Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2014-01-01 Thread ??? 

On 01/01/2014 11:33, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
What effective claim has been made against Kim Dotcom and, THAT is your
argument.
Thanks,
 GerardM




The claim is that knowing that items were copyright violations, they 
waited until a DMCA takedown came in before removing a link. Additional 
to that they also, along with their partners, generated many links to 
the same content, that is the criminal conspiracy.


The mens reas, or the wilfulness as it were, starts with the knowledge 
of the violation and the decision to do nothing until a copyright claim 
arrives. That could become a very expensive policy.


But hey, not my arse on the line.



On 1 January 2014 12:21, ???  wrote:


On 01/01/2014 07:41, Gerard Meijssen wrote:


Hoi,
When you go the way of comparing to Kim Dotcom to make a point, you will
have to recognise that the government has been shown to act illegally.
Consequently your argument is without real merit.
Thanks,
   GerardM





The first thing that is wrong with the above is that copyright holders are
not the Government.




  On 31 December 2013 20:45, ???  wrote:


  On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote:


  2013/12/31 ??? 





Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/




This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia Commons?
Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?


  I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known copyright

issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be
similar
to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially one of
"We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone
complains."
Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use.






___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6965 - Release Date: 12/31/13




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2014-01-01 Thread Thomas Morton 
Well not to get into a whole seperate discussion; but from emails recovered
by prosecutors it seems they knowingly violated the safe harbour provisions
by claiming to copyright holders that they had no access to raw files, when
in fact they did.

Actually, that context does have relevance. To what extent to we balance
the rights of copyright holders against what's best for reusers. And how
does that place us and the foundation legally?

Tom
On 1 Jan 2014 11:33, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi,
> What effective claim has been made against Kim Dotcom and, THAT is your
> argument.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 1 January 2014 12:21, ???  wrote:
>
> > On 01/01/2014 07:41, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> When you go the way of comparing to Kim Dotcom to make a point, you will
> >> have to recognise that the government has been shown to act illegally.
> >> Consequently your argument is without real merit.
> >> Thanks,
> >>   GerardM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The first thing that is wrong with the above is that copyright holders
> are
> > not the Government.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  On 31 December 2013 20:45, ???  wrote:
> >>
> >>  On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  2013/12/31 ??? 
> 
> 
> >
> > Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
> > case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/
> >
> >
> 
>  This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia
> Commons?
>  Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?
> 
> 
>   I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known
> copyright
> >>> issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be
> >>> similar
> >>> to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially one of
> >>> "We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone
> >>> complains."
> >>> Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2014-01-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
What effective claim has been made against Kim Dotcom and, THAT is your
argument.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 1 January 2014 12:21, ???  wrote:

> On 01/01/2014 07:41, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> When you go the way of comparing to Kim Dotcom to make a point, you will
>> have to recognise that the government has been shown to act illegally.
>> Consequently your argument is without real merit.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>>
>>
>
> The first thing that is wrong with the above is that copyright holders are
> not the Government.
>
>
>
>
>  On 31 December 2013 20:45, ???  wrote:
>>
>>  On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote:
>>>
>>>  2013/12/31 ??? 


>
> Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
> case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/
>
>

 This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia Commons?
 Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?


  I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known copyright
>>> issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be
>>> similar
>>> to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially one of
>>> "We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone
>>> complains."
>>> Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2014-01-01 Thread ??? 

On 01/01/2014 07:41, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
When you go the way of comparing to Kim Dotcom to make a point, you will
have to recognise that the government has been shown to act illegally.
Consequently your argument is without real merit.
Thanks,
  GerardM





The first thing that is wrong with the above is that copyright holders 
are not the Government.





On 31 December 2013 20:45, ???  wrote:


On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote:


2013/12/31 ??? 




Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/




This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia Commons?
Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?



I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known copyright
issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be similar
to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially one of
"We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone complains."
Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use.






___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
When you go the way of comparing to Kim Dotcom to make a point, you will
have to recognise that the government has been shown to act illegally.
Consequently your argument is without real merit.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 31 December 2013 20:45, ???  wrote:

> On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote:
>
>> 2013/12/31 ??? 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
>>> case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia Commons?
>> Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?
>>
>>
> I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known copyright
> issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be similar
> to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially one of
> "We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone complains."
> Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-31 Thread ??? 

