This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just as a note to any stalkers, I'm back...ish, at least, I might be less active than usual for a little while. Still have a bit of personal drama (people that know me will understand). Revent (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Civility 'n stuff
Aloha! I didn't mean to throw a wrench in your gears. I could have asked you to have a peek, but it seemed a clear reason to block to me. So I just went over your head. Anyway, if you feel I went over the line, let me know. Best, --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Not al all. it's not in the explicit policy, but.. calling someone a bastard is clearly unacceptable in any kind of collegial context. A very short 'don't do that' block was quite reasonable. I saw it, but didn't hit the button since an admin had already responded with a warning. I have no complaints, tho. Revent (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Closing DNs
I have one dumb question, and I will reply where you pinged after work. Dumb Question: Are non-admins allowed to close DNs? thanks Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: What it actually says is "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it." It's not a massive explicit policy like at enwiki, but I think it's rather clear that a non-admin shouldn't be doing speedy closes of DRs that weren't just obvious gross errors (random text, or a rationale that's something like 'poop'), and should only do regular keep closes if they are obvious and just backlogged. There was a particular keep close (I don't have the link handy) with a rationale that basically just said 'the uploader usually speedies these' (it was a blank page image from the Internet Archive's Flickr feed). If something could be speedied, then closing a DR about it as keep is rather unhelpful, IMO. Revent (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know that there's no additional custom or circumstance beyond the "non-admins may.... if.... and... not controversial..." I have seen several closes that I thought were borderline, perhaps it would have been better to leave it for an admin. Thanks again! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Fair enough, but he's been blocked a long time on Commons, and has still been at least attempting to engage with deletion discussions through his talk. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the problem won't resume. From everything I have seen, the problem was copyright issues, not 'antisocial behavior'. If he complies with the restrictions he committed to then that will avoid the outstanding issue, because he won't be uploading anything that he hasn't asked for opinions on beforehand. If he uploads in violation of that restriction (I'm sure I'm not the only person watching) then it will be a very short unblock. This also gives him the opportunity to work on improving issues with his old uploads, which would definitely not be a bad thing, and which he has said that he is willing to do. I made it clear to him elsewhere that this is not a license to just start uploading large numbers of images again.
It's just User:Moonriddengirl does an enormous amount towards copyright protection on wikipedia and views Lightshow as one of the worst serial abusers of copyrighted images on the site. He was banned from uploading images on wikipedia and many people strongly supported the ban. To let him freely start uploading again given his track record is irresponsible. I dread to think how many hundreds of images are going to have to be deleted after he begins uploading again.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If he starts 'freely uploading again' (without the prior consultation he agreed to), he'll be reblocked. If he's not going to upload files that other people haven't looked at, there is no reason that I see why he can't edit outside of his talk page, to hopefully help with fixing the existing issues regarding documentation, or to reply at DRs. It's intended to be an extremely short leash. Revent (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #179
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Discussion has started on English WikiProject Football about using Wikidata for player squad templates (example) and player club history (example). Needs more input on best practices and commitment to update data.
You'll now get redirected to the mobile view automatically on mobile devices (example)
Made it possible to use more entities on a page via Lua without running into Lua's memory limit
Added the Article Placeholder extension’s results to the search result page (this is one of a few remaining blockers before we can put it on a testsystem for you to try out and give feedback)
Added option to create a new article from Article Placeholder
More work on the new datatype for properties
More work on making meaningful edit summaries on the client. Found a few remaining bugs during testing.
Hi, I believe User:Light show is not permitted to change files like he did to File:Star Trek William Shatner.JPGwithout prior approval. He uploaded a new version (which looked awful and like he was wearing eyeliner) without permission. Not sure if it warrants a block, but I think it's a very bad idea allowing him to upload images even with permission.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: I saw the change, actually, when I first sat down right now (I have his upload log bookmarked) and I agree with your revert... the modified version was not an improvement, and I probably would have reverted it myself. At the same time, it wasn't a 'new' upload, and so had nothing to do with the copyright issues that got him in trouble previously... it's not the kind of thing that would have caused any particular comment if it was done by another editor, unless the person decided to war about the change. I don't think I can really call it a violation of the terms of his unblock.
