Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2013/12

Improve usability of {{watermark}} template

Hi,

images containing digital watermarks are in Category:Images with watermarks. In many cases, template {{watermark}} template is used. This template does (at least) the following:

1. the image is categorized in Category:Images with watermarks.
2. the image description page gets a text box concerning digital watermarks and advice how to remove them.

So, in effect the Category:Images with watermarks cannot have subcategories. If you leave the {{watermark}} template, the file will be in both categrories, the subcategory and still in the main ategory Category:Images with watermarks. Or, otherwise one had to remove the "watermark"-template.

Why subcat's here? As i noticed, there are substancially different kinds of images with watermarks. So there are some mass uploads of such files with common features and problems. So Category:Uploads from artvalue.com with watermarks contains images uploaded from one source with very low res and a very prominent diagonal watermark, which prevents in my opinion removal by cropping and/or editing. So it would be good to have such files a out of the main category, which is cluttered with 66.000 files and therefore difficult. Because of the mass of files it is very difficult to sort files if there are no effective subcategories (because the template enforces a categorisation in Category:Images with watermarks.

So my proposal: Have a parameter "|no cat" (or else) in [[template:watermark]] which suppresses the automatic categorization in Category:Images with watermarks. This files then must be manually categorised intso one of the sub-cats fot this category. - Andy king50 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we just delete any images uploaded with watermarks that make them difficult to use? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Go ahead but take care to document what you were doing, including updating the template's documentation and creation of the relevant categories. IMHO maintenance categories must be useful to work with. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion would be a fine solution too. I am a strong supporter of speedily deletion of such nonreusable, heavily damaged images. But i am not experienced enough in commons if such mass deletions are welcome...Maybe I look for some deletion discussion page too.Andy king50 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Template for images from LGEPR

LG Group has a CC-licenced Flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lge/. The account is official, it was announced on LG's official website at http://social.lge.co.kr/lg_story/the_blog/more/2/ and the website also links to it among the social media icons. There are already nearly ~600 photos at Category:Images from LGEPR. Despite the desclaimer at the top of the category, from time to time people nominate these photos for deletion, because at first glance it seems unbelievable that such a huge croporation would allow a cc licence. I propose that we have a template {{LGEPR}} and have a bot place it below the description template, that links to the above linked proof of the account really belonging to LG. Something along the lines of:

The Flickr account of LGEPR is an official account of LG Group. See the official website of LG for reference..

Can I go ahead with this? Thank you. Teemeah (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea to me. Perhaps it would be worth specifying in the template that the account belongs to the Social LG division of LG Group, or something similar. The Flickr account is also linked to directly from their main page http://social.lge.co.kr/ (towards upper right, and at the bottom). --Avenue (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good ; but isn’t {{LGE}} what you are looking for? Jean-Fred (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Enable editing the title of one's own file

I uploaded the file File:Pathagorean theorem.png but I really meant to give it the title Pythagorean theorem with the correct spelling and now I'm afraid that file will be permanently less searchable with fewer people finding it to use on other projects and fewer people finding it to adapt it in a useful way. If there's no chance that Wikimedia Commons will ever be willing to make that change, then that file should instead be nominated for speedy deletion and I will reupload it with the correct title. I only uploaded it yesterday. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You can always reupload under the correct title and tag the old one for deleteion, or you can request the file to be moved to its correct title. — Edokter (talk) — 10:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done renamed in File:Pythagorean theorem.png. Agree with Edokter, asking for a file rename is the way to go in such cases. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Versions of a file

It should be possible for anybody with a Commons account to delete any version of one of their own files all by themself without nominitating it for deletion. Reverting back to an older version of a file should change the order of the list of versions of the file, change the date of the older version to the date of the reversion, and only move that version of the file in the list, not duplicate it. After the reversion, the file description page should show no sign of the current version of the file ever having been uploaded before. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose. That would make it possible for users who change their minds about the perpetual licenses that they've granted to replace their uploads with useless versions with no way for us to roll back to the original version. Part of the whole wiki concept is that all changes can be undone, so this simply isn't going to happen. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not appropriate for a community-project. Anyone with desire to manage certain files personally may go to Flickr, Panoramio or Picasa. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The only times I ever would have deleted a version of a file I uploaded would be when I was careless making the file and made the original file differently than the way I was trying to make it at that time, such as a single pixel being a different colour than I thought it was when I uploaded the file, not when I think of a new idea of a way to improve the file. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0 as default?

As you may know, Creative Commons released version 4 of their licenses − see VP discussion and Wikimedia Foundation blogpost.

We already have the templates/categories set up (though the VP discussion suggests there are still refinements to be made) ; the next question is: should we replace 3.0 with 4.0 as the default values in the UploadWizard?

(Note that there are some discussions on Meta on whether Wikimedia projects themselves should use 4.0 − this is not within the scope of this section).

