The tragedy of Commons

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
75 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
Hi,

Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg

These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
Israel.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
try to find a reason to keep them.

Regards,

Yann

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Ryan Kaldari-2
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia.

Lots of famous pictures are copyrighted. They can't be hosted on Commons just because they're famous.
 
These files have already been
deleted and restored 3 times.

That would be because you undeleted them without taking them to Deletion Review. And now you are taking the discussion to yet another inappropriate forum. Why are you opposed to using Deletion Review?
 
When the URAA issue was not convincing
enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
Israel.

Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA. Without details about how they were published, it is impossible to determine which is the case.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Deleting copyrighted images from Commons doesn't "threaten the project as a whole". If you want to argue that they should be kept on the URAA technicality, you should present a case at Deletion Review, preferably with some evidence to support your case. Wheel warring over a small handful of images does more to damage the project (by eroding trust good will between participants) than deleting these images does.

I realize it is frustrating having to deal with the United States' absurd copyright laws, but unfortunately, those are the laws we are stuck with for the time being. Even if these files are ultimately kept on Commons, they will still be vulnerable to deletion by complaint of the copyright owner (presumably the government of Israel), regardless of which circumstances they are copyrighted under. You might argue that the government of Israel would never assert its US copyright over the images, but there is no way we can be sure of that. Personally, I don't really care if we keep the images or not, but we have deletion discussion forums for a reason. Commons operates by consensus, not by unilateral force of will. In the future I hope you will choose to utilize those forums rather than acting out-of-process.

Cheers,
Ryan Kaldari

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
I'm not sure why you actually bother, to be honest. I'd just host all the disputed images on the Hebrew Wikipedia and avoid Commons altogether. The sea lawyer bullshit on regular projects is bad enough; on Commons its an art form. Seriously -- why bother? 


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg

These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
Israel.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
try to find a reason to keep them.

Regards,

Yann

_______________________________________________
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: The tragedy of Commons

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2



On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:


Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA. Without details about how they were published, it is impossible to determine which is the case.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Deleting copyrighted images from Commons doesn't "threaten the project as a whole". If you want to argue that they should be kept on the URAA technicality, you should present a case at Deletion Review, preferably with some evidence to support your case. Wheel warring over a small handful of images does more to damage the project (by eroding trust good will between participants) than deleting these images does.

I realize it is frustrating having to deal with the United States' absurd copyright laws, but unfortunately, those are the laws we are stuck with for the time being. Even if these files are ultimately kept on Commons, they will still be vulnerable to deletion by complaint of the copyright owner (presumably the government of Israel), regardless of which circumstances they are copyrighted under. You might argue that the government of Israel would never assert its US copyright over the images, but there is no way we can be sure of that. Personally, I don't really care if we keep the images or not, but we have deletion discussion forums for a reason. Commons operates by consensus, not by unilateral force of will. In the future I hope you will choose to utilize those forums rather than acting out-of-process.

Cheers,
Ryan Kaldari


Did you actually read the deletion discussions? Every single discussion vote for every file at issue was "keep." And yet in each the result was "delete." How do you explain that? If "Commons operates by consensus", that is. 

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Ryan Kaldari-2
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Did you actually read the deletion discussions? Every single discussion vote for every file at issue was "keep." And yet in each the result was "delete." How do you explain that? If "Commons operates by consensus", that is.


No, I didn't read the deletion discussions. It sounds like a good case for Deletion Review.

Ryan

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Neel Gupta
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers.
I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Rama Neko
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.

As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.

To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests.
  -- Rama







On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers.
I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.

_______________________________________________
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: The tragedy of Commons

Neel Gupta
First SOPA, now This !
US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World.
...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.

As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.

To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests.
  -- Rama







On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers.
I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.




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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be even feasible.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
First SOPA, now This !
US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World.
...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.

As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.

To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests.
  -- Rama







On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers.
I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.




_______________________________________________
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: The tragedy of Commons

Gnangarra
Just a thought as bad this is, WMF could just run a server in a juristiction where copyright isnt an issue but WMF does need to act in a socially responsible way and with the highest standards of respect for our goals, our community and the laws.