As far as the advisability of giving this a chance, you might just turn out to be correct, but I still think it was reasonable to give him the opportunity to work in a manner that avoids the previous issues. Time will tell, I think. Given the types of arguments he's making on his request page (which you might want to watch) I'm a bit dubious myself that he's not going to end up reblocked, and with his new uploads nuked on the grounds of the PRP, but that's easy enough to do if needed. He does, indeed, not seem to have gotten the point about what constitutes enough 'evidence of copyright' to rate exclusion under the PRP, but if this works out with us getting any new acceptable content then that's a net positive... we just need to make sure that his submissions get scrutinized. It's not my intent to allow him to get away with any kind of assumption of 'tacit approval' if people do not specifically object... he needs some kind of consensus that a particular work is either 'obviously okay' or 'probable enough' that it's acceptable. If people aren't willing to work with him on that (noone is obligated to, and he seems to have burned a lot of bridges) then he won't be uploading without a return of sanctions (and, most likely, a mass nuke of anything new). Revent (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Indeed, and I appreciate knowing that I'm not the only one. Don't think I'm discounting your concerns, because I'm not. It's my intention to watch closely, and the block button is handy. Revent (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Failed my notification - Repubic of Korea on Flickr
@Scoopfinder: No problem. I commented at a bit of length there, with a very 'ballpark' estimate of how many problematic files we might have because of this. I suspect we might need to actually blacklist that Flickr feed, for the sake of the PRP, and set up some kind of checklist page for reverifying all of these files. (very big sigh) Revent (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(further comment) I was really (and apparently, rather optimistically) hoping that the usable licensing on Flickr was correct, as well as my guess about the nature of the 'mistake'... apparently, I was a bit 'over-optimistic'. I was aware there were a lot of files from this source, and really hoping it was a case of 'multi-licensing' where the old license simply had not been removed. Revent (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Protection
Hi Revent, thank you for protecting {{Image generation}}. Unfortunately this locks me out from any future edits - and sooner or later some work will become necessary.
The template is too complicated that everybody can change it, the {{Esoteric}} plus/or some protection is advised. Either the protection level is reduced to allow access for established users; or it remains fully protected, and I will have to ask you for temporary unprotection when an edit is needed. So be aware that I will come again to your talk page when it is necessary! sarang♥사랑08:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sarang: No problem, you can also just poke COM:AN/P or user {{Edit request}} on it's talk page if needed. Someone had pointed it out at AN/P as a 'highly visible template', and with 15k+ transclusions it seemed like an obvious possible vandalism target. The concern isn't really that someone will 'break it', but that they might decide to make it say 'poop', or something equally dumb.
What might actually be 'easiest', in the future, is to just copy it to a 'sandbox' subpage, make changes there, and then poke an admin to update it. Just don't think it was actually intended to keep 'you' from working on it. Revent (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just as a further comment, it's IMO a nice template...helpful, and gives a cleaner display on file pages. Nice work. Revent (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #181
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
RE: File:1 Cecco di Pietro St John the Baptist, Petit Palais, Avignon.jpg (my error)
You're welcome, and it's okay. People make mistakes, and I don't mind fixing things. If I find any more problems, I'll fix them for you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Michaeldsuarez: Thanks. Yeah, I've literally run a few hundred different matches across that cleanup category, with different names, so I don't feel 'too' bad about occasionally messing up. :) Revent (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know this editor is blocked at en.Wikipedia for socking and creating hoax articles. I think it was Maggie Dennis who did the block - copyright problems as well, mainly copying within Wikipedia after being told numerous times to stop. Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks. Yeah, there is a obvious lack of getting what is acceptable and what isn't, but part of it least just seems like a matter of a lack of understanding (uploading NC images, and photos of 3-dimensional PD objects). If the problem persists here, then we'll be blocking soon as well, I think, on grounds of the PRP if nothing else. Revent (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kelly: Fixed, retrieved the information from the deleted page. Thanks for catching that, I noticed they were transferred from the same place on enwiki, and didn't catch that change. TBH, the file 'should' have been detected when you uploaded it... it was flagged as having an identical hash. I'd assume the change was made on enwiki between the two transfers. Revent (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking back at it, I see you had also flagged it as a dupe (I'd forgotten that about this particular file). That's not where I noticed it from, I was working on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles, which is populated automatically (and a huge backlog). Revent (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Question about the conditions of User:Light show's unblocking
Hello, Revent. :) In light of this conversation on English Wikipedia about User:Light Show's violation of his local ban on uploading images, I wanted to seek clarification on what may be a point of confusion for Light Show. As per [3], can you please verify if the review you request before uploading is meant to occur on Commons? We have been emphasizing to Light Show that the projects have separate administration and separate policies, but by that same token I should not assume your intent. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: (sigh) I thought he had been a bit 'suspiciously' quiet over here. I'll read the current conversation over there, and probably have more to say, but yes, his unblock here is to allow him to edit outside his talk page on the explicit condition that he not upload any new images here without the agreement of Commons editors, discussing the images on Commons, that he has established that they are in compliance with the Commons licensing policy. Essentially, he can work on his past mess as long as he lives in his own 'Commons' version of a FFU box. I already had to make it clear to him that he's not allowed to assume 'tacit' approval as long as nobody objects... he needs a clear agreement that an upload is okay. I don't care if he links people elsewhere to the conversations here, but it needs to be a discussion on Commons, assessing it against Commons policies, and it has nothing to do with his enwiki upload ban, at all. It was after I explained specifically that he needed specific, explicit approval that he grew silent.
