User talk:MichaelMaggs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #150[edit]

Copyright question[edit]

Hi Michael,

I stumbled across a deletion request for an image of a public artistic performance taken in Australia and my feeling via a fairly rudimentary legal argument is that it should not be deleted (if nothing else than the fact that it would be a shame and possibly a precedent for many other images of public performance art to be at risk of deletion), but I don't have complete certainty about my position as I suspect there could be a number of competing legal positions at play. I appreciate that it's not your particular area of expertise but perhaps you could help to clarify the situation? Thanks, David. Diliff (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Diliff, I didn't see an entry for performers' rights at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter or Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. It may be wise to make a post at COM:VPC to get a more professional opinion if you've further concerns. Jee 11:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jee, more opinions and ideas are always welcome. You're probably right that it's a good idea to post at COM:VPC but sometimes this simply opens a can of worms and we end up with too many opinions that aren't necessarily legally accurate. I'd rather start with someone I know and trust the legal opinion of first and then escalate it elsewhere if necessary. ;-) Also, Michael, I know this isn't necessarily your area of expertise either, but I recently noticed that our official guideline on consent requirements for the UK are overly vague on whether one can "take a picture", "publish a picture" and "commercially use a published picture" without consent - each one is listed as "it depends on circumstance". As I mentioned on the talk page there, this may be technically correct but is misleading IMO because it seems to imply that there's no inclination one way or the other, whereas the truth is that in the vast majority of cases, there are no good reasons why you would not be able to take or publish a picture if the person is in public without an expectation of privacy. As Fae mentioned on the talk page, consensus would be required to change the guideline but I'm loathe to bring it up on the Village Pump as I think it would inevitably devolve to opinions on what people believe should be the case, rather than a legal opinion on what actually is the case. What do you think is the best way to get a strong legal opinion that doesn't play it too safe and end up being unnecessarily vague? :-) Diliff (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
OK; I respect your decision. May be Clindberg can comment here or in that DR without attracting all the VPC crowd. :) Jee 13:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the question here, thanks, and will respond shortly on the DR page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there Michael. Less urgently, but do you have any comments about the guidelines for consent requirements that I mentioned above? Do you think the best course of action to get the guidelines amended to be more prescriptive is to post a proposal or RfC on the village pump page? Diliff (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I really don't understand how Commons:Country specific consent requirements became an official guideline, as it makes little sense. If I recall correctly, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people was in a reasonable state a few years ago, then people started adding country-specific entries to it, without a lot of legal analysis, and importantly without clarity as to whether the entries were supposed to represent community requirements for hosting on Commons (guideline) or the requirements for local re-use (help). The country-specific table then got spun off into a separate page while keeping the 'official guideline' heading. I think the whole page needs to be re-written from scratch, once its purpose has been clarified. I'd suggest having one person lead, with some specific recommendations, rather than a free-for all on the VP. That is something I would be happy to work on, but maybe not just at the moment; I'll add it to my list of things to do. By the way, you are quite right on the UK entry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #151[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #152[edit]

Ban appeal reference[edit]

I mentioned you as a reference for this year's ban appeal. I sent you a copy of my appeal to them via Email (please check your inbox). ArbCom might ask you about your thoughts on allowing me return and ask you to recommend restrictions and such. I recommended you since you're a part of Wikimedia UK and since you helped moderate some of the discussions that I was involved in. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #153[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #154[edit]

meet up[edit]

You've got mail -- Colin (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #155[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #156[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #157[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #158[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #159[edit]