Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it is 
not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they know 
better.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeevan Jose
Sent: 27 June 2014 10:46 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

> Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) 
> image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the 
> /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. 
> Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright 
> violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image)
>
> Childish fears indeed.
>
> Magnus


Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further, 
forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of 
selfies.  People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They even 
do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired by the 
arguments, Legal released [1].

Links:

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership

Jee

Regards,
Jeevan Jose


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown <plecl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?
>
> Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search 
> engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the 
> responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by 
> the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to 
> point fingers, point them in the right direction.
>
> Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
> Saying "It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or 
> help if there is any problem" (ie: "I wash my hands of it") is not very 
> helpfull.
> The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at 
> least confusing and a open door to problems.
>
> The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by 
> the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: "it's a 
> huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite", but 
> adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.
>
> Pleclown.
> Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> a écrit :
>
> > Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte 
> > >>of  potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> > >
> > >You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe
> anybody
> > >acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed 
> > >volunteers
> at
> > >Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide 
> > >a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a 
> > >free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the 
> > >integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of 
> > >problematic uploads
> every
> > >single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal 
> > >decisions will be made along the way.
> > >
> > >Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear 
> > >good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" 
> > >Citation
> needed,
> > >for real.
> >
> > Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. 
> > That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty 
> > awful.
> > Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) 
> > files
> is
> > rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but 
> > you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. 
> > There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and 
> > real.
> >
> > I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at
> Commons
> > and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons 
> > isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) 
> > response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still 
> > remains a real
> problem.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
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/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3986/7751 - Release Date: 06/27/14


_______________________________________________
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/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to