I will say, however, that given the three images he asked about over here, he has apparently not gotten the point... he was still using 'generic' claims about some types of photos never being copyrighted, and trying to argue that a work was okay on the basis of a supposedly 'defective' notice. I suspect he was hoping that he could just start slipping things under the radar, throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping some stuck. It's not going to happen, and he's on an extremely short leash. He is only unblocked because if he complies with the terms he proposed in his unblock request (prior approval before uploading) then it is a reason to believe that the prior issue will be avoided, and it's possible that useful things will come out of it. Now, I'll go read the discussion on en. Revent (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses here and there. :) I agree with you that if he complies, it would eliminate the issues. However, his switching his focus to uploading without oversight on English Wikipedia is concerning. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: Yes, it is. I'm rather annoyed that he was apparently using his unblock over here (under conditions) as a 'license' to upload over there. He clearly knows better, and if I was active enough over there to really feel comfortable stating an opinion, I would definitely support your block of him for violating his ban. I'm not very optimistic, at this point, that this 'experiment' in rehabilitating him here is going to be successful, but it seems worth giving him at least the chance to fix some of his old crap. I suspect he'll be reblocked again before too long, tho.. a single new upload (other than things that are obviously unrelated to the issue, like the {{Own work}} cellphone landscape photo he uploaded) will suffice. Revent (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Rename
Hi Revent, i saw the comment with User:Steindy - because, the template says complete others like you (the german version ;-) -- otherwise I dont know the problem, because Steindy is a longtime user here, that I cannot understand that he me make make than onetime an error. - It's also of interest for me, what you mean. regards K@rl (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: I wasn't trying to 'yell at him' (and I agree, he's probably aware), I just dropped the note because I had specifically been deleting a number of duplicate files he uploaded not long ago. I suspect it was probably a simple mistake (the duplicates were uploaded not long after the originals) and my message was intended more as a reminder to be careful, and rename them instead.
And you cannot imagine,that is an error and not made on purpose. This can appeare if you upload a bigger amount like him. Unfortunately I cannot express in english correctly, what I think about this, without some problems. S I am silent more -- regards K@rl (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: Ich werde versuchen, die Übersetzung in Google, die vielleicht hilft. Ich habe nicht versucht zu "warnen" ihn war es nur als Erinnerung gedacht. Ich kann nicht lesen, wie die Vorlage in deutscher Sprache geschrieben, aber ich stimme zu, nachdem Wiederlesen es, dass die englische Formulierung sagt nicht, was ich meinte, sehr gut, und ich ließ ihn eine weitere Notiz in diesem Sinne. Ich entschuldige mich, wenn ich unhöflich war, war ich tatsächlich versucht, den übersetzten Nachricht verwenden, um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden. Hoffentlich Google ist nicht dieses zu viel Mangeln. Revent (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, google is also not okay :-), but for me it nouns unrespectfully, and now I note, that you did mean so and I accept the excuse. --regards from Austria - K@rl (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: DRs of images flagged as duplicate
Yes, probably i took the fast (and wrong way) to do it, instead of nominating each and every file (my bad). In my defense i can say we received 350 hi quality files and wanted to upĺoad them as fast as i can. But, anyway you're right in DR them instead of speedy. Thanks.--Zeroth (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd personally think so, yes. Such things typically get a response along the lines of "Why keep a low-quality image when we have a better one?" People just like to talk about it, lol. Revent (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you have made several mistakes closing that DR.
"Copyright, and licenses given to copyrighted works, apply to the actual 'works' themselves, not to specific reproductions of them." I agree with this. However.
"Merely reproducing an identical image at a higher resolution involves no creativity, and thus does not create a new copyright claim." Implies knowledge you don't have. We have a thumbnail and a high-resolution photograph. Are they the same work of copyright? You have no way of knowing they are "identical images" merely reproduced at different resolutions. See How do I know if a low-resolution photo and a high-resolution photo are the same work? from the CC FAQ. The answer there is "it depends". And fundamentally you have to know both images had the same "negative" or raw file. (In a photo shoot, it is not uncommon to have several highly similar frames captured). And then you need to know what amount of retouching and post processing has been applied to the image, and if that is the same for both. The images here are suspiciously similar (right down to the EXIF and IPTC data) but the point is that in general, if you find two random images on the internet at different resolutions, then you can't know they are the same work of copyright. This was discussed a while back when the whole resolution and CC debate occurred and it was felt best both morally and practically if Commons did not make assumptions about a high-resolution photo being covered by the same licence as a low-resolution photo. Perhaps this needs documented in policy.
"The same image is OGL licensed at www.gov.uk, as noted. The dispute about if the OGL is 'intended' to be applied to identifiable images is moot... the image 'was' licensed in that manner, and so is acceptable." A website designer/author cannot licence images owned by another (nor has the authority to licence images). I remember Annie Leibovitz's photo of astronaut Eileen Collins appearing on NASA's Flickr stream in a way that implied it was free (and got uploaded to Commons) but it most certainly wasn't, and was swiftly removed once the error was pointed out. All we can take from such a website is that this may be evidence the image is freely licensed, but it isn't authoritative. A web author making a mistake or being imprecise about licence terms doesn't have any legal authority to change the licence conditions of the image.
But if you examine the statement on gov.uk it says "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". So there's an important "except where otherwise stated". If we follow the link to Open Government Licence v3.0 we see a list of "Exemptions". One of these is "This licence does not cover personal data in the Information". And the UK Government licensing framework says "The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) defines UK law on the processing of data on identifiable living people and protects personal data. Photographs of identifiable individuals could be considered to be personal data under DPA. The UKGLF does notauthorise the re-use of any personal data.". So it seems fairly clear, if rather involved, that such images of identifiable living people are exempt from the OGL. Therefore the gov.uk website has not "licensed" the image at all. The fact that the Flickr photograph is CC BY-NC-ND is a strong indication that the government does not consider such images OGL. The MOD take the same view, using their own non-commercial licence for images of identifiable people.
