Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding. Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different perspective must be evil or incompetent.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote: > - it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia > > A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand. And there must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration. But there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose* of use on Wikipedia. That is one of the most common motivations for submitting files. > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS, > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying > assumption is that that isnt possible. > It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph, because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file, and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally. OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow > definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The > very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt > get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is > treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on. > My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that they have the rights to do so. Emufarmers _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
