[Commons-l] Deletion of still-used images

Tue Aug 8 08:26:24 UTC 2006

--- Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> schrieb:

> On 08/08/06, Raimond Spekking <raimond.spekking at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios.
> In my
> > opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all
> others
> > that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than
> copyvios.
> 
> Well, how do you define a copyvio?

We do not define it at all. That is defined by law.

> Almost everything that we delete
> has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright
> violation.

No, we do not delete because we have the suspicion! This makes the
thing very tricky. Because the commons-community must prove that we
have a clear copivio.

On one hand this is bad because the commons pics have been used on
several pages in the internet and nobody can tell us wich pic was
first. On the other hand we have the problem that people ignore the
warning (and this is the more likely way things happen) and upload
pics without asking people from commons first.

I therefore suggest adding to the notice "If unsure contact an
administrator see Commons:Administrators".

> That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license
> images.

Yep. And that is good!

> That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and
> photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once
> believed to be free but found out to be actually not.

Acknowledgement to the first part and but do not understand the second
part. I will never delete a photo take of 2D art. Taking a picture of
the e.g. "Mona Lisa" makes nobody get new copyright. Even if the
museums claim it (the threshold of originality is far to low). But
maybe you are talking about 3D statues?

> Because we
> suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is
> rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.

As I said we must not delete on suspicion.

> > In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for
> the
> > violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios,
> every day."
> 
> Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds
> any legal weight.
> 
> I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF
> ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape
> clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene
> due
> to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
> 
> > An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if
> the
> > project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and
> smaller
> > wikis.
> 
> I think that's a great idea!

greetings

Paddy

___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de