Please review your closure of this deletion. It may help if we can get someone from gov.uk to join the dots for us and explicitly agree or disagree about the exemption clause applying (a) to images of identifiable living people in general and (b) to official images of government cabinet ministers in particular. But I can't currently think of any other way of interpreting their statements -- that this photo is exempt from OGL and that the high resolution copy we are hosting here is only available in a CC licence that is incompatible with Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: It is easily possible (the matter of a couple of minutes in GIMP) to rescale the high-resolution image and overlay it on the other. They are indeed identical... they also show identical colorcube analysis and histograms. It's not a matter of guessing, or mistaking similar images....they are indeed the same work, with no change in framing or color alteration. I specifically checked, which was not hard. The TOO in the UK is low, but it does not grant a new copyright claim on the basis of a purely 'mechanical' alteration.
The gov.uk site where the low-resolution image is locàted is not run by 'some web designer', it is maintained by the Government Digital Service, part of the Cabinet Office, it is the official photo of a cabinet minister, and has the same layout as the images of other cabinet ministers. The licensing on that website is more reliable than that on Flickr, which does not have the OGL as an option. A 'where otherwise noted' statement would, to a plain reading, imply that the non-OGL material would be clearly marked.
The part of the UK government licensing framework that you are misinterpreting is that it says photographs of identifiable individuals could be considered personal data, not that it 'always' is. The defense imagery.mod.UK website has many, many images of easily identifiable people (headshots, with the person's name stated) that are explictly licensed under the OGL. Looking at the relevant parts of the Data Protection Act makes it clear that if personal data is protected depends on why it was collected, and if the person consents. An official photo that was taken for the purpose of publication, with obvious consent, would not be protected data, and can be OGL licensed.
FYI, I did not ’randomly' close that particular DR, but was asked to do so, and consulted with another admin about my intended close. I would be happy to reconsider it if you were actually bringing up anything that I had not taken into account, but you are not. Hypothetical arguments about what should or should not be under the OGL, based on interpretations, hold less weight than the fact that is the identical image, other than scaling, as what is licensed on the official website. It is clear that such an image can be under the OGL, since it is often explictly done, and the image is not marked otherwise on that website as would be needed to exempt it from the blanket site license.
You can, of course, ask another admin to reopen the DR, and I will not personally object, but I think the image is quite clearly okay, and I would expect you to ask any such admin to read what I wrote here first. Revent (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You continue to claim that a website can licence an image. They can't. And it really doesn't mater who runs the website. Your interpretation of the Data Protection Act could well be correct, but is not the argument you made on closing. On closing you discarded the possible "identifiable living person" exception as moot because you claim the website have licensed the image. This is a fundamental error. There are exemptions and whether this image is included is subject to interpretation, but you should agree that if it is exempt then its presence on the gov.uk web site says absolutely nothing useful about its OGL status. I have asked the gov.uk website and the flickr user account for clarification. That it seems is the only authoritative source, and it is quite possible they may agree with you. Though then i would immediately ask them to release the flickr stream under CC BY-SA. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
A work can be published on a website under a particular license, by someone authorized to do so (in this case, an agency of the UK government), and it is then under that license. We obtain vast amounts of material in exactly that manner. What I meant was quite clear, and the idea that no such photo can be published under the OGL is simply factually incorrect, as many explict examples of such licensing can be easily located. Hypothetical arguments about how 'maybe' the image should not have been published under that license, based on the incorrect premise that such images cannot be, hold far less weight than it's actual publication under that license. Even if the image 'should not have been' published under that license, it still was, and you are unlikely to get a consensus for deletion based on the mere 'possibility' that the licensing was an error. Revent (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Even assuming the gov.uk website declares the work to be OGL (which is debatable since there are clear exclusions in the licence terms, which may apply) all you have is a declaration by a website. It's "evidence". It isn't a legally binding statement. Only the rightsholders (and those authorised on its behalf) can release works under a licence. A website author is most certainly not authorised to release works other than their own text. You seem to think that someone who writes the IDS webpage, because they work for (or a subcontracted to) the government agency, has such authority. The Government Digital Service seem a fairly cool bunch of developers/writers, but that's all they are. Publication is quite a separate activity from releasing an image under a licence. The fact that they may appear to be publishing an image "under a licence" simply means they believe they have the permission to use that licence and/or they believe others may use the licence. If the The Guardian were to publish one of my images and put their own photographer's credit on it and claim the newspaper owned the photo, that doesn't make is so. All we have here is degrees of evidence. We have a thumbnail on a website that declares a generally applicable licence which explicitly excludes "personal data", and a stated legal interpretation that says photographs such as this may be considered "personal data". And we have a full-sized image with an incompatible licence for Commons. That's the evidence. I'm willing to wait to see what replies