The tragedy of Commons

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

David Gerard-2
On 24 June 2014 16:42, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush
> to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.


The conversation happens here over and over. It goes something like:

Other projects: "Commons is being too difficult to work with. We have
a problem here."
Querulous Commons admins banned from several other projects: "WHY DO
YOU HATE FREEDOM? WE DON'T WORK FOR YOU!!"
Other projects: "No, you clearly don't."

If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, it needs to
behave 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

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Chris McKenna
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good
> faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the
> principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to
> host.
> Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a
> possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is
> unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then
> it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required
> by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the
> US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it
> must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who
> has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and
> self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of
> English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the
> images know that there are questions about a file.
> Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of
> media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an
> alternative, reliable service project initiated.


+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.


- 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

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Chris McKenna



On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Magnus Manske wrote:

2. It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states
that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.

That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush
to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.

The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to host.

Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the images know that there are questions about a file.

Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.

----
Chris McKenna

Precisely, and well said. Projects should encourage contributors to upload files locally, discourage and discontinue processes for moving files to Commons, and begin working on the problem of making files across projects searchable so that deprecating Commons as a project repository does not become a long term barrier to file usage. 

Commons is an independent project, not responsible to other WMF projects? Fine. Let Commons users visit other projects, locate files that meet their rules, and copy them to Commons themselves. That way people like Yann and others need not familiarize themselves with Commons rules or worry about files being deleted; if Commons wants the files they can get them, or not. 

~Nathan 

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.

the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable




On 25 June 2014 00:29, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good
> faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the
> principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to
> host.
> Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a
> possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is
> unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then
> it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required
> by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the
> US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it
> must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who
> has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and
> self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of
> English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the
> images know that there are questions about a file.
> Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of
> media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an
> alternative, reliable service project initiated.


+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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

Rama Neko
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.

Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
  -- Rama



On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.

the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable




On 25 June 2014 00:29, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good
> faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the
> principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to
> host.
> Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a
> possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is
> unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then
> it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required
> by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the
> US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it
> must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who
> has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and
> self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of
> English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the
> images know that there are questions about a file.
> Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of
> media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an
> alternative, reliable service project initiated.


+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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

David Gerard-2
On 24 June 2014 20:24, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.



Rather than making personal attacks, please explain your understanding
of what the actual issue is here, and why it keeps coming up and
coming up.


- 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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Rama Neko
Hoi,
Thanks for using understandable English.
GerardM


On 24 June 2014 21:24, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.

Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
  -- Rama



On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.

the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable




On 25 June 2014 00:29, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good
> faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the
> principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to
> host.
> Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a
> possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is
> unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then
> it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required
> by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the
> US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it
> must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who
> has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and
> self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of
> English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the
> images know that there are questions about a file.
> Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of
> media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an
> alternative, reliable service project initiated.


+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2



On 24 June 2014 20:43, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Rather than making personal attacks, please explain your understanding
of what the actual issue is here, and why it keeps coming up and
coming up.


There are in fact 3 issues here.

1)Argentinian copyright resulting in works that are PD in Argentina and countries that follow the rule of the shorter term with respect to Argentina

This one keeps coming up because the US and quite a few other countries don't follow the rule of the shorter term and even those that do don't follow it consistently.

2)Israeli government images that are PD in Israel but have an unclear status elsewhere. Think crown copyright expired.

This one keeps communing up since for whatever reason the Israeli community is unable to ask their government if the government regards the works as being PD globally. The Brits managed this years ago

3)Private Israeli images which are under life+50 terms.

This one doesn't keep coming up since the number of post 1948 images who's authors died prior to 1964 is fairly small. I expect this an similar issues to become a major problem around 2030 assuming no further changes in copyright law.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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
There could be other similar questions, for instance the issue of what "anonymous work" means (a naive understanding will equate that to not knowing who the author is, which is wrong, there have been lawsuits brought by right holders on such matters). In general, copyright law is complicated, and international copyright law is very complicated. In some cases there will be material deleted, and it will be frustrating, and I sympathise, but that's life for you.

