Commons:Bots/Requests/FinnaUploadBot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FinnaUploadBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Zache (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Uploads images from Finna.fi (2016 press release) which is online catalog and API for Finnish museums, libraries and archives and part of the Finlands national digital library service. Finna aggregates its data from organizations own databases so that there is a single endpoint. It also relays data to downstream partners like to Europeana. The basic operation is that users give a finna-id as a parameter and then the tool will read CC0 licensed metadata for the photo and checks if the license of the photo is licensed as CC0, CC-BY OR CC-BY-SA. If everything is ok then the tool will upload the photo.

The request is for larger uploads like thousands of photos and for keeping tool available for single uploads. Here are Example uploads and There is a discussion about the tool in COM:AN/U FinnaUploadBot (link to archive) where it was said that it will need a bot permission.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic, user need to manually tell what to upload but there is no confirmation for each diff.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): on demand

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 3 edits per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): PHP, currently logic is built top of the https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/blob/master/botclasses.php Zache (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Quote from COM:CRT#Country-specific_laws The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not.'. If we would follow that the license would be CC-BY. --Zache (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is also official policy of Wikimedia Commons --Zache (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is now archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 69#User:FinnaUploadBot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From a technological point of view, it is quite easy to handle. If we don't like to automatically upload images which are old enough to be in public domain and they are licensed to other than PD or cc0 then you can just add a test for it and if the test fails then do not to upload the image.
From a legal point of view, eg is Majora's concern about license valid, it is fuzzier because it is a valid argument that GLAMs have rights related to their digital reproductions of out-of-copyright works based on Finland's copyright law. So one can't just say that city of Helsinki or ministry of education and culture of Finland is fraudulently slapping restricted licenses on PD content when they are opening it at all. It is, however, unclear if the GLAM's argument for the rights would hold if it would be tested in court. The GLAMs which we are currently speaking about are in the front line of opening data in Finland. en:Finnish National Board of Antiquities (part of the ministry of education) have opened 200000 photos and are doing Wiki Loving Monuments with WMFI. Helsinki city museum which photos I was uploading opened 50000 hi-res photos and city as whole is doing a lot of open source work with OpenStreetMap, data, and API. So the position is that the opensource community in Finland are pointing out current problems and giving them reasons to do the right thing and seeing how far we can get. Last february National gallery of Finland opened their digital reproductions of out-of-copyright works under CC0 ( after years work ) which is kind of a test for other museums to see if it is good idea or not. --Zache (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Zhuyifei1999 and Fae for insights. Regards. T Cells (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the Helsinki City Museum yesterday why their license is CC-BY for digital reproductions of out-of-copyright works and not public domain / CC0. I haven't yet got an answer. However, the relevant pieces from Copyright Act of Finland as far as I know are in Chapter 5 - Rights related to copyright and under the Section 49 - Producer of a catalogue and a database (607/2015) and Section 49a - Photographer. Section 49 protects the amount of work which is used to make the database but not single items in it. One can copy some photos manually, but downloading significant parts of the database using bots is prohibited. Section 49a protects photographs that are not works of art and requirement for getting the protection is that the photograph has been taken. For this argument (which I copied to COM: AN/U for Majora) is that digital reproductions of out-of-copyright are new photographs and thus they are covered by 49a. Currently, there are no decisions related to this argument for 49a by copyright council of Finland or a court. Kuvasto's opinion when it was asked by fiwiki was that museum can make and sell copies of the photographs but making digital reproductions doesn't extend the original protection. --Zache (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki city museum's answer was that they are moving to CC0 for out of copyright works on their 2019 update, but not before because of the implementation reasons. This was in their plans before I asked about it. It was also OK for them to change the licenses for en:Signe Brander and fi:Ivan Timiriasew to CC0 or {{PD-Finland}} if it helps us. They also noted that most of the museums in Finland are in internal discussions about whether opening the archives is a good idea at all and the best practice is going forward step by step and not to scare GLAM people off.
I also updated the copyright status of reproductions of out-of-copyright works in Finland to COM:CRT#Finland (diff)
@~riley and Majora: In other ways question about CC-BY vs CC0 seems to be stalled and just for FYI. WMFI have a Wikigap event on 2018-05-08 where one planned track would be to add photos of historical women from Finna to articles. Second event related to this topic is a rephotography trip to Suomenlinna where we would be using photos from SA-kuvat (military archives), Helsinki city museum and Finnish National Board of Antiquities which are currently all under CC-BY and older than 50 years. The rephotography trip is also for testing of our WLM rephotography contest ideas. WMFI plan for WLM is to make national rephotography contest of old historical buildings as part of the WLM. For then-and-now photo pairs the old pictures are needed too. --Zache (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations in Europe are legally entitled to add a layer of copyright to material they make available through neighbouring rights. This is not a practice we want to encourage, but are we going to exclude them from Commons? This is not an isolated case. I personally would like to praise these institutions for the work they have done opening their materials. Sadly, they are following the national recommendations for open licensing. There's work to do, but don't you think we could cheer and let them experience the positive outcomes of open licensing rather than put them down. If this was a court case, they might still win. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long is this procedure going to take? @Romaine and Jean-Fred: This is blocking the development for Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in Finland, where old openly licensed images will be rephotographed. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora: Could you please comment if there are issues remaining? Thank you. --Krd 05:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: My apologies for not responding sooner. My concerns were always two fold. One, Zache was running an unauthorized bot on Commons. This solves that. Two, that they were misrepresenting the license that these photos are actually under. Section 49, as linked to above, is irrelevant as I read it. That has to do with databases. Think SQL. Think MediaWiki. Now, whether or not the "catalogue" part of that paragraph includes this type of information is highly debatable and from a programming standpoint, where I think this section is actually referring to, it would make more sense if it was referring to a something different entirely. Section 49a is precisely why we have {{PD-Finland50}}. Zache's editing of the copyright information for Finland (COM:CRT#Reproductions of out-of-copyright works) seems to be a misrepresentation or misunderstanding and should be removed. Section 49 appears to be referencing something completely different as indicated by it further stating that it applies to "tables" or "programs". Again, this is indicative that that section is talking about something completely unrelated to the issue at hand. If the museum has not responded as to why they have put the photos under a non-PD license then there does still seem to be a problem here that needs to be resolved. Please note, these photos are probably fine for Commons anyways and they will all have to undergo license review. If you just want to approve this and let the reviewers sort it out (a large undertaking but not unprecedented) then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the changes to the CRT page need to be undone. Preferably by someone who has the extra authority (ie the mop) to make those changes stick. --Majora (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora: Just to be clear:
  1. Section 49 is much broader in Finland. Traditional examples for catalogue, table or database in Finland are the list of the name days or the phone book. It doesn't care specific implementation or format of the data.
  2. Helsinki City Museum did answer. The CC-BY license could be used because they owned the copies and they had already the CC0 for out of copyright works in their internal pipeline which they hoped to solve the issue for us too.
--Zache (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that section 49 is much broader exactly? You? If there are no specific court cases on the matter, which you have already said there are not above, then we have to interpret the law as it is written. We don't have the luxury of just saying whatever we want or believing what anyone else says. The way that section is written does not apply to this situation and without a court case saying that is is much broader than written we can't just go with what you say. That isn't how it works here.