I get to my emails, and open to the idea that the DPA does not apply to such publicity photos, but we really need more than some random Commons admin to make that assertion. The fact that some other images may be incorrectly published with OGL is just "evidence", not binding proof. If the OGL excludes such images, it isn't a matter of whether the image should or should not have been given that licence (and so tough luck on the government for making a mistake as you seem to imply) but rather than the licence legally doesn't apply. And without a licence, we have a copyright violation. Let's see what reply I get, but I'm concerned you are confusing evidence (which has varied degrees of reliability) with legal fact. -- Colin (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have a habit of misinterpreting what people say (and not just me) in whatever way puts them in the worst light, and to be frank I am not the only person who finds it offensive. I in no way said it is their 'tough luck' if there was a error...produce any evidence that the headshots on that website are not under the OGL, and this image (and I'm sure, a number of others) will quickly go away. Your assertions of what 'could' or 'might' be the case are not evidence, they are your guesses, they do not outweigh what evidence we do have, and a DR is not going to sit open forever merely because you have not been convinced yet, especially when I was specifically asked to close it by another admin (who agreed with my close). That the licensing framework says such photos 'could' be personal data clearly does not mean that the people who wrote it didn't know, it means that sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not....if such photos were always excluded, they would simply have said so. That is consistent with the explicit publication by the MOD of such 'headshot' photos under the OGL. Your 'theory' requires that we assume that multiple government agencies are consistently misapplying their own license.... that is within the realm of possibility, I guess (and images will be deleted if that turns out to be the case), but such an 'extraordinary' claim requires something more than your assertion. If you think my close was wrong, ask another admin to review it. If you come up with new evidence, open a new (and wider) DR. You do not 'win' a debate by simply refusing to get the point and arguing until the other person gets tired or annoyed. You might end up with the last say, but thàt just means they don't want to listen to you anymore. Revent (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You clearly stated that the terms of the OGL were "moot" since "the image 'was' licensed in that manner, and so is acceptable". This seems to me a very clear statement that the actions of a website author can "licence" an image, and in your view this overrides any concerns ("moot") about the applicability. Now, if in closing you had said that in your view the DPA does not restrict publicity photos from the OGL, then I'd be happier to accept your close as reasonable, regardless of whether I'm convinced. But in my view you closed it on unreasonable terms for an admin -- websites cannot licence images. They can just be used as evidence that an image has that licence. This is my main concern at present, that you think the terms of a licence can be considered insignificant. You might like to consider that what you wrote and what you thought are sometimes two different things, and I can only go on what you wrote. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a language issue, or what, but I still think what I said was clear. I'll state it again, though, as precisely as I can. A 'website' (which is not itself a 'legal entitity') cannot 'license' an image. It is, however, a means of 'publication', and if a copyright holder, or a agent authorized to act on the copyright holder's behalf, publishes a work on a website with a particular license indicated, then it is prima facie evidence that the work is indeed under that license. It is not my 'view' that the DPA does not restrict publicity photos from the OGL.... it is my 'view' that the DPA (and the licensing framework) says that 'some' (and probably, most) personally identifiable photos may be personal data that cannot be licensed under the OGL. It is not our place to make a 'legal interpretation' as to which photos can and cannot be licensed that way, we must instead rely on the decision of the relevant UK government agencies as to whether they 'are' or 'are not' going to apply the OGL to a specific work, and publishing the specific work (even on a website) under the OGL is sufficient evidence that the OGL applies to that work. 'Second guessing' about if the OGL should have been applied to a specific work, here, is not a reason for deletion, which is why the argument was moot... the work is in fact licensed under the OGL (which does not, in and of 'itself', say it is invalid for such images) according to the evidence we have at this time (it's publication on an official website, under the terms of that license) and if there was an error made in doing so, then once there is actual evidence that is was an error (such as an official communication, or the images being marked as non-OGL on the official website) then that would be grounds for deletion. Revent (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
We seem to be moving closer to agreement. However, I don't think the authors of those websites are "an agent authorized to act on the copyright holder's behalf". Merely working for government, or on behalf of government, doesn't give someone authority over all things. I would think they have another group (which is probably not public-facing) that arranges for photos to be taken, and deals with the contracts and licences of such works. The website author has a duty to ensure images they publish are suitably licensed, and we would hope they are fairly reliable in doing so. That is all, and why I regard such a website as "evidence" but do not believe the act of publication on that website causes it to be licensed with OGL (as your text seemed to imply). I think a remaining point of uncertainty is over the "except where otherwise stated" clause at the bottom of the gov.uk site. It isn't clear to me whether this means a webpage on that site would explicitly note the copyright deviation (in the caption of a photo perhaps), or whether they are referring to the exclusions embedded within the OGL, or both perhaps. If one takes the view that the exclusions in the OGL affect what is and is not OGL on the gov.uk website, then those exclusions are not "moot".
