headers
Sage Ross | 10 Oct 04:41
Picon

[WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr
user to change license
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Fajro <faigos@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM, geni <geniice@...> wrote:
>> 2009/10/9 Risker <risker.wp@...>:
>>> Interesting article about how the International Olympic Committee is
>>> cracking down even on CC-SA licenses:
>
> The blog of the photographer:
>
> http://richardgiles.com/2009/10/09/the-olympics-and-creative-commons-photographs/
>

That clears things up a lot, and brings up a lot of new questions.
Wikipedia is actually at the center of this whole thing: Richard Giles
changed the license on this photo of Usain Bolt (first to CC-BY-ND to
CC-BY-SA)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgiles/2767537621/

at the request of a Wikipedian so that it could be added to Wikipedia
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Usain_Bolt_Olympics_Celebration.jpg

And Wikipedia is probably where the British merchant found the photo,
which he used to promote a book.  And that commercial use is what drew
the attention of the International Olympics Committee.  So now the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jon Davis | 10 Oct 05:19
Gravatar

Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license

"Does the contract (private use only for photos) implicitly agreed to by Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA license" -- In my recollection, the answer is no.  It is similar to someone taking a picture where it says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY".  They might be breaking someones rules, and could risk getting thrown out, but the picture is still theirs to keep.  The IOC could sue the photographer for breach of contract (which would be hilarious to watch the PR beating they get for that), but once again, that doesn't effect us.  In short, contracts can be broken, laws can't.

And not that I need to remind this crew, but the CC license is non-revocable, so the IOC is too late.  The photographer licensed his image under CC, and that is the end of it.  You can change the license back on Flickr, but that doesn't mean it isn't still legally available under CC.  That is the _entire_ reason we have the Flickr Reviewer bot.

-Jon

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 19:41, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr
user to change license
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>


On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Fajro <faigos-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM, geni <geniice-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> 2009/10/9 Risker <risker.wp-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
>>> Interesting article about how the International Olympic Committee is
>>> cracking down even on CC-SA licenses:
>
> The blog of the photographer:
>
> http://richardgiles.com/2009/10/09/the-olympics-and-creative-commons-photographs/
>

That clears things up a lot, and brings up a lot of new questions.
Wikipedia is actually at the center of this whole thing: Richard Giles
changed the license on this photo of Usain Bolt (first to CC-BY-ND to
CC-BY-SA)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgiles/2767537621/

at the request of a Wikipedian so that it could be added to Wikipedia
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Usain_Bolt_Olympics_Celebration.jpg

And Wikipedia is probably where the British merchant found the photo,
which he used to promote a book.  And that commercial use is what drew
the attention of the International Olympics Committee.  So now the
IOC, it seems, wants Giles to put the CC-BY-SA genie back in the
bottle.

What are the legal implications here?  Does the contract (private use
only for photos) implicitly agreed to by Giles when he bought a ticket
to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA license, despite that
downstream re-users (like us) weren't a party to the original
contract?

-Sage

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DMw@public.gmane.orgorg
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



--
Jon
[[User:ShakataGaNai]]
http://snowulf.com/ - Blog
http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures
This has been a test of the emergency sig system.  

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Sage Ross | 10 Oct 05:58
Picon

Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Jon Davis <wiki@...> wrote:
> "Does the contract (private use only for photos) implicitly agreed to by
> Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA
> license" -- In my recollection, the answer is no.  It is similar to someone
> taking a picture where it says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY".  They might be breaking
> someones rules, and could risk getting thrown out, but the picture is still
> theirs to keep.  The IOC could sue the photographer for breach of contract
> (which would be hilarious to watch the PR beating they get for that), but
> once again, that doesn't effect us.  In short, contracts can be broken, laws
> can't.

Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a
contract.  I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the
copyright to his photos.  But agreeing to terms and conditions is
different from walking past a "no photos" sign.  Contracts can be
broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts.

> And not that I need to remind this crew, but the CC license is
> non-revocable, so the IOC is too late.  The photographer licensed his image
> under CC, and that is the end of it.  You can change the license back on
> Flickr, but that doesn't mean it isn't still legally available under CC.
> That is the _entire_ reason we have the Flickr Reviewer bot.
>

The IOC's argument, I imagine, would not be that the CC license should
be revoked, but that it was never valid in the first place since, by
agreeing to a prior contract, Giles had given up the right to enter
into certain other kinds of contracts for the photos he took.  I don't
think that's right, but it seems more complicated than typical cases
of against-the-rules photography and attempts to revoke licenses.

