[Commons-l] [Fwd: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia]

Hi George, as another quick solution for your topic #1 I created a (license) tag for the uploaded images, so I wouldn't have to use pd-because again: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr-no_known_copyright_restri… ons Unfortunately it was requested for deletion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Flickr… _known_copyright_restrictions The link to the rights pages (#2) shouldn't be a problem. It might just take some time to implement it (will have to finish my diploma thesis next week first). This thing is getting to big for me (especially #3 and #4, but #1 as well). I'd like to discuss your email with the community on commons-l, the list Magnus mentioned below. May I forward your email to the list? As Magnus mentioned it might also be a good idea for you to join the list. Thanks in advance and best regards, Florian -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: The Commons on Flickr + commons.wikimedia Von: George Oates <glo(a)yahoo-inc.com> An: flominator(a)gmx.net Datum: tue, 17 jun 2008 10:29:15 +0100 > Hi Flominator - > > I work at Flickr, and am heading up the new Commons program there... I wrote > to Magnus a little while ago to see about changing the way you guys are > explaining the "no known copyright restrictions." > > I had made a couple of edits to the Brooklyn Museum's content, which I since > notice have been removed. > > I have written detailed notes below Magnus' reply - please take a moment to > review them... The important thing is that you've assumed these photos are > in the public domain because *Flickr* claims it, and that's simply > incorrect. > > Please, have a look and let me know what you think! > > Cheers, > George > > > > On 6/5/08 7:15 AM, "Magnus Manske" <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hi George, >> >> thanks for the mail - good to know that people at flickr care as much >> as "we" do :-) >> >> Now, the situation at hand is even more complicated than you think... >> >> I'm running the "file upload bot", which is not really a bot, but a >> user name for some of my web-operated commons.wikimedia upload tools, >> including this one: >> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php >> >> It does not generate the commons.wikimedia description directly, but >> uses yet another tool: >> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php >> >> which is operated by someone else: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator >> >> He also created the Brooklyn Museum template, which contains the >> license information: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Flickr-Brooklyn-Museum >> >> He'd be the one to talk to about changes to the license information. >> Or, you can edit the template yourself! >> >> For a more general discussion about licenses, inclusion of flickr >> images in commons.wikimedia etc., you might want to address out >> mailing list: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> >> I didn't want to forward your mail to the list myself, but IMHO it >> would be nice to discuss it there. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Magnus >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM, George Oates <glo(a)yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >>> Hi Magnus - >>> >>> I work at Flickr, and am heading up The Commons project. I wanted to drop >>> you a line to say thank you for publishing some of the Library of Congress >>> & >>> Brooklyn Museum photos to commons.wikimedia! That's fantastic! >>> >>> The thing is, I have a few questions and/or requests about the way you've >>> implemented it. I'd like to discuss these points with you in the hope that >>> we can come up with the best solution together. (Warning: This is a long >>> email!) >>> >>> 1. The language that you've used to describe the "no known copyright >>> restrictions" idea we're trying to propagate stuff in The Commons is >>> incorrect. >>> >>> Your original interpretation on all the Brooklyn Museum photos read: >>> >>> +++ >>> "This file is in the public domain, because Flickr says that there are 'No >>> known copyright restrictions' >>> >>> In case this is not legally possible: >>> The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without >>> any >>> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. >>> >>> Please verify that the reason given above complies with Commons' licensing >>> policy." >>> +++ >>> >>> Actually, "no known copyright restrictions" doesn't mean that the photos >>> are >>> in the public domain. In fact, it's not even a license per se. >>> >>> Basically, it would be ideal to direct people towards the "Rights >>> Statement" >>> on a) flickr.com and b) each Commons participants' documentation of their >>> understanding of the rights statement. There are links to everything from >>> here: http://flickr.com/commons/usage/ >>> >>> I've taken the liberty of editing the Brooklyn Museum photos to indicate >>> this - all of these: >>> >>>

>>> ry+exact+match >>> >>> The proposed new language is as follows: >>> >>> +++ >>> "This photo was released in to The Commons on Flickr using the "no known >>> copyright restrictions" rights statement. This does not mean it's in the >>> public domain. For more information, please visit >>> http://flickr.com/commons/usage/, and the Brooklyn Museum's information >>> page, http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/flickr_commons.php." >>> +++ >>> >>> Please let me know if you approve, or if I should let anyone else on your >>> team know? >>> >>> 2. In future, if you intend to import more content from The Commons in to >>> commons.wikimedia, it would ideal if you could always link to the >>> institution-specific Rights Statement page, as linked to from >>> flickr.com/commons/usage. Would this be possible? I noticed you and Magnus >>> (?) have written Flickr import tools... be great to integrate that. >>> >>> 3. It would also be ideal if you could use the same language on all of the >>> Library of Congress photos that have been published in The Commons on >>> Flickr. Several of the Bain photos should ideally get the same treatment. >>> These are the ones I've discovered so far: >>> >>> Woodrow Wilson and Champ Clark, >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2422676781/ >>>

>>> lson%3B_Champ_Clark_%28LOC%29_%28pd%29.jpg >>> >>> Sultan Mulai Hafid, >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2448653737/ >>> >>> Prince Henry of Holland, >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2448653975/ >>> >>> Fort Edmonton, Canada, >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2458985803/ >>> >>> The Czar, http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2496401489/ >>> >>> I looked at those pages, but couldn't work out the correct way to reference >>> the language I've noted in point 1 above. Can you direct me? >>> >>> 4. I've spoken with my colleagues at both the Brooklyn Museum and the >>> Library of Congress, and we're all behind sharing images in to The Commons. >>> We studied the site terms and it seems they are very strict about image >>> licensing. It seems like having images hosted at commons.wikimedia becomes >>> a problem in your own guidelines >>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing): >>> >>> All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that >>> allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (see also >>> Commons:Criteria >>> for inclusion). In particular, the license must meet the following >>> conditions: >>> >>> * Republication and distribution must be allowed >>> * Publication of derivative work must be allowed >>> * Commercial use of the work must be allowed >>> * Acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required. >>> * Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required. >>> * Use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management may >>> be required. >>> >>> It's not always the case that photos added to The Commons will fit these >>> rules, so there's some doubt amongst us about whether Flickr Commons >>> content >>> is even suitable on a consistent basis. >>> >>> I'd love to discuss all this with you! Again, not meaning any harm sending >>> along this feedback. It's a good thing that Flickr Commons content might >>> find a place on commons.wikipedia! >>> >>> Also, please let me know if there's another person I should be talking to >>> about the details of the licensing etc. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> George Oates >>> >>> >