On 31/12/2013 15:01, Yann Forget wrote:

2013/12/31 ??? 



Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/



This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia Commons?
Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?



I'm comparing your attitude that rather than fixing the known copyright 
issues upfront one should await complaints before addressing, to be 
similar to that exhibited by megaupload. An attitude that is essentially 
one of "We'll get away with it for as long as possible, until someone 
complains." Meanwhile falsely advertising that the content is free to use.






___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-31 Thread Yann Forget 
2013/12/31 ??? 
>
>
> Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-
> case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/


This is a typical trolling. Comparing Megaupload with Wikimedia Commons?
Don't you have better (constructive) arguments?

Yann
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-31 Thread ??? 

On 30/12/2013 09:59, Yann Forget wrote:

Hi,

2013/12/30 Samuel Klein 


On Dec 29, 2013 5:51 PM, "Fæ"  wrote:


On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, "Klaus Graf"  wrote:


I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
until a DMCA take down notice.


Your proposal would be more useful made with the Commons community


Both excellent suggestions.

Sam.



Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
takedown notice?
That's new AFAIK, and many people will be happy if this is accepted by the
WMF.




Isn't that the attitude that got Kim Dotcom into trouble?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Michael Maggs 
Yes, I am working on this now, and will put up a proposal to amend policy on 
Commons in the next day or two.  It is of particular relevance to UK Crown 
Copyright works.

Michael


On 30 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Fæ  wrote:

> The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
> developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
> inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
> progress this.
> 
> Fae
> On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:
> 
>> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
>> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
>> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
>> otherwise."
>> 
>> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
>> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
>> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
>> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
>> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
>> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
>> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
>> therefore proceed cautiously."
>> 
>> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
>> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
>> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
>> image.
>> 
>> Newyorkbrad


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Tomasz Ganicz 
2013/12/30 Newyorkbrad :
> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
> otherwise."
>
> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
> therefore proceed cautiously."
>

There are actually many templates saying something similar on Commons
- regarding trademark issues, privacy issues, etc. Even template
US-Gov-PD has such a similar statement - just because it is not always
clear if the US-Gov-PD works are always PD in other jursdictions. The
typical example are pictures of Obama and his family - taken by his
personal photographer who is employed by White House (thus he is
US-Gov employee) - but the pictures are issued on Flickr and several
other places under various licences with personality rights
disclaimers...


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Nathan 
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
> developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
> inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
> progress this.
>
> Fae


I'm finding it interesting to read this discussion, even though I don't
normally scan through discussions on Commons itself. Decentralized
discussion is practically hallowed tradition at this point, so I don't see
the harm in it. I'm sure anyone reading this thread is fully aware that you
believe it should be elsewhere, it is probably unnecessary to remind us
again.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Fæ 
The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
progress this.

Fae
On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:

> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
> otherwise."
>
> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
> therefore proceed cautiously."
>
> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
> image.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
> On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni  wrote:
> > On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen  >wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi Tomasz,
> >>
> >> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> >> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can
> you
> >> appreciate it in this way?
> >>
> >> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument
> as
> >> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> >> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> >> Thanks,
> >>  GerardM
> >>
> >>
> > No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices
> (or
> > lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski 

Gerard Meijssen wrote:


You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
appreciate it in this way?


No, as the only part where I expressed my opinion was the assumption 
that Klaus suggested we only delete files after receiving takedown 
notices because he didn't realize it was in direct contradiction to the 
precautionary principle. The rest of my e-mail is basically a quote of 
that very principle.


I refuse to accept the premise that expressing one's opinion on this 
mailing list is not appreciated only because some people might find it 
strong (or weak, or whatever), as I believe it to be fundamentally flawed.


I also refuse to accept the suggestion that /my/ opinion (whatever it 
might be) is not appreciated "by many" and "seen as disruptive", unless 
you can point me to direct evidence that says so -- preferably to 
previous posts from this thread.



You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
served by the continuation of the presence of images.


