Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

On 04/12/2012 08:10 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
there was an earlier suggestion that a well respected admin just 
delete them, I wouldnt class the new discussion as drama as there isnt 
an of the usual noticeboard threads about either the deletion or the 
subsequent reversal
If I were an admin who was going to delete these pictures based on 
consensus, I would want to be sure that it wasn't going to be reversed 
because the current discussion has not been linked on the Current 
Deletion Requests (better) or any other noticeboard (not so better):


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Unless I'm missing something there.

Cary
 

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

there was an earlier suggestion that a well respected admin just delete
them, I wouldnt class the new discussion as drama as there isnt an of the
usual noticeboard threads about either the deletion or the subsequent
reversal

On 13 April 2012 10:46, Cary Bass  wrote:

> On 4/12/2012 8:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been
>> undeleted by Russavia.
>>
>> As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion
>> at the bottom of this page:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Commons:Deletion_**
>> requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_**Images#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_**
>> .286th_nomination.29
>>
>> Andreas
>>
> After all the discussion on the list, I'm not at all certain why Rd232
> went ahead and simply deleted it. -- likely to stir up considerable drama.
>
>
> Cary
>
> __**_
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

On 4/12/2012 8:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been 
undeleted by Russavia.


As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion 
discussion at the bottom of this page:


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_.286th_nomination.29 



Andreas
After all the discussion on the list, I'm not at all certain why Rd232 
went ahead and simply deleted it. -- likely to stir up considerable drama.


Cary

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been undeleted
by Russavia.

As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion
at the bottom of this page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_.286th_nomination.29

Andreas


On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Cary Bass  wrote:

> On 4/11/2012 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
>> If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
>> well-respected Commons admin does it.
>>
> I think your opinion on the discussion itself will carry far more weight
> than an out-of-process technical deletion.
>
> Cary
>
>
> __**_
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

On 4/11/2012 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:

I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
well-respected Commons admin does it.
I think your opinion on the discussion itself will carry far more weight 
than an out-of-process technical deletion.


Cary

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

> Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of
> identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would be
> to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on
> Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright
> deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what is
> going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing issue
> and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least that
> forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.
>


Everyone who has commented here seems to be in fairly good agreement that
these images should have been deleted long ago, per the Commons guideline,
as well as the board resolution. Let's please do the right thing, and face
the consequences.

Alternatively, I will shortly start the seventh deletion request.

Or we can give up any pretence that Commons is subject to a system of
policies and guidelines, and follows the directions set by the Wikimedia
Foundation board.

Andreas



> On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
>>
>>> Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent
>>> these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big
>>> stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these
>>> should have been deleted.
>>>
>> Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and
>> approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You
>> don't just do them because you care about something.
>>
>> I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
>> If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
>> well-respected Commons admin does it.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>
> __**_
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

IF the discussion is reopened with the reason being stated that consent
from the models doesnt exist then licensing is irelevant. People presenting
opinion have to address the concern of whether the models have given
consent, they can say all they want about licensing but it'd be pointless.
I think the bigger concern would be another COI closure.

On 12 April 2012 07:33, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of
> identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would be
> to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on
> Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright
> deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what is
> going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing issue
> and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least that
> forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
>>
>>> Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent
>>> these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big
>>> stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these
>>> should have been deleted.
>>>
>> Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and
>> approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You
>> don't just do them because you care about something.
>>
>> I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
>> If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
>> well-respected Commons admin does it.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>
> __**_
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Ryan Kaldari]

Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of 
identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would 
be to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on 
Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright 
deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what 
is going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing 
issue and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least 
that forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.


Ryan Kaldari

On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:

On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:

Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent
these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big
stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these
should have been deleted.

Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and
approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You
don't just do them because you care about something.

I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
well-respected Commons admin does it.

-- Tim Starling


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Tim Starling]

On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
> Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent
> these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big
> stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these
> should have been deleted.

Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and
approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You
don't just do them because you care about something.

I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
well-respected Commons admin does it.

-- Tim Starling


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Daniel Schwen]

With all the legal talk I think this discussion is moving in the wrong
direction. To paraphrase Sarah, is it really worth it to "be
unpleasant just because we can"? I realize that we need to draw lines
to protect our users and ensure reliably the freedom of the work we
host. But can't we move the line on the other side of content that is
not particularly valuable for the project and could cause serious
personal problems for uploaders and depicted persons.
The keep on the Obi DR seems rather spiteful and detrimental to the
overall cause. But I have the feeling that the involved people still
think they are the "guardians" of free content...
Dschwen

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Thomas Morton]

> For the most part, minors are perfectly able to execute contracts. People
>> are sometimes reluctant to contract with minors because minors can, in some
>> circumstances, void contracts that are not in their interest. But as a
>> general rule, contracts with minors are not impossible or illegal.
>
>
Ah, yes, that was the other critical part of the response to Sarah that I
missed, thanks :)

Minors can enter contracts. They just have no legal obligation (or close
to).

Tom
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Nathan]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Sarah  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Morton
>  wrote:
> > A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and
> > regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal
> with,
> > though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is that
> you
> > enter into a direct, binding agreement with someone (or some entity) -
> one
> > that carries a legal obligation.
> >
> > The free licenses we use don't do this; what they do is set out the
> > licensing permissions for the media.
>
> Thanks, Tom. There's a story here about the relationship (or the
> developing understanding of the relationship) between copyright and
> contract law.
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04163310101.shtml
>
> The thing I don't understand is how a child could agree to any of
> this. A CC license is an agreement proposed by the author. "I will
> allow anyone to use this image so long as (for example) you credit me
> with each use." A child is not in a position to propose anything, or
> agree to anything, or to give away her rights or the rights of her
> heirs. But this is what we're asking under-age people to do on a daily
> basis, then when they say they have changed their minds - or that they
> realize for the first time what their words implied -- we ignore them.
>
> That's really out of order, morally, and probably legally, especially
> when the images are personal and of no conceivable benefit to the
> project. It means we're being unpleasant just because we can.
>
> Sarah
>

For the most part, minors are perfectly able to execute contracts. People
are sometimes reluctant to contract with minors because minors can, in some
circumstances, void contracts that are not in their interest. But as a
general rule, contracts with minors are not impossible or illegal.

