On 04/12/2012 08:10 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
there was an earlier suggestion that a well respected admin just
delete them, I wouldnt class the new discussion as drama as there isnt
an of the usual noticeboard threads about either the deletion or the
subsequent reversal
If I were an admin who was
The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been undeleted
by Russavia.
As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion
at the bottom of this page:
When someone licenses an image they first have to be legally able to do so,
if they dont its irrelevant what the license is or what it gets changed to,
its invalid and cant be enforced. That also means no matter what we claim
the license to have been when we got it its still invalid so we cant
Right, now I'm in front of a computer here's a third, more detailed reply,
which hopefully addresses a lot of what Anne is asking.
A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and
regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal
with, though, are not part
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and
regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal with,
though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is
On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent
these photos just been deleted as an office action, I know its big
stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these
should have been deleted.
Office actions are
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote:
this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link
to what is being discussed
I checked
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpgthat
doesnt reflect what
On 4/10/2012 7:38 AM, Nathan wrote:
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically
to the ObiWolf images. Reading those
On 11/04/12 00:38, Nathan wrote:
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically
to the ObiWolf images. Reading those
These are both great suggestions. I'm going to keep these as notes for
future UploadWizard development.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/9/12 10:48 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Another suggestion would be to run all new uploads through Tineye
straight away; and if they have significant or suspicious hits put it
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote:
OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good example of how Commons
does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is that Flickr
doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable ...
Can anyone point me
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these
photos just been deleted as an office action, I know its big stick action
but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been
deleted.
This is a matter of institutional politics in Commons.
As you
On 4/10/2012 9:45 PM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are
irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc
non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to
allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on
In the ObWolf photos the issue isnt licensing, the issue is whether consent
from the subject was given and what that consent was.
We see that the photo was not taken in a public place, so that make its a
private place for which we require a model release that specifies consent
to use for any
Another suggestion would be to run all new uploads through Tineye straight
away; and if they have significant or suspicious hits put it up for review.
Tom
On 9 April 2012 18:40, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go
this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link
to what is being discussed
I checked
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpgthat
doesnt reflect what Tim is referring to neither does
Hi Ryan,
Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs
of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place,
consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place,
consent is not required (with exceptions
Mr Gerard, could you please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere? For
the record, what you're saying is totally off the wall.
Andreas
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
Indeed. This
: [Commons-l] Personality rights
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. This is the link I received by mail:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
Those people are identifiable and in a private place. If the
photographer showed up and
maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put
more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it
from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion
requires the photographer to
On 4/5/12 10:39 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here.
The photographer has asked us to remove it. We have no reason to
doubt the subject wants it removed. It's not actually very
complementary of her. We have ample other pictures of her.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson dereck...@gmail.com wrote:
I so think:
i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions
ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
iii. we should communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
working
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place,
consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent
is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the
justification
I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here.
The photographer has asked us to remove it. We have no reason to doubt
the subject wants it removed. It's not actually very complementary of
her. We have ample other pictures of her. I see absolutely no reason
not to
Good morning,
We have just received this morning on the Bistro (ie the French village pump) a
deletion request for personality rights.
The photo has been taken in Caffé Florian at Venice.
That helped me to understand your confusion between first, the WMF
resolution, and secondly the Wikimedia
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We
also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as
28 matches
Mail list logo
