Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Must be freely licensed or public domain/Evidence

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Click on the 'Project page' tab, above to see the current policy/guideline wording that is under discussion on this page.
  • To make a specific proposal, please start a new subsection and use the code below to put it in its own box. You can sign underneath the resultant box, but for technical reasons you can't use "~~~~" within it. Please number your proposal for ease of reference.
{{divbox|amber|Proposal number and title|Introduction
*text
*more text}}
Commons-logo.svg Scope Review 2013 links:

Discuss stage 2 of this review

Translation

Background

Links to current rules

Discussion: Introductory Scope wording

Discussion: Files

Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories

Discussion: Areas of particular concern

Discussion: Identifiable people

Other proposals

Proposal 1[edit]

  • Please discuss the above proposal here
I would agree with not worrying about old files unless they are specifically challenged in a deletion discussion. But I would agree with making the current practice required, ie. we ought to require evidence for all new uploads. So, yes to tighten it up for new uploads. But I'm also quite unsure what to do with new derivatives (crops or collages for example) of old files which lack evidence. -84user (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
After looking at images uploaded via Mobile Web I am moving more to a view that Commons needs more evidence at the time of upload. An example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tori Pulliam artist and actress 2013-04-9 20-53.jpg. I find the image in scope as far as its usefulness, but I am concerned that the copyright is unclear mainly because the uploader is supposedly the same as the person depicted. This appears to require evidence either that the self-photographer gave a free license or that the depicted person gave consent. Should the Mobile Web app be improved to encourage (force?) uploaders to provide more information, such as answering specific questions: who is the photographer, who are the depicted persons, did all the depicted people give their consent? -84user (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as part of any re-write this section should be pulled out and made stand-alone. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Warning Hold on; off topic. Admin closure needed. No objection to reopening re. subject consent, if not under "/Must be freely licensed or public domain/Evidence"

.

Sorry - don't understand the big red box. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Said differently: The topic is "/Must be freely licensed or public domain/Evidence" SO, "subject consent" is off topic. Understand? --Elvey (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So, here we should only discuss the first paragraph of the current wording? Otherwise I would agree with the proposal to pull the subject consent out of the wording. (Or make it clearer like this "While not part of licensing, if the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent may be required ...") -84user (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

aracters. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


This topic appears to be of lesser interest/priority to the community than some of the others in this review, and I propose that we should close it down now. That will allow us in part 2 of the review to focus our full attention on the most important and/or contentious issues. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)