Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:07 AM, wrote: > > The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my > pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license > link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the > flickr photopage, the information is available you just have to go look > for it a bit. Does that count in your world? I generally try to enforce the spirit, rather the the letter, of licenses. If someone links back to the source, that's generally good enough for me because someone who sees it has a practical way of finding out the license and reusing it themselves if they want to. The exception to that is when they are using it in a way that should trigger the viral aspect of the copyleft license. In that case, it's important for them to acknowledge that in order to use my work they have to free their own, and to notify others that their work as well as mine if freely licensed. -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Sage Ross wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, wrote: >> >> If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA >> license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume >> that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not >> if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the >> copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two >> parties you simple do not know. >> > > In many cases it's very obvious. If an image credit says "Sage > Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC > license), it's clear that it's not being used properly. If the image > credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on > Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear. > > Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking > the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed. But there are > a lot of times when you can know. > The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the flickr photopage, the information is available you just have to go look for it a bit. Does that count in your world? A whole mass of reusers are using some blogging or CMS pluggin or theme (wordpress, drupal, etc) on their site few of which bother to attribute let alone link to relevant licenses. If you feel the need to bitch at anyone bitch at those developers. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/9/7 Bod Notbod : >> Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues? > > Yes. Just put "(This will allow your image to be used on Wikipedia)" > next to the "CC-BY-SA" option. This would suffer from exactly the same problem. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Bod Notbod wrote: > I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for > use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to The problem with that kind of simplified explanation of what CC-BY-SA means is that content that is "licensed for use on Wikipedia" will be rejected from Wikipedia. Only content that is "licensed for use anywhere by anybody" will be accepted. That difference is the hardest one to explain, and can't really be simplified away. You would only get unhappy users who thought they licensed it for use on Wikipedia but not for other purposes. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
It still isn't the place of a third party to police someone else's copyrights. From: Sage Ross To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:32:09 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, wrote: > Sage Ross wrote: >> >> If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of >> concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license >> would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and >> available for others to use and adapt. > > > The problem is that YOU have no knowledge whether a copyleft license is > being violated or not. It is a gross arrogance on your part presume that > because it is CC-BY-SA in one context that all such uses must be CC-BY-SA. > > If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA > license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume > that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not > if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the > copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two > parties you simple do not know. > In many cases it's very obvious. If an image credit says "Sage Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC license), it's clear that it's not being used properly. If the image credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear. Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed. But there are a lot of times when you can know. -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
A CC violation is not everyone's business. If A infringes on B's CC copyright, and party C pokes A about it, A can tell C to bugger off. It's like filing a DMCA notice when you don't own the work. Licensing is an agreement between two entities, not the community. From: David Gerard To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force 2009/9/7 Sage Ross : > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: >> The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for >> whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to >> intervene in a contract between two people and only two people. > This kind of attitude seems to me to be a byproduct of the fact that, > despite being intended to help fix the flaws in the copyright system, > Creative Commons and other free licenses are "hacks" that are built on > top of copyright. The construction of CC licenses as contracts > between copyright owner and user is part of the hack, but not > necessarily ideal for promoting a robust creative commons (in the > lower case, general sense). Indeed. Geoffrey fails to appreciate that a CC violation really is everyone's business. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod : > Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues? Yes. Just put "(This will allow your image to be used on Wikipedia)" next to the "CC-BY-SA" option. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod : > That's a very fair comment. > Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues? Indeed. Just note on CC-by and CC-by-sa that they also make it eligible for Wikipedia. Offer a tickbox for asking Wikipedia reviewers to check your image, putting up a list somewhere. This will be *most* useful to us. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM, wrote: >> That's easily answered. >> >> I'm not "renaming the license". I'm proposing that there be a tick box >> for that very same license with a more friendly tag that tells the >> user "can be used on Wikipedia". The license doesn't change, it's just >> the way it's communicated. >> >> I love and support the Creative Commons licenses, but they can present >> you with a lot of reading. A decision that says "can be used on >> Wikipedia" would be much more immediate. >> > > It is also very misleading. Whilst many people would love to have their > work on wikipedia they might not want it used by Microsoft, News > International, Ford, Walmart, the Meat Marketing Board, or etc. So if > you feel that people need to be educated into using a license compatible > with wikipedia, you really do need to spell it out for them that they > are also making available to all those others too. That's a very fair comment. Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, wrote: > Sage Ross wrote: >> >> If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of >> concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license >> would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and >> available for others to use and adapt. > > > The problem is that YOU have no knowledge whether a copyleft license is > being violated or not. It is a gross arrogance on your part presume that > because it is CC-BY-SA in one context that all such uses must be CC-BY-SA. > > If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA > license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume > that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not > if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the > copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two > parties you simple do not know. > In many cases it's very obvious. If an image credit says "Sage Ross/Creative Commons" (with no link or no indication of which CC license), it's clear that it's not being used properly. If the image credit says merely "Wikipedia" and you know that the version on Wikipedia is under a copyleft license, it's again clear. Yes, there are some situations where you can't know (without asking the creator) that an image wasn't separately licensed. But there are a lot of times when you can know. -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
2009/9/7 Sage Ross : > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: >> The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for >> whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to >> intervene in a contract between two people and only two people. > This kind of attitude seems to me to be a byproduct of the fact that, > despite being intended to help fix the flaws in the copyright system, > Creative Commons and other free licenses are "hacks" that are built on > top of copyright. The construction of CC licenses as contracts > between copyright owner and user is part of the hack, but not > necessarily ideal for promoting a robust creative commons (in the > lower case, general sense). Indeed. Geoffrey fails to appreciate that a CC violation really is everyone's business. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Sage Ross wrote: > > If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of > concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license > would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and > available for others to use and adapt. The problem is that YOU have no knowledge whether a copyleft license is being violated or not. It is a gross arrogance on your part presume that because it is CC-BY-SA in one context that all such uses must be CC-BY-SA. If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not if the creator of the music relicensed it to the advertizer minus the copyleft requirement. Being an outsider to the agreement between the two parties you simple do not know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Bod Notbod wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:40 PM, wrote: > >>> On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal. >>> >>> I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for >>> use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to >>> >>> a) make their pictures available to us and >>> >>> b) easier to find by Wikipedians. >> You can already limit your search for CC-BY-SA images on flickr. Why >> would you want to rename the license something else? > > That's easily answered. > > I'm not "renaming the license". I'm proposing that there be a tick box > for that very same license with a more friendly tag that tells the > user "can be used on Wikipedia". The license doesn't change, it's just > the way it's communicated. > > I love and support the Creative Commons licenses, but they can present > you with a lot of reading. A decision that says "can be used on > Wikipedia" would be much more immediate. > It is also very misleading. Whilst many people would love to have their work on wikipedia they might not want it used by Microsoft, News International, Ford, Walmart, the Meat Marketing Board, or etc. So if you feel that people need to be educated into using a license compatible with wikipedia, you really do need to spell it out for them that they are also making available to all those others too. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:40 PM, wrote: >> On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal. >> >> I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for >> use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to >> >> a) make their pictures available to us and >> >> b) easier to find by Wikipedians. > > You can already limit your search for CC-BY-SA images on flickr. Why > would you want to rename the license something else? That's easily answered. I'm not "renaming the license". I'm proposing that there be a tick box for that very same license with a more friendly tag that tells the user "can be used on Wikipedia". The license doesn't change, it's just the way it's communicated. I love and support the Creative Commons licenses, but they can present you with a lot of reading. A decision that says "can be used on Wikipedia" would be much more immediate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for > whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to > intervene in a contract between two people and only two people. This kind of attitude seems to me to be a byproduct of the fact that, despite being intended to help fix the flaws in the copyright system, Creative Commons and other free licenses are "hacks" that are built on top of copyright. The construction of CC licenses as contracts between copyright owner and user is part of the hack, but not necessarily ideal for promoting a robust creative commons (in the lower case, general sense). If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and available for others to use and adapt. And more broadly, a society that values the commons and with effective norms for following CC licenses properly is better for everyone who contributes to and partakes in the commons. Widespread awareness of the costs and benefits of joining the commons versus cutting oneself off from it is a prerequisite for copyleft to work properly (i.e., to incentivize further contributions to the commons). Some recent related reading I found interesting: http://www.copycense.com/2009/08/is_creative_commons_good_for_copyright.html -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > I agree, vigilantism is not necessary and counter productive. The > Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both > for whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third > party to intervene in a contract between two people and only two > people. If the Commons Force restricted itself to documenting > potential copyvios and reporting them to the copyright owners, I > could see some merit to the proposal. Otherwise it will do more harm > than good. > > Exactly, report potential violations both ARR works miss licensed as CC, and CC works that are sans the license to the copyright owners and let them decide what to do. Personally if a small non-profit reuses one of my images and does attribute or supply the license I'm unlikely to get in a tizz about it. Nor would I want some one, no matter how well meaning, giving them grief over it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Bod Notbod wrote: > On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal. > > I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for > use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to > > a) make their pictures available to us and > > b) easier to find by Wikipedians. > You can already limit your search for CC-BY-SA images on flickr. Why would you want to rename the license something else? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
I agree, vigilantism is not necessary and counter productive. The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to intervene in a contract between two people and only two people. If the Commons Force restricted itself to documenting potential copyvios and reporting them to the copyright owners, I could see some merit to the proposal. Otherwise it will do more harm than good. From: "wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk" To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 11:42:46 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force Jovan Cormac wrote: > wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Secondly, just because YOU think something is PD or licensed under >> Creative Commons does not mean that it is in reality so. For example >> many images on flickr have been lifted from the web and the account >> uploading them falsely applies a CC license to everything uploaded. >> >> > If that was true, it would mean that any worrying about licensing on > Commons is void as well, because after all, "just because some Commons > user thinks something is public domain doesn't mean it really is". > Obviously, there *are* lots of cases where media files clearly are > copyrighted, and cases where they are clearly in public domain. Those > cases are the interesting ones, and the one we should focus on. > I'll remind you of the case the other year where a ARR self portrait that a 14yo had taken, was used for the cover art of a porn video. Apparently they'd found it on a Public Domain site. Every organization that has ever wanted to use one of my CC'd images from flickr has asked. Anyone, bloggers notwithstanding, not doing so is an ass. There are far too many people out there that slap CC on images that they have found on the web under the mistaken impression that if its on the internet it is public domain. Most organizations make sure they have some paper trail of permission. You'll find my stuff on sites with a CC-NC license and you'll also find the same image on other sites without a CC license. How a site displays one of my images is between me and the site itself, the license I grant to one site maybe completely different to that given to another. Simply because YOU have seen the image with a CC license on one site does not mean that another site isn't also using the image correctly. The only person that can tell whether the work is being used correctly or not is me, and the only person that decide whether to complain about a incorrectly used image is also me. Quite frankly I'd be furious if someone took it upon themselves to interfere in any relationship I have with users of my images. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Jovan Cormac wrote: > wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Secondly, just because YOU think something is PD or licensed under >> Creative Commons does not mean that it is in reality so. For example >> many images on flickr have been lifted from the web and the account >> uploading them falsely applies a CC license to everything uploaded. >> >> > If that was true, it would mean that any worrying about licensing on > Commons is void as well, because after all, "just because some Commons > user thinks something is public domain doesn't mean it really is". > Obviously, there *are* lots of cases where media files clearly are > copyrighted, and cases where they are clearly in public domain. Those > cases are the interesting ones, and the one we should focus on. > I'll remind you of the case the other year where a ARR self portrait that a 14yo had taken, was used for the cover art of a porn video. Apparently they'd found it on a Public Domain site. Every organization that has ever wanted to use one of my CC'd images from flickr has asked. Anyone, bloggers notwithstanding, not doing so is an ass. There are far too many people out there that slap CC on images that they have found on the web under the mistaken impression that if its on the internet it is public domain. Most organizations make sure they have some paper trail of permission. You'll find my stuff on sites with a CC-NC license and you'll also find the same image on other sites without a CC license. How a site displays one of my images is between me and the site itself, the license I grant to one site maybe completely different to that given to another. Simply because YOU have seen the image with a CC license on one site does not mean that another site isn't also using the image correctly. The only person that can tell whether the work is being used correctly or not is me, and the only person that decide whether to complain about a incorrectly used image is also me. Quite frankly I'd be furious if someone took it upon themselves to interfere in any relationship I have with users of my images. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
I met a few people helping out with Wikimania, including the lead photographer on site, who got involved with the local Wikimedia community after their photostream was found on Flickr and incorporated into Wikipedia (es:wp)... Discovering your work has been used by someone else is always a nice icebreaker. On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jovan Cormac wrote: > >> That's a great idea. They might even do it... > > Thanks! :o) > > I can't think of any huge reasons for them not to. I don't think it > would reduce their traffic. I suppose there's "why should they?" I expect Flickr is friendly towards WP; they've always been a pretty open culture. That may be reason enough. Sj ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jovan Cormac wrote: > That's a great idea. They might even do it... Thanks! :o) I can't think of any huge reasons for them not to. I don't think it would reduce their traffic. I suppose there's "why should they?" I think it would be an improvement to the user experience and I'm sure Flickr would want to stay ahead of competing picture hosts. But I'm not entirely sure that's a convincing argument. Even though I would think that it wouldn't be hard for them to introduce that functionality, the "why should they?" argument perhaps needs to be addressed with something a bit more convincing. I'm not really familiar with Picasa and I don't know whether they have licensing schemes, but if they do it might be worth approaching them too. Personally I would be a proud Flickr user if I uploaded something and someone else placed it in an article. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
That's a great idea. They might even do it... Cheers, Jovan Cormac Bod Notbod wrote: > On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal. > > I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for > use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to > > a) make their pictures available to us and > > b) easier to find by Wikipedians. > > It could be argued that it should say "license for use on Wikimedia > Commons" but I don't think that would have the recognition factor that > Wikipedia has. > > Either way, Flickr could provide a "what's this?" link which would > take the Flickr user to a page with the relevant license details and > spell out what choosing the license means." > > I considered posting something like this on "Wikimedia Strategy" but > it really isn't a strategy. It's not a "five year plan" type of thing, > not least because it's something that Flickr would be doing rather > than the WMF. > > What do people think of this idea? Are there any problems with it? If > this gets general support I would be happy to approach Flickr myself > although I am a mere jobbing Wikipedian, so I have no reason to > believe that Flickr would take me very seriously. It would preferably > be taken up by someone with a higher profile. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal. I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check "license for use on Wikipedia" which would be an easy way for people to a) make their pictures available to us and b) easier to find by Wikipedians. It could be argued that it should say "license for use on Wikimedia Commons" but I don't think that would have the recognition factor that Wikipedia has. Either way, Flickr could provide a "what's this?" link which would take the Flickr user to a page with the relevant license details and spell out what choosing the license means." I considered posting something like this on "Wikimedia Strategy" but it really isn't a strategy. It's not a "five year plan" type of thing, not least because it's something that Flickr would be doing rather than the WMF. What do people think of this idea? Are there any problems with it? If this gets general support I would be happy to approach Flickr myself although I am a mere jobbing Wikipedian, so I have no reason to believe that Flickr would take me very seriously. It would preferably be taken up by someone with a higher profile. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