The issue keeps coming up because of a culture of seeing Commons as a second-rate project subordinated to the interests of other projects, and culture of forum shopping when not satisfied with the answers received in the usual fora on Commons. It will stop occurring when everybody will have accepted that it is not Commons that causes these questions, and that a certain amount of frustration is unavoidable given the context.
  -- Rama




On 24 June 2014 22:44, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 24 June 2014 20:43, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Rather than making personal attacks, please explain your understanding
of what the actual issue is here, and why it keeps coming up and
coming up.


There are in fact 3 issues here.

1)Argentinian copyright resulting in works that are PD in Argentina and countries that follow the rule of the shorter term with respect to Argentina

This one keeps coming up because the US and quite a few other countries don't follow the rule of the shorter term and even those that do don't follow it consistently.

2)Israeli government images that are PD in Israel but have an unclear status elsewhere. Think crown copyright expired.

This one keeps communing up since for whatever reason the Israeli community is unable to ask their government if the government regards the works as being PD globally. The Brits managed this years ago

3)Private Israeli images which are under life+50 terms.

This one doesn't keep coming up since the number of post 1948 images who's authors died prior to 1964 is fairly small. I expect this an similar issues to become a major problem around 2030 assuming no further changes in copyright law.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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
Also, there is the reluctance of commons administrators to host media attributed to other entities like, God, Earth, Spirit, Church, Temple, etc.
see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/04#God.27s_Work


This issue keeps comming up because Commons is seen and prides itself in hosting media files for all other Wikimedia projects. There wouldn't be any issue if every Wikimedia project hosted it's own media files, rather than moving them to commons.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
There could be other similar questions, for instance the issue of what "anonymous work" means (a naive understanding will equate that to not knowing who the author is, which is wrong, there have been lawsuits brought by right holders on such matters). In general, copyright law is complicated, and international copyright law is very complicated. In some cases there will be material deleted, and it will be frustrating, and I sympathise, but that's life for you.

The issue keeps coming up because of a culture of seeing Commons as a second-rate project subordinated to the interests of other projects, and culture of forum shopping when not satisfied with the answers received in the usual fora on Commons. It will stop occurring when everybody will have accepted that it is not Commons that causes these questions, and that a certain amount of frustration is unavoidable given the context.
  -- Rama

_______________________________________________
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

Fæ
On 26 June 2014 05:31, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also, there is the reluctance of commons administrators to host media
> attributed to other entities like, God, Earth, Spirit, Church, Temple, etc.
> see
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/04#God.27s_Work
>
> This issue keeps comming up because Commons is seen and prides itself in
> hosting media files for all other Wikimedia projects. There wouldn't be any
> issue if every Wikimedia project hosted it's own media files, rather than
> moving them to commons.

There is no reluctance, all that is needed is a credible release
statement from the copyright holder. If no human creativity was
involved, then there can be no copyright on the works, however one
rarely sees publishers who actually do claim to be publishing the
'word of God', or similar, in a rush to legally waive all copyright
for their publications.

One can starkly see this apparent double standard when it comes to the
writings (or "teachings") of spiritualists who claim that their words
(or recorded performances) are directly controlled by entities such as
the long dead, or extra-terrestrial "masters", for which there can be
no legal copyright, were they to instruct their lawyers to take the
same claims as literally true; it seems odd that their publishers
still claim copyright and are keen to take money on behalf of named
copyright holders that claim to not own the very same works.

In these situations it would be unfair to expect Commons
administrators to ignore copyright claims of publishers, when the
courts do not.

Fae
--
[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: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 26 June 2014 07:21, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2014 05:31, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also, there is the reluctance of commons administrators to host media
> attributed to other entities like, God, Earth, Spirit, Church, Temple, etc.
> see
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/04#God.27s_Work
>
> This issue keeps comming up because Commons is seen and prides itself in
> hosting media files for all other Wikimedia projects. There wouldn't be any
> issue if every Wikimedia project hosted it's own media files, rather than
> moving them to commons.

There is no reluctance, all that is needed is a credible release
statement from the copyright holder. If no human creativity was
involved, then there can be no copyright on the works, however one
rarely sees publishers who actually do claim to be publishing the
'word of God', or similar, in a rush to legally waive all copyright
for their publications.

One can starkly see this apparent double standard when it comes to the
writings (or "teachings") of spiritualists who claim that their words
(or recorded performances) are directly controlled by entities such as
the long dead, or extra-terrestrial "masters", for which there can be
no legal copyright, were they to instruct their lawyers to take the
same claims as literally true; it seems odd that their publishers
still claim copyright and are keen to take money on behalf of named
copyright holders that claim to not own the very same works.

