Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 13 December 2014 at 20:34, Lilburne wrote: > > > > I can't imagine a publisher taking the risk on web images that some > un-contactable anon uploaded. Imagine printing 1000s of copies of a book > and then discovering that you don't have the rights to the images. No one > does this in the real w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 11/12/2014 17:18, 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 ma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

You cannot crop a minor trademark element, eg. logo, incidentally located within a "free" photographic image and upload it to Commons as a free use instance of that trademark / logo. BRUENTRUP On 12/13/14, JP Béland wrote: > We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not "trademark" that ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not "trademark" that are too simple to be copyrightable would be considered but they are not. The reason the logo would become unacceptable on Commons is based on copyright. 2014-12-13 4:27 GMT-07:00 Marco Chiesa : > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 P

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland wrote: > Russavia wrote "To crop the > logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a > copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even > force) any modifications of an image to be free also? > Not necess

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Russavia wrote "To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even force) any modifications of an image to be free also? JP aka Amqui 2014-12-11 11:04 GMT-07:00 Russavia : > Geni > > You woul

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt : > From: Craig Franklin > >> Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the >> Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of >> all drama? > > > Not just that, but also... Am I the only one that sees the ir

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport wrote: > > > Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the > best images available, making use of American fair use law to which such > illustrations are legally entitled. > > Tim Davenport > "Carrite" on WP > Corvallis, O

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12 December 2014 at 17:34, Tim Davenport wrote: > > Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the > best images available, Why would we settle for that? The reality is that many of the available images are only so-so. WP:FPC shows we can better them (although if pe

[Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

>>I'd take the pragmatic justification for being copyright-sticklers on Commons to be: so we can provide a free-media repository that our reusers can use, even commercially and world-wide, in the reasonably secure belief that their reuse is legal, because this is truly freely licensed media. Compa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Hi luis, I could understand liams mail, and the links russavia sent. Could you match the this somehow from a legal standpoint? Rupert On Dec 11, 2014 5:55 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia > wrote: > > > Steven, > > > > Quite seriously, if you can't understand

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Ha! Thanks Liam, let me be the first to admit that I'm guilty as charged! I would have used the clip of Paul Newman from Cool Hand Luke on communication, but maybe that just shows my age. I have one comment on your comment about Wikidata metadata handling. Yes this is currently done locally on Comm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown wrote: > Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre. Just because you're writing in your native language of French doesn't mean that civility is optional - just as it should not be for native speakers of English. As *The Matrix *films identified

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12 December 2014 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote: > > > Commons was raising quasi-legal objections that literally nobody else > considered a plausible threat model. It's your fault as long as you > continue to defend it. > > In fairness a simple statement from the Israeli government is all that is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12 December 2014 at 12:47, Fæ wrote: > So, I'm genuinely afraid to say it was more of an emotive response. > The extensive criticism of Commons administrators made was not well > founded. That images had to be removed and that there were > consequences was an issue that should have been better

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-12 12:37 GMT+00:00 David Gerard : ... > sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli > parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at > Wikimania. I was in the front front row at that Wikimania presentation, and happen to be good friends with the presenter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12 December 2014 at 09:59, Pipo Le Clown wrote: > Si pour une fois, au lieu de pleurer parce que machin a été méchant en > proposant votre image à la suppression, vous proposiez des choses > constructives, des améliorations possibles du logiciel par exemple, ou une > façon de reconnaître le tr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12 December 2014 at 11:29, Strainu wrote: ... >> 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 interpret

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 20:14 GMT+02:00 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Gerard, Thanks for adding all of those statements to Wikidata! Thanks to you, I have been able to match up thousands of artists in Mix-n-Match! Like you, I am not afraid of a 1%-3% error margin, especially when tools like Mix-n-Match mean we can uncover such mistakes quickly and efficiently. Mix-n-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Absolutely not the only one!   Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Craig Franklin Date: 12/12/2014 11:44 (GMT+02:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre. C'est facile de se moquer dans sa langue maternelle, de jouer sur les mots et d'entourer ses insultes d'un joli emballage. Ça n'est pas vraiment ma manière d'être, alors dans une langue étrangère... C'est facile de venir taper sur Commons sur cette l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama? Cheers, Craig Franklin On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, "Pipo Le Clown" wrote: > As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions to enrage those w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Hoi, When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the "impact factor", it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my blogpost. I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

- You must change. - Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how we can fix it. - No, you must change first. Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a friend.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a > living

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Hoi, This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so. When people

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors". And this thread is actually doing a good job at it... STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal retentive" or "fussy neckbeards". I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as Americ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12/12/14 03:40, Steven Walling wrote: > 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. I don't know what that would technically look like.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On 12/11/14, 8:14 PM, Andre Engels wrote: 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 demonst

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown wrote: > I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the > time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and > helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or > Greig Lai

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Just on the same page as Pipo, thank you Steven for this nice troll. 2014-12-11 21:39 GMT+01:00 Pipo Le Clown : > I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the > time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and > helped to have pictures for ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or Greig Laidlaw... Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

I don't think those pictures are going to be deleted - there are plenty of pictures of cars on commons, and I haven't seen a movement to get them all deleted (I don't spend much time on commons, though, so I might have missed it). I do think it would be a good thing to keep them, but fop should not

[Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

It is good that Steven Walling is observing the way he is treated by the officious fanatics at Commons and now is "thinking twice about ever uploading anything to Commons." It's a completely dysfunctional project that has little to do with the task of creating and illustrating an encyclopedia. It's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Steven Walling, 11/12/2014 17:40: I just noticed Really? The day after tomorrow is the 12th birthday of https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avoid_copyright_paranoia&oldid=649 ! Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://m

Re: [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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 permanen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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. An

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 a

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

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 th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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.

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/Com

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.wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 >>

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 spe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

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

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

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

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 >

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 refe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

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 res

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 maili

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.wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

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/wikim

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 underst

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 va

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

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

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. __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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 highl

[Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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