User talk:Pildirüüstaja

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Pildirüüstaja!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2014

Deletion requests[edit]

Hello. Please, refrain from creating a single deletion request for each image. If you target a monument, building or whatever, create a deletion request and include there all affected pictures as you can see here. I don't need either 6 messages in my talk page for the same reason. Thanks, Poco2 21:29, 12 July 2014

I'll try, thanks. Not sure how to use the right templates and categories yet, but I hope I'll manage. --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2014
It seems some people here do not agree with you, requests to be presented one by one. Maybe you should talk. I can write single requests, I can use the script for mass requests, but it would be strange if I'd do both at the same time. --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014
I didn't talk about any tooling, rather the process itself. It makes no sense to spread DRs that follow the same argumentation for the same subject over multiple pages. There are several reasons not to do so (maintenance overhead, looking up results later on, messages flooding ...). Poco2 21:44, 14 July 2014
Well, I would very much prefer a script that would streamline the whole process. Currently, the only way between the demands of no-flooding and less-than-8-edits-in-a-minute seems to be doing everything manually (filing the mass deletion request, writing on the authors' pages, etc) which really does not ease the recent changes' flooding problem much and is also quite tedious. If there is a better solution (not including "just go away and take your damn copyright with you"), I'd really like to hear it. --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014

Autorite õigused[edit]

Kas sa saaksid mulle palun selgitada, et kuidas aitab see kaasa autorite (st arhitektide) huvidele, kui nende projekteeritud hoonetest tehtud pilte ei lubata avalikult eksponeerida? Kruusamägi (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2014

I'd rather keep the discussion in English, so other admins can also understand it. In general, copyright gives an author a chance to benefit from his work, including other works based on it. In case of architecture, it might be that everyone publishing photos of buildings would pay a small royalty to the architect, which in time might (or might not) come up to a considerable sum (cf. the payments writers and translators receive on behalf of readers in libraries - not the main income for most writers, but when summed up over 5-10 years, much better than nothing). Now, some countries think this might be a relevant source of revenue, so they have protected this right. The other have thought the possible benefits of publicity outway the possible revenue, so they have waived the rights. (Keep in mind that although the income from selling the pictures of a house is highly theoretical, the benefits of having the pictures used by everyone for free - as compared to the benefits of having the same pictures in the books of architecture, catalogues, and newspapers where they are now - are also just hypothetical. No one has measured them, and I haven't heard about any definite case where some architect would have received an order just because someone saw a free picture of their work, not on the media or exhibition catalogue. If you can find at least one case, it could be used to promote FOP very well.) The authors of the current Estonian copyright laws have preferred the theoretical income to the theoretical publicity. We may like it or hate it, but that's the law we have. If you think a law is not beneficial for the society (or is outright silly and harmful), you can lobby for a change, start a petition, arrange demonstrations against it or write your own, better version, and present it to individual MPs. You can't change it on Commons, though, it has to be changed in the parliament first. --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2014
The only purpose of the copyright law could be to protect the authors. I am convinced that the current version harms the authors (by that I mean architects) far more than it does good for them (not to mention the overall impact to culture and economy). That is the reason I am interested to change the status quo.
You talk about examples, but with some few hand picked examples it is possible to show virtually everything (i.e. if a newly found drug works well in 99.9% of the cases, then we'll just need to pick few "examples" to show that it doesn't cure no-one). It's the broader context that matters. If I'd known that it would take some many years, then I would had used different methods.
I strongly believe, that instead of deleting, the work should be towards asking permissions. It has even happened, that with one object there was an official permission listed on a website, that I stumbled on only after asking from authors first. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2014
Well, you seem to be almost the only one on Estonian Wikipedia who has ever contacted the authors. Everybody else seems to ignore that option. I wouldn't also do it myself, due to several reasons, but that's definitely one way to solve the copyright infringement problems, yes. Unfortunately, the fact that it is possible to ask permission does not legally function as an actual permission. A change in the laws would make it all much easier, but with those things, you never know what and when might the actual results be - until they're delivered. --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of Estonian law[edit]

Hello, please explain how would Estonian law apply to files stored in United States servers. DJ Sturm (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2014

The general policy in Commons is that files must be legally usable both by U.S. laws and the laws of the country where the pictures were taken. (I suspect the reasoning behind this is at least twofold: first, WMF would not want to give people an easy way to argue that Wikipedians are knowingly breaking the laws of the countries they work in, acting like the American legal system would be the only one on the planet; second, most legal systems demand that Internet sites comply with the laws of the countries where their reader dwell, or the sites could be banned. But you really have to ask WMF lawyers about their motivation. The rules are just the way they are.) --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way: if you want to read more about the legal demands in Commons, you can start here: FOP#Uploading images covered under Freedom of Panorama to the Commons. "When uploading images subject to Freedom of Panorama provisions to the Commons, please tag them with the {{FOP}} template, which contains a legal disclaimer on the copyright status of the work, and sorts the image into a category of images subject to these provisions. If the country the image is taken in does not have these provisions, or only allows them for non-commercial purposes, they cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy and must be deleted." --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Also: Commons:Licensing policy says: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media
  • that are explicitly freely licensed, or
  • that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Think further[edit]

It's quite sure that in (near) future there is Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in Estonia. So almost all of your hard work is meaningless--Bioneer1 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible future laws are not valid today. Besides, your beliefs hardly influence the time or form in which the copyright laws would be established (there are quite different ways FOP has been implemented in different countries, with all kinds of special requirements and exceptions). People have tried to use the same argument on Commons before, e.g. in the context of Russia, and failed - "soon" does not mean much in politics. --Pildirüüstaja (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding File:Near Bronze Soldier.JPG[edit]

This image may have a copyright issue. (From what one understands, images used on user pages do not have to be educationally useful, but such images are subject to the Commons requirement that "only free content is allowed.") It is possible that the image could be cropped or otherwise adjusted to make the copyrighted elements incidental or de minimis, but it would still be useful to look into. --Gazebo (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)