Maybe it would be possible to have a limited fair use type provision on Commons for important images where they are out of copyright in the country of origin, but not in the US, with a minimum requirement of the work being used in two different language wikipedias. It'll be complicated to enforce and will take a lot of discussion to work out the policy and processes....




On 18 June 2014 20:39, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be even feasible.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
First SOPA, now This !
US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World.
...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.

As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.

To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests.
  -- Rama







On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers.
I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.




_______________________________________________
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




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Jane Darnell
The concept of an "Uncommons" as defined as either a new set of rules, or as an alternate to WMF-hosted websites is not going to solve our current problem of lacking images to support our educational goals. We should be discussing how we can continue our mission to disseminate the sum of all knowledge when we are handicapped by copyright laws, period. 

Fruitful discussions deteriorated when the issue of the "URAA-restored copyrights" [1] launched the Commons discussion in 2012 [2] which led to mass deletions. Since then we have seen some undeletions, but in general the whole drama of it has become too complicated to explain to the people we care most about, which is our dwindling body of contributors across projects. I tend to contribute well within our current Commons hosting parameters, but every now and then I step out of my comfort zone and feel as Fae has described in his mail above.

I really like Gerard's idea of somehow linking images on WikiData, which will help significantly with discovery by readers and also serve as self-explanatory templates for multi-language users. However, though I firmly agree that we should proceed along those lines, this still won't solve the core problem, because even on WikiData we cannot make interwiki links to *all* images we need and I personally believe we shouldn't try.

I think that the only real solution for our educational mission going forward is to let WikiData take a similar approach to what Europeana is doing for European museums. There are lots of specific organizations on the internet working on exactly the same copyright problems we are, but they have a huge advantage that we don't have, which is that they are focussed on a finite set of images. We often end up talking in circles because we want locally hosted images for "everything". If we take a collaborative approach, we can either include a link to a file, serve our readers a reduced preview of a file or serve a full-fledged image-viewer-enabled version of a file, all depending on whether the physical location of the file is in the Wikiverse or not. If we set this up, we might make it possible to "cross-load" individual files from Wikipedia and vetted external projects via WikiData to Commons rather than force people to upload with the default Commons uploader.

What I think we need is a good illustration of the scale of the problem, which admittedly is hard to show. Personally I was very upset when images of artworks by Leo Gestel were deleted last year [3], even though I was not the uploader who put all the work into all of those artwork templates on those files. My niche interest on Wikipedia is 17th-century painters, but I have also worked on colleagues of Leo Gestel whose works cannot be shown at all in their Wikipedia articles, just because they "forgot" to date their paintings. I have noticed a "copyright gap" occurring when Wikipedians give up trying to illustrate such articles. 

When that happens, we all lose. Not only are we missing the Commons images, we are missing work on the corresponding Wikipedia articles. I made a comparison of Wikipedia artists matched against a dataset of painters which illustrates a small piece of this "copyright gap".[4] Another interesting gap occurs when you look at the work of painters vs. artists who ventured beyond two dimensions, such as sculptors, furniture makers, porcelain artists, and instrument makers. We cover painters and printmakers so much better, thanks to Bridgeman vs. Corel, as long as we ignore the fine print.[5] The OTRS system for image release by an artist's direct heirs is the only alternate route, and there is no alternate available for orphan works that I know of.[6]

In general, Wikipedia has much better coverage of "really dead" people as opposed to "not so dead" people. Discussion regarding the problems of BLP's is often made without realizing that they are actually edge cases compared to the large group of people born after 1800 and who died before Wikipedia began. This is a combination of the copyright gap and the frustrations of experienced contributors who have had their hands slapped on Commons and other projects.



On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just a thought as bad this is, WMF could just run a server in a juristiction where copyright isnt an issue but WMF does need to act in a socially responsible way and with the highest standards of respect for our goals, our community and the laws.

Maybe it would be possible to have a limited fair use type provision on Commons for important images where they are out of copyright in the country of origin, but not in the US, with a minimum requirement of the work being used in two different language wikipedias. It'll be complicated to enforce and will take a lot of discussion to work out the policy and processes....




