Commons:Bots/Requests/File Upload Bot (Kaldari)
< Commons:Bots | Requests
File Upload Bot (Kaldari)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Mass upload 3,381 images from the Wikipedia Loves Art project and tag with appropriate templates and categories.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic (all uploads will be manually reviewed afterwards)
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run
Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 10 uploads per minute
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming Language(s): Perl
Kaldari (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- See Special:Contributions/File_Upload_Bot_(Kaldari) for short test run results (9 files). Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uploads look Ok for me, but why do you use CC licenses instead of PD? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit complicated to explain. If we just used the PD-Art tag it would not be obvious that the photographer is also renouncing the copyright over their photo (which may or may not be valid, depending on what country and legal interpretations you apply). This is a significant issue in Britain, which was one of the locations for the contest. And unfortunately, Flickr does not give the photo uploaders the option of declaring their photographs to be public domain, so CC licensed is the best we can get. I created a new template {{PossiblyPD}} that is added by default to all of these images to address this rather confusing situation. It should also be mentioned that a significant percentage of the photos are of 3D works, and thus not automatically PD in the US (so the photographer's license is actually quite important). The possiblyPD tag will be removed from all of the 3D works when we do the manual review. (We will also be adding categories for genres and artists during the manual review.) Obviously the license tagging is not 100% ideal, but we put a lot of thought into it and this is the best solution we could come up with. Kaldari (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are free to choose PD for own photos of 2D public domain art (independently of FLickr). Applying Creative Commons license to public domain art is look like NPG :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the participants of Wikipedia Loves Art weren't Wikipedians, the event was for the general public. That's why all the uploads were to Flickr instead of Commons. Of course people are free to correct the license for their photos to just PD if they like, after they are on Commons. I understand what you mean about it being like the NPG's claims, but the difference is that it's a free license rather than a full copyright claim. Another difference is that many of these photos were actually uploaded from Britain by people subject to British law (where the legal situation is uncertain). We've made exceptions for this situation before. For example, many of the Bundesarchiv photos are theoretically public domain, but we only show that they are released under CC-by-sa by the archive. In short, there is no perfect solution to this problem until the laws are made clear. I'm sure many of the photos will eventually be retagged as PD-Art or PD-old, which is fine, but there's no reason for us to antagonize the museums right off the bat, especially when we don't have to since we have explicit free licenses to use for now. Hope that makes sense. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are free to choose PD for own photos of 2D public domain art (independently of FLickr). Applying Creative Commons license to public domain art is look like NPG :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit complicated to explain. If we just used the PD-Art tag it would not be obvious that the photographer is also renouncing the copyright over their photo (which may or may not be valid, depending on what country and legal interpretations you apply). This is a significant issue in Britain, which was one of the locations for the contest. And unfortunately, Flickr does not give the photo uploaders the option of declaring their photographs to be public domain, so CC licensed is the best we can get. I created a new template {{PossiblyPD}} that is added by default to all of these images to address this rather confusing situation. It should also be mentioned that a significant percentage of the photos are of 3D works, and thus not automatically PD in the US (so the photographer's license is actually quite important). The possiblyPD tag will be removed from all of the 3D works when we do the manual review. (We will also be adding categories for genres and artists during the manual review.) Obviously the license tagging is not 100% ideal, but we put a lot of thought into it and this is the best solution we could come up with. Kaldari (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. I would appreciate it if you could make a subpage of Commons:Batch uploading describing the whole process and progress so we can learn from you experiences. You might find some useful information there yourself. This page could also function as a central place for the discussion of this upload (instead of half a dozen talk pages scattered around Commons). Multichill (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I never knew that page existed. Guess I should poke around more :) Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've described the process at Commons:Batch_uploading. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)