That's of course a totally separate question from moral responsibility and
whether we should accept licenses from minors for certain kinds of
content... but as history has shown, that kind of argument gets little
traction in the Wikimedia community.
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Sarah]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Morton
 wrote:
> A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and
> regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal with,
> though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is that you
> enter into a direct, binding agreement with someone (or some entity) - one
> that carries a legal obligation.
>
> The free licenses we use don't do this; what they do is set out the
> licensing permissions for the media.

Thanks, Tom. There's a story here about the relationship (or the
developing understanding of the relationship) between copyright and
contract law.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04163310101.shtml

The thing I don't understand is how a child could agree to any of
this. A CC license is an agreement proposed by the author. "I will
allow anyone to use this image so long as (for example) you credit me
with each use." A child is not in a position to propose anything, or
agree to anything, or to give away her rights or the rights of her
heirs. But this is what we're asking under-age people to do on a daily
basis, then when they say they have changed their minds - or that they
realize for the first time what their words implied -- we ignore them.

That's really out of order, morally, and probably legally, especially
when the images are personal and of no conceivable benefit to the
project. It means we're being unpleasant just because we can.

Sarah

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Thomas Morton]

Right, now I'm in front of a computer here's a third, more detailed reply,
which hopefully addresses a lot of what Anne is asking.

A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and
regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal
with, though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is
that you enter into a direct, binding agreement with someone (or some
entity) - one that carries a legal obligation.

The free licenses we use don't do this; what they do is set out the
licensing permissions for the media.

If someone violates those licensing permissions they are not violating any
contract, the matter is purely considered under copyright law. The
copyright holder asserts that a user has violated the license terms; and
the licensee can either prove they have not, or agree the have etc.

As far as I know, it is not a requirement for you to be above the age of
majority in any jurisdiction to license your work.

This is because Copyright is considered a moral right, automatically
endowed on your creative works. Licensing that work falls under the purview
of copyright; it is the way you set out the permissions for reuse of that
work.

When you put a work under a Creative Commons, for example, it includes this
text in the license:

Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants
> You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration
> of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as
> stated below:


As you can see; this is a perpetual license.

You can, of course, stop offering the work under this license - however
anyone in possession of the work retains the license they received it
under, and could (in the case of Creative Commons) offer it online
themselves if they wish.

This is what Commons generally means by "irrevocable".

Ok this next bit is my musing; and it relates to whether Commons acts as a
host for the creator (or, more properly, the uploader) of a work OR as a
licensee.

If Commons acts as a licensee then they are within their rights to refuse
to delete a properly licensed image at the request of the uploader. This is
because they have a copy of the work under a perpetual license and can use
it under the terms of that license to their hearts content.

However, if Commons simply acts as a host for the uploaders work, providing
a way for others to receive it under the specified license, then it becomes
more interesting. If the Foundation (the legal entity) has not been granted
the work under the relevant license then the uploader could assert his or
her moral right to have them remove it - essentially say "I would like to
withdraw this work".

Given the hand waviness of how this licensing stuff operates, that is
probably only an academic distinction of little practical use.

(n.b. I say uploader, of course, because if a work has been re-uploaded by
someone who is not the creator then it is up the uploader as to whether to
remove it).

Which is why it is much easier to say "the license if irrevocable" when
these questions are posed ;)

Tom
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Thomas Morton]

Actually; to be more specific.  A license is not always a contract -
although they can form part of a contract.

The sorts of licenses dealt with on Commons, though, are not contracts.

I have no idea whether the age of majority affects the ability to
grant a license; but I suspect it doesnt.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Thomas Morton]

A license is, specifically, not a contract.

Tom Morton

On 11 Apr 2012, at 18:30, Sarah  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Lars Aronsson  wrote:
>> On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
>>>
>>> Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
>>> irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
>>> non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
>>> allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
>>> grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
>>
>>
>> Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another
>> license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is
>> called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software.
>> But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
>>
>> The people who reuse your content based on the first license,
>> must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing
>> your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe
>> because you granted them an irrevocable license.
>
> Thank you for the explanation. As I mentioned earlier, surely only
> adults can grant irrevocable licences. Huge numbers of our uploaders
> are under the age of consent. We ask all kinds of questions before
> allowing people to upload (are you the author, has your work been
> published before, etc), but we don't ask "are you over 18?"
>
> Many of the rest of the uploaders aren't paying attention, and often
> the authors aren't the uploaders, but have consented by email without
> realizing what they're agreeing to.
>>
>> What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect
>> people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses.
>> Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't
>> understand what they were doing. But then Commons could
>> respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
>>
> Yes, indeed, but as we see, they don't.
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Sarah]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Cary Bass  wrote:
> A CC-By license *is* irrevocable.
>
> By agreeing to the CC-BY license, you are agreeing to make it irrevocable
> (see link that Benjamin Chen provided).  That does *not* mean
> * that you aren't allowed to modify your own images or
> * that reusers are obligated to continue to retain your images
>
> I've heard an argument about the downward reuse (beyond commons), i.e., once
> we have an image we're obligated to retain it so that downward images have a
> chain, but I'm not at all convinced that we are legally obligated to do
> that.  Downward reusers can either decide that we demonstrated a free
> license at the time they copied from us or they can remove them themselves.
>  We are in no more obligation to them than we are to those artists that
> we're reusing from.
>
> You have to weigh the consequences of losing reused images versus the
> consequences of ignoring courtesy to the creative community.
>
> In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the
> retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the
> courtesy removal would to the free culture community.  And it looks terrible
> for us.
>
> Cary

Thanks, Cary. Given that the women are identifiable, haven't consented
to release, and the photograph was taken in a private place, why won't
an admin simply delete the image? Or at least pixellate the faces?