On 18 June 2014 20:39, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be even feasible.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
First SOPA, now This !
US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World.
...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.

As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.

To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests.
  -- Rama







On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers.
I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.




_______________________________________________
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




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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: The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
Suite of the drama.

A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA

Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing

This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.

Regards,

Yann

2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> Forces.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>
> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> Israel.
>
> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> delete-only account:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>
> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
> gone.
>
> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
> try to find a reason to keep them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Daniel Schwen-2
I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user
topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war
misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA
compliance.

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Suite of the drama.
>
> A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
> requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA
>
> Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
> the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing
>
> This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
> some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>> Forces.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>
>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>> Israel.
>>
>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>> delete-only account:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>
>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>> gone.
>>
>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
2014-06-21 2:27 GMT+05:30 Daniel Schwen <[hidden email]>:
> I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user
> topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war
> misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA
> compliance.

Commons is here to serve Wikipedia projects, not to antagonize them,
like it is the case.
I think users of the Hebrew Wikipedia has the right to know and to say
what they think about what affects them.

Yann

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Suite of the drama.
>>
>> A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
>> requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA
>>
>> Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
>> the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing
>>
>> This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
>> some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann
>>
>> 2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>>> Forces.
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>>
>>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>>> Israel.
>>>
>>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>>> delete-only account:
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>>
>>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>>> gone.
>>>
>>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Yann
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Daniel Schwen-2
If by "antagonizing" you mean abide by the law and by "serve" you mean
act on wishful thinking then... sure.



On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2014-06-21 2:27 GMT+05:30 Daniel Schwen <[hidden email]>:
>> I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user
>> topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war
>> misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA
>> compliance.
>
> Commons is here to serve Wikipedia projects, not to antagonize them,
> like it is the case.
> I think users of the Hebrew Wikipedia has the right to know and to say
> what they think about what affects them.
>
> Yann
>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Suite of the drama.
>>>
>>> A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
>>> requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA
>>>
>>> Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
>>> the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing
>>>
>>> This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
>>> some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Yann
>>>
>>> 2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>>>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>>>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>>>> Forces.
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>>>
>>>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>>>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>>>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>>>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>>>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>>>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>>>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>>>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>>>> Israel.
>>>>
>>>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>>>> delete-only account:
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>>>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>>>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>>>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>>>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>>>> gone.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>>>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Yann
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi.
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?

I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play.
Thanks,
     Gerard


On 20 June 2014 23:23, Daniel Schwen <[hidden email]> wrote:
If by "antagonizing" you mean abide by the law and by "serve" you mean
act on wishful thinking then... sure.



On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2014-06-21 2:27 GMT+05:30 Daniel Schwen <[hidden email]>:
>> I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user
>> topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war
>> misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA
>> compliance.
>
> Commons is here to serve Wikipedia projects, not to antagonize them,
> like it is the case.
> I think users of the Hebrew Wikipedia has the right to know and to say
> what they think about what affects them.
>
> Yann
>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Suite of the drama.
>>>
>>> A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
>>> requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA
>>>
>>> Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
>>> the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing
>>>
>>> This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
>>> some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Yann
>>>
>>> 2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>>>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>>>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>>>> Forces.
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>>>
>>>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>>>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>>>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>>>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>>>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>>>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>>>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>>>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>>>> Israel.
>>>>
>>>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>>>> delete-only account:
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>>>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>>>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>>>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>>>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>>>> gone.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>>>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Yann
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Daniel Schwen-2
> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The

You are right Gerard, but that is not what happened.

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Canvassing was the word used.. and did I not follow up the sentence you quoted with informing other communities what is happening at Commons? That is why I understand this block happened.
Thanks,
     Gerard


On 20 June 2014 23:36, Daniel Schwen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The

You are right Gerard, but that is not what happened.

_______________________________________________
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: The tragedy of Commons

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The
> intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked
> when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
> I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that
> there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power
> play.



I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.


- d.

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Rama Neko
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.

It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word -- it is an error and an injustice.
  -- Rama


On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The
> intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked
> when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
> I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that
> there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power
> play.



I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.


- 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
1234