Wikiversity talk:Licensing policy

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

See also Exemption Doctrine Policy


Contents

[edit] Discussion

One way or another we need to implement this. Do we want and/or need a local EDP? Do we encourage everyone to upload to commons instead of locally? How do we deal with non-free images or images missing license info that are already here? --mikeu talk 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

support: all files to commons, disable file upload here (probably this will go only over longterm).
That will solve some of the administering problems, but as you said already shift more problems to the user and will be of disadvantage to her.
To shift responsibility: an option could be to delete the "bad" files and let the user prove that they are acceptable.
EDP: well we could adopt at first one from meta, but that would count only after importing/creation date or ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 01:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Forcing uploads on commons will require each user to have a login there. (Unified login might take some time.) If we disable uploads we then could not have any fair use images on wv at all. I don't think there is an example of an EDP at meta, but we could adopt one from wp or wb and customize. A new EDP would apply to all files uploaded in the past. The EDP is strict. Each image must justify the use of it in each particular page. --mikeu talk 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would always encourage uploading to Commons wherever possible, to maximise reuse. However, I would not recommend disabling local uploading - I think we need to have some leverage over fair use and/or file formats not permitted on Commons. Files with unclear or unsatisfactory licence details should be flagged, and their uploader notified (by email if possible, and with a reasonable time frame for action-taking). Cormaggio talk 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We have already done a bot run to flag images without license info. We have hundreds of images where uploaders have not provided the required info. (see example ) We have already missed the deadline for dealing with this: "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." We now need to get down to some specifics. What is a "reasonable time frame for action-taking" for instance? (there are images that have been tagged [1] since last Sept. with no response from uploaders [2]. Are you suggesting we send hundreds of emails? That might not be a bad idea, since it will also get people back to look around. I would prefer to automate this in some way.) I propose that we announce that there will be a bot run in two week to remove images tagged before Jan. 1st that are not linked from any pages. --mikeu talk 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks for shining the mirror in my face. ;-) (I emailed the site to ask whether I could use that screenshot - I presume whoever got the mail didn't feel competent to answer and so didn't bother replying.) I'm aware of the resolution, but I just think we never gave ourselves enough time to deal with it properly, so I wouldn't fret over the missed deadline. I would say a reasonable course of action is to email all possible uploaders (and wiki-notify all others), saying that they must specify a licence, or disclose where the image comes from in order to request permission to relicence - and that this process must be started by at most one month (?) of this notification. (Though I'm aware a lot of people have been notified via Mike.lifeguard's bot.) Automation would be great - but can anyone actually help with this? I think your proposal for unused images seems fine. Cormaggio talk 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally I agree with Cormaggio and Mikeu. We should not disable local uploading, but on the other hand, local uploading must not get into such a state that it wastes valuable sysop time. A compromise solution might be to suspend local uploading until we have the human resources (or digital resources - bots) to cope with it. At the moment, I'd say our human resources are most needed elsewhere, such as with creating tutorials for general use of WV and MW. --McCormack 04:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] screenshots

Here are some of our templates and categories related to screenshots. I just included sub-categories in the top level one. We should probably phase out Template:Software-screenshot and instead use Template:Non-free software screenshot which requires a fair use rationale, and stick it in the missing category.

We have a number of images (see example) that are likely not covered by the fair use EDP.

--mikeu talk 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity screenshots

I just noticed a few images such as Image:New main page draft layout 0.5 - proposal2.jpg that probably need a different template for the license. We do have Template:Wikiversity-screenshot (and Category:Wikiversity screenshots) but the Wikiversity-screenshot template does not mention the copyright of wikimedia logos that is included in Template:CopyrightByWikimedia. Also, who is the "author" of a screenshot? I just noticed that wv screenshot should probably not be in the same category as "software" screenshots? --mikeu talk 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm beginning to think that Template:CopyrightByWikimedia might be the one we should have on screenshots. That seems to be what commons and other projects are using, but it is not consistent. We should have a category for WV screenshots. --mikeu talk 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
See license info at Image:Wikipedia template screenshot.JPG. --mikeu talk 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] media policy at wb

FYI, there is a newly adopted policy at wikibooks on licensing, fair use, and other issues related to media files. We might want to look at examples like this as we develop our own policies here. --mikeu talk 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Licensing_policy"
Personal tools