I'm sorry if this has been explained already.

Sarah

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Sarah]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Lars Aronsson  wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
>> irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
>> non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
>> allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
>> grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
>
>
> Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another
> license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is
> called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software.
> But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
>
> The people who reuse your content based on the first license,
> must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing
> your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe
> because you granted them an irrevocable license.

Thank you for the explanation. As I mentioned earlier, surely only
adults can grant irrevocable licences. Huge numbers of our uploaders
are under the age of consent. We ask all kinds of questions before
allowing people to upload (are you the author, has your work been
published before, etc), but we don't ask "are you over 18?"

Many of the rest of the uploaders aren't paying attention, and often
the authors aren't the uploaders, but have consented by email without
realizing what they're agreeing to.
>
> What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect
> people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses.
> Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't
> understand what they were doing. But then Commons could
> respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
>
Yes, indeed, but as we see, they don't.

Sarah

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Sarah]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Benjamin Chen  wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Sarah wrote:
>
> Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
> irrevocable?
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F

Thanks for the link. Wouldn't we have to know that the uploader was
over the age of consent? I'm thinking that a young teenager wouldn't
be in a position to enter a contract before that. That is, they
wouldn't be in a position to say "I hereby release this image of my
body parts (or anything else) irrevocably under a cc licence."

Also, has the irrevocable nature of these image releases been upheld
by a court?

Sarah

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

When someone licenses an image they first have to be legally able to do so,
if they dont its irrelevant what the license is or what it gets changed to,
its invalid and cant be enforced. That also means no matter what we claim
the license to have been when we got it its still invalid so we cant host
it.


On 11 April 2012 17:50, Lars Aronsson  wrote:

> On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
>
>> Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
>> irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
>> non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
>> allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
>> grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
>>
>
> Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another
> license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is
> called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software.
> But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
>
> The people who reuse your content based on the first license,
> must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing
> your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe
> because you granted them an irrevocable license.
>
> What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect
> people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses.
> Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't
> understand what they were doing. But then Commons could
> respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>
>
> __**_
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Lars Aronsson]

On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:

Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.


Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another
license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is
called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software.
But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.

The people who reuse your content based on the first license,
must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing
your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe
because you granted them an irrevocable license.

What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect
people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses.
Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't
understand what they were doing. But then Commons could
respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.


--
  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

In the ObWolf photos the issue isnt licensing, the issue is whether consent
from the subject was given and what that consent was.
We see that the photo was not taken in a public place, so that make its a
private place for which we require a model release that specifies consent
to use for any purpose, in absence of any proof we should be deleting the
image see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_placeand
becasue the author has contacted us through OTRS  and specifically
stated that consent wasnt given for the images to released freely
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle deletion
should occur.

Or we need to address both of these policies to reflect what is actually
happening on Commons, provided that what is happening is what we to happen

On 11 April 2012 13:20, Rama Neko  wrote:

> > In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe
> the
> > retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the
> > courtesy removal would to the free culture community.  And it looks
> terrible
> > for us.
>
> It's worse than that.
>
> This situation does not make us look bad, not really, not yet. It has
> potential, but I doubt it will materialise. If it did, I am absolutely
> confident that the images would be taken off in the swift and decisive
> action that is appropriate in this case. The point is precisely that
> in the absence of media attention, the community is as a whole
> incapable of taking such appropriate action. We act in narrow
> self-interest, not in the best interest of things and people in
> general.
>   -- Rama
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Rama Neko]

> In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the
> retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the
> courtesy removal would to the free culture community.  And it looks terrible
> for us.

It's worse than that.

This situation does not make us look bad, not really, not yet. It has
potential, but I doubt it will materialise. If it did, I am absolutely
confident that the images would be taken off in the swift and decisive
action that is appropriate in this case. The point is precisely that
in the absence of media attention, the community is as a whole
incapable of taking such appropriate action. We act in narrow
self-interest, not in the best interest of things and people in
general.
  -- Rama

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

On 4/10/2012 9:45 PM, Sarah wrote:

Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.

We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but
allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences
as irrevocable.

I'm asking this because I've seen a couple of cases on the Commons in
the last few months where people have asked that personal images be
deleted (usually involving body parts that they uploaded when kids),
and being told no, too late, you can't change your mind. This seems
cruel and unreasonable, and so I'm wondering what the legal basis for
it is.

Sarah

A CC-By license *is* irrevocable.

By agreeing to the CC-BY license, you are agreeing to make it 
irrevocable (see link that Benjamin Chen provided).  That does *not* mean

* that you aren't allowed to modify your own images or
* that reusers are obligated to continue to retain your images

I've heard an argument about the downward reuse (beyond commons), i.e., 
once we have an image we're obligated to retain it so that downward 
images have a chain, but I'm not at all convinced that we are legally 
obligated to do that.  Downward reusers can either decide that we 
demonstrated a free license at the time they copied from us or they can 
remove them themselves.  We are in no more obligation to them than we 
are to those artists that we're reusing from.


You have to weigh the consequences of losing reused images versus the 
consequences of ignoring courtesy to the creative community.


In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe 
the retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than 
the courtesy removal would to the free culture community.  And it looks 
terrible for us.


