subject:"\[Wikimedia\-l\] Commons copyright extremism"

Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There
must be tens of 1000's out there by now

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels  wrote:

> No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
> of panorama:
>
> "Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
> 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
> bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
> gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt
> niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen
> van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"
>
> Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained:
> "Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting,
> building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a
> [design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be
> placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of
> images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."
>
> Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places
> permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds
> - insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under
> part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.
>
> André
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> > Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them
> -
> > these all fall under fop
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni  wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a
> >> public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> geni
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Andre Engels

No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:

"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt
niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen
van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"

Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained:
"Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting,
building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a
[design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be
placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of
images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."

Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places
permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds
- insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under
part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.

André



On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them -
> these all fall under fop
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni  wrote:
>
>> On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>> > Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
>> >
>> >
>> Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a
>> public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> geni
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Andre Engels

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia  wrote:

> To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
> copyrightable in this image.

I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car.
The logo. The boards with demonstration slogans. The clothes. The
gate. Anything that has some kind of creative design is copyrighted.
Which just goes to show "nothing copyrighted" is not a workable way to
set our limits.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Austin Hair

Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]].
(Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get
on board with that one?)

The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.

Austin


On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>> P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
>> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
>> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
>> too soon passes into memory, sigh.
>>
>
> Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki).
> Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no
> excuse.
>
> James
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them -
these all fall under fop

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni  wrote:

> On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
> >
> >
> Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a
> public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread James Alexander

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
> too soon passes into memory, sigh.
>

Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki).
Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no
excuse.

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Fæ

I knew who was staff when I sent my email.

Luis, could you confirm that your emails are to be read as part of
your representation of the WMF?

Thanks,
Fae

On 11 December 2014 at 18:22, Risker  wrote:
> Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he
> appears to be speaking in his staff role.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
>> not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is
>> free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a
>> closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on
>> the user's talk page.
>>
>> I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests
>> today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't
>> you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making
>> positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile
>> environment?
>>
>> *
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Belgian_pralines_boxes.jpg
>> *
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Tim_Tam
>>
>> Alternatively, you can work to improve policies and guidelines on
>> commons. One key benefit is that if photographs you uploaded were
>> deleted under old policies but could be kept under new policies, they
>> can all be considered for undeletion. I suggest a good starting point
>> is better guidelines to interpret what "significant doubt" means in
>> <
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle
>> >
>>
>> P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
>> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
>> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
>> too soon passes into memory, sigh.
>>
>> P.P.S. It might be politic for WMF employees to avoid using their
>> staff accounts to join in with whatever the latest witch-hunt happens
>> to be. I find it disturbing to see official accounts being used to
>> inflame arguments, when in other circumstances the same accounts are
>> used to give "official" positions that affect the whole Wikimedia
>> community.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
>
>
Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a
public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.



-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Risker

Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he
appears to be speaking in his staff role.

Risker/Anne

On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ  wrote:

> Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
> not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is
> free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a
> closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on
> the user's talk page.
>
> I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests
> today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't
> you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making
> positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile
> environment?
>
> *
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Belgian_pralines_boxes.jpg
> *
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Tim_Tam
>
> Alternatively, you can work to improve policies and guidelines on
> commons. One key benefit is that if photographs you uploaded were
> deleted under old policies but could be kept under new policies, they
> can all be considered for undeletion. I suggest a good starting point
> is better guidelines to interpret what "significant doubt" means in
> <
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle
> >
>
> P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
> too soon passes into memory, sigh.
>
> P.P.S. It might be politic for WMF employees to avoid using their
> staff accounts to join in with whatever the latest witch-hunt happens
> to be. I find it disturbing to see official accounts being used to
> inflame arguments, when in other circumstances the same accounts are
> used to give "official" positions that affect the whole Wikimedia
> community.
>
> Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
But this was Tunisia, which apparently has no fop

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:04 PM, geni  wrote:

> On 11 December 2014 at 17:54, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > but fop trumps all else when you are outside
> >
> >
> Not under any legal system I've looked into. Even UK law isn't that
> liberal.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 11 December 2014 at 18:04, Russavia  wrote:

> Geni
>
> You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
>
> This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
> issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging
>
>
The packaging in Steve's photo is 3D and to quote the significant bit of
the case:

"We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because
Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the
label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its
entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this
nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's
position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects
are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and
commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright
protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a
whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots
merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not
qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act."