In these situations it would be unfair to expect Commons
administrators to ignore copyright claims of publishers, when the
courts do not.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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

Fæ
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or
> parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli
> government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM

Gerard,

I have said nothing about the Israeli government, neither has anyone
else in this thread.

Your chosen wording ("you INSIST") makes it appear like I have said
something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. Please provide a
diff or kindly stop trolling by posting chaff like this. You have a
significant track record over the last two months of making completely
unnecessary aggressive personal comments about me on Wikimedia-L, and
now you have followed me to this list. Stop.

Fae
--
[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: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
No Fae, your argument is centred around the notion that copyrights exist even when they do not. The Israeli example is well known in this list and the Israeli government insists that it claims to copyright.

Your argument fails as copyright is claimed to exist by the insistence on providing a license when the basic fact of that copyright is denied by the "owner" of that copyright.. In the case of the Israeli government it is a law defining body who says so.
Thanks,
     GerardM



On 26 June 2014 10:42, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or
> parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli
> government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM

Gerard,

I have said nothing about the Israeli government, neither has anyone
else in this thread.

Your chosen wording ("you INSIST") makes it appear like I have said
something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. Please provide a
diff or kindly stop trolling by posting chaff like this. You have a
significant track record over the last two months of making completely
unnecessary aggressive personal comments about me on Wikimedia-L, and
now you have followed me to this list. Stop.


_______________________________________________
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

geni
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3



On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
Thanks,
     GerardM


The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?


--
geni

_______________________________________________
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,
I heard it the first time and it does not hold water. For me this argument is in between splitting hairs and sophistry.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 26 June 2014 12:11, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle.
Thanks,
     GerardM


The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?


--
geni

_______________________________________________
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

Fæ
In reply to this post by geni
On 26 June 2014 11:11, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that
> it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it
> expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this
> you don't understand?

No doubt Gerard understands what he is doing perfectly well. Trolling.

Gerard, please provide a diff for your claim against me that I have
said something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. It is
highly offensive, and in my view would be an excellent rationale for
list moderation due to it being a public and personal slur against
another contributor.

Fae
--
[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: The tragedy of Commons

geni
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3



On 26 June 2014 11:22, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
I heard it the first time and it does not hold water. For me this argument is in between splitting hairs and sophistry.
Thanks,
     GerardM


Can you provide any statute or caselaw to support that assertion?

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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

Chris McKenna
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, geni wrote:

> On 26 June 2014 11:22, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I heard it the first time and it does not hold water. For me this argument
>> is in between splitting hairs and sophistry.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>>
> Can you provide any statute or caselaw to support that assertion?
>
> --
> geni
>

THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to
prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the
copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any
copyright that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.

The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the
majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files
that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown
request is received that removes the doubt.

In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as:
Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images
Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside
Israel, we demand that you do.
Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the
Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim
it.
Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to
disclaim the copyright they say they don't have.
Reasonable people: But they can't!
Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to.
*Repeat*

----
Chris McKenna

[hidden email]
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


_______________________________________________
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

Fæ
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna <[hidden email]> wrote:
> THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to
> prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the
> copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright
> that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.

You? Geni is not King/Queen of Commons.

> The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the

No. Please supply a link to WMF Legal's published statement saying this.

> majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files
> that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown
> request is received that removes the doubt.

There was an RFC, this was not the closing statement, in fact nothing like it.

Commons is not ruled by "people complaining about Commons", this would
not be consensus, it would be a complainer-ocracy that would certainly
run the project straight into the ground, probably being led by the
"hasten the day" lobbyists.

> In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as:
> Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images
> Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel,
> we demand that you do.

No, "Commons admins" have made no such statement.

> Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the
> Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it.
> Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to
> disclaim the copyright they say they don't have.
> Reasonable people: But they can't!
> Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to.
> *Repeat*

No, "Reasonable people" is a bizarre polarizing statement. It divides
the world into the "right thinking good people" and makes everyone
else unreasonable Satanists, or something similar.

I don't see how fiction that seems intended to polarize or unfairly
parody the entire Commons community is a good use of this list.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
1234