Cary

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Jeremy Baron]

On Apr 11, 2012 12:45 AM, "Sarah"  wrote:
> Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
> irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
> non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
> allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
> grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
>
> We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but
> allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences
> as irrevocable.

A license change doesn't mean the original license has been revoked. (On
Flickr or commons)

A work can be simultaneously licensed under multiple CC licenses even if
they have conflicting terms. (e.g. you could a single work under both BY-ND
and BY-NC-SA) That just lets the user/distributor/derivative choose which
license(s) to use the work under.

-Jeremy
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Rama Neko]

> Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these
> photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action
> but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been
> deleted.

This is a matter of institutional politics in Commons.

As you say, an office action would be an intervention of the
Foundation on administrative turf, a recourse that the Foundation
understandably wish to reserve for the most serious of events to avoid
wearing its authority. Because of this, we have to rely on the
administrative corps, which does not function as a coherant
institution, but as the sum of contributions of the random
administrators who decide to intervene on such or such event. This
occasionally leaves a great deal of influence in the hands of people
who lack the insight to see the finality of things rather than stop at
matters of pure form, and occasionally of people who are too
intellectually lazy to completely understand even the forms.

Our system works well for usual cases where simple matters can be
railroaded through mediocre people. It has every chance of failing in
exceptional circumstances, when some actual understanding is required.
It is not that there is no intelligent person in Commons, but that
intelligence can hardly be expressed in the collective voice that
emerges through our system.
  -- Rama

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Benjamin Chen]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Sarah wrote:

> Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
> irrevocable?

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F




On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Sarah wrote:



>  If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
> non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
> allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
> grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.

Not exactly. The license is irrevocable =/= license is exclusive. We don't 
*have* to follow the NC license. 

Say the work was once BY-SA-NC and later changed to BY-SA, people can still 
create derivative work and license them with BY-SA-NC, *not* BY-SA.

(Do correct me if I'm wrong)

Best regards,
Benjamin Chen / User:Bencmq





___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Sarah]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good example of how Commons
> does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is that Flickr
> doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable ...

Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the
grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.

We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but
allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences
as irrevocable.

I'm asking this because I've seen a couple of cases on the Commons in
the last few months where people have asked that personal images be
deleted (usually involving body parts that they uploaded when kids),
and being told no, too late, you can't change your mind. This seems
cruel and unreasonable, and so I'm wondering what the legal basis for
it is.

Sarah

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good example of how
Commons does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is
that Flickr doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable and that we
dont check personality rights when uploading from flickr.

What was linked in this discussion has been a witchhunt and stand by that
and my review of the Stalin photo discussions.

Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these
photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action
but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been
deleted.

in the Obiwolf discussions one closure was a coi and it was also the
discussion that raised the personality rights. IMHO that sufficient reason
to reopen the discussion


As a side issue maybe we need a spedy criteria for OTRS agents to tag
images where its outside the normal
reasons.
though point 5 " Missing essential information." should have caught these
ones


On 11 April 2012 07:25, Tim Starling  wrote:

> On 11/04/12 00:38, Nathan wrote:
> > You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
> >
> > Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically
> > to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this
> > list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very
> > well" - at least not in those cases.
>
> Yes, I was talking about the ObiWolf images.
>
> Admins have to deal with a ton of crap every day, and decisions need
> to be made quickly if there is to be any hope of keeping up with
> demand. I didn't mean to lay blame, I just think that the DRs should
> be reopened, with more care taken in the opening paragraph of the DR
> to guide the admins in the right direction.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Ryan Kaldari]

These are both great suggestions. I'm going to keep these as notes for 
future UploadWizard development.


Ryan Kaldari

On 4/9/12 10:48 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Another suggestion would be to run all new uploads through Tineye 
straight away; and if they have significant or suspicious hits put it 
up for review.


Tom

On 9 April 2012 18:40, Andrew Gray > wrote:


On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides mailto:platoni...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on
flickr
> thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they
can be
> used now on Wikimedia Commons.
> That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the
license
> was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it
> isn't so bad to "lose" the images.

This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once.

As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably
didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the
nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was
appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told
their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a
note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was
quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded
them myself :-)

And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers...

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk 

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Tim Starling]

On 11/04/12 00:38, Nathan wrote:
> You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
> 
> Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically
> to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this
> list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very
> well" - at least not in those cases.

Yes, I was talking about the ObiWolf images.

Admins have to deal with a ton of crap every day, and decisions need
to be made quickly if there is to be any hope of keeping up with
demand. I didn't mean to lay blame, I just think that the DRs should
be reopened, with more care taken in the opening paragraph of the DR
to guide the admins in the right direction.

-- Tim Starling


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

On 4/10/2012 8:59 AM, Cary Bass wrote:

On 4/10/2012 7:38 AM, Nathan wrote:

You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images 



Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically 
to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this 
list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very 
well" - at least not in those cases. 

Absolutely,

I've read the OTRS email, now.  The author never intended to release 
the images to the public under a free license.  He uploaded them to 
Flickr to share with the models.  It seems that we are playing 
"gotcha" with the artist by stating "irrevocable", which is a very 
poor stand from which to operate, especially because people do make 
errors in judgement due to lack of technical expertise or 
understanding of implication.


The images are not actually available anywhere else under a free 
license, and I've yet to locate anything but a direct link to the 
images themselves available online, on a copyrighted site.  
Additionally, the artist's Flickr site


SHOULD READ: "the artist's Flickr site is now entirely Copyright, 
thereby demonstrating a renewed understanding of intent and free licensing."


We are indeed broken if we are now deciding that we cannot honor an 
artist's request to remove images he uploaded in either an error of 
judgment, a misunderstanding of licensing, a lack of technical 
understanding, or some combination of any or all of those.