The Steve's photo shows the whole of the packaging not just the images on
it. The packaging is clearly functional and his photo has captured the
packaging in its entirety. Commons policy does not overule the ninth
circuit in this area.

> But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to
> be considered.
>

Having to? I think not. In any case long standing commons practice is only
to consider the location of the photographer not the place of origin of the
work or artist. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. applies unless you are
going to try and claim the packaging is not a useful article.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Austin Hair

Shut up, Russavia.

I wouldn't normally be so curt with someone I just put on moderation,
but apparently you think that's an appropriate tone to use on this
list.

Austin


On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Russavia  wrote:
> Oh cry me a river Nathan.
>
> What is inappropriate is that we have Steven ranting and raving about
> a project on which me and others bust our humps on developing.
>
> If people can't understand
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE,
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L and
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DW then I am actually wondering
> how in hell they were an admin on that project anyway.
>
> If he wants to change these core policies whinging about them on
> wikimedia-l isn't gonna do anything. Start an RfC on Commons and
> change it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Russavia
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven,
>>>
>>> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
>>> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>>>
>>> There's nothing more to say.
>>>
>>> Russavia
>>>
>>>
>> That comment is unhelpful and inappropriate.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Fæ

Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is
free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a
closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on
the user's talk page.

I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests
today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't
you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making
positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile
environment?

*
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Belgian_pralines_boxes.jpg
*
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Tim_Tam

Alternatively, you can work to improve policies and guidelines on
commons. One key benefit is that if photographs you uploaded were
deleted under old policies but could be kept under new policies, they
can all be considered for undeletion. I suggest a good starting point
is better guidelines to interpret what "significant doubt" means in

P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
too soon passes into memory, sigh.

P.P.S. It might be politic for WMF employees to avoid using their
staff accounts to join in with whatever the latest witch-hunt happens
to be. I find it disturbing to see official accounts being used to
inflame arguments, when in other circumstances the same accounts are
used to give "official" positions that affect the whole Wikimedia
community.

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Geni

You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm

This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging

But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to
be considered.

Jane

FoP may or may not cover it.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Tunisia
states the work has to be permanently located in a public place. It
could also depend on the purpose of the photo.

Nathan

I'm sorry, but I can't believe you were seriously talking about a logo
on the tractor which isn't basically visible in the original photo you
showed. It's call "de minimis" in the photo on Commons. To crop the
logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
copyvio. There is another aspect of "de minimis" that needs to be
considered. You can't walk into a bookshop and take photos of a rack
of magazine covers (which would be copyrighted) and upload those to
Commons, as in that context of that photo each individual part can not
be separated from the overall motif of the photograph.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DM might be nice reading for
you.

Steven

There's seriously so many aspects that we have to consider on Commons,
and the entire VOLUNTEER community does it's best. It's not good to
attack the entire community as you did in your opening post, when the
editor who nominated the image for deletion did so in good faith, and
in fact the issue of COM:PACKAGING deletions was being discussed in
#wikimedia-commons for some hours. You make it sound that we love
deleting people's uploads just to piss them off, and I guarantee you
that is not the case. If you ever want to have a civilised discussion
on the issues, go on project and start that discussion. Just don't
approach the issue by calling us all extremists, because you'll simply
be ignored, not only by myself, but by others too I would imagine.

I've got nothing more to say here I think.

Russavia

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:25 AM, geni  wrote:
> On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia  wrote:
>
>> Steven,
>>
>> No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
>>
>> My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg
>> about your long, whiny post.
>>
>> Thanks for reading
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>>
>
> Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In
> particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in
> California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels on
> useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when
> dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law
> considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general
> principles seem to hold.
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 11 December 2014 at 17:54, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> but fop trumps all else when you are outside
>
>
Not under any legal system I've looked into. Even UK law isn't that
liberal.