If you read COM:L, it says "Sometimes, authors are willing to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of a work under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version.". So our current policy is that the high-resolution non-free (CC NC-ND 2.0) image on Flickr cannot be uploaded to Commons, even if you believe it to be the same work-of-copyright as the cropped thumbnail on gov.uk. There is a reason why the Flickr stream is non-free and I've sent several mails to them to ask why those images can't be CC BY-SA instead. OGL is compatible with CC BY 4.0, and while it is a shame that Flickr only supports v2.0, I would hope the difference isn't an insurmountable problem for them. I would like Commons to get some clarity on this. We currently have at least two possible interpretations and don't believe your position is any more than a guess either. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The authors of the website are obviously 'authorized' to publish material on the behalf of the UK government, it's their job. They may not be 'authorized' to decide what can or cannot be published under the OGL (it appears not), but the idea that they published something under that license that they should not have is a mere guess...there is no evidence for it, and my close was based on the preponderance of the existing evidence (that the work was published under the OGL on an official website). A 'except where otherwise stated' clause , to any plain reading, implies that the exception will actually be stated, not that you will have to read through large amounts of material on other websites to guess that such an exception 'might' apply. As far as the section of COM:L, you have been repeatedly arguing that the concern is that the image might be protected personal data. If it was, under the DPA it could not have been published under the license on Flickr either... the licensing framework does not prohibit the publication of such data under the OGL, it "does not authorise the re-use of any personal data." A low-resolution image, and a high resolution one, are rather obviously 'personal' to the exact same degree... the logic behind that section of COM:L (protecting a copyright holder's interests) does not apply here, because the 'protected interest' (it being 'personal data') would apply equally to both. If we are moving 'closer to agreement', it is not because my position or opinion has changed, I've merely stated the same thing over and over in different words..... there is evidence that the work was published under the OGL, and the premise that it should not have been has no supporting evidence. The argument about if it 'should or not have been' is moot, because it 'was', and the OGL (as evidenced by the publication of such images explicitly marked with it) can be applied to such images, and so the license is 'valid', even if it was a mistake. The publication on Flickr is 'dual licensing' of the same work (probably because the OGL is not an option on Flickr, and so they conservatively chose a less permissive option there). The 'interest' of the copyright holder in protecting personal data is no more served by having the low-res version instead of the high-res version... it would apply equally to both, and making that argument now (after having consistently argued that we could not have the low-resolution version either) seems rather like grasping at straws. There is no evidence at this point that 'the work itself' was not simply published under two licenses, on two different websites, and the one under the direct control of the UK government is 'more reliable' than one where a third party (Flickr) determines what licenses can be applied. Unless you obtain some new evidence, you would be far better served by appealing this to the community than by making me say the same thing repeatedly. Revent (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(outdent)Ok, I think the thing you are not getting is that my position has never been a matter of whether the image should or should not have been published on the gov.uk website. And it hasn't ever been about the "intention" of the OGL towards identifiable images. It is whether or not the OGL explicitly excludes such images from its scope. The gov.uk website can publish images that are not OGL. The sentence at the bottom of the page, which mentions "except where otherwise stated" contains a direct link to a short webpage that clearly lists exclusions. This isn't "large amounts of material on other websites", and anyone reusing a licence absolutely needs to be familiar with the terms of that licence. If the licence can't be used for certain images, then it simply doesn't apply regardless of where one finds it on the web or who published it. That's why I disagree with your closing words.
The COM:L issue isn't "grasping at straws". It was my first issue I raised above, but I have now found the relevant part of policy that agrees with me. So under policy today, the high-resolution copy could be deleted: we have no legal assurance from anyone that this is regarded as the same work of copyright in all relevant jurisdictions. Our precautionary principle doesn't allow for "is likely to be". But the main purpose of that policy is to protect individual photographers and organisations who are using (incorrectly perhaps) multiple licences to protect commercially valuable high-quality versions of their work. I don't think the government is doing that here and would like to hope they can be persuaded to change their Flickr licence.
The restrictive choice of Flickr licence may not simply be because OGL isn't an option on Flickr (there's a CC BY option that is similar but at v2 rather than v4 which the OGL is compatible with). Having -NC prevents commercial use of an image of a person -- something the subject may have requested. It is similar to the position of stock agencies where they can't allow commercial use of an image without a model release. Having that Flickr stream with -NC means they may not need to ask everyone in the photos for permission.
Having said that, I have found some useful links. The gov.uk have a blog. They also have Guidance for images and videos and Guidance on copyright for images. It is clear to me from reading the blog that the multiple authors of these web pages need some very basic advice on licensing and publication, and are certainly not authorities or experts. They know about pensions and tax rules, not image licences. In the second link, section "Make sure all images are properly attributed" it strongly advises that images not covered by OGL are explicitly stated as such on the page. The section "Using images of people" does indicate that images of identifiable people are permitted, provided they have given written consent. It is a bit unclear about what such a consent form looks like, which is worrying as giving consent to appear on the gov.uk website in a thumbnail isn't quite the same as the consent required for Commons. But that's an issue for another day.