So, can this still be remedied?  I would like to hear suggestions.  I 
think we have admins willing to delete the images, but I would 
certainly not do this on my own, "lone wolf' style, or without some 
agreement as to how to accomplish this.


Cary



___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

On 4/10/2012 7:38 AM, Nathan wrote:

You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically 
to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this 
list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very 
well" - at least not in those cases. 

Absolutely,

I've read the OTRS email, now.  The author never intended to release the 
images to the public under a free license.  He uploaded them to Flickr 
to share with the models.  It seems that we are playing "gotcha" with 
the artist by stating "irrevocable", which is a very poor stand from 
which to operate, especially because people do make errors in judgement 
due to lack of technical expertise or understanding of implication.


The images are not actually available anywhere else under a free 
license, and I've yet to locate anything but a direct link to the images 
themselves available online, on a copyrighted site.  Additionally, the 
artist's Flickr site


We are indeed broken if we are now deciding that we cannot honor an 
artist's request to remove images he uploaded in either an error of 
judgment, a misunderstanding of licensing, a lack of technical 
understanding, or some combination of any or all of those.


So, can this still be remedied?  I would like to hear suggestions.  I 
think we have admins willing to delete the images, but I would certainly 
not do this on my own, "lone wolf' style, or without some agreement as 
to how to accomplish this.


Cary

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Nathan]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link
> to what is being discussed
>
> I checked
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpgthat
>  doesnt reflect what Tim is referring to neither does
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpgwhich
>  are the only discussion that have been linked in the email I've
> recieved thru commons-l,
>
> If this discussion is going to start throwing around solutions that
> include Commons admins having their tools removed by the foundation, and
> changes to way in which commons chooses its admin and the skill
> requirements of these people then we should have access to the discussion
> that triggered it.
>
> As for not reading OTRS tickets unless you have access you cant read them,
> OTRS agents dont normally(privacy requirements) release the information on
> the ticket so Commons Admins must "assume good faith" in what we are being
> told. The Stalin discussion stated that "*OTRS confirmation* - We have
> received an email from the son of Margaret Bourke-White who is the current
> copyright holder giving permission for the photograph to be used" at  that
> point every commons admin would close the discussion on the assumption of
> good faith in the OTRS agents comment.
>
> When images are transferred from Flickr the only decision is verification
> of license, permissions arent something that can be considered if the
> uploader askes the author they then forward the permission to OTRS so again
> Commons Admins need to AGF to accuse admins of "*Part of the solution,
> . If the community is unable to do it, the office should do it. Admins
> are being negligent, collude with breaches of personality rights, and
> enable anonymous individuals to engage in media licensing fraud, whether
> intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here for example*:"  when they
> dont have access to the information is disgusting these people are
> volunteers the Stalin discussion followed Commons policy the decision being
> made were based on available information there was no collusion there was
> no incompetence intentional or otherwise. When other information was
> presented to dispute the decisons the discussion reopened and closed
> according to the new information that is fine example of how Commons
> discussions work
>
> The solution here isnt to alter how Commons admins work, nor how they are
> chosen the issue here is ensuring OTRS agents have the knowledge to process
> permission tickets so that admins can act on requests. When I started on
> OTRS there was no training, or guidence on how to use the system I was left
> to my own devices to learn to answer tickets In the time I was there the
> OTRS wiki was started up, I was dropped off the OTRS list for not being
> active so I cant comment on whats changed since nor how the OTRS wiki works
> now.
>
> Trolling is problem on all wiki's as are witch hunts the system we have
> works very well, yes it has flaws including AGF and Trust but we cant work
> without those, we cant work without admins either yes Commons needs more
> but doesnt every wiki. Whats needed is to drop the creation of policy thru
> witchhunt proccesses because we are always going to have issue with images.
> the current processes work well in most cases, but future changes to way we
> get images from flickr are going to stretch those processess both on
> Commons and thru OTRS we need ways to deal with the effect of these changes.
>


You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the
ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't
think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not
in those cases.
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link
to what is being discussed

I checked
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpgthat
doesnt reflect what Tim is referring to neither does
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpgwhich
are the only discussion that have been linked in the email I've
recieved thru commons-l,

If this discussion is going to start throwing around solutions that include
Commons admins having their tools removed by the foundation, and changes to
way in which commons chooses its admin and the skill requirements of these
people then we should have access to the discussion that triggered it.

As for not reading OTRS tickets unless you have access you cant read them,
OTRS agents dont normally(privacy requirements) release the information on
the ticket so Commons Admins must "assume good faith" in what we are being
told. The Stalin discussion stated that "*OTRS confirmation* - We have
received an email from the son of Margaret Bourke-White who is the current
copyright holder giving permission for the photograph to be used" at  that
point every commons admin would close the discussion on the assumption of
good faith in the OTRS agents comment.

When images are transferred from Flickr the only decision is verification
of license, permissions arent something that can be considered if the
uploader askes the author they then forward the permission to OTRS so again
Commons Admins need to AGF to accuse admins of "*Part of the solution,
. If the community is unable to do it, the office should do it. Admins
are being negligent, collude with breaches of personality rights, and
enable anonymous individuals to engage in media licensing fraud, whether
intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here for example*:"  when they
dont have access to the information is disgusting these people are
volunteers the Stalin discussion followed Commons policy the decision being
made were based on available information there was no collusion there was
no incompetence intentional or otherwise. When other information was
presented to dispute the decisons the discussion reopened and closed
according to the new information that is fine example of how Commons
discussions work

The solution here isnt to alter how Commons admins work, nor how they are
chosen the issue here is ensuring OTRS agents have the knowledge to process
permission tickets so that admins can act on requests. When I started on
OTRS there was no training, or guidence on how to use the system I was left
to my own devices to learn to answer tickets In the time I was there the
OTRS wiki was started up, I was dropped off the OTRS list for not being
active so I cant comment on whats changed since nor how the OTRS wiki works
now.