-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread John Mark Vandenberg

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Luis Villa  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
>> Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
>> whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
>> a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
>> then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
>> unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
>> exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
>> copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
>> policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
>
> toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
>> conversation.
>>
>
> Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about
> interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a
> large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does
> the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly,
> the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the
> views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A
> process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better
> odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we
> operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all
> of the options appear to suck.)
>
> This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by
> shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in
> plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and
> off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what
> we can do together.
>
> But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or
> no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert
> contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much
> rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA,
> not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but
> because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say
> that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us
> legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.
>
> So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't see
> that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the
> specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons
> thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside
> world.

Agreeing , but I can replace Commons with 'English Wikipedia' in your
email and it is equally or more true, as Wikipedia has the option for
fair use which is a minefield when someone from the 'non-free
deletionists camp' there takes an issue with an image (or , often they
go through every upload looking for issues - super fun).  Both
projects, and probably all others, are constantly improving their
policies and guidelines as the community develops a better
understanding of these issues.  Usually that process involves many
deletions and undeletions and a few tears along the way (mine too;
I've had images deleted and it isnt fun), but it is how the system
works at this scale - bad decisions are made all the time, but they
are vastly outnumbered by the good decisions and the commons does
continue to grow.  If we tried to make the 'correct' legal decision
every time, it would be a whole lot less fun and productive.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

but fop trumps all else when you are outside

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:38 PM, geni  wrote:

> On 11 December 2014 at 17:32, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > fop
> >
> >
> Not as the term is generally understood. The relevant concept would be
> "useful articles" (at least under US and UK law I've not spent enough time
> digging through other legal systems). The concept can be slightly messy but
> until we start supporting 3D objects it can be thought of as meaning that
> derivative copyright isn't an issue for something that actually does
> something useful. The classic example is that you are free to take photos
> of steam engines no matter how pretty they are.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Jeevan Jose

I don't think Commons has a clear stand in this matter. I see many old DRs
closed as kept.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beer_bottles

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bottle_of_Duff.jpg

Regards,
Jee

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
> > Nathan
> >
> > To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
> > copyrightable in this image.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
> > reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis
> > in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental
> >
> > In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would
> > depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be.
> > It would depend.
> >
> > Mario
> >
> > If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it
> > is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are
> > ways to go about this. Otherwise
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn
> > upon here.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Russavia
> >
> >
> >
> The logo is not a text logo - see here for a clearer rendering:
> http://pictures.tractorfan.nl/groot/f/fendt/795254-logo-fendt.jpg
>
> So perhaps in this case the fact that the design logo can't be seen clearly
> is a defense against deletion, but what if it were clearer and more
> squarely in frame? Surely there are many thousands of images where this
> comes up - a design element included in a photo of an object, scene or
> person that is copyrighted. In photos of Wikimedia events, there are
> individuals wearing clothing with copyrighted design elements. Delete?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Luis Villa

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
> Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
> whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
> a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
> then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
> unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
> exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
> copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
> policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,

toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
> conversation.
>

Respectfully, I disagree. A lot of copyright interpretation is about
interpreting complicated grey areas of the law, and assessing risks to a
large number of very different parties. The process and culture that does
the interpretation therefore matters a lot. If the culture is unfriendly,
the interpretations that come out of the process are likely to reflect the
views held by those who are the loudest, most determined shouters. A
process and culture that was more flexible and friendly would have better
odds of balancing the complex web of law, risk, and safe harbors that we
operate in. (It would also be better at finding creative solutions when all
of the options appear to suck.)

This isn't to say that every (or even most) Commons decisions are made by
shouters, or that most Commons decisions are bad ones. I've participated in
plenty of reasonable, nuanced copyright discussions with Commoners on and
off Commons, and when Commons works well it is an awesome example of what
we can do together.

But I've also seen a lot of pictures deleted with either no explanation, or
no explanation that could ever make sense to a good-faith-but-not-expert
contributor. And I've spoken to representatives from GLAMs who would much
rather work with organizations like Internet Archive, Europeana, or DPLA,
not because the GLAMs have any nefarious plans to violate copyright, but
because of their concerns about our community. So I think it is fair to say
that the way many people communicate and argue on Commons neither makes us
legally safer nor enlarges our (lower-case) commons.