For static timed text mv-embed library works reasonably well. It has a simple interface for selecting the text track / language. What remains to be done is an interface for people to collaboratively edit and contribute the original transcript and translations. (some work has been done in that area) but have not had time to polish it up into something usable yet. --michael Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I like the idea of a video that explains copyright and licenses. It is > however important that this video is subtitled.. What is the status of > subtitling for your software ?? > Thanks, > GerardM > > 2009/9/6 Michael Dale > > >> I think a small interactive quiz or 30-60 sec videos at point of upload >> / contribution.. may help "encourage" people to get informed about these >> subjects and properly tag the media. For media pulled from external >> archive we should ideally only support importing compatible licensed media >> >> I don't think there is an issue of lack of quality documentation so much >> as reading that documentation is not a literal barrier to contributing. >> And possibly as you outline more people reaching out to inform. >> >> --michael >> >> Jovan Cormac wrote: >> >>> I'd like to propose a project I tentatively refer to as "Commons Force" >>> >> (Meta link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CommonsForce). >> >>> Commons Force is a wiki used to coordinate a force of volunteers who >>> >> *actively* educate people about the concepts of public domain and the >> Creative Commons. >> >>> That entails those volunteers systematically searching the internet and >>> >> media archives such as Flickr for PD and CC material wrongly labelled as >> being "copyright, all rights reserved" and the likes, and notifying the >> person who wrongly used the label about the problem (using whatever means >> are provided by the site), along with a link to a small wiki designed >> exclusively to educate about PD and CC. >> >>> The goal is *not* to threaten those people in any way, and messages sent >>> >> will never contain any threats, whether legal, moral or personal. Rather, >> the project aims to educate the many, many internet users who don't worry >> about rights at all, because they truly don't know jack about them. They >> might know copyright, but overestimate its reach and/or not be aware that >> there are alternatives. When being told about the wide world of rights and >> how copyright alternatives like Creative Commons can promote access to free >> knowledge they might consider re-licensing most or all of their works. >> >>> In essence, what's being proposed is a Wiki that acts as a complement to >>> >> the Open-source Ticket Request System on Commons. Instead of receiving >> license information about media on Commons, the idea is to send out license >> information about media on the internet to those whom it concerns. >> >>> Since this would obviously promote both the free access to knowledge and >>> >> people's awareness of key open content concepts like PD and CC, the proposal >> is in line with the very heart of Wikimedia's goals. >> >>> Your opinions & input are more than welcome at the project's discussion >>> >> page, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CommonsForce. >> >>> Cheers, >>> Jovan Cormac >>> >>> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > Firstly, people are NOT meant to be uploading content to flickr that > they did not take themselves. They do, though. > If someone blogs the photo from flickr > then the flickr system will tag it as the work of the account that IOW > it will be falsely attributed, and the downstream user will be in > violation of the CC license. > True. > Secondly, just because YOU think something is PD or licensed under > Creative Commons does not mean that it is in reality so. For example > many images on flickr have been lifted from the web and the account > uploading them falsely applies a CC license to everything uploaded. > > If that was true, it would mean that any worrying about licensing on Commons is void as well, because after all, "just because some Commons user thinks something is public domain doesn't mean it really is". Obviously, there *are* lots of cases where media files clearly are copyrighted, and cases where they are clearly in public domain. Those cases are the interesting ones, and the one we should focus on. Cheers, Jovan Cormac ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Jovan Cormac wrote: > Michael, I'm afraid you didn't understand the proposal. > > The proposal has nothing to do whatsoever with people contributing to > Commons not being educated about licenses. It's about contacting to > people *outside* of Commons, people who may not be involved in any > Wikimedia project, and tell them about PD or CC media wrongly tagged > with copyright notices *on their own websites* or their accounts on > media archives like Flickr. > > Please read again if in doubt. > Firstly, people are NOT meant to be uploading content to flickr that they did not take themselves. If someone blogs the photo from flickr then the flickr system will tag it as the work of the account that IOW it will be falsely attributed, and the downstream user will be in violation of the CC license. Secondly, just because YOU think something is PD or licensed under Creative Commons does not mean that it is in reality so. For example many images on flickr have been lifted from the web and the account uploading them falsely applies a CC license to everything uploaded. Leave well alone. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Jovan Cormac, 06/09/2009 20:37: > The proposal has nothing to do whatsoever with people contributing to > Commons not being educated about licenses. It's about contacting to > people *outside* of Commons, people who may not be involved in any > Wikimedia project, and tell them about PD or CC media wrongly tagged > with copyright notices *on their own websites* or their accounts on > media archives like Flickr. A > Michael Dale wrote: >> [...] small interactive quiz or 30-60 sec videos [...] may help, however. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Michael, I'm afraid you didn't understand the proposal. The proposal has nothing to do whatsoever with people contributing to Commons not being educated about licenses. It's about contacting to people *outside* of Commons, people who may not be involved in any Wikimedia project, and tell them about PD or CC media wrongly tagged with copyright notices *on their own websites* or their accounts on media archives like Flickr. Please read again if in doubt. Cheers, Jovan Cormac Michael Dale wrote: > I think a small interactive quiz or 30-60 sec videos at point of upload > / contribution.. may help "encourage" people to get informed about these > subjects and properly tag the media. For media pulled from external > archive we should ideally only support importing compatible licensed media > > I don't think there is an issue of lack of quality documentation so much > as reading that documentation is not a literal barrier to contributing. > And possibly as you outline more people reaching out to inform. > > --michael > > Jovan Cormac wrote: > >> I'd like to propose a project I tentatively refer to as "Commons Force" >> (Meta link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CommonsForce). >> >> Commons Force is a wiki used to coordinate a force of volunteers who >> *actively* educate people about the concepts of public domain and the >> Creative Commons. >> >> That entails those volunteers systematically searching the internet and >> media archives such as Flickr for PD and CC material wrongly labelled as >> being "copyright, all rights reserved" and the likes, and notifying the >> person who wrongly used the label about the problem (using whatever means >> are provided by the site), along with a link to a small wiki designed >> exclusively to educate about PD and CC. >> >> The goal is *not* to threaten those people in any way, and messages sent >> will never contain any threats, whether legal, moral or personal. Rather, >> the project aims to educate the many, many internet users who don't worry >> about rights at all, because they truly don't know jack about them. They >> might know copyright, but overestimate its reach and/or not be aware that >> there are alternatives. When being told about the wide world of rights and >> how copyright alternatives like Creative Commons can promote access to free >> knowledge they might consider re-licensing most or all of their works. >> >> In essence, what's being proposed is a Wiki that acts as a complement to the >> Open-source Ticket Request System on Commons. Instead of receiving license >> information about media on Commons, the idea is to send out license >> information about media on the internet to those whom it concerns. >> >> Since this would obviously promote both the free access to knowledge and >> people's awareness of key open content concepts like PD and CC, the proposal >> is in line with the very heart of Wikimedia's goals. >> >> >> Your opinions & input are more than welcome at the project's discussion >> page, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CommonsForce. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Jovan Cormac >> >> ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
Hoi, I like the idea of a video that explains copyright and licenses. It is however important that this video is subtitled.. What is the status of subtitling for your software ?? Thanks, GerardM 2009/9/6 Michael Dale > I think a small interactive quiz or 30-60 sec videos at point of upload > / contribution.. may help "encourage" people to get informed about these > subjects and properly tag the media. For media pulled from external > archive we should ideally only support importing compatible licensed media > > I don't think there is an issue of lack of quality documentation so much > as reading that documentation is not a literal barrier to contributing. > And possibly as you outline more people reaching out to inform. > > --michael > > Jovan Cormac wrote: > > I'd like to propose a project I tentatively refer to as "Commons Force" > (Meta link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CommonsForce). > > > > Commons Force is a wiki used to coordinate a force of volunteers who > *actively* educate people about the concepts of public domain and the > Creative Commons. > > > > That entails those volunteers systematically searching the internet and > media archives such as Flickr for PD and CC material wrongly labelled as > being "copyright, all rights reserved" and the likes, and notifying the > person who wrongly used the label about the problem (using whatever means > are provided by the site), along with a link to a small wiki designed > exclusively to educate about PD and CC. > > > > The goal is *not* to threaten those people in any way, and messages sent > will never contain any threats, whether legal, moral or personal. Rather, > the project aims to educate the many, many internet users who don't worry > about rights at all, because they truly don't know jack about them. They > might know copyright, but overestimate its reach and/or not be aware that > there are alternatives. When being told about the wide world of rights and > how copyright alternatives like Creative Commons can promote access to free > knowledge they might consider re-licensing most or all of their works. > > > > In essence, what's being proposed is a Wiki that acts as a complement to > the Open-source Ticket Request System on Commons. Instead of receiving > license information about media on Commons, the idea is to send out license > information about media on the internet to those whom it concerns. > > > > Since this would obviously promote both the free access to knowledge and > people's awareness of key open content concepts like PD and CC, the proposal > is in line with the very heart of Wikimedia's goals. > > > > > > Your opinions & input are more than welcome at the project's discussion > page, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CommonsForce. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Jovan Cormac > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
I think a small interactive quiz or 30-60 sec videos at point of upload / contribution.. may help "encourage" people to get informed about these subjects and properly tag the media. For media pulled from external archive we should ideally only support importing compatible licensed media I don't think there is an issue of lack of quality documentation so much as reading that documentation is not a literal barrier to contributing. And possibly as you outline more people reaching out to inform. --michael Jovan Cormac wrote: > I'd like to propose a project I tentatively refer to as "Commons Force" (Meta > link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CommonsForce). > > Commons Force is a wiki used to coordinate a force of volunteers who > *actively* educate people about the concepts of public domain and the > Creative Commons. > > That entails those volunteers systematically searching the internet and media > archives such as Flickr for PD and CC material wrongly labelled as being > "copyright, all rights reserved" and the likes, and notifying the person who > wrongly used the label about the problem (using whatever means are provided > by the site), along with a link to a small wiki designed exclusively to > educate about PD and CC. > > The goal is *not* to threaten those people in any way, and messages sent will > never contain any threats, whether legal, moral or personal. Rather, the > project aims to educate the many, many internet users who don't worry about > rights at all, because they truly don't know jack about them. They might know > copyright, but overestimate its reach and/or not be aware that there are > alternatives. When being told about the wide world of rights and how > copyright alternatives like Creative Commons can promote access to free > knowledge they might consider re-licensing most or all of their works. > > In essence, what's being proposed is a Wiki that acts as a complement to the > Open-source Ticket Request System on Commons. Instead of receiving license > information about media on Commons, the idea is to send out license > information about media on the internet to those whom it concerns. > > Since this would obviously promote both the free access to knowledge and > people's awareness of key open content concepts like PD and CC, the proposal > is in line with the very heart of Wikimedia's goals. > > > Your opinions & input are more than welcome at the project's discussion page, > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CommonsForce. > > > Cheers, > Jovan Cormac > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
I'd like to propose a project I tentatively refer to as "Commons Force" (Meta link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CommonsForce). Commons Force is a wiki used to coordinate a force of volunteers who *actively* educate people about the concepts of public domain and the Creative Commons. That entails those volunteers systematically searching the internet and media archives such as Flickr for PD and CC material wrongly labelled as being "copyright, all rights reserved" and the likes, and notifying the person who wrongly used the label about the problem (using whatever means are provided by the site), along with a link to a small wiki designed exclusively to educate about PD and CC. The goal is *not* to threaten those people in any way, and messages sent will never contain any threats, whether legal, moral or personal. Rather, the project aims to educate the many, many internet users who don't worry about rights at all, because they truly don't know jack about them. They might know copyright, but overestimate its reach and/or not be aware that there are alternatives. When being told about the wide world of rights and how copyright alternatives like Creative Commons can promote access to free knowledge they might consider re-licensing most or all of their works. In essence, what's being proposed is a Wiki that acts as a complement to the Open-source Ticket Request System on Commons. Instead of receiving license information about media on Commons, the idea is to send out license information about media on the internet to those whom it concerns. Since this would obviously promote both the free access to knowledge and people's awareness of key open content concepts like PD and CC, the proposal is in line with the very heart of Wikimedia's goals. Your opinions & input are more than welcome at the project's discussion page, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CommonsForce. Cheers, Jovan Cormac -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