Trolling is problem on all wiki's as are witch hunts the system we have
works very well, yes it has flaws including AGF and Trust but we cant work
without those, we cant work without admins either yes Commons needs more
but doesnt every wiki. Whats needed is to drop the creation of policy thru
witchhunt proccesses because we are always going to have issue with images.
the current processes work well in most cases, but future changes to way we
get images from flickr are going to stretch those processess both on
Commons and thru OTRS we need ways to deal with the effect of these
changes.



On 10 April 2012 10:14, Tim Starling  wrote:

> On 06/04/12 10:22, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> > This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs
> > of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place,
> > consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place,
> > consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was
> > the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable
> > people guideline?
>
> I looked at the deletion discussions. It looked to me like personality
> rights were never seriously considered.
>
> The first three deletion requests were made anonymously, and the whole
> of the request was just "Copyrights!" The fourth and fifth deletion
> requests were closed by admins who gave no indication that they had
> read the discussion on personality rights or the OTRS tickets, they
> just said "kept per the other DRs".
>
> Maybe if the requester knew how Commons worked, they wouldn't have
> submitted deletion requests that looked so trollish. If they only sent
> OTRS tickets and never tried a deletion request, the images probably
> would have been deleted by now.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://list

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Tim Starling]

On 06/04/12 10:22, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs
> of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place,
> consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place,
> consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was
> the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable
> people guideline?

I looked at the deletion discussions. It looked to me like personality
rights were never seriously considered.

The first three deletion requests were made anonymously, and the whole
of the request was just "Copyrights!" The fourth and fifth deletion
requests were closed by admins who gave no indication that they had
read the discussion on personality rights or the OTRS tickets, they
just said "kept per the other DRs".

Maybe if the requester knew how Commons worked, they wouldn't have
submitted deletion requests that looked so trollish. If they only sent
OTRS tickets and never tried a deletion request, the images probably
would have been deleted by now.

-- Tim Starling


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Thomas Morton]

Another suggestion would be to run all new uploads through Tineye straight
away; and if they have significant or suspicious hits put it up for review.

Tom

On 9 April 2012 18:40, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides  wrote:
>
> > I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr
> > thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be
> > used now on Wikimedia Commons.
> > That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license
> > was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it
> > isn't so bad to "lose" the images.
>
> This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once.
>
> As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably
> didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the
> nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was
> appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told
> their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a
> note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was
> quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded
> them myself :-)
>
> And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andrew Gray]

On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides  wrote:

> I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr
> thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be
> used now on Wikimedia Commons.
> That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license
> was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it
> isn't so bad to "lose" the images.

This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once.

As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably
didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the
nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was
appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told
their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a
note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was
quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded
them myself :-)

And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Platonides]

> On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over
>> issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive
>> of things that should throw up huge red flags.
>>
>> Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a
>> red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with
>> Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.

It should be quite easy to get them deleted when there's a copyvio
source. The problem is when you 'feel' that the image is a copyvio, yet
you can't find a source for that.


On 09/04/12 03:57, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who
> will vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence
> of copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this
> problem is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding
> automatic Flickr transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not
> sure what the solution to this is, other than getting more smart
> people to be Commons admins.
>
> Ryan Kaldari

I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr
thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be
used now on Wikimedia Commons.
That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license
was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it
isn't so bad to "lose" the images.
And if they appear back 2 years later, with infringiment claims, we can
point to how we notified them, and they ignored for so long, as an
indicator of probable abuse of the rules.


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> **
> Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who will
> vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence of
> copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this problem
> is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding automatic Flickr
> transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure what the solution
> to this is, other than getting more smart people to be Commons admins.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>


Well, is there a chance now that anyone might delete the images we've been
discussing here, per the Board Resolution on Personality Rights and
Commons' own Guideline, incl. any copies in the web archive? We are now,
through this public discussion, propagating an additional set of links to
these privacy-infringing images.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people

Part of the solution, Ryan, surely is to de-admin admins who do not uphold
guidelines and policies. If the community is unable to do it, the office
should do it. Admins are being negligent, collude with breaches of
personality rights, and enable anonymous individuals to engage in media
licensing fraud, whether intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here
for example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg

The Wikimedia Foundation cannot afford to turn a blind eye to such endemic
abuses.

The other, more proactive part of the solution is to actually
*train*admins, make them pass a test rather than a popularity contest,
and have
regular performance reviews.

Andreas





>
> On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
> In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over
> issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of
> things that should throw up huge red flags.
>
>  For example tonight I came across this:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpg
>  Image
> was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red
> flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and
> Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.
>
>  But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no
> investigation.
>
>  Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more
> seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than
> demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore
> it).
>
>  Tom
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing 
> listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Fae]

Part of the answer might be to encourage a succession of popular and
well proposed Commons RFCs moving beyond the polarization of "OMG
porn" vs. "OMG censorship".

Topics such as the OTRS discussion

are reasonable and may result in useful changes in policy, not just on
Commons either. Perhaps we should create handy shortcuts for these
(like [[com:RFC6]] or somesuch) and keep plugging them in all related
more visible disputes and wonky inflammatory deletion review
discussions.

Sensible discussions might draw in more "stable" folks to consider
going for commons RFA too.

Cheers,
Fae

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Craig Franklin]

>
> I don't think that more policies and guidelines are the answer; we already
have official policies like this one that are routinely ignored because
people concentrate on licencing at deletion discussions to the exclusion of
all other issues.  The correct answer is more effective use of existing
guidelines and policies, both through better education and awareness that
there are important issues beyond copyright on one hand, and if that
doesn't work, thinking about some heavier consequences for users and admins
who persistently ignore such policies.

