Deletion of still-used images

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
45 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Deletion of still-used images

Brianna Laugher
Hello,

At the moment there are about 40 CommonsTickers (CT) set up. That is
quite good coverage, considering that a project is likely to need a
certain critical mass before it can support a CT. We have all the top
10 Wikipedias except English, of course (due to technical reasons).
There are another 35 Wikipedias that have 10,000-100,000 articles and
increasing our coverage there is definitely something to work on.

As CT coverage increases so does scrutiny of Commons admin actions,
namely, deletion of images that are still being used.

Why does this happen? Not because "Commons admins are arrogant and
don't care about local projects" (gee, that's defensive :)) but
because it's too much menial and manual work that arguably should not
fall on our shoulders. Or at least not solely.

I think we should adopt a clear policy that images shown to be in use
by CheckUsage should not be deleted unless:
* the image is currently being used by a vandal in a mass vandal
attack (this is rare, but appropriate to stop a vandal)
* [[en:w:WP:OFFICE]]-style intervention from Jimbo et al.

And also, we should create further ways of sharing responsibility with
the local projects and reducing menial tasks required by delinking.

One way which might help a bit, would be to create a tag (possibly
invisible) that would trigger a notice on CTs that said, "please
delink this image now or risk redlinks!" At the moment it seems
projects are not paying enough attention, perhaps. For example...
Image:Princesymbol.png - on 30th June I re-tagged this as a copyvio,
in an attempt to get the dozen-odd projects linking to it, to stop
doing so. On the 4th August it was deleted by another admin. Today, on
the 7th of August, it's _still_ being used by two projects (despite
being deleted) - ja: and fr:. Two of the top 5 projects!

So on one hand we have local projects upset at us for deleting images
in use and on the other we have projects who seem not to even care
when we notify them. It is a difficult balance to walk.

Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking
for us.  User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with
translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have
thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we
do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should
go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.

If projects complain about an unregistered bot, they can
a) get a CT and delink themselves
b) live with redlinks
the only exception being en.wp where the bot should be registered.
(because en.wp technically can't have a CT yet, no other reason)

Having this policy ("images shown to be in use by CheckUsage should
not be deleted") will do a few things:
* send a clear message to projects that we are not interested in damaging them
* allow us as a community to start examining our own actions more
clearly. Commons at the moment has no process or practice to
discourage reckless admin actions, partly because we've had this
ambiguous policy of allowing used-images to be deleted (ambiguous in
that it is policy, but can be very damaging). If we are clear that
this is not acceptable, we can be clear when our admins are in the
wrong and we can start a process, for example, "3 strikes and you're
out": 3 occasions of images being used and deleted (possibly in a
timeline, eg one year)-> automatic de-admin. You can forget once,
CheckUsage could be lagging twice, but three times... I don't think
so. (Note 3 occasions, not 3 images.)
I am not saying all the fault is Commons admins and they're terrible.
But we do make mistakes (as do all admins on all projects), sometimes
we do screw things up, and we should be prepared to be held
responsible on those occasions. That would be adult.
* it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a
Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a
work in progress, will never be a clean professional database -
because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will
probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion.  So in the
long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably
doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has
the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.

Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If
you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive
criticism, I welcome it.

regards,
Brianna
User:pfctdayelise
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Raimond Spekking-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> * it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
> frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a
> Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a
> work in progress, will never be a clean professional database -
> because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will
> probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion.  So in the
> long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably
> doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has
> the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.

I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my
opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others
that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.

In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the
violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."

What should they think if we answer "yes you are right but see, our
other clients (=projects) need more time"? It is not important to him.
Every day we delete a copyvio earlier the risk of complains is smaller.

I know, the fight against copyvios is endless, but if we wait now for
tomorrow or later, we will cumulate again. Is this in mind of the
Foundation? Don't think so.

I was so happy as the restore-feature for images was introtuced, now I
feel good when deleting copyvios.

The very few complains over deleted images that are really no copyvios
was handled fast I think.


In all other cases I agree with you. We have to serve all other projects
very carefully.

An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the
project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller
wikis.

