On 11/12/11 7:36 PM, Platonides wrote: > Forwarding geni reply at commons-l. > >> On 12/11/11 16:00, geni wrote: >>> On 12 November 2011 14:34, David Gerard<dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you David. I didn't know about Yet Another Technical List. >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: William Allen Simpson<william.allen.simp...@gmail.com> >>>> Date: 12 November 2011 14:11 >>>> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Overzealous Commons deletionists >>>> To: Wikimedia developers<wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>> Cc: ... >>>> >>>> I also ask them to create an official user identity for posting them. >>>> Since Single User Login (SUL), this has the added benefit that nobody >>>> else can pretend to be them. From their point of view, it's the same >>>> reason they also ensure they have an existing facebook or linkedin or >>>> twitter account. >>> >>> Problem is a lot of cases of fans doing the same thing. We prefer >>> people to go through OTRS under the interesting assumption that people >>> are less likely to lie via email. >>> Silly assumption. Insulting to the folks who create user accounts. And OTRS isn't mentioned anywhere. >>>> In this case, timestamps indicate the commons photo was posted before >>>> the facebook photo, and the facebook version is somewhat smaller, so >>>> there's not even the hint that it was copied "From Facebook." Besides, >>>> many public figures also have facebook accounts, so it shouldn't matter >>>> that a photo appears in both places. >>> >>> Given the number of people who copy celebrity pics from random places >>> on the web it does matter. >>> Do they register user names as the celebrity? Do they put licenses on the pics stating that they own them? And do you (geni et alia) call everybody a liar by default? >>>> Then, despite my protest noting that the correct copyright release was >>>> included, the administrator (Yann) argued that "The EXIF data says that >>>> the author is John Taylor. The uploader has another name, so I don't >>>> think he is allowed to decide a license." >>>> >>>> That appears to be post-hoc explanation, as the facebook one obviously >>>> wasn't applicable. Self-justifying strawman argument. >>> >>> I'm not seeing a strawman argument. >>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Straw_man To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. >>>> In this case, as is usual in the most industries, the *camera* owner >>>> appears in the EXIM file. A public figure who pays the studio for >>>> headshots owns the picture itself. The photographer would need the >>>> public figure's permission to distribute the photo! >>>> >>> In practice the situation can be far more messy with the actual >>> copyright being potentially split among up 4 different people/groups >>> (the photographer, the celebrity, the celebrity's management, any show >>> they happen to be appearing on at the time). >>> Doubtless. And you (geni) aren't qualified to decide, as you are not knowledgeable about any of these facts in any case. >>>> After pointing out the nomination didn't even remotely meet the >>>> deletion policy nomination requirements (that I cited and quoted), this >>>> administrator wrote: "I see that discussion with you is quite useless." >>> >>> Yann is sticking to the OTRS route which you were trying to sidestep. Yann made no mention of OTRS. I sincerely doubt you (geni) have an OTRS ticket for each and every image, and delete any image without one. >>> Given that you were arguing at cross purposes there is a reasonable >>> case to be made that it had no utility. >>> Stuff and nonsense. He refused to post the required elements of the deletion request. He wrote nothing substantive. >>>> There are a number of obvious technical issues. YouTube and others >>> >>> Have business models based on their users breaching copyright on a >>> massive scale. They are from our point of view only of interest in >>> terms of what not to do. >>> Please stop regurgitating tripe. That's not an accurate description of their business models -- and probably legally actionable. They have well-paid lawyers. Certainly, those (like geni) who refuse to follow legal requirements are destined to destroy the project. >>>> have had to handle this, it's time for us. >>>> >>>> 1) DMCA doesn't require a takedown until there's been a complaint. >>> >>> We are trying to build a free content database. Not a "no one has >>> gotten around to issuing a DMCA takedown notice yet" database. >>> Photobucket is that way. >>> If the Foundation decides it wants to provide the service of guaranteeing the content is "free" (for some definition of "free"), then it's also legally liable for failure. Better to have formal processes that meet legal requirements and follow precedent. Heaven forfend that you find any of the politicians whom I got to post their photos. They won't take kindly to deletionists. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