Cheers,
Craig

On 9 April 2012 12:06, Gnangarra  wrote:

> maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put
> more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it
> from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion
> requires the photographer to establish permission.
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>>
>>
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put
more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it
from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion
requires the photographer to establish permission.


-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Ryan Kaldari]

Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who 
will vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence 
of copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this 
problem is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding 
automatic Flickr transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure 
what the solution to this is, other than getting more smart people to be 
Commons admins.


Ryan Kaldari

On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over 
issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive 
of things that should throw up huge red flags.


For example tonight I came across this: 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpg Image 
was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a 
red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with 
Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.


But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no 
investigation.


Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more 
seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather 
than demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue 
to ignore it).


Tom


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Thomas Morton]

In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over
issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of
things that should throw up huge red flags.

For example tonight I came across this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpg
Image
was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red
flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and
Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.

But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no
investigation.

Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more
seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than
demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore
it).

Tom
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

>
> Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
>
> Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
> photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
> promptly take that photo down?
>


This is exactly what happened. The photographer showed up. He had his
identity verified. He said he did not have model consent, and both he and
the models badly wanted the images taken down. He asked six times. He was
refused six times. You voted in favour of taking the images down, but were
outvoted.

So no, Commons would not take the image down, even though Commons policy
says it should be taken down.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place

Andreas
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Emanuela Capizzi]

http://dottmakeup.intuitwebsites.com/ 




 Da: Samuel Klein 
A: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List ; Wikimedia 
Foundation Mailing List  
Inviato: Domenica 8 Aprile 2012 17:45
Oggetto: Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights
 
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
>
> In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Bencmq wrote:
> I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those
> images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?

Yes.  Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may
not have such consent.  If the uploader did not upload directly to
Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later
to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that
they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it
is hard to gainsay them.

In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request,
unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after
reasonably verifying their identity.

Ryan Kaldari writes:
> What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable 
> people guideline?

Maarten Dammers writes:
> That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this 
> rule to get images
> deleted they didn't like. Say I take 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg
> If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent 
> documented.

Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
promptly take that photo down?

If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked
for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had
gotten consent.  If not, again -- would we not take the photo down?
If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.

Sam.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
>
> In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Bencmq wrote:
> I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those
> images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?

Yes.  Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may
not have such consent.  If the uploader did not upload directly to
Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later
to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that
they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it
is hard to gainsay them.

In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request,
unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after
reasonably verifying their identity.

Ryan Kaldari writes:
> What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable 
> people guideline?

Maarten Dammers writes:
> That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this 
> rule to get images
> deleted they didn't like. Say I take 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg
> If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent 
> documented.

Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
promptly take that photo down?

If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked
for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had
gotten consent.  If not, again -- would we not take the photo down?
If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.

Sam.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

Mr Gerard, could you please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere? For
the record, what you're saying is totally off the wall.

Andreas

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
>
>
> In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
>
> And to put not too fine a point on it, you have a track record of
> bad-faith actions, c.f. your campaign of harassment against Fae,
> coordinated on WIkipedia Review with banned user Edward Buckner. Given
> this, I'm afraid I find it hard to take almost any concern you raise
> on any subject at good-faith face value.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[David Gerard]

On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.


In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

And to put not too fine a point on it, you have a track record of
bad-faith actions, c.f. your campaign of harassment against Fae,
coordinated on WIkipedia Review with banned user Edward Buckner. Given
this, I'm afraid I find it hard to take almost any concern you raise
on any subject at good-faith face value.


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.

Andreas

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson  wrote:
>
> > I so think:
> > i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such
> deletions
> > ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
> > iii. we should  communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
> > working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public
> > personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic
> > society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.
>
> Agreed on all points; and iii. can be done in a friendly way as well.
>
> Andreas, can you post a link to the wiki discussion in question?  SJ
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Gnangarra]

Its a balancing we need the images but we also the goodwill that the
removal of images creates, what we dont need are court battles or media
battles with high profile people the loss of a couple of images every now
and then shouldnt be a big deal thats the way I treated such requests when
I was on OTRS. I'd review the image its usage and then decide if there was
a critical necessity for the image if there wasnt I'd delete it. When the
image is sourced through flickr like sources that doesnt stop another
person copying it back to Commons at a later date anyway.

On 8 April 2012 20:01, Maarten Dammers  wrote:

>  Hi Ryan,
>
> Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
>
> This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
> identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent
> is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
> required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification
> for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
>
> That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use
> this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg.
>  If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have
> consent documented. For this picture we're probably able to get that
> afterwards because we know these people, but for most picture this is an
> easy way to get images deleted which you don't like.
>
> Maarten
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>


-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Maarten Dammers]

Hi Ryan,

Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs 
of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, 
consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, 
consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was 
the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable 
people guideline?
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use 
this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg 
. If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have 
consent documented. For this picture we're probably able to get that 
afterwards because we know these people, but for most picture this is an 
easy way to get images deleted which you don't like.


Maarten
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson  wrote:

> I so think:
> i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions
> ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
> iii. we should  communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
> working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public
> personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic
> society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.

Agreed on all points; and iii. can be done in a friendly way as well.

Andreas, can you post a link to the wiki discussion in question?  SJ

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Ryan Kaldari]

On 4/5/12 10:39 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here. 
The photographer has asked us to remove it.  We have no reason to 
doubt the subject wants it removed.  It's not actually very 
complementary of her.  We have ample other pictures of her.  I see 
absolutely no reason not to honor this request.


Cary Bass


Of course I agree with you. I was just trying to pick the easier fight 
since Andreas had said that the photos had been taken in "a private 
situation". Respecting uploader wishes is often discretionary, but 
adhering to official guidelines is expected unless you have a compelling 
reason not to. Either way, I would probably support deleting it, but 
since I don't know the specific situation, I can't comment further.