>
> Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If
> you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive
> criticism, I welcome it.
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> User:pfctdayelise

Regards. Raymond
User:Raymond_de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE12QUp+qUcbEr56YRApagAKDRUmv2I1wUw+Ox5IStrUXGMd7e5wCeI8xZ
J3y+hzz+ULMkqBB2Plzih4Q=
=0u0m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Artur Fijałkowski
2006/8/7, Raimond Spekking <[hidden email]>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> > * it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
> > frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a
> > Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a
> > work in progress, will never be a clean professional database -
> > because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will
> > probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion.  So in the
> > long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably
> > doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has
> > the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.
>
> I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my
> opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others
> that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.
>
> In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the
> violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."
>
> What should they think if we answer "yes you are right but see, our
> other clients (=projects) need more time"? It is not important to him.
> Every day we delete a copyvio earlier the risk of complains is smaller.
>
> I know, the fight against copyvios is endless, but if we wait now for
> tomorrow or later, we will cumulate again. Is this in mind of the
> Foundation? Don't think so.
>
> I was so happy as the restore-feature for images was introtuced, now I
> feel good when deleting copyvios.
>
> The very few complains over deleted images that are really no copyvios
> was handled fast I think.
>
>
> In all other cases I agree with you. We have to serve all other projects
> very carefully.
>
> An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the
> project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller
> wikis.
>

I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on
special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I
know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's
upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your
images''. Vandals and people that are not interested in any
cooperation will not proove the source, etc., but wise people will ask
where is the problem :). Leaving copyvios for months not-deleted
because of rules is very risky :)

AJF/WarX
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Fredrik Josefsson
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Thank you for the input to my last post.

Here is the next one!!!!

What is the deal with trademarked images that are not
procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on
Commons, or should they be wiped out?

An ambitious user created template:trademarked (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked
) that he then applied to some images he did not
consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of
creativity". The template was applied to, for example,
the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.

It was also suggested that the logotype of the
Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it
does not containt sufficient creative authorship.

This is all based on some persistant users alleged
comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
render something copyrightable.

So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability,
and what to do with images that are only trademark
protected but not copyright protected?

/ Fred
a.k.a. Fred-Chess


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Ed Sanders
Fredrik Josefsson wrote:

> Thank you for the input to my last post.
>
> Here is the next one!!!!
>
> What is the deal with trademarked images that are not
> procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on
> Commons, or should they be wiped out?
>
> An ambitious user created template:trademarked (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked
> ) that he then applied to some images he did not
> consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of
> creativity". The template was applied to, for example,
> the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.
>
> It was also suggested that the logotype of the
> Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it
> does not containt sufficient creative authorship.
>
> This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
> to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> render something copyrightable.

Indeed, said user (Rtc) is basically saying that all logos are free of
copyright, although this is most definitely not the case in the UK.

Ed (ed_g2s)


>
> So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability,
> and what to do with images that are only trademark
> protected but not copyright protected?
>
> / Fred
> a.k.a. Fred-Chess
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Matthew Brown-5
I'd say that very few logos are not copyrighted, with the exception of
very old ones - and only then in their original form, old enough to be
expired - the modern versions are derived works of the originals and
the modern version has copyright protection for the differences
between itself and any non-copyrighted version.

Given the huge amount of effort companies go through to create a logo
and branding, I think the user is kidding themselves if they think
there is no 'sweat of the brow' involved in a logo.  Be that as it
may, German copyright law is not the overriding copyright law of the
project; instead US law in general and Florida law in specific is
(since that is where the content physically resides and where the
Foundation is based).  In addition, users must obey the copyright law
of the location in which they reside, but this does not over-ride that
of the Foundation and servers' location.

US copyright law requires a minimal amount of creativity for copyright
to hold - 'mechanical' copyrights do not exist under US law - but
that's an easy bar to clear.  Pretty much any logo will pass that
test.

In addition to copyright law, of course, images on Commons must meet
Foundation and Commons policies.   I believe it was long established
that we did not consider merely making a photo of a logo made it
magically 'free' where copying that logo by non-camera means would
not.

Photographs of a 3-D object bearing copyrighted design elements are
not blanket prohibited under Commons policy, to the best of my
knowledge, since under most cases these are not considered copyright
violations.  However, using such a picture as an 'end run' around bans
on copyrighted logos is generally not considered acceptable, I believe
(e.g. using a Coca-Cola truck bearing the prominent logo as a
surrogate for the logo itself).

-Matt
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Artur Fijałkowski
On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on
> special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I
> know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's
> upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your
> images''.

Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?!
Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what
mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid
making them in the future.

Brianna
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Raimond Spekking-2
On 08/08/06, Raimond Spekking <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my
> opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others
> that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.

Well, how do you define a copyvio? Almost everything that we delete
has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright
violation. That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license
images. That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and
photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once
believed to be free but found out to be actually not. Because we
suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is
rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.

> In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the
> violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."

Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds
any legal weight.

I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF
ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape
clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene due
to avoid imminent legal action and the like.

> An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the
> project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller
> wikis.

I think that's a great idea!

