Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

Yann Forget-3
Hi,

Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins.
Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.

Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the 

I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.

Regards,

Yann

2014-04-03 21:07 GMT+05:30 Yael Meron <[hidden email]>:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was
made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.

We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is
currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule
of the shorter term".

Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone
who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department
(specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and
the participants in the discussion.

Regards,

Yael Meron
Board of Wikimedia Israel

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

Robinson Tryon
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
> and bold admins.
> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
>
> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
> matter what. One admin even says that the

The suspense is killing me: What does the admin say?

--R

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

Fæ
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do
you need to take responsibility by yourself.

As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate
policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash
some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for
applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there
have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to
illustrate the issue.

As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain
concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of
restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek
independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it
is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the
WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not
liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or
undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do
not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth
development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have
specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.

In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or
re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.

Fae

On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
> and bold admins.
> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
>
> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
> matter what. One admin even says that the
>
> I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

Fæ
I just realised how packed with jargon my email was. Here's a bit of unpacking and links for those who do not regularly use this vocabulary:

UDR: A Wikimedia Commons undeletion request (DR = deletion request)
See <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests>

URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act
This is a US law that restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works, see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights>. For the global projects of Wikimedia, this was controversial as it has the potential for public domain works in their home country, to be newly claimed as copyright in the USA.

DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
This is another US law that, among other things, better defined penalties for internet copyright theft and made it clearer for internet service providers their duties to block access to copyright infringing material when they were notified of a credible copyright claim. These claims of copyright are called "DMCA notices". Within the Wikimedia projects, the Foundation may takes action to remove material subject to DMCA notices, though there have been cases where some claim were not found legally credible. A number of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons is at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices> (As far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for copyright.)

Fae

On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do
> you need to take responsibility by yourself.
>
> As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate
> policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash
> some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for
> applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there
> have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to
> illustrate the issue.
>
> As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain
> concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of
> restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek
> independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it
> is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the
> WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not
> liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or
> undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do
> not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth
> development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have
> specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.
>
> In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or
> re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.
>
> Fae
>
> On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
>> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
>> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
>> and bold admins.
>> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
>> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
>>
>> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
>> matter what. One admin even says that the
>>
>> I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae



--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

David Gerard-2
On 4 April 2014 00:43, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.


If you post things to the Internet, you've posted them to the
Internet. e.g. that by posting to any Wikimedia list, you're
automatically storing your message in at least three web archives, two
of which Wikimedia has no control over whatsoever.

It is exceedingly important to remember this, and everyone should keep
it in mind before hitting "send".


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

Ryan Kaldari-2
If you guys are going to Wikimania, you might be interested in attending this:

Ryan Kaldari

On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:22 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4 April 2014 00:43, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.


If you post things to the Internet, you've posted them to the
Internet. e.g. that by posting to any Wikimedia list, you're
automatically storing your message in at least three web archives, two
of which Wikimedia has no control over whatsoever.

It is exceedingly important to remember this, and everyone should keep
it in mind before hitting "send".


- d.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Robinson Tryon
Hi,

Sorry, sent too fast. ;o)

I think I need to explain the whole history of the issue.

1. On 22 February 2014, Alan started the Request for comment (RfC) on
whether we should host URAA-affected files, and restored previously
deleted ones (around 4,300 of them). [1]

2. On 28 February 2014, TeleComNasSprVen proposed a moratorium on
deletion of images under URAA.

3. On 18 March 2014, the initial proposal has received a huge support,
with some people opposing it, including some active admins. On that
date, I made a proposal for a compromise: only allowing a subset of
affected files. This has received only a few comments, and no
opposition. The discussion seems to be stalled around that date.

4. On 24 March 2014, I made a proposal for closuring the RfC as Yes.
This received 21 supports, and one opposition. None of the admins who
initially opposed the RfC cared to add any input. I mentioned that
closure will be done after one week.

5. On 2 April 2014, I close the RfC according to my proposal.

6. On 3 April 2014, Russavia unilaterally reverted my closure, and the
changes I made to the relevant policy pages, without any discussion.

Regards,

Yann

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA


2014-04-04 2:02 GMT+05:30 Robinson Tryon <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
>> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
>> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
>> and bold admins.
>> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
>> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
>>
>> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
>> matter what. One admin even says that the
>
> The suspense is killing me: What does the admin say?
>
> --R
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l