Ryan Kaldari



On 4/5/2012 10:24 PM, Rama Neko wrote:

With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
   -- Rama

On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, 
consent is

required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the 
justification

for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?

Ryan Kaldari



On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
Resolution:


---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed 
content,

and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as 
on our
projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects 
to limit
unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to 
take into

account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with 
regards to
media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under 
a free
license although they portray identifiable living persons in a 
private place
or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and 
ethical to
obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our 
special
mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking 
consent

from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as 
Flickr,

where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
verify.

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent 
from the
subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required 
under

the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would 
usually
be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video 
taken in a
private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has 
not been

applied consistently.
Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place 
regarding
the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private 
situations.
Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves 
hosted on
our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage 
others to

do the same.


Approved 10-0.
---o0o---

Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken 
in a
private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous 
contributor

and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. 
He said
that the subjects could not understand how these images of them 
ended up on
Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant 
to be
released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS 
verified

that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
account.
Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen 
deletion
discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the 
objections of
isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear 
absence of
subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has 
been

that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting 
these

images. Not only was consent not obtained – an ende

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Cary Bass]

I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here. 
The photographer has asked us to remove it.  We have no reason to doubt 
the subject wants it removed.  It's not actually very complementary of 
her.  We have ample other pictures of her.  I see absolutely no reason 
not to honor this request.


Cary Bass



On 4/5/2012 10:24 PM, Rama Neko wrote:

With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
   -- Rama

On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is
required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification
for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?

Ryan Kaldari



On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
Resolution:


---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content,
and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our
projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit
unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into
account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place
or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to
obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special
mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent
from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr,
where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
verify.

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the
subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually
be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a
private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been
applied consistently.
Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding
the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on
our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to
do the same.


Approved 10-0.
---o0o---

Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
account.
Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these
images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS
communications, and remove the images permanently.  Andreas

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


__

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Rama Neko]

With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
  -- Rama

On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
> This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
> identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is
> required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
> required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification
> for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
> On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
> Resolution:
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content,
> and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
> value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our
> projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit
> unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into
> account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
> biographies of living persons.
>
> However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
> media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
> license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place
> or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to
> obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special
> mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent
> from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
> proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr,
> where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
> verify.
>
> In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
>
> Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
> identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the
> subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
> the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
> affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually
> be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a
> private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been
> applied consistently.
> Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding
> the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
> Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on
> our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to
> do the same.
>
>
> Approved 10-0.
> ---o0o---
>
> Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
> private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
> and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
> having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
> requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
> that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
> Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
> released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
> that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
> account.
> Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
> discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
> isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
> subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
> that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
> Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
> images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
> images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these
> images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
> I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
> bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS
> communications, and remove the images permanently.  Andreas
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

___
Commons

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Ryan Kaldari]

This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of 
identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, 
consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent 
is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the 
justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people 
guideline?


Ryan Kaldari


On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following 
Resolution:



---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed 
content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this 
content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and 
readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been 
crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and 
we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and 
respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living 
persons.


However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards 
to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released 
under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons 
in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is 
important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such 
media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free 
project.*We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is 
especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded 
photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is 
difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.*


In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of 
Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:


* Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on
  photographs of identifiable people
  
 
with
  the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of
  media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
  the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of
  an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent
  would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a
  photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has
  been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.
* Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
  regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people
  in private situations.
* Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves
  hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and
  encourage others to do the same.


Approved 10-0.

---o0o---


Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken 
in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous 
contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer 
available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.


Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via 
OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could 
not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were 
aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly.


According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person 
making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account.


Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen 
deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the 
objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the 
clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing 
admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.


Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting 
these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation 
– the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.


Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?

I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or 
Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion 
requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently.


Andreas


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

[Dereckson]

Good morning,

We have just received this morning on the Bistro (ie the French village pump) a
deletion request for personality rights.

The photo has been taken in Caffé Florian at Venice.

That helped me to understand your confusion between first, the WMF
resolution, and secondly  the Wikimedia Commons application.

The resolution seems to be related to pictures taken in private, not
in the public space:

"The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from
the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required
from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private
place."

"Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in
private situations. "

I so think:
i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions
ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
iii. we should  communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public
personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic
society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
> Resolution:
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content,
> and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
> value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our
> projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit
> unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into
> account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
> biographies of living persons.
>
> However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
> media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
> license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place
> or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to
> obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special
> mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent
> from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
> proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr,
> where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
> verify.
>
> In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
>
> Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
> identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the
> subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
> the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
> affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually
> be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a
> private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been
> applied consistently.
> Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding
> the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
> Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on
> our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to
> do the same.
>
>
> Approved 10-0.
> ---o0o---
>
> Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
> private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
> and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
> having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
> requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
> that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
> Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
> released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
> that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
> account.
> Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
> discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
> isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
> subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
> that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
> Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
> images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
> images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these
> images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
> I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
> bureaucrat who is willing and ab

[Commons-l] Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe]

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
Resolution:


---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We
also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on
our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to
limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to
take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when
publishing biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private
place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and
ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with
our special mission as an educational and free project.* We feel that
seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of
the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as
Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent
difficult to verify.*

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

   - Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
   identifiable
people
with
   the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media,
   including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The
   evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the
   uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from
   identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place.
   This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied
   consistently.
   - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
   regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private
   situations.
   - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted
   on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others
   to do the same.


Approved 10-0.
---o0o---

Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
having been removed long ago.Over the past year, the photographer has
requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
account.
Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.Why are these
images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS
communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l