Brianna
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Matthew Brown-5
On 8/7/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, how do you define a copyvio? Almost everything that we delete
> has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright
> violation.

Actually, we also delete images uploaded that are not violations of
copyright but are violations of our license policy - CC-NC-ND etc. are
not copyright violations.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher wrote:

> On 08/08/06, Artur Fijałkowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on
>> special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I
>> know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's
>> upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your
>> images''.
>
> Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing wrong?!
> Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what
> mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid
> making them in the future.
>
Writing notes is hard when you have to do it hundreds of times; are
there any decent templates which explain these things for various cases?
If so, what are they and where are they listed?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

will-37
In reply to this post by Fredrik Josefsson
Quoting Fredrik Josefsson <[hidden email]>:
<snip>
> This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
> to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> render something copyrightable.
<snip>

Just the opposite I believe. Merely having created something ("sweat of the
brow") is enough in the UK, but does not suffice in Germany.

Will

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Patrick-Emil Zörner-2
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher

--- Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> schrieb:

> On 08/08/06, Artur Fija³kowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on
> > special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images.
> I
> > know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's
> > upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with
> your
> > images''.
>
> Er, I hope you write them a note explaining what they're doing
> wrong?!
> Simply deleting someone's images tells them nothing about what
> mistakes they're making, and therefore does not help them to avoid
> making them in the future.

Tell people twice? There is a big fat notice telling you what to do
when you upload an image. The consequences are known (BTW red and even
fat letters):

"If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your
file will be deleted without further notice. Thanks for your
understanding."

in czech in a big fat red box:

"UPOZORN&#282;NÍ: Pokud pravdiv&#283; neuvedete licenci a p&#345;esné
informace o zdroji, vᚠsoubor bude bez dalšího varování smazán.
D&#283;kujeme za pochopení."

in german again red and even fat letters:

"Dateien mit unpassenden oder ohne ausreichende Lizenzinformationen
werden ohne weitere Nachfrage gelöscht."

...

Any language I missed? At what point do people not understand? Maybe I
should explain "your file will be deleted without further notice" to
all people again? Sorry there is no way anyone can tell me that they
did not see the big notice because I was there in the beginning of WM
Commons and tried (together with Bdka who put the biggest efford into
the matter) to make sure that nobody could tell us that there is no
way of understanding which files are apt for commons and which are
not.

Those files must be deleted! Period. You may talk to the people after
the deletion. The administrators of WM-Commons and especially Bdka
(many thanks to him) have done everything in the past to make sure the
terms and conditions of WM-Commons are clear in any language and to
the stupidest person possible (worst case). No way we have to tell
them again. We can I we want to but we do not have to.

greetings

Paddy


               
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Tim 'avatar' Bartel
In reply to this post by Fredrik Josefsson
Hi,

Fredrik Josefsson schrieb am 08.08.2006 02:18:

> What is the deal with trademarked images that are not
> procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on
> Commons, or should they be wiped out?
>
> An ambitious user created template:trademarked (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked
> ) that he then applied to some images he did not
> consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of
> creativity". The template was applied to, for example,
> the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.
>
> It was also suggested that the logotype of the
> Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it
> does not containt sufficient creative authorship.
>
> This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
> to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> render something copyrightable.
>
> So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability,
> and what to do with images that are only trademark
> protected but not copyright protected?
About a year ago it was common sense to delete Logos in german Wikipedia
and at the Commons. This changed in german Wikipedia (I don't think this
is wise) - Logos like http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:GIGAlogo.jpg are
keeped and won't be deleted because the supporters argue that regarding
german law the "amount of creativity" to create this logo is too low.

I am argueing, the "amount of work, money and nerves" caused by a
possible law suit - which won't have to be taken by the supporters - is
too high.

In my opinion theese pictures should be deleted from commons (...and de)
on sight.

Bye, Tim.

--
Nie haette ich daran gedacht,
einer Sache zuzustimmen,
die gegen mein Gewissen waere.
-> Thomas Morus


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (558 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Patrick-Emil Zörner-2
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher

--- Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> schrieb:

> On 08/08/06, Raimond Spekking <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios.
> In my
> > opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all
> others
> > that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than
> copyvios.
>
> Well, how do you define a copyvio?

We do not define it at all. That is defined by law.

> Almost everything that we delete
> has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright
> violation.

No, we do not delete because we have the suspicion! This makes the
thing very tricky. Because the commons-community must prove that we
have a clear copivio.

On one hand this is bad because the commons pics have been used on
several pages in the internet and nobody can tell us wich pic was
first. On the other hand we have the problem that people ignore the
warning (and this is the more likely way things happen) and upload
pics without asking people from commons first.