This basically means that we should keep images that violate someone's 
copyright as long as we do not receive a takedown notice from them. I 
cannot possibly stress enough how bad an idea this is.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Newyorkbrad 
I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
otherwise."

One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
therefore proceed cautiously."

I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
image.

Newyorkbrad


On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni  wrote:
> On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi Tomasz,
>>
>> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
>> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
>> appreciate it in this way?
>>
>> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
>> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
>> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>>
> No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
> lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
>
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Fæ 
If anyone wants to suggest useful changes to Commons guidelines, then this
is a discussion to hold on Commons.

I suspect only a handful of us read this list, and only a few of us have
handled or discussed real URAA cases.

Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Yann Forget 
2013/12/30 geni 

> On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen  >wrote:
>
> > Hoi Tomasz,
> >
> > You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> > notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
> > appreciate it in this way?
> >
> > You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
> > well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> > served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
> lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
>

This is a falacious argument, because, although these files may not be in
the public domain, nobody really care about URAA.
Except maybe Getty and the like, who can then sell images in the public
domain for ages.

Yann
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread geni 
On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi Tomasz,
>
> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
> appreciate it in this way?
>
> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi Tomasz,

You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
appreciate it in this way?

You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
served by the continuation of the presence of images.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 30 December 2013 11:31, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:

> Yann Forget wrote:
>
>  Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
>> takedown notice?
>>
>
> He is suggesting that, but apparently without realizing that his proposal
> stands in direct contradiction to our precautionary principle (COM:PRP) and
> to the way Commons cares about its re-users.
>
> We cannot, will not and do not plan to keep files where there is
> significant doubt about their freedom, even if we do not get a takedown
> notice from the copyright holders.
>
>   Tomasz
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski 

Yann Forget wrote:


Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
takedown notice?


He is suggesting that, but apparently without realizing that his 
proposal stands in direct contradiction to our precautionary principle 
(COM:PRP) and to the way Commons cares about its re-users.


We cannot, will not and do not plan to keep files where there is 
significant doubt about their freedom, even if we do not get a takedown 
notice from the copyright holders.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Yann Forget 
Hi,

2013/12/30 Samuel Klein 

> On Dec 29, 2013 5:51 PM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, "Klaus Graf"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
> > > until a DMCA take down notice.
> >
> > Your proposal would be more useful made with the Commons community
>
> Both excellent suggestions.
>
> Sam.


Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
takedown notice?
That's new AFAIK, and many people will be happy if this is accepted by the
WMF.

Regards,

Yann
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-29 Thread Pierre-Selim 
I'm sorry about your problem Klaus, however I think that you won't get
anywhere by calling people trolls.


2013/12/30 Samuel Klein 

> On Dec 29, 2013 5:51 PM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, "Klaus Graf"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
> > > until a DMCA take down notice.
> >
> > Your proposal would be more useful made with the Commons community
>
> Both excellent suggestions.
>
> Sam.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-29 Thread Samuel Klein 
On Dec 29, 2013 5:51 PM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>
> On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, "Klaus Graf"  wrote:
> >
> > I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
> > until a DMCA take down notice.
>
> Your proposal would be more useful made with the Commons community

Both excellent suggestions.

Sam.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-29 Thread Philippe Beaudette 
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:

> But in the case of in the country of origin PD works which are foreign
> government works it is needed that the WMF clearly speaks out
>

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Use_of_Foreign_Works_Restored_under_the_URAA_on_Commons
 <--- like that?

pb


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-29 Thread Fæ 
On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, "Klaus Graf"  wrote:
>
> Can nobody stop the URAA Copyright trolls mass deleting perfect fine files
> on Commons?
>
> I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
> until a DMCA take down notice.

Your proposal would be more useful made with the Commons community rather
than this email list.

Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-29 Thread Klaus Graf 
Can nobody stop the URAA Copyright trolls mass deleting perfect fine files
on Commons?

I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
until a DMCA take down notice.

But in the case of in the country of origin PD works which are foreign
government works it is needed that the WMF clearly speaks out that such
works could be accepted on Commons even when a written statement of the
foreign government doesn't exist.

See for Canada's crown copyright

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Burlington_Skyway_1958.png

Klaus Graf
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,