Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia Commons. More at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Allrightsreserved
Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting
contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by
Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and
commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia
Commons.
More at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Allrightsreserved
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki <at> gmail.com>Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting
contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by
Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and
commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia
Commons.
More at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Allrightsreserved
Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright.
Alex
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright.
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@...> wrote: > 2011/2/1 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@...> >>> Moving those files into a new website sounds as a good idea. Are all the >>> contents in German or Polish language? I'll like to come and take a look as >>> soon as the new website will run, but I can't understand those languages. I >>> guess, many contents - even if covered by a copyright - could be inspiring >>> for sure, and ideas can't be coverer by a copyright. > Well, I took a look to the files linked by those templates - they are few > and mainly images of logos. So, I worried for (almost) nothing.
I guess it would be just on edit to add a second "commons" to all 700 wiki's because of the shared settings. That wouldn't take much time.
Best,
Huib
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2011/2/1 David Gerard <dgerard@...>: > On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@...> wrote: >> 2011/2/1 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@...> > > There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a > bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged > with a central repository. I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those. At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki@...>: > 2011/2/1 David Gerard <dgerard@...>: >> On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@...> wrote: >>> 2011/2/1 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@...> > >> >> There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a >> bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged >> with a central repository. > > I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people > wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast > to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being > uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those. > > At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures. "Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
If it's only for Wikimedia copyrighted logos/files, you have my support.
2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:> 2011/2/1 David Gerard <dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But
>> On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> 2011/2/1 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>
>>
>> There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a
>> bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged
>> with a central repository.
>
> I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people
> wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast
> to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being
> uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
>
> At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free
contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Wait, so we're moving a few 100 files, creating a new project, and adding onto the burden of our already overworked technical team so we can remove two sentences from project policy? The "staying true to our colors" reasoning sounds obsessive-compulsive.
I'll ask again because I may very well be missing something here: why exactly should we start the "allrightsreserved" project?
If it's only for Wikimedia copyrighted logos/files, you have my support.2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki <at> gmail.com>:> 2011/2/1 David Gerard <dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But
>> On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> 2011/2/1 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>
>>
>> There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a
>> bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged
>> with a central repository.
>
> I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people
> wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast
> to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being
> uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
>
> At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free
contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about those images) then the Foundation should address the issue.
Why start a "project" unless the project has scope for media outside of what can be handled internally by Foundation Office staff
Wait, so we're moving a few 100 files, creating a new project, and adding onto the burden of our already overworked technical team so we can remove two sentences from project policy? The "staying true to our colors" reasoning sounds obsessive-compulsive.
I'll ask again because I may very well be missing something here: why exactly should we start the "allrightsreserved" project?On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Manuelt15 <manuelt15.wiki-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:If it's only for Wikimedia copyrighted logos/files, you have my support.2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>2011/2/1 Teofilo <teofilowiki <at> gmail.com>:> 2011/2/1 David Gerard <dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:"Share alike" means "thou shalt not create a hybrid monster". But
>> On 1 February 2011 08:59, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> 2011/2/1 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>
>>
>> There would be a push to expand it to fair use. I would call this a
>> bad idea myself. Fair use should stay deprecated IMO, not encouraged
>> with a central repository.
>
> I think it is better to create a separate horror museum so that people
> wanting to create monsters can have their cake and eat it. I am aghast
> to see hybrid monsters with a free body and an unfree head being
> uploaded on Commons, and Commons having no clear rule against those.
>
> At least Commons will be freed from such Frankenstein creatures.
people fail to see this, because at present allrightsreserved and free
contents are too close to each other on the same Commons website.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DMw@public.gmane.orgorg
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 1 February 2011 23:41, Gnangarra <gnangarra@...> wrote: > Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of > the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've > been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about > those images) then the Foundation should address the issue. There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility images as well as the free media. This is a reasonable viewpoint to hold. But no, I agree with you - mostly people aren't that worried. I note only that technically it would be feasible, the idea would just be considered unnecessary faff by most of the people who'd be involved in actually doing the work. - d.
But. there's no reason why the two should be technically separated. It's already been practically divided by categories. It's not considered unnecessary faff just by techs; any pragmatic person would agree.
On 1 February 2011 23:41, Gnangarra <gnangarra-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of
> Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of
> the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've
> been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about
> those images) then the Foundation should address the issue.
people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility
images as well as the free media.
This is a reasonable viewpoint to hold. But no, I agree with you -
mostly people aren't that worried.