I hope you can see that I can change my position and am willing to accept when I've got things wrong. But we need solid evidence like the above links provide, not just wishful thinking and some guesswork. The fact that the high resolution image has only ever been published with a restrictive licence remains a concern, and I'd rather resolve that than see the image deleted. I hope an admin would take care to base closing statements on well-documented facts, rather than just declaring legitimate concerns "moot". -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
First, I want to make something explicitly clear, if it was not already.... I was not saying that such 'concerns' are a moot point... they are not, we always should care about copyright concerns. I was saying, explicitly, that the 'argument about it' was moot, since there was evidence that the work was published under the OGL, and there is ample evidence that such works 'can be' published under the OGL. It is not appropriate for us to 'second guess' the actions of a publisher... that the work (in low res) was published on an official website that indicates it is licensed under the OGL is a demonstrable fact, and exclusion indicated in the license terms, on the basis of actual evidence (other such images, explicitly licensed under the OGL) does not apply to all such images. While I did not find those specific blogs, my reading of the DPA gave the exact same indication....that such 'personal data' was not protected if the subject gave consent to publication. The licensing framework makes a similar 'conditional' assertion, that identifiable photographs 'could' be personal data... they are not, if consent was granted. We do not need 'proof' of such consent... the official publication under the OGL is a prima facie indication that such consent was granted. That is the evidence we have, and it renders the 'argument about it' moot... the low-res image was explicitly published under the OGL, which can be applied (under some circumstances) to such images.
My understanding of the 'legal situation', as regards to such consent (and the Flickr licensing) is that the status of such an image as personal data is 'absolute'... if it is protected personal data, it cannot be published by the UK government under 'any' license, and if it is not (due to consent) it can be published (as a work under Crown Copyright) under whatever license the government chooses to apply, or multiple licenses.
Regarding the low-res vs the high-res.... the relevant jurisdictions are the UK, and the US. As a first point, I hope you will acknowledge that the images are identical, other than scaling. Examination in GIMP makes this perfectly clear... they are the same image, with no changes to color or framing. In the US, the situation is perfectly clear... such a purely mechanical transformation is not creative, and grants no new copyright. In the UK, I have not seen a declaration of that principle that is as explicit as what you find in the US, but such a purely mechanical transformation seems to fall well under the threshold of originality... there is no 'original work' involved. Several other admins (on IRC) have agreed with that, and with my close. If you believe that UK law does indeed protect such a transformation under a new copyright, you need to either show some evidence to that effect, or seek a community consensus that I am incorrect. Such a consensus would affect many files other than this one.
The DR was overdue to be closed, it was growing stale. I closed it on the basis of the evidence that had been provided, the arguments that had been made, and my understanding of both the law and relevant policy (after being asked to do so). I also asked, and obtained, a second opinion on IRC before closing it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, or had issues with my phrasing, but it seems rather clear (unfortunately) that we have communication issues. I felt, and still feel, that I was being quite clear. You have not, to this point, provided any 'new evidence' that contradicts the closure as keep, your arguments seem to have been merely based on your interpretation of various documents. They are legitimate concerns, but they are not 'evidence', and do not outweigh what evidence we do have. A DR will not stay open forever merely because you have not yet been convinced, as I said before.
As far as the 'publication of different resolutions under different licenses' advice that is given to some photographers, it is, quite simply, very bad advice. Anyone seeking to do such a thing should be told, emphatically, to seek advice from a copyright lawyer. As stated by CC, the rules about such things vary between jurisdictions, and, in the US at least, to my understanding either version of the work would be usable under a CC license that was applied to the low-res version. The creator might be able to pursue a claim against a person that they actually 'distributed' the higher resolution version to, under contract law (i.e., you agreed to only use it under the terms of this particular license) but not under copyright law, since a US copyright applies to the 'work itself', not a particular 'version' of it, and CC licenses are 'universal' (i.e., offered to everyone without prior permission). Revent (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent, what is disappointing in this discussion is that I would expect an admin who closes DR to research and, when challenged, to supply evidence (either from external documents or from quoting policy) that their close was justified. And I'd expect everyone who is not a copyright lawyer to approach this topic with an open mind, some humility and to accept when they get things wrong or write things that false or demonstrated to be misleading. You can try to rationalise your closing statement if it makes you feel better, but it remains as faulty as it was when you stated it. I'm really not interested in hearing more justifications of it, as you aren't saying anything new. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that and move on.
You are misunderstanding the grey area of copyright wrt resolution. I don't think anyone doubts that taking a high resolution photo and applying a mechanical transform such as resizing or cropping fails to produce a different work of copyright. What is legally doubtful is that two random images on the internet can be shown, with legal certainty, to be the same work of copyright, without a statement to say that such a transform is all that has occurred. In fact, the thumbnail is cropped slightly compared to the Flickr photo, so I don't see how you can claim they have the same framing. I know from my own photography that merely holding down the button generates several shots that are nearly identical (with small pixel-level shifts in framing and tiny movements of the subject). Such shots would certainly at thumbnail level be absolutely indistinguishable. I also know the amount of retouching that goes into portrait photography and most such images are photoshopped to some degree (this one has). Such professional retouching may well generate copyrightable changes, but are likely to be invisible on a small and low-quality JPG. I do think it is highly likely that these two images are merely transformations of the same photo. I don't think we should be making that decision, though. This was investigated with Legal when the CC discussion occurred and like all legal people say, it is simply not possible to determine without going to court.