Second, please stop saying CC0. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever anywhere on finna.fi that the images are under CC0. CC0 is a completely separate and distinct copyright license with its own legal code. It is not a catch all term for public domain images. The fact that you continue to use CC0 in this manner shows that you don't understand that and therefore you do not understand copyright licensing. If the museum really did use the term "CC0" then they were either parroting back exactly what you sent them or they too do not understand what they are talking about. Either explanation reduces my confidence that the copyright license is correct from reasonable doubt to nil. I have zero confidence whatsoever that finna.fi is using the correct copyright license here. Whether or not the bot is going to be approved is beyond my pay grade but only because the images are probably fine for hosting here and that they all have to be licensed reviewed anyways. Otherwise I would strongly oppose the approval of this bot since there seems to be a several gross misunderstandings here. --Majora (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that section 49 is much broader exactly: Copyright counsil of Finland. As an example there is statement TN:2000:9 where the digitized flags in the catalog weren't protected by section 1 or 5 as independent works, but the collection of flags was protected by section 49. (summary, full text) Copyright council statement for name days is TN 2013:8 and for phone book is TN 1987:16.--Zache (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And about the rest. You don't need to trust to my interpretation of section 49a. You can always check the copyright status of digital reproductions in different EU countries from outofcopyright.eu map. --Zache (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the copyright question is a relevant factor, but can unlikely be answered within the scope of this request. I'd like to suggest to raise the copyright topic at a more prominent place and get back with the consensus achieved. If you disagree, please advise. --Krd 05:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Village pump: Copyright. I also made updates to COM:CRT per TN:2017:15 and per discussion with NBA's photographer. (diff) --Zache (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Village pump discussion advice was that i could use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} or {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}}. (Example: File:Puolustusvoimien vuosipäivän paraati Senaatintorilla - N2279 (hkm.HKMS000005-0000004k).jpg) --Zache (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above solution appears reasonable to me. Any additional comments or objections? --Krd 08:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. --Krd 05:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bots/Requests/FinnaUploadBot&oldid=306365773"