I note only that technically it would be feasible, the idea would just
be considered unnecessary faff by most of the people who'd be involved
in actually doing the work.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DMw@public.gmane.orgorg
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi, Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 00:03 +0000, David Gerard a écrit : > > There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of > people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility > images as well as the free media. A possible solution raised in the past was to use meta as a file repository for unfree Wikimedia logos and other marketing stuff (presentations including fair use materials, etc.). The main advantage being that meta already exists and already has a focus on internal marketing stuff. -- -- Guillaume Paumier Product manager - Wikimedia Foundation Support free knowledge: http://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier@...> wrote: > > A possible solution raised in the past was to use meta as a file > repository for unfree Wikimedia logos and other marketing stuff > (presentations including fair use materials, etc.). The Foundation wiki might be better, as it already hosts all the Foundation's other stuff and is full of uneditable content. -- -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@...
> The Foundation wiki might be better, as it already hosts all the > Foundation's other stuff and is full of uneditable content. No, that will not work, as this is not only about a bunch of logos, but about a lot of screenshots containing logos. Many of them used to illustrate Mediawiki features UI elements and JavaScript gadgets. Daniel
On 02/02/2011 01:03 AM, David Gerard wrote: > There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of > people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility > images as well as the free media. The obvious solution is that WMF should free license its logotypes. I'm sick and tired of having to deal with this crazy policy as soon as our chapter wants to print t-shirts or anything such. I made a design for a copyright-free alternative logotype for Wikimedia Sverige, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMSE_threecrowns.png and I think we could go on to design our own logotype for the Swedish Wikipedia. Why not? We're lucky Creative Commons doesn't claim copyright to its logo. It's used in millions of places on WMF sites. -- -- Lars Aronsson (lars@...) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
On 1 February 2011 22:27, Blurpeace <blurpeace <at> gmail.com> wrote: > so we can remove > two sentences from project policy? Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than just “able to use”, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply distinguish the non-free files from the free rest). -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:08:25 +0100 > From: Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@...> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Proposal for an > allrightsreserved.wikimedia.org website > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l@...> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTikSY-eAR4+T8yyopXXBJc3Q3u2uR2P3OG_e5-VY@...> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 1 February 2011 22:27, Blurpeace <blurpeace@...> wrote: > > so we can remove > > two sentences from project policy? > > Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs > is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are > currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than > just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply > distinguish the non-free files from the free rest). > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding required to exclude such files significantly easier. Someone else said: >But. there's no reason why the two should be technically separated. It's >already been practically divided by categories. It's not considered >unnecessary faff just by techs; any pragmatic person would agree. Has any of the ops people actually said this would be annoying or in anyway difficult to set up. I know things get much more complicated when you're dealing with 800 wikis, one of which is in the top 6 (or whatever) sites of the internet, but still - this looks like about 5 extra lines in one config file (assuming meta is used so a new wiki isn't set up). The only complicated bit might be make global image links work (but then again, there may be complications i just don't see). -bawolff
On 2 February 2011 19:04, bawolff <bawolff+wn@...> wrote: >> Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs >> is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are >> currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than >> just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply >> distinguish the non-free files from the free rest). > > Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you > setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently > work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to > foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding > required to exclude such files significantly easier. Of course you will always _be able to_ get to the files (if only through screen-scraping or whatever). The point is that currently, the moment you enable InstantCommons, you get non-free files together with the free ones whether you want them or not. If we move non-free files away from Commons, the InstantCommons configuration should keep using only commons.wikimedia.org as a repository, which would solve the problem. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@...> wrote: > On 2 February 2011 19:04, bawolff <bawolff+wn@...> wrote: >>> Note that another slight disadvantage of the current state of affairs >>> is that sites using InstantCommons (e.g. the OpenStreetMap wiki) are >>> currently able to use CopyrightByWikimedia images (well, more than >>> just ?able to use?, they can do that inadvertently; they cannot simply >>> distinguish the non-free files from the free rest). >> >> Whats being proposed here doesn't directly fix that, since if you >> setup multiple foreign repositories (at least how the code currently >> work), other people using you as a forign repository can get to >> foreign files through you. However, it'd probably make the coding >> required to exclude such files significantly easier. > > Of course you will always _be able to_ get to the files (if only > through screen-scraping or whatever). The point is that currently, the > moment you enable InstantCommons, you get non-free files together with > the free ones whether you want them or not. If we move non-free files > away from Commons, the InstantCommons configuration should keep using > only commons.wikimedia.org as a repository, which would solve the > problem. > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] > I think you misunderstand what I mean. What i understand the proposal to be: *Make meta a shared repository for Wikimedia wikis, put logos there instead of commons. As it stands, instant commons looks for any image on commons, and any image in any shared repository that commons uses (which is currently none, but if meta was added as a shared repository for commons, it would be included in instant commons too). So separating them like that does not immediately solve that issue (although it would probably make it easier to solve in the future). As an example, many people who want fair use images use EnWikipedia as a ForeignAPIRepo (technical name for instant commons, but you can chose whatever wiki you like). They get both Wikipedia's images, as well as commons' images, since Commons is a shared repo used by enwikipedia. Cheers, -bawolff
RSS Feed