I don't think, in general, many users on Commons appreciate the legal risks they take when they upload other people's photos. Does anyone consult a lawyer? No. Far better for Commons users to be advised that when they find a higher-resolution or better quality photo that they believe is the same as Commons has in low-resolution, or is published elsewhere in low-resolution + free licence, that they contact the publisher or photographer to ask for the licence situation of that other photo to be clarified or re-stated. This could be done by amending the Flickr licence or through OTRS. If the publisher or photographer is unwilling to do this, then something smells and users should be extremely wary. There isn't really any better advice we can give people than that, because we are not lawyers and these uploaders are not our clients. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Colin, I usually agree with you, but here Revent is right. The image is licensed under OGL on the UK government website, and the fact that it is available on Flickr under another license doesn't change that, even if the resolution is higher. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I started to write something much longer, but changed my mind after Yann responded. I will simply say this... administrators are expected to apply their best judgment to the evidence that has been provided, their understanding of the law, and their understanding of Commons policies. They are also expected to be able to justify those positions. I believe that I have done so, at length, and you have indeed produced some evidence that justifies my original position (that such images can be under the OGL). If you believe that my position was incorrect, you should appeal it to the wider community, instead of simply arguing with me (and eventually resorting to expressions of your personal 'disappointment'). You seem quite unwilling (and this seems to be an ongoing issue) to ever admit that you are wrong in the opinion of the community... you instead resort to expressions of personal emotion (disappointment) and statements of what you would 'expect' that imply other editors believe the opposite, while holding just short of making the actual personal attack. This is far more harmful (IMO) to the level of discourse on Commons than someone getting upset in a particular discussion and making a blatant personal attack. I hope that you will consider this, and stop doing so. Revent (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent, I don't see how anyone can read this discussion (and DR and related postings on other noticeboards) and conclude I am unwilling to admit when I am wrong, to document when I learn some new fact that changes things, and even apologise if my comments have been unfair. My position on the OGL has, sadly, changed only as a result of my own efforts of investigation and the location of reliable sources. Having an admin repeat their personal unsourced opinion with different words again and again is rather unproductive and has merely extend this discussion. You seem unable to understand my point on several matters, including wrt your closing DR statement, so at this point it seems unproductive to repeat what you are still misunderstanding. Your rather weird assessment/advice seems to be based on some bad faith attitude towards me, and our quite unrelated differences of opinion on some matters, rather than reality. If you had backed up your DR, when challenged, with some facts based on citing policy or external authoritative websites, we might have reached agreement on some matters much sooner. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: I do not think you are unwilling to do what you have mentioned (admit that you are factually wrong, or document new information). I simply have the impression that you are not willing to acknowledge the judgement of others in some cases.... you seem to want arguments to drag on until you, personally, are convinced. In the case here, of the OGL, it was my judgement (and that of other admins that I had asked for second opinions on IRC) that there was ample evidence to believe that the image on www.uk.gov was under the OGL, and that there was no reason to believe (outside of speculation) that it was not....I explained my reasoning to you, told you that others had agreed when asked, and pointed out that you could ask the community for a broader consensus. You instead continued to argue about it until you, yourself, dug up evidence that convinced you. It's nice that you finally convinced yourself, but that's a bit beside the point... the point is that you seem to enjoy arguing at tiresome length, and resort to what I consider to be 'ad hominem' debating techniques that, while not actually personal attacks, are not particularly helpful. I in no way, at all, think you are acting in bad faith.... I have never seen any indication of that. I just think that "Colin is now convinced" is not the standard that admins are expected to apply. I also don't think that you telling people how disappointed you are in them, that you think their opinions are not helpful, or other such statements at all help with maintaining a collegial environment. Revent (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You know, there are lots of situations where people hold opinions that I disagree with partly or wholly and I don't even raise the issue, never mind argue endlessly on the subject. I am quite capable of getting along with people of differing opinions, and even respecting other opinions, so the fact that you've interacted with me on a couple of disputes doesn't really give you any idea of what my typical psychology is. It's all very well for you to keep mentioning off-wiki discussions but they are invisible to me (and I think the idea that Commons normal business should be discussed on a forum that lacks any public record and so is not linkable is one of the major problems with this site that most certainly does not help with "maintaining a collegial environment"). It takes two to have an argument and wrt it seeming "endless" I repeat that imo you should have backed up your opinion with evidence. After all, we are not discussing a matter of personal taste or moral judgement, say, but one of law and policy. Our policy on evidence it is absolutely the responsibility of those uploading or voting/closing keep to provide it. Is it unreasonable to expect an admin to know and cite policy, and on areas of copyright, to be able to back up their opinions with authoritative evidence? As for the discussion becoming "ad hominem", you might care to review your own comments and see when they have deviated from being an argument over copyright licences and become personal speculation and amateur psychological assessments of my character. I don't think your opinions are "not helpful", but merely restating them again and again as though I am a bit dim isn't really moving things on. Anyway, I'm also now guilty of repeating myself so let's move on. I do appreciate you making an effort here, even if your approach could have been a bit more constructive/evidence-based and a bit less purely defensive. -- Colin (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Revent (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