I therefore suggest adding to the notice "If unsure contact an
administrator see Commons:Administrators".

> That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license
> images.

Yep. And that is good!

> That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and
> photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once
> believed to be free but found out to be actually not.

Acknowledgement to the first part and but do not understand the second
part. I will never delete a photo take of 2D art. Taking a picture of
the e.g. "Mona Lisa" makes nobody get new copyright. Even if the
museums claim it (the threshold of originality is far to low). But
maybe you are talking about 3D statues?

> Because we
> suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is
> rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.

As I said we must not delete on suspicion.

> > In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for
> the
> > violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios,
> every day."
>
> Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds
> any legal weight.
>
> I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF
> ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape
> clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene
> due
> to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
>
> > An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if
> the
> > project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and
> smaller
> > wikis.
>
> I think that's a great idea!

greetings

Paddy



               
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Patrick-Emil Zörner-2
In reply to this post by Tim 'avatar' Bartel
> About a year ago it was common sense to delete Logos in german
> Wikipedia and at the Commons. This changed in german Wikipedia (I
> don't think this is wise) - Logos like
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:GIGAlogo.jpg
> are keeped and won't be deleted because the supporters argue that
> regarding german law the "amount of creativity" to create this logo
> is too low.

The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term that
does not exist as such in the english language. But the reason the
german wikipedia does not care is because the german "Urheberrecht"
(copyright) is not infringed. We do not even infringe any law
including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).

> I am argueing, the "amount of work, money and nerves" caused by a
> possible law suit - which won't have to be taken by the supporters -
> is too high.

I do not care about that at all. It is the responsibility of the
uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even need logo images IMHO. And
even if the uploader is sued I do not know on what grounds. If someone
prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the stuff he infringes the
"Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the uploader whatsoever.

> In my opinion theese pictures should be deleted from commons (...and
> de) on sight.

>From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about
international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine
Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues like
WP de and WM commons.

greetings

Paddy



       

       
               
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deletion of still-used images

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
2006/8/7, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]>:

> Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking
> for us.  User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with
> translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have
> thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we
> do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should
> go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.

I am willing to offer my services here. I am an admin (even
bureaucrat) on Commons, but have not been active recently simply
because there's so much more to do; however, I think I can be of much
use here because I already have logins on basically all Wikipedia
languages, so I can act as if single logon already exists. If you can
inform me of images that should be deleted but currently are not
because they are still in use, I'd be happy to go around and unlink
them. Letting me do so would I think be better than having a bot for
it, because I will go and check whether there is any replacement
available, and replacing is much harder than delinking to do by bot
(because one has to check whether the subtitle is still applicable).

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights (correction)

Fredrik Josefsson
In reply to this post by will-37

--- [hidden email] skrev:

> Quoting Fredrik Josefsson
> <[hidden email]>:
> <snip>
> > This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> > comprehension of German jurisdiction where
> (according
> > to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> > render something copyrightable.
> <snip>
>
> Just the opposite I believe. Merely having created
> something ("sweat of the
> brow") is enough in the UK, but does not suffice in
> Germany.
>
> Will
>
You're right. This misunderstanding was pointed out to
me later. "Sweat of the brow" is not applied in
Germany, it is other countries such as the U.K. that
make use of it.

The German thinking is explained in
Template:Logo-Germany (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Logo-Germany
). The template was however created only a few days
ago, and is now listed for deletion.

/ Fred
Fred-Chess
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights (correction)

Patrick-Emil Zörner-2

--- Fredrik Josefsson <[hidden email]> schrieb:

>
> --- [hidden email] skrev:
>
> > Quoting Fredrik Josefsson
> > <[hidden email]>:
> > <snip>
> > > This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> > > comprehension of German jurisdiction where
> > (according
> > > to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> > > render something copyrightable.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Just the opposite I believe. Merely having created
> > something ("sweat of the
> > brow") is enough in the UK, but does not suffice in
> > Germany.
> >
> > Will
>
> You're right. This misunderstanding was pointed out to
> me later. "Sweat of the brow" is not applied in
> Germany, it is other countries such as the U.K. that
> make use of it.

Correct. But many logos do not get what germans call "Schöpfungshöhe"
by law. There is nothing like it in other countries. So it is stupid
trying to translate it even though the german article links on
[[threshold of originality]] which IMHO is not the same.

I to explain with an example. I take a photograph devide it into x
squares so that I can get the exact proportions on the canvas and make
a raw sketch with a felt tip. Then I just fill the colors with oil
paint. That is hard but dull work involving no creativaty whatsoever.
Therefore no "Schöpfungshöhe" is involved. Same for scribble scatches
that have their origin during a phone call with the mother in law.
 