So, even if I wouldn't have said "neckbeards" (and I admit I didn't see
that before I defended Stephen) I don't think it is unreasonable to use the
specifics of a particular policy to talk more broadly about how Commons
thinks about copyright, assesses risk, and communicates that to the outside
world.

Sincerely-
Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Nathan
>
> To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
> copyrightable in this image.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
> reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis
> in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental
>
> In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would
> depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be.
> It would depend.
>
> Mario
>
> If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it
> is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are
> ways to go about this. Otherwise
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn
> upon here.
>
> Cheers
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
The logo is not a text logo - see here for a clearer rendering:
http://pictures.tractorfan.nl/groot/f/fendt/795254-logo-fendt.jpg

So perhaps in this case the fact that the design logo can't be seen clearly
is a defense against deletion, but what if it were clearer and more
squarely in frame? Surely there are many thousands of images where this
comes up - a design element included in a photo of an object, scene or
person that is copyrighted. In photos of Wikimedia events, there are
individuals wearing clothing with copyrighted design elements. Delete?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Marco there's hope!
http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/102821/ip-minefield-monkey-makes-copyright-history/

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Marco Chiesa 
wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
> > Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
> > whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies)
> deliberately
> > a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
> > then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
> > unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
> > exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches
> actual
> > copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
> > policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way,
> neckbeards,
> > toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
> > conversation.
> >
>
> This starts to be interesting, I think Katherine is making a good point. Is
> copyright law really so strict, or is Commons taking the strictest
> interpretation? In this case, we are in a situation where the copyright
> owner will probably prefer to have is rights "violated" by Wikipedia
> showing its products than having them "respected" by deleting the file. But
> we are "the free encyclopedia", and respect of copyright law is one of the
> principles we're based on, no matter how fair and convenient going round it
> it can be.
> Steven makes a good point when saying that it's more likely to be blamed
> for a mistake than to be thanked for doing 1000 things well, but that's
> happens everytime in life. Russavia is answering maybe too rudely, but he's
> perfectly right. Really, when I read copyright claims based on "I own the
> object", that's nothing to discuss, RTFM is the best answer.
> Now, we may wonder why our strict policies on copyright, which highlight
> the absurdities it leads to, have no impact on copyright law (which
> generally tends to change to more restrictive). EDP's may be partly
> responsible for this, but probably not so much.
>
> Cruccone
>
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 11 December 2014 at 17:32, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> fop
>
>
Not as the term is generally understood. The relevant concept would be
"useful articles" (at least under US and UK law I've not spent enough time
digging through other legal systems). The concept can be slightly messy but
until we start supporting 3D objects it can be thought of as meaning that
derivative copyright isn't an issue for something that actually does
something useful. The classic example is that you are free to take photos
of steam engines no matter how pretty they are.



-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia  wrote:

> Steven,
>
> No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
>
> My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg
> about your long, whiny post.
>
> Thanks for reading
>
> Russavia
>
>

Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In
particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in
California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels on
useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when
dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law
considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general
principles seem to hold.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

fop

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> What about this file?
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
>
> The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
> is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to
> any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the restrictions on the
> use of copyrighted logos and design elements apply to any photographs in
> which they are featured? That would seem to be the case based on the
> Trademark policy.
>
> is it a correct logical extension of the rule to say that any photograph
> which features a copyrighted element, where the owner of the copyrighted
> element is not the uploader or has not otherwise released the element under
> a compatible license, must be deleted?
>
> Another example -
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-12-14_Provinzial-Demo.JPG
>
> In that photo, the logo of Fendt, a farm equipment manufacturer, appears.
> Based on the trademark policy, should this be deleted?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Nathan

To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis
in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental

In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would
depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be.
It would depend.

Mario

If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it
is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are
ways to go about this. Otherwise
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn
upon here.