PLOS today announced that 4.0 will be used starting January 1st. That sounds like a good milestone to me. This leaves us a few weeks to work on issues if there are any. What should happen before we could move forward?

Thoughts? Jean-Fred (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's do it. sугсго 18:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, let's not rush. I'd like a real review by WMF legal before we make it the default, to be sure. One month seems short for that, but who knows... But it can be added as one of the option right now. Yann (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point, green light from Legal would definitely be appreciated/required. I left a note to Luis Villa, let’s see what Legal might say?

(As for the 1 month deadline: I suggested that because deadlines often help making things happen − and PLoS kindly provided us with a date. This is of course not cast in stone :) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great to hear Legal's perspective on this. Regarding the templates, I do have serious concerns about their wording, which I trust we can resolve easily enough. I would prefer that we do this before adding v4.0 to the upload wizard, even as just another option. --Avenue (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Support but listen people, please. Make the "real license" easily accessible to the re-users. Encouraging "free culture propaganda" is not our business; we should educate people about the pros and cons of the license available to choose. The outcome of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg is also very important. If CC formally endorse Jim's and Avenue's stand, it must be published in a prominent location instead of make benefit from the ignorance of poor contributors.

"Green light from Legal would definitely be appreciated/required." Yes; but I didn't expect a no from them. How CC 4.0 can be "not so good for WMF projects" as far as Jimmy in the Board and Kat in the staff. :) Jee 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Info Hi! Thanks for the ping, Jean-Fred- I was following the previous conversation and might not have seen this. Short version: we'd ask that Commons not switch by default until the required community discussion Terms of Use discussion has happened, but before that happens, a discussion here could still be useful. Longer version:

Our analysis: LCA analyzed the license during the drafting process; the blog post you linked is a summary. However, we're not perfect, and given how important this is, we want an extensive community discussion to make sure that we didn't miss anything. For example, I want to make sure that the database clause does not cause any surprising/unpredictable problems when various sites/projects use each other's information. Since there are many different uses, it is impossible for me to be confident in my legal analysis until the community has discussed those uses.

Community-wide discussion: In order to make sure that discussion is as comprehensive and thorough as possible, we'd really like there to be one main discussion. This discussion is required for all the text-based sites, since their license is set in the Terms of Use and (at least!) a 60 day, multi-lingual discussion is required to change that. Commons' default license isn't set in the same way, but we would ask you to participate in that discussion so that it can get the most possible useful contributions.

Timing: LCA would like to focus on the privacy and trademark discussions right now, so we're not going to start a new formal discussion ourselves until those wrap up (hopefully mid-January). But we'll obviously follow any discussions we see, and use those to inform the formal project-wide discussion that has to take place before a change to the Terms of Use.

What next? I don't want to discourage commons from talking about the licenses now. Since our main concern is that we can't know as much about the projects as you all can, the more you all can factcheck the license against what actually goes on in the project, the better. For example, are there problems with the 4.0 template that are specific to 4.0? are there potential problems transcluding 4.0 images into 3.0 articles? are there attribution concerns specific to complex galleries? does commons do anything that might trigger database rights concerns? is there documentation about attribution that would have to be substantially changed if we switched to 4.0? etc. The more that discussion happens now, the more we can be confident we've covered all the bases when we do switch.

Hope that helps answer the question, J-F. Thanks for bringing it up. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DR time

I consider it important to avoid falling into a war that is determined by fatigue. Suggest that, after being resolved to maintain an image, be expected prundencial one month before opening time again another nomination for deletion. --The Photographer (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for hosting of global public domain content, and a new {{Globally released}} tag

There has been significant debate about the hosting on Commons of non-U.S. public domain files whose copyright has been restored under U.S. national Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

Since the URAA does not take into account the copyright status of works outside U.S. territory, this creates a serious anomaly in which many works are public domain according to the law of almost all countries except in the U.S. This is particularly problematic for non-U.S. Government-created works that are public domain in the source country, but where that public domain status is ignored for the purposes of U.S. law. The courts in the U.S. are of course bound by their local laws, and may accordingly provide legal relief to a plaintiff who attempts to rely on U.S. copyright protection even in respect of works that were and still are public domain or otherwise out of copyright according to the law of the source country.

Since the Wikimedia Foundation servers are based in the U.S., Commons cannot set aside U.S. law, and it has been suggested that all affected files must therefore be deleted. In fact, that should not always be necessary, and following a statement of the WMF legal team we may be able to set up a policy that should save at least some of these files.

I am proposing a new policy that provides a mechanism for certain files that are public domain in their source country but potentially subject to copyright under the laws of the U.S. to be legally hosted on Commons. It would apply broadly, and would not be not limited solely to works whose U.S. copyright has been restored under the ARAA.

Comments on the proposed policy are welcome at Hosting of content released to the global public domain. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)