Re: [Wikimedia-l] Windows 10 lockscreen images

[Alessandro Marchetti]

I wanted to suggest the same, you read my mind... 

Il Domenica 20 Agosto 2017 1:10, Andy Mabbett  
ha scritto:
 

 Those of you running Windows 10 will be familiar with the
regularly-changing "lockscreen" images showing things like beautiful
scenery and scenes from nature:

    
https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/find-windows-spotlight-lock-screen-images-windows-10/

The last one I just saw was labelled "copyright [photographer name]
and Shutterstock"

Is there someone at WMF, with contacts at Microsoft, who could
persuade them to use some featured images from Commons, with a small
piece of text explaining that people may upload their own images?

That would seem to be a simple way to do a massive piece of outreach,
to a new audience.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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, 


   
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Peter Southwood]

Funny thing, 
That is what I would have said of Fae as well
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public 
domain works

Peter,
Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
Richard

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood < 
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Rogol,
> Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic 
> assumption of good faith.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on 
> public domain works
>
> Fae,
>
> You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who 
> disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect 
> understanding or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made 
> any attempts whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to 
> find what their position is and consider whether it might have some 
> merits?  Have you considered that if you were to approach them in a 
> less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work with you or others to 
> release their collection?
>
> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding 
> of the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of 
> being successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as 
> > the "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 
> > 300,000 places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment 
> > Scotland (HES).
> >
> > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in 
> > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a 
> > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can 
> > offer to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a 
> > better understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> >
> > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open 
> > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue 
> > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be 
> > made from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public 
> > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website 
> > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a 
> > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed 
> > as copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given 
> > for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences 
> > will be provided."
> >
> > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain 
> > collections from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, 
> > but at the moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to 
> > release the disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain 
> > images, even using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no 
> > longer exists), I would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES 
> > based on the site terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> >
> > Examples:
> > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown 
> > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 
> > 1944, making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> > KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Todd Allen]

Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post that
correspondence here?

Todd
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Windows 10 lockscreen images

[Andy Mabbett]

Those of you running Windows 10 will be familiar with the
regularly-changing "lockscreen" images showing things like beautiful
scenery and scenes from nature:


https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/find-windows-spotlight-lock-screen-images-windows-10/

The last one I just saw was labelled "copyright [photographer name]
and Shutterstock"

Is there someone at WMF, with contacts at Microsoft, who could
persuade them to use some featured images from Commons, with a small
piece of text explaining that people may upload their own images?

That would seem to be a simple way to do a massive piece of outreach,
to a new audience.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Andy Mabbett]

On 19 August 2017 at 21:16, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which we read text
Q: Why is top posting such a bad thing?
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on mailing lists?

> Fae,
>
> You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
> or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts
> whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
> position is and consider whether it might have some merits?

I have, and I found both "an imperfect understanding" and "consciously
committing copyfraud" to apply.

> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
> the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
> successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?

Even an unsuccessful prosecution can be very costly, in terms of both
money and time, to the defendant.

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Peter,
Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
Richard

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Rogol,
> Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> assumption of good faith.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> public domain works
>
> Fae,
>
> You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
> or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts
> whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
> position is and consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you
> considered that if you were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion,
> they might be happy to work with you or others to release their collection?
>
> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
> the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
> successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
> > "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
> > places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
> > (HES).
> >
> > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
> > to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
> > understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> >
> > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
> > from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
> > copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
> > any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > will be provided."
> >
> > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
> > from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
> > moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
> > disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
> > using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
> > would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
> > terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> >
> > Examples:
> > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
> > making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> > KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Peter Southwood]

Rogol,
Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic assumption 
of good faith.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public 
domain works

Fae,

You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees 
with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding or is 
consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts whatsoever to 
engage with the organisation in question to find what their position is and 
consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you considered that if you 
were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work 
with you or others to release their collection?

Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of the 
law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being successfully 
prosecuted, so what is your problem?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the 
> "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000 
> places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland 
> (HES).
>
> I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in 
> Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a 
> look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer 
> to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better 
> understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
>
> In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open 
> knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue 
> seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made 
> from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public 
> domain. There are two basic problems:
> * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website 
> users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a 
> minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as 
> copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for 
> any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences 
> will be provided."
>
> I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections 
> from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the 
> moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the 
> disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even 
> using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I 
> would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site 
> terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
>
> Examples:
> 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown 
> photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944, 
> making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae,

You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made any attempts
whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
position is and consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you
considered that if you were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion,
they might be happy to work with you or others to release their collection?

Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
> "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
> places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
> (HES).
>
> I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
> to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
> understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
>
> In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
> from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> domain. There are two basic problems:
> * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
> copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
> any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> will be provided."
>
> I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
> from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
> moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
> disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
> using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
> would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
> terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
>
> Examples:
> 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
> making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_
> KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advertizing Wikimania (youtube) livestreams on centralnotice

[Ziko van Dijk]

Just briefly a short comment: visitors should be approached with messages
especially created for them. I am always sceptical of simply re-using a
content made for one context/audience for another context/audience.
Kind regards
Ziko

2017-08-19 9:25 GMT+02:00 K. Peachey :

> I notice those youtube links didn't use the nocookie domain or display
> warnings about external youtube links, example being the previous WP
> Zero Petition 
>
> On 18 August 2017 at 22:45, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Wikimania is well over, and now that everyone is slowly getting home, I'd
> > like to touch on a hallway discussion that was going on during Wikimania.
> > This was regarding the centralnotice banners advertizing a livestream of
> > Katherine's and Christophe's presentation of the draft direction for the
> > 2030 strategy.
> >
> > First a few quick facts:
> > The banners were on Fri 11 Aug shown for 1,5 hour in 'emergency mode' on
> > all English language projects (including Commons, meta) to all logged in,
> > anonimous and mobile visitors. The campaigns can be found here
> >  CentralNotice=noticeDetail=WikimaniaLive>,
> > here
> >  CentralNotice=noticeDetail=WikimaniaLiveLoggedin>and
> > here
> >  CentralNotice=noticeDetail=WikimaniaLiveMobile>,
> > for reference. The text in the banner was "Where will Wikipedia and
> > Wikimedia be in 2030? Find out LIVE from Montreal" with a link to a
> youtube
> > page with a stream  .
> >
> > I was quite taken by surprise with this, and taken aback. Here we were,
> the
> > Wikimedia community telling all these visitors of Wikipedia and other
> > projects that we are so important, that we should have them watch a
> > presentation of a first draft of a direction of a strategy that still
> needs
> > to be worked out. Not only was the text in the banner a bit misleading (I
> > didn't see much crystal bowl gazing - but rather a statement of where we
> > would like to go - but soit, I can overlook that), but it feels
> especially
> > pretentious to me. Maybe this is a cultural matter, and in other cultures
> > this kind of bragging (which is what it feels like to me) is normal.
> >
> > I could have understood an advertizement of this and other sessions to
> our
> > logged in community members - that would actually have been a nice way of
> > engaging them in an expensive conference that we would like more online
> > audience to be part of. But only this session, and then all visitors of
> > Wikimedia projects? No, thanks.
> >
> > Totally separate of the message displayed and whether we want to show it
> to
> > this kind of large audience, I was surprised that this link was pointing
> to
> > Youtube. This goes against our policies on Centralnotice
> > ,
> stating:
> > "Wikimedia Owned - Banners must link to Wikimedia controlled domains
> (owned
> > either by Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates or Wikimedia
> > Volunteers identified to the Wikimedia Foundation)." I guess there is a
> > very remote interpretation possible that the channel is owned by the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, and I did not see any indication that Youtube was
> > running ads on that particular channel.
> >
> > I was unable to locate any community discussions or consultation about
> > this. Could someone at the WMF share where this was discussed prior to
> the
> > decision, and could they explain their reasoning? I'm not looking to
> blame
> > anyone for this - shit happens - but I would like to see some discussion
> on
> > what we want and dont want to do in this field, so that we can actually
> > learn from this exercise. I was told in (very rapid and somewhat
> unwilling)
> > hallway discussions that this was signed off by multiple layers of
> > management at the WMF, so I assume some documented reasoning and
> > consultation is available.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Fæ]

The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
"online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
(HES).

I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?

In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
domain. There are two basic problems:
* The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
* Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
will be provided."

I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.

Examples:
1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
making all photographs public domain in 2014:
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5_KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal_items_page=40

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Vi to]

Caveat: I support a definitely more frugal WMF so also the endowment.

Try to read it from a different perspective. Before donating *lots* of
money donor wants to be sure WMF will be truly committed in pursuing the
plan of an endowment. Putting the same amount of money is a prove, for
donors, WMF truly wants to create an endowment.

Vito

2017-08-19 10:33 GMT+02:00 Rogol Domedonfors :

> I was surprised to read the record
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_
> of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$
> 5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing
> of the decision to place $5M into the endowment.  After the anouncement by
> Lisa Gruwell on this list
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> December/085712.html
> there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised, and a
> number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
> directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content to
> the projects, such as
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-January/085835.html
> .
>
> It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of this
> kind.  What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is that
> the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match the
> sum put into the endowment.  I suggest that this was not a fair offer, and
> the Board's decision was the wrong one.  Effectively this donor has said to
> the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the volunteers,
> and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes.  If the donor believes so
> strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an Endowment,
> why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment without
> conditions?  Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money should
> not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them to
> say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.
>
> I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely why
> they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to state
> that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be influenced
> by the wishes of one donor, however generous.
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Lodewijk]

Thanks for the link, Rogol. It is wonderful to hear that these generous
donors have decided to match a deposit of $5 million into the endowment.