Cheers

Russavia

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> What about this file?
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
>
> The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
> is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to
> any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the restrictions on the
> use of copyrighted logos and design elements apply to any photographs in
> which they are featured? That would seem to be the case based on the
> Trademark policy.
>
> is it a correct logical extension of the rule to say that any photograph
> which features a copyrighted element, where the owner of the copyrighted
> element is not the uploader or has not otherwise released the element under
> a compatible license, must be deleted?
>
> Another example -
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-12-14_Provinzial-Demo.JPG
>
> In that photo, the logo of Fendt, a farm equipment manufacturer, appears.
> Based on the trademark policy, should this be deleted?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Marco Chiesa

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
> Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
> whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
> a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
> then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
> unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
> exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
> copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
> policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
> toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
> conversation.
>

This starts to be interesting, I think Katherine is making a good point. Is
copyright law really so strict, or is Commons taking the strictest
interpretation? In this case, we are in a situation where the copyright
owner will probably prefer to have is rights "violated" by Wikipedia
showing its products than having them "respected" by deleting the file. But
we are "the free encyclopedia", and respect of copyright law is one of the
principles we're based on, no matter how fair and convenient going round it
it can be.
Steven makes a good point when saying that it's more likely to be blamed
for a mistake than to be thanked for doing 1000 things well, but that's
happens everytime in life. Russavia is answering maybe too rudely, but he's
perfectly right. Really, when I read copyright claims based on "I own the
object", that's nothing to discuss, RTFM is the best answer.
Now, we may wonder why our strict policies on copyright, which highlight
the absurdities it leads to, have no impact on copyright law (which
generally tends to change to more restrictive). EDP's may be partly
responsible for this, but probably not so much.

Cruccone

>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

What about this file?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG

The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to
any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the restrictions on the
use of copyrighted logos and design elements apply to any photographs in
which they are featured? That would seem to be the case based on the
Trademark policy.

is it a correct logical extension of the rule to say that any photograph
which features a copyrighted element, where the owner of the copyrighted
element is not the uploader or has not otherwise released the element under
a compatible license, must be deleted?

Another example -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-12-14_Provinzial-Demo.JPG

In that photo, the logo of Fendt, a farm equipment manufacturer, appears.
Based on the trademark policy, should this be deleted?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

I'm not having a bad day Nathan. It shits me to tears when we
continually hear of Commons being broken; when in fact it works very
well.

I will say that the person who is doing the packaging DR's is going
thru them, with our Commons policies in mind. You are attacking that
person on a public mailing list, instead of querying it with them
first.

If you don't like Commons policies, take it to the project and start
an RfC. Nothing good is going to come out of anything which is said on
this list in relation to the issue.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> Maybe Russavia is having a bad day and needs a time out.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Oh cry me a river Nathan.

What is inappropriate is that we have Steven ranting and raving about
a project on which me and others bust our humps on developing.

If people can't understand
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L and
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DW then I am actually wondering
how in hell they were an admin on that project anyway.

If he wants to change these core policies whinging about them on
wikimedia-l isn't gonna do anything. Start an RfC on Commons and
change it.

Thanks

Russavia

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
>> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>>
>> There's nothing more to say.
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>>
> That comment is unhelpful and inappropriate.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Katherine Casey

All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
conversation.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Luis,
>
> I know all about that applause Jimmy received.
>
> http://i.imgur.com/SKX3P8J.gif
>
> Steven, is that you in the middle? :>
>
> Russavia
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Luis Villa  wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Steven,
> >>
> >> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
> >> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
> >>
> >
> > I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think
> > Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of
> them).
> > If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say,
> please
> > do.
> >
> > In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic
> > behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly
> > received loud, sustained applause for.
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > --
> > Luis Villa
> > Deputy General Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
> >
> > *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
> > received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> > mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> > reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> community
> > members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For
> more
> > on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > .*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Nick Birse

It would be nice to have a cross-wiki Echo notification when an image
you've created or uploaded is used, I do hope such a system could be
included when we eventually get cross-wiki Echo notifications.

I'm disappointed you needed to call the users on Commons "fussy neckbeards"
and I trust someone in your position will apologise unreservedly for such
an attack on a whole community.

Luis - the image in question is believed to be
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg, perhaps you
could provide some legal advice on the copyright status and any potential
issues surrounding the use of that image, and in turn, the Commons
packaging policy.

