On 11/12/2014 17:18, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
then there's not a lot we can do. Steven's points about feeling
unappreciated/bitten are something that could be worked on, but we can't
exactly change copyright law. If their packaging policy overreaches actual
copyright law, then it would be a matter of trying to adjust the Commons
policy to be more in line with real copyright law. Either way, neckbeards,
toxicity, and whining really have nothing to do with the point of this
conversation.
This starts to be interesting, I think Katherine is making a good point. Is
copyright law really so strict, or is Commons taking the strictest
interpretation? In this case, we are in a situation where the copyright
owner will probably prefer to have is rights "violated" by Wikipedia
showing its products than having them "respected" by deleting the file. But
we are "the free encyclopedia", and respect of copyright law is one of the
principles we're based on, no matter how fair and convenient going round it
it can be.
There is a view rightly or wrongly that many of these deletion debates
are orchestrated as some form of revenge for some other action
elsewhere. Which could well be what happened with the OP maybe not in
the nomination, but in who decides to participate in the discussion.
The other dominate view is the conceit that Commons is some form of
legal clearing house for free media files. I suspect that no one is
going to be betting the farm on whether the Commons regulars are right
as regards the legal status of images. Much of the content there has
been uploaded by 3rd parties from other websites. In the case of flickr
sourced material, the flickr uploader is rarely still active.
I can't imagine a publisher taking the risk on web images that some
un-contactable anon uploaded. Imagine printing 1000s of copies of a book
and then discovering that you don't have the rights to the images. No
one does this in the real world, its a Commons fantasy.
_______________________________________________
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>