It is always a good thing if someone from the board could expand on what
(if anything) the board is planning to do with the proposed expenses. The
way you're framing this decision is not something I consider fair.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> I was surprised to read the record
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_
> of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$
> 5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing
> of the decision to place $5M into the endowment.  After the anouncement by
> Lisa Gruwell on this list
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> December/085712.html
> there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised, and a
> number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
> directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content to
> the projects, such as
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-January/085835.html
> .
>
> It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of this
> kind.  What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is that
> the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match the
> sum put into the endowment.  I suggest that this was not a fair offer, and
> the Board's decision was the wrong one.  Effectively this donor has said to
> the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the volunteers,
> and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes.  If the donor believes so
> strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an Endowment,
> why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment without
> conditions?  Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money should
> not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them to
> say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.
>
> I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely why
> they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to state
> that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be influenced
> by the wishes of one donor, however generous.
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I was surprised to read the record
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing
of the decision to place $5M into the endowment.  After the anouncement by
Lisa Gruwell on this list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085712.html
there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised, and a
number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content to
the projects, such as
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-January/085835.html.

It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of this
kind.  What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is that
the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match the
sum put into the endowment.  I suggest that this was not a fair offer, and
the Board's decision was the wrong one.  Effectively this donor has said to
the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the volunteers,
and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes.  If the donor believes so
strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an Endowment,
why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment without
conditions?  Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money should
not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them to
say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.

I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely why
they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to state
that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be influenced
by the wishes of one donor, however generous.

"Rogol"
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advertizing Wikimania (youtube) livestreams on centralnotice

[K. Peachey]

I notice those youtube links didn't use the nocookie domain or display
warnings about external youtube links, example being the previous WP
Zero Petition 

On 18 August 2017 at 22:45, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wikimania is well over, and now that everyone is slowly getting home, I'd
> like to touch on a hallway discussion that was going on during Wikimania.
> This was regarding the centralnotice banners advertizing a livestream of
> Katherine's and Christophe's presentation of the draft direction for the
> 2030 strategy.
>
> First a few quick facts:
> The banners were on Fri 11 Aug shown for 1,5 hour in 'emergency mode' on
> all English language projects (including Commons, meta) to all logged in,
> anonimous and mobile visitors. The campaigns can be found here
> ,
> here
> and
> here
> ,
> for reference. The text in the banner was "Where will Wikipedia and
> Wikimedia be in 2030? Find out LIVE from Montreal" with a link to a youtube
> page with a stream  .
>
> I was quite taken by surprise with this, and taken aback. Here we were, the
> Wikimedia community telling all these visitors of Wikipedia and other
> projects that we are so important, that we should have them watch a
> presentation of a first draft of a direction of a strategy that still needs
> to be worked out. Not only was the text in the banner a bit misleading (I
> didn't see much crystal bowl gazing - but rather a statement of where we
> would like to go - but soit, I can overlook that), but it feels especially
> pretentious to me. Maybe this is a cultural matter, and in other cultures
> this kind of bragging (which is what it feels like to me) is normal.
>
> I could have understood an advertizement of this and other sessions to our
> logged in community members - that would actually have been a nice way of
> engaging them in an expensive conference that we would like more online
> audience to be part of. But only this session, and then all visitors of
> Wikimedia projects? No, thanks.
>
> Totally separate of the message displayed and whether we want to show it to
> this kind of large audience, I was surprised that this link was pointing to
> Youtube. This goes against our policies on Centralnotice
> , stating:
> "Wikimedia Owned - Banners must link to Wikimedia controlled domains (owned
> either by Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates or Wikimedia
> Volunteers identified to the Wikimedia Foundation)." I guess there is a
> very remote interpretation possible that the channel is owned by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, and I did not see any indication that Youtube was
> running ads on that particular channel.
>
> I was unable to locate any community discussions or consultation about
> this. Could someone at the WMF share where this was discussed prior to the
> decision, and could they explain their reasoning? I'm not looking to blame
> anyone for this - shit happens - but I would like to see some discussion on
> what we want and dont want to do in this field, so that we can actually
> learn from this exercise. I was told in (very rapid and somewhat unwilling)
> hallway discussions that this was signed off by multiple layers of
> management at the WMF, so I assume some documented reasoning and
> consultation is available.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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,