Thanks,
Nick

On 11 December 2014 at 16:40, Steven Walling 
wrote:

> I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
> issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
>
> I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against
> photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
> It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
>
> The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of
> an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
> interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of when
> some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of
> uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects.
> No message about downloads for free reuse.
>
> The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of Commons. A
> huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork, jingles,
> etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but any
> photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if
> you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by
> definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very
> conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from
> our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows
> CC/public domain licensing would allow.
>
> We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give photos
> to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons
> admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to
> Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an
> extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr)
> would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to bother
> uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill
> out a form for fair use rationales.
>
> In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it
> was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares
> more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who
> need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
> among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
> projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Maybe Russavia is having a bad day and needs a time out.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Luis,

I know all about that applause Jimmy received.

http://i.imgur.com/SKX3P8J.gif

Steven, is that you in the middle? :>

Russavia

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Luis Villa  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
>> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>>
>
> I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think
> Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of them).
> If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say, please
> do.
>
> In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic
> behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly
> received loud, sustained applause for.
>
> Luis
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Deputy General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
>
> *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
> received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> .*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Luis Villa

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>

I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think
Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of them).
If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say, please
do.

In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic
behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly
received loud, sustained applause for.

Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Steven,

No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU

My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg
about your long, whiny post.

Thanks for reading

Russavia



On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Steven Walling
 wrote:
> This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic.
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia 
> wrote:
>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
>> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>>
>> There's nothing more to say.
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
>>  wrote:
>> > I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
>> > issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
>> >
>> > I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
>> against
>> > photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
>> > It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
>> >
>> > The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
>> of
>> > an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
>> > interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
>> when
>> > some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of
>> > uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects.
>> > No message about downloads for free reuse.
>> >
>> > The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
>> Commons. A
>> > huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
>> jingles,
>> > etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
>> any
>> > photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if
>> > you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by
>> > definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very
>> > conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from
>> > our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows
>> > CC/public domain licensing would allow.
>> >
>> > We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
>> photos
>> > to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons
>> > admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to
>> > Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an
>> > extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr)
>> > would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
>> bother
>> > uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill
>> > out a form for fair use rationales.
>> >
>> > In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it
>> > was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares
>> > more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who
>> > need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
>> > among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
>> > projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

My takeaway from this mail was that someone finally noticed that Commons
does, in fact, thank you for your uploads now. That was a positive
byproduct of Wiki Loves Monuments in 2011-2012!

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>
> There's nothing more to say.
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
>  wrote:
> > I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
> > issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
> >
> > I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
> against
> > photos of packaging:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
> > It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
> >
> > The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
> of
> > an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
> > interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
> when
> > some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of
> > uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects.
> > No message about downloads for free reuse.
> >
> > The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
> Commons. A
> > huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
> jingles,
> > etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
> any
> > photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if
> > you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by
> > definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very
> > conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from
> > our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows
> > CC/public domain licensing would allow.
> >
> > We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
> photos
> > to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons
> > admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to
> > Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an
> > extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr)
> > would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
> bother
> > uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill
> > out a form for fair use rationales.
> >
> > In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it
> > was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares
> > more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who
> > need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
> > among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
> > projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>
> There's nothing more to say.
>
> Russavia
>
>
That comment is unhelpful and inappropriate.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Steven Walling

This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia 
wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
> derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
>
> There's nothing more to say.
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
>  wrote:
> > I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
> > issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
> >
> > I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
> against
> > photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
> > It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
> >
> > The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
> of
> > an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
> > interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
> when
> > some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of
> > uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects.
> > No message about downloads for free reuse.
> >
> > The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
> Commons. A
> > huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
> jingles,
> > etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
> any
> > photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if
> > you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by
> > definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very
> > conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from
> > our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows
> > CC/public domain licensing would allow.
> >
> > We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
> photos
> > to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons
> > admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to
> > Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an
> > extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr)
> > would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
> bother
> > uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill
> > out a form for fair use rationales.
> >
> > In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it
> > was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares
> > more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who
> > need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
> > among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
> > projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism