Forwarding geni reply at commons-l. > On 12/11/11 16:00, geni wrote: >> On 12 November 2011 14:34, David Gerard<[email protected]> wrote: >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: William Allen Simpson<[email protected]> >>> Date: 12 November 2011 14:11 >>> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Overzealous Commons deletionists >>> To: Wikimedia developers<[email protected]> >>> Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >>> <[email protected]>, >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> I've noticed a problem with overzealous deletionists on Commons. While >>> this may be something of a legal and political issue, it's also >>> operational and affects multiple *[m,p]edias at the same time. >>> >>> I've spent some time over the years convincing public figures that we >>> need official pictures released for articles, rather than relying on >>> fan (or publicity or staff) produced pictures. Because of my own >>> experience in the academic, computing, political, and music industries, >>> I've had a modicum of success. >>> >>> 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. >> >> >>> This week, one of the commons administrators (Yann) ran a script of >>> some sort that flagged hundreds of pictures for deletion, apparently >>> based on the proximity of the word facebook in the description. There >>> was no time for actual legal analysis, at a rate of more than one per >>> minute. The only rationale given was: "From Facebook. No permission." >>> >>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sharon_Aguilar.jpg >>> >>> 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. >> >>> A bot posted a link to the notice on the en.wiki talk page that used >>> the photo, where in turn it appeared in my watchlist. >>> >>> 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. >> >>> 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). >> >>> 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. >> Given that you were arguing at cross purposes there is a reasonable >> case to be made that it had no utility. >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >>> We >>> really shouldn't allow deletion until there's been an actual complaint. >>> We need technical means for recording official notices and appeals. >>> Informal opinions of ill-informed volunteers aren't helpful. >> >> The obvious comeback asside. The waiting for a complaint method is >> inconsistent with our goals to create a free content image collection >> and weaken our hand against illegitimate complaints. A key reason we >> can shrug off the likes of the NPG and remain somewhat credible is >> that we are somewhat paranoid about IP issues. >> >>> 2) Fast scripting and insufficient notice lead to flapping of images, >>> and confusion by the owners of the documents (and the editors of >>> articles, as 2 days is much *much* too short for most of us). We need >>> something to enforce review times. >> >> This is commons not en. We try to keep bureaucracy down to reasonable >> levels (257 admins and 10 million images its not like we can afford to >> do otherwise). >> >>> >>> 3) Folks in other industries aren't monitoring Talk pages and have no >>> idea or sufficient notice that their photos are being deleted. The >>> Talk mechanism is really not a good method for anybody other than very >>> active wikipedians. We need better email and other social notices. >>> >>> 4) We really don't have a method to "prove" that a username is actually >>> under control of the public figure. Hard to do. Needs discussion. >> >> We generally fall back on OTRS. >> >>> 5) We probably could use some kind of comparison utility to help >>> confirm/deny a photo or article is derived from another source. >> >> Mostly a mix of tineye, checksums and mark 1 human eyeball. The best >> commercial tech I'm aware of is PicScout and I suspect our tactics do >> a better job.
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