> The German thinking is explained in
> Template:Logo-Germany (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Logo-Germany
> ). The template was however created only a few days
> ago, and is now listed for deletion.

WTF! Why has it not been speedy deleted? It is commons policy not to
have logos. Now we need to explain why in a deletion process? They may
have discussion first and then create such a stupid template. The
other way round it is totally ignoring policies that have been
accepted by a brought community for years. What has happened to
commons?

greetings

Paddy



               
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Patrick-Emil Zörner-2
On 8/8/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term that
> does not exist as such in the english language. But the reason the
> german wikipedia does not care is because the german "Urheberrecht"
> (copyright) is not infringed. We do not even infringe any law
> including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).

Is there solid legal precedent that under German law, trademarked
logos cannot be copyrighted, under any circumstances?  In other words,
has more analysis gone into this than a few de: users reading the law
for themselves and working out what they think it means?

> I do not care about that [a lawsuit] at all. It is the responsibility of the
> uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even need logo images IMHO. And
> even if the uploader is sued I do not know on what grounds. If someone
> prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the stuff he infringes the
> "Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the uploader whatsoever.

The uploader may be the first responsible person, but not the only
person who could be sued, I'm sure.  If de: image policy is changed to
allow such use, and it is later found to be incorrect to consider
logos as uncopyrightable, it's possible that those involved in that
enabling decision - or the foundation itself, or the German
equivalent, could be sued.  Even if such a lawsuit is unsuccessful, it
would require time and money we'd rather not spend.

> >From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about
> international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine
> Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues like
> WP de and WM commons.

WP de needs to respect international law as well, for that matter,
unless all the servers are now located in Germany and have severed all
ties to the Florida-based Foundation, which I don't believe has
happened.

I would especially argue caution for trademarks of non-German
entities, but I think that caution is required all round.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

Patrick-Emil Zörner-2

--- Matt Brown <[hidden email]> schrieb:

> On 8/8/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term
> > that does not exist as such in the english language. But the
reason
> > the german wikipedia does not care is because the german
> > "Urheberrecht" (copyright) is not infringed. We do not even
> > infringe any law including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).
> Is there solid legal precedent that under German law, trademarked
> logos cannot be copyrighted, under any circumstances?

No.

> In other words, has more analysis gone into this than a few de:
users
> reading the law for themselves and working out what they think it
> means?

No.
 
> > I do not care about that [a lawsuit] at all. It is the
> > responsibility of the uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even
need
> > logo images IMHO. And even if the uploader is sued I do not know
on

> > what grounds. If someone prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the
> > stuff he infringes the "Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the
> > uploader whatsoever.
> The uploader may be the first responsible person, but not the only
> person who could be sued, I'm sure. If de: image policy is changed
> to allow such use, and it is later found to be incorrect to consider
> logos as uncopyrightable, it's possible that those involved in that
> enabling decision - or the foundation itself, or the German
> equivalent, could be sued.  Even if such a lawsuit is unsuccessful,
> it would require time and money we'd rather not spend.

They are not uncopyrightable if the "Schöpfungshöhe" is big enough.
Some logos consist of a simple letter like the german telecom but in
that case they need to use the german "Geschmacksmuster"-law
(registered design) but we do not care about that in WM-projects
AFAIK. Furthermore I think that you would need at least a whole 256
character set before you could use "Geschmacksmuster"-law. The
deutsche Telekom infact tried to protect the letter and the used color
but failed in a lawsuit (If you whant to know which laws I would have
to do some research).

I agree on the latter that if there is a lawsuit we would see how
usless these logos are in WM-projects. For companies it is the best
advertising ever having an article with logo in WP. Therefore suppose
the risk is so low, that it is more dangerous to cross the street a
billion times. But as a german saying translates "people have seen
horses throw up" (a very unlikely but possible event).

Nevertheless we do not disuss the german situation but the commons
situation which must consider international law.

> > From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about
> > international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine
> > Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues
> > like WP de and WM commons.
> WP de needs to respect international law as well, for that matter,
> unless all the servers are now located in Germany and have severed
> all ties to the Florida-based Foundation, which I don't believe has
> happened.

I am not 100% sure if it is like you say. Being a german citizen
writing german articles does not make me liable in a country like e.g.
Australia no matter if the foundation server is in St. Petersburg or
in
Canberra. At least not concerning copyright matters. Otherwise it
would be OK for germans to use "fair use"-images in german articles
which we do not even though the server is in America.

> I would especially argue caution for trademarks of non-German
> entities, but I think that caution is required all round.
 
Very wise ;-)

greetings

Paddy



               
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
123