public.gmane.org
>>
>>
>> I've noticed a problem with overzealous deletionists on Commons. While
>> this may be something of a legal and political issue, it's also
>> operational and affects multiple *[m,p]edias at the same time.
>>
>> I've spent some time over the years convincing public figures that we
>> need official pictures released for articles, rather than relying on
>> fan (or publicity or staff) produced pictures. Because of my own
>> experience in the academic, computing, political, and music industries,
>> I've had a modicum of success.
>>
>> I also ask them to create an official user identity for posting them.
>> Since Single User Login (SUL), this has the added benefit that nobody
>> else can pretend to be them. From their point of view, it's the same
>> reason they also ensure they have an existing facebook or linkedin or
>> twitter account.
>
> Problem is a lot of cases of fans doing the same thing. We prefer
> people to go through OTRS under the interesting assumption that people
> are less likely to lie via email.
>
>
>> This week, one of the commons administrators (Yann) ran a script of
>> some sort that flagged hundreds of pictures for deletion, apparently
>> based on the proximity of the word facebook in the description. There
>> was no time for actual legal analysis, at a rate of more than one per
>> minute. The only rationale given was: "From Facebook. No permission."
>>
>>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sharon_Ag…
>>
>> In this case, timestamps indicate the commons photo was posted before
>> the facebook photo, and the facebook version is somewhat smaller, so
>> there's not even the hint that it was copied "From Facebook."
Besides,
>> many public figures also have facebook accounts, so it shouldn't matter
>> that a photo appears in both places.
>
> Given the number of people who copy celebrity pics from random places
> on the web it does matter.
>
>> A bot posted a link to the notice on the en.wiki talk page that used
>> the photo, where in turn it appeared in my watchlist.
>>
>> Then, despite my protest noting that the correct copyright release was
>> included, the administrator (Yann) argued that "The EXIF data says that
>> the author is John Taylor. The uploader has another name, so I don't
>> think he is allowed to decide a license."
>>
>> That appears to be post-hoc explanation, as the facebook one obviously
>> wasn't applicable. Self-justifying strawman argument.
>
> I'm not seeing a strawman argument.
>
>> In this case, as is usual in the most industries, the *camera* owner
>> appears in the EXIM file. A public figure who pays the studio for
>> headshots owns the picture itself. The photographer would need the
>> public figure's permission to distribute the photo!
>>
>
> In practice the situation can be far more messy with the actual
> copyright being potentially split among up 4 different people/groups
> (the photographer, the celebrity, the celebrity's management, any show
> they happen to be appearing on at the time).
>
>> After pointing out the nomination didn't even remotely meet the
>> deletion policy nomination requirements (that I cited and quoted), this
>> administrator wrote: "I see that discussion with you is quite
useless."
>
> Yann is sticking to the OTRS route which you were trying to sidestep.
> Given that you were arguing at cross purposes there is a reasonable
> case to be made that it had no utility.
>
>
>
>> There are a number of obvious technical issues. YouTube and others
>
> Have business models based on their users breaching copyright on a
> massive scale. They are from our point of view only of interest in
> terms of what not to do.
>
>> have had to handle this, it's time for us.
>>
>> 1) DMCA doesn't require a takedown until there's been a complaint.
>
> We are trying to build a free content database. Not a "no one has
> gotten around to issuing a DMCA takedown notice yet" database.
> Photobucket is that way.
>
>> We
>> really shouldn't allow deletion until there's been an actual complaint.
>> We need technical means for recording official notices and appeals.
>> Informal opinions of ill-informed volunteers aren't helpful.
>
> The obvious comeback asside. The waiting for a complaint method is
> inconsistent with our goals to create a free content image collection
> and weaken our hand against illegitimate complaints. A key reason we
> can shrug off the likes of the NPG and remain somewhat credible is
> that we are somewhat paranoid about IP issues.
>
>> 2) Fast scripting and insufficient notice lead to flapping of images,
>> and confusion by the owners of the documents (and the editors of
>> articles, as 2 days is much *much* too short for most of us). We need
>> something to enforce review times.
>
> This is commons not en. We try to keep bureaucracy down to reasonable
> levels (257 admins and 10 million images its not like we can afford to
> do otherwise).
>
>>
>> 3) Folks in other industries aren't monitoring Talk pages and have no
>> idea or sufficient notice that their photos are being deleted. The
>> Talk mechanism is really not a good method for anybody other than very
>> active wikipedians. We need better email and other social notices.
>>
>> 4) We really don't have a method to "prove" that a username is
actually
>> under control of the public figure. Hard to do. Needs discussion.
>
> We generally fall back on OTRS.
>
>> 5) We probably could use some kind of comparison utility to help
>> confirm/deny a photo or article is derived from another source.
>
> Mostly a mix of tineye, checksums and mark 1 human eyeball. The best
> commercial tech I'm aware of is PicScout and I suspect our tactics do
> a better job.