User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jdforrester (WMF)!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


FYI that I changed the copyright tag on that file to {{pd-text}} since it's not original enough to be copyright-able. Legoktm (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Attribution/license issue[edit]

Hi James,

Your slide deck here:

File:VisualEditor - 2014-02 Metrics deck.pdf

contains photos (the ones of cats) whose licenses require attribution (and also require that derivative works be licensed CC BY-SA). Can you update the metadata to credit the photographers? -Pete F (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The template for screenshots of Wikipedia content and the de minimis usage are insufficient? If so, no, but I have faith that you can. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
My reading of de minimis (specifically, the 3rd paragraph of the section "an example") would say no -- clearly, there was a deliberate choice to include these photos, which according to my understanding clearly removes a "de minimis" claim from consideration.
I should have linked this before -- I did manage to track down the names of the photographers, here: File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 11.jpg -- hope that helps. (I should have kept the file name links, but I was working too fast and forgot to save them.) -Pete F (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: … I'm confused. You've already found the sources and have the competence and drive to make the licence information more exact, but… you want to waste your time asking other people to do the changes? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem adding that -- but I don't have the legal authority to change the license of your doc from CC BY to CC BY-SA. (I think you could avoid the need to do that by fully crediting, and indicating the license of, the images within the doc...which seems like a lot more work.) That's the main reason I wanted to reach out to you. -Pete F (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Very well, I've "fixed" the licence to be exhaustive. What an unbelievable waste of time. Also, COM:de minimis is hilariously wrong and written by people that think there are clear dividing lines that can be drawn. sigh. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
James, I can see how this took more time than necessary, as a direct result of my sloppy presentation. I should have been clearer, and I wish I had been. I'm sorry.
I did not realize COM:De minimis was inacurate -- all I know about it is that it's a formal policy of Commons. I'm not a lawyer, and I've always taken it at face value. If you're able to help improve it, I'm sure that would be a great service to the project.
Apart from the legal aspect though, let me explain why I think the time you and I put in was not wasted (even though it was less efficient than it should have been). To me, it isn't ultimately a matter of law, but a matter of respect. From my earliest days on Wikipedia, my colleagues in WikiProject Oregon would occasionally find that one another's photos were used in, for instance, a local newspaper. In most cases, the first reaction would be delight that we were having an impact, followed by the realization that the photo was either entirely uncaptioned, or inaccurately captioned something like "courtesy of Wikimedia Commons." This would typically lead to friendly banter along the lines of, "with all them lawyers and copyeditors, you'd think they could get it right" and expressions of sympathy toward somebody who had never thought their work might be published in a newspaper, and when it finally was, they didn't even get the tiny bit of acknowledgment they had requested via their choice of a CC license.
So in this case, I do think it's fairly unlikely that any of the photographers will ever notice that their work was included in a presentation produced by the Wikimedia Foundation. But if by some strange twist of fate they do find out, and if they have never really had their work published anywhere before, there is a big difference between (1) the rush of pride they might feel, that their work was somehow deemed worthy of inclusion by an organization like that, and part of efforts to (in this case) build and advocate new software features; and (2) the wave of disappointment they might feel, when (to simplify, as an end user might) the very organization that encouraged them to use a CC license to begin with couldn't be bothered to provide the attribution the license requested.
In short, I think it's worthwhile for WMF to make the effort to meet or even exceed the requirements of free licenses. It's of course worthwhile for a newspaper to do that too, but I think it's much more important for WMF to do it -- considering that establishing an environment of respect and honoring one another's work is (at least IMO) a strong contributing factor toward the "increase participation" objective of the Strategic Plan. -Pete F (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Happened to spot a current instance of this, where Wikipedians noted with approval that a publication (Portland Business Journal) is properly attributing photos: [1] -Pete F (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)