Mailing List Archive

RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution
In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
comments and suggestions.

This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)

==Applicable definitions==
; Project
: the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
or Wikisource, and a language.
; Free License
: a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
: a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
(including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
context of the project. Examples include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and
http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek

==Resolution==

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and
engage people around the world to collect and develop educational
content under a ''free license'',"
# All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition
referenced above.
# In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
# For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following
action shall be taken:
#* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable
licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should
be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a
discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale
exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.
# For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the
following action shall be taken:
#* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an
unacceptable license shall be deleted.
#* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
to coordinate this process.
#* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable
license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.


--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> ==Applicable definitions==

; Free License
> : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
> Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.


Should maybe indicate some examples of the current heavily-used licenses
that follow these criteria, namely GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and (maybe) PD.
Maybe there should be also be some examples of licenses which are sometimes
considered 'free' but aren't, such as the Non-Commercial Creative
Commons-licenses (CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA).

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)

That term seems a little redundant to me, but it's not the end of the
world. Otherwise this is all *very* encouraging!

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Do the communities have to ask permission to implement an EDP in their
project? Or is that only an advice?

Will the general council also advice on the part of EDP on local law, or
only for the "US-part" ?

Does the EDP have to be fine with GFDL too?

Will the EDP be a temporary solution, or a definitive one?

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>
> In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
> resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
> comments and suggestions.
>
> This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
> actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
>
> ==Applicable definitions==
> ; Project
> : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
> or Wikisource, and a language.
> ; Free License
> : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
> Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> context of the project. Examples include:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and
> http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek
>
> ==Resolution==
>
> Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and
> engage people around the world to collect and develop educational
> content under a ''free license'',"
> # All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
> License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition
> referenced above.
> # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
> community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
> EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
> easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
> # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
> # For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following
> action shall be taken:
> #* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable
> licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should
> be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a
> discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale
> exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.
> # For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the
> following action shall be taken:
> #* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an
> unacceptable license shall be deleted.
> #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
> EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
> to coordinate this process.
> #* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable
> license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.
>
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> equivalent information content.


You realise this would risk inceaseing the amount of fair use stuff
allowed on en? Since it allows the use of unfree material even when it
would be possible to create free material.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
>
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> context of the project.
>

Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an EDP
cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?

Thanks in advance
Regards, Dami
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> > : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> > and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> > accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> > (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> > upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> > context of the project.
> >
>
> Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an EDP
> cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Regards, Dami


And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the influx
of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like
english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not
being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too
big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on
youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as
well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy
locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save
WMF-diskspace etc.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com>:
>
> On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> > > : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> > > and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> > > accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> > > (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> > > upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> > > context of the project.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an
> EDP
> > cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Regards, Dami
>
>
> And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
> Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the
> influx
> of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Hi,

Quoting Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.

I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is
typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the
incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest
that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a
justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.

Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific. en:'s
articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted
using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the
gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it was
easy to read it that way.

Jkelly


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont need
the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when
there is nothing else available and it is really needed.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu <jkelly@fas.harvard.edu>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
>
> I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s
> experience is
> typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces
> the
> incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd
> suggest
> that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is
> a
> justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
>
> Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely
> specific. en:'s
> articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be
> formatted
> using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using
> the
> gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it
> was
> easy to read it that way.
>
> Jkelly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Hallo

EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of. The resolution is supposed to
clear things up, but in fact is now doing the opposite. NC and ND is not
allowed, except if you have a EDP. You see what will happen? Whole
communities will be tested once again. Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
use it because of EDP.

I am sorry, but this is not a resolution I can back up.

Peter van Londen/Londenp

2007/2/20, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
>
> I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont
> need
> the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when
> there is nothing else available and it is really needed.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/20, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu <jkelly@fas.harvard.edu>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Quoting Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> > > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
> >
> > I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s
> > experience is
> > typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> > actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace,
> reduces
> > the
> > incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd
> > suggest
> > that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media
> is
> > a
> > justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
> >
> > Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely
> > specific. en:'s
> > articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be
> > formatted
> > using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using
> > the
> > gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but
> it
> > was
> > easy to read it that way.
> >
> > Jkelly
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp@gmail.com> wrote:

> EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.

[...]

>Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> use it because of EDP.


Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
what the resolution is about.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Probably I don't understand.

However explain me if you can modify and use commercially copyrighted fair
use pictures.
Please explain to me like I am 6 years old, so I do understand.

Peter van Londen

2007/2/20, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
>
> On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
>
> [...]
>
> >Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> > use it because of EDP.
>
>
> Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
> concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
> what the resolution is about.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put
the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just
claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont
even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on
as long as there is no replacement uploaded.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
>
> On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
>
> [...]
>
> >Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> > use it because of EDP.
>
>
> Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
> concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
> what the resolution is about.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu <jkelly@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
>
> I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is
> typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the
> incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest
> that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a
> justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.

I agree with this... yikes, definitely needs revision if that's what
it's implying.

> Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific. en:'s
> articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted
> using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the
> gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it was
> easy to read it that way.

Also a good point.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put
> the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just
> claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont
> even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on
> as long as there is no replacement uploaded.

That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
reserved under than policy.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 21/02/07, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
> resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
> comments and suggestions.
>
> This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
> actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
>
> ==Applicable definitions==
> ; Project
> : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
> or Wikisource, and a language.

This excludes Meta, Species, wwwwikisource, MediaWiki, Foundation
wikis which don't have language versions. And did you notice you used
the word "project" in the definition of the word "project"? We have a
major ambiguity problem here. :)
Also excludes Commons but that seems covered below.

> # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
> community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
> EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
> easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

Define 'machine readable format'. (Or maybe there is a definition I don't know?)

> # Such EDPs must be minimal.

Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of
such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or
even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person
who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and
even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I
know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who
dislike fair use too.

> #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
> EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
> to coordinate this process.

This is great. Put this in bigger font and re-emphasise to the
projects who are worried.

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Effeietsanders hit on all the major reasons a project might want or
not want to move to Commons-only upoads. I do plan to write a guide on
Commons called something like 'Turning off local uploads', with advice
for projects about how to make this transition smoothly. But I haven't
written it yet.

For people who think Commons is 'not being nice'... please write to me
PRIVATELY and I will seriously do everything I can to solve problems
you have had or are having, and improve relations between your project
and Commons. I really consider that is very important for Commons and
will take what you say seriously. I am always open on that front.

Anyway, here is the first step towards 'Commons-only' uploads, for
those who are interested: point your upload link on the sidebar to a
page [[Project:Upload]] instead of [[Special:Upload]]. Then on this
page you can explain about source, licensing, copyright, direct people
to Commons if they want.

All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced
BIG, significant drops in upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as
many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even
if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend
it.

Some projects who have done this:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1
(I know there are more...)


cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise



On 21/02/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like
> english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not
> being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too
> big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on
> youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as
> well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy
> locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save
> WMF-diskspace etc.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/20, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com>:
> >
...
> > And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
> > Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the
> > influx
> > of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced
> BIG, significant drops in upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as
> many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even
> if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend
> it.

I hate to see anyone from commons recommending this while we still do
not have a handle on copyright violations on commons.

Our goal should be a reduction in the percentage of uploaded copyright
infringements wikimedia wide, and I've yet to see evidence that
switching things to commons improves the situation.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 21/02/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced
> > BIG, significant drops in upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as
> > many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even
> > if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend
> > it.
>
> I hate to see anyone from commons recommending this while we still do
> not have a handle on copyright violations on commons.
>
> Our goal should be a reduction in the percentage of uploaded copyright
> infringements wikimedia wide, and I've yet to see evidence that
> switching things to commons improves the situation.

I am not convinced that that is what happens (although neither of us
can prove either way). I think having the additional page, without the
upload form, encourages people to actually read what it says, instead
of skipping ahead to find the 'submit' button. Hopefully what happens
is, some free images go to Commons, some copyvios don't get uploaded
at all, some confused users get redirected to a Help desk, and overall
uploads are halved.

Also: we will never have a handle on copyright violations. on any
project, dare I say.
(That's not a reason not to strive for copyvio-free projects, of course.)

cheers
Brianna

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also: we will never have a handle on copyright violations. on any
> project, dare I say.

There are ways it could be done. Some of them are even legal.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some projects who have done this:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload
>
> http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1
> (I know there are more...)


The German Wikipedia has also switched to Commons for most uploads.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Hallo,

If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves
that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the
Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one:
allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are
according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and
non-derivative).

But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing
non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just
outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the
freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use
images. That would be
clarity.

I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to
cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find
a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest
community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities
to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members
not reading this list, will use this.

The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who
have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is
described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures
under the EDP (that is speculation though).

I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception
for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.

Kind regards, Londenp


2007/2/21, Kat Walsh <mindspillage@gmail.com>:
>
> On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
> put
> > the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
> just
> > claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
> dont
> > even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
> on
> > as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
>
> That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
> previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
> can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
> whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
> ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
> should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
> reserved under than policy.
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
Hoi
It is irrelevant when the Dutch Wikipedia crowd votes both on the ESA
images and on the Wikipedia only; they are explicitly prohibited by the
draft resolution. The best it does is that images that are in these two
categories will only be mandatory deleted in 2008 and not sooner.

Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the
Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is
probably much easier to just use Commons.

When you post an unfree picture it does not matter at all how it is
unfree; the license is in and of itself irrelevant. The saving grace for
such material is that it will be tagged as "FAIR USE". With the license
registered as well, it indicates under what conditions it is available
otherwise. Consequently ND or NC material that is ALSO fair use will be
replaced and deleted once alternative material is available. ND and NC
material that is not fair use will be deleted in 2008.

A key thing you forget is that the legal council is part of the process
of approving any ESA. The option is not open to allow for NC or ND works
under a local ESA proposal. The legal council is bound to reject any
such proposals. This is not democratic and intentionally so, this is a
consequence of it being a WMF resolution.

When some people have opinions that are not shared by the majority of a
community, with the majority opinion in line with the "Licensing Policy
Resolution", they will find that they are entitled to their opinion. It
will however not be the policy of that community.

Thanks,
GerardM


Peter van Londen schreef:
> Hallo,
>
> If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves
> that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the
> Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one:
> allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are
> according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and
> non-derivative).
>
> But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing
> non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just
> outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the
> freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use
> images. That would be
> clarity.
>
> I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to
> cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find
> a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest
> community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities
> to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members
> not reading this list, will use this.
>
> The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who
> have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is
> described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures
> under the EDP (that is speculation though).
>
> I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception
> for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.
>
> Kind regards, Londenp
>
>
> 2007/2/21, Kat Walsh <mindspillage@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
>>>
>> put
>>
>>> the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
>>>
>> just
>>
>>> claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
>>>
>> dont
>>
>>> even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
>>>
>> on
>>
>>> as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
>>>
>> That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
>> previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
>> can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
>> whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
>> ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
>> should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
>> reserved under than policy.
>>
>> -Kat


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution [ In reply to ]
2007/2/21, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the
> Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is
> probably much easier to just use Commons.
> </snip>


Thats why i asked whether the foundation will advice on the local law part
(as there are little or no lawyers on nl.wikipedia) and whether the
foundation has to agree upon the EDP (as otherwise, the community might just
push it through) I hope both will be answered with 'yes'.

Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All