-Sage
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Maarten Dammers | 10 Oct 12:33
Picon

Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license

Sage Ross schreef:
> Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a
> contract.  I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the
> copyright to his photos.  But agreeing to terms and conditions is
> different from walking past a "no photos" sign.  Contracts can be
> broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts.
>   
You might want to read 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions

Maarten
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sage Ross | 10 Oct 16:48
Picon

Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Maarten Dammers <maarten@...> wrote:
> Sage Ross schreef:
>> Yes, but the CC-BY-SA license is also (usually understood as) a
>> contract.  I don't think the IOC is arguing that Giles doesn't own the
>> copyright to his photos.  But agreeing to terms and conditions is
>> different from walking past a "no photos" sign.  Contracts can be
>> broken, but contracts can also affect other contracts.
>>
> You might want to read
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions
>

I know this is our standard procedure, to ignore most typical
non-copyright restrictions that involve contracts rather than laws.
But this seems different from typical cases we deal with (and
different from any of the examples on that page).  It seems like an
intermediate case between ignoring a no photos sign or agreeing to a
no photos contract, on the one hand, and contract like what Burning
Man uses (which actually does prevent us from using photos of that
event by people who signed it:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa ).

I *think* the IOC terms and conditions are irrelevant to whether
someone can use free licenses if they want to, but the waters seem
muddier than in the cases I'm familiar with.

-Sage
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Gerard | 13 Oct 16:14
Picon
Gravatar

Wikimedia as stock photo source

Is anyone keeping track of these?

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Police-Man-didnt-get-gun-used-pliers-instead/Eyp1QAdMXUOMiwlVU1AcXg.cspx

Not perfect - credit but no licence - but far better than nothing!

This is interesting to me because it's just a plain stock photo being
used as illustration for design purposes.

- d.
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Rama Neko | 13 Oct 16:34
Picon

Re: Wikimedia as stock photo source

Keep track of every instance of usage of a Commons file, you mean? I
think that there are probably too many of them for that to be
possible.

There are particular examples of usage that we herald, but they are
less trivial than yours. For example, a photograph of the Eiffel Tower
was used by architects; some of our files made it on the cover of
magazines; etc.
  -- Rama

On 13/10/2009, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> Is anyone keeping track of these?
>
> http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Police-Man-didnt-get-gun-used-pliers-instead/Eyp1QAdMXUOMiwlVU1AcXg.cspx
>
> Not perfect - credit but no licence - but far better than nothing!
>
> This is interesting to me because it's just a plain stock photo being
> used as illustration for design purposes.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Magnus Manske | 13 Oct 17:09
Gravatar

Re: Wikimedia as stock photo source

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> Is anyone keeping track of these?

Try
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3A%22+-site%3Awikimedia.org+-site%3Awikipedia.org&btnG=Search&meta=

for an estimate...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Howard Cheng | 13 Oct 18:05
Favicon

Re: Wikimedia as stock photo source

When you find instances, be sure to add {{published}} to the file talk page.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Gerard <dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Is anyone keeping track of these?

Try
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3A%22+-site%3Awikimedia.org+-site%3Awikipedia.org&btnG=Search&meta=

for an estimate...


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Magnus Manske | 19 Oct 12:02
Gravatar

Commons Commander

Dear Wikimedia, MediaWiki, and Media-on-Wikis-interested,

with the Paris multimedia meeting looming ahead, I finally got around
to write some software I planned to do for some time, but never could
muster quite enough incentive for. It is a JavaScript (JQuery)-based
file management tool for Commons (and all MediaWiki installations,
technically). It runs on the toolserver in its current form, but could
be reshaped into a MediaWiki extension without too much fuss. I have
dubbed it "Commons Commander", in remembrance of the Norton Commander,
a quite useful file-management tool at the time.

For the impatient, a demo link:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commcomm/index.html?category=Pictures%20of%20the%20day%20%282009%29

Caveat: This is "alpha" stage, neither bug-free not feature-complete.
I tested it successfully on Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4, but it currently
fails on Internet Explorer 8 (quelle surprise!).

Some features:
* Two-pane browsing (can be switched to one pane)
* Browsing files by category, uploader, recent uploads, file search
* Filter current file list by title (e.g. all files in the current
category/user file list with "Paris" in the title)
* Thumbnails or detailed list, sorted by name, size, or upload date,
ascending or descending
* "Eternal scroll" - load some files initially, loads some more as you
scroll towards the bottom of the list
* Eternal scroll works for browsing files in a category, user uploads,
and search results
* Recent uploads will add new files every 30 seconds instead
* Search for categories and browse the category tree in a special tab
* Open file on double-click
* Select one or multiple files with Crtl and/or Shift keys, or with
buttons at the borrom
* Removing from / adding or moving to a category (where possible) by
buttons in the category sidebar (Commons only; needs TUSC login)

I have also hijacked the right-click context menu for files:
* Quickly add a file to a category (or move, when browsing a category)
* Rename a file (currently invokes "Move page" on Commons, as my bot
is not allowed to move pages)
* CheckUsage
* Go to file view/edit
* Show other files uploaded by the same user
* Show related files (searches for "significant" parts of the file name)
* Show categories of a file in the category browsing tab

I think this turned out to be one of my "prettier" applications, as
far as these things go. Originally, I planned to use drag'n'drop as
well, but I'll save that for later...

Please let me know what you think, and if this (or some similar thing)
would be usable within MediaWiki/Commons itself. Feature requests and
bug reports are also welcome, but please keep in mind that this is
still a very early stage of development :-)

Cheers,
Magnus
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane