Commons:Bots/Requests/WMPL GLAM Bot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WMPL GLAM Bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Yarl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: file upload

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): when requested

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): hard to say, depends on file size

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Java, custom softwate for each upload, here's first one

Yarl ✉ 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Did the original author release these under the CC license? Or is the GLAM somehow claiming copyright and authority to license? --99of9 (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @99of9: These files are under CC license, see footer. Yarl ✉ 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Yarl: the footer CC appears to apply to "design and implementation" (as opposed to the picture) if my google translate is correct. But you haven't actually answered my question - assuming you are correct about CC, who assigned the license? --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @99of9: : They (Józef Burszta Digital Archives), take a look at this page, Google Translate is good enough to understand. Yarl ✉ 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Yarl: So as I understand it, the photographer Andrzej Brencz donated a hard copy or photonegative to Józef Burszta (or the archive bearing his name), and it was later scanned and digitized in 2014? Usually a donation like that does not transfer copyright (but in some cases it is part of the contract). Is there evidence somewhere that this copyright was transferred at the time of donation, to entitle JBDA to release it under a free license? --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @99of9: : All photos are taken by employees and doctoral students of Adam Mickiewicz University during academic research, so their work is owned by university. JBDA is part of university archives, so situation is clear. More information about project is here (in Polish). Yarl ✉ 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Yarl: At my university, and most others I know, students retain the intellectual property over all of their work. Just giving a copy to the archives does not invalidate that. So the situation at JBDA is very unclear to me. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • @99of9: From what I know, everything is legally OK. They will send, however, clarification to OTRS. Yarl ✉ 22:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, please pass on to them the specific concern about whether they own the intellectual property behind the photograph, not just a hard copy of the photograph itself. That's what will determine whether they should assert that they are the copyright owner. --99of9 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have bots with multiple operators for pragmatic reasons of maintenance and it is unusual to have a single bot account for indefinite multiple programmes of a Chapter; in fact I think this would be the first one on Commons based on User:Fæ/Userlist#bots, though one may be a less active account.
Other bots devoted to uploads are more often either associated with one operator or a single programme/archive for a donating organization. In this way there is long term accountability and there is more likely to be consistency in approach along with persistent improvement. I am also concerned that having "official Chapter bots" may discourage volunteers who do similar projects in the same country as the Chapter from working on their own "non-Chapter" bots as they might feel they need the Chapter's permission or be obliged to use the group account so that the Chapter gets political credit for future funding applications.
Would it damage anything if the scope of this bot were changed so that it became more specific than being potentially operated by anyone associated with a WMPL project? --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, so since some time we have official paid GLAM coordinator in WMPL and my task, as a volounteer, is to upload obtained data. I don't want to do it using private bot (YarluFileBot), because it doesn't look professional in my opinion. I also don't want to take attribution, because most of work on upload (meetings, agreements) is done by WMPL employee. Regarding your concerns about bot ownage: I will own this account, no plans to change it. Yarl ✉ 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding legal issues: The archive has agreements with authors or their heirs to submit works on CC BY-SA 3.0 or later. They have submitted samples of such agreements. They also sent to OTRS their own agreement with complete list of files for which it is applicable. See (those who have access): [1]. Polimerek (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Polimerek: What the ticket confirms exactly? I don't speak this language, but i can't find something like CC-BY in the ticket. Does not looks like COM:CONSENT for me. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All documents (signed scans) are in pdf-s or zipped files attached to the E-mails. Agreement is in first and last E-mail (OTRS_UAM.pdf), the lists of works are attached in zipped files in the last E-mail. What do you want more? Polimerek (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Polimerek: I have overlooked the attachment, it never hurts to ask :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "The archive has agreements with authors or their heirs to submit works on CC BY-SA 3.0", where did you get that information from, is it in one of the documents? Also, "They have submitted samples of such agreements." which zip file has a sample agreement in it? (I also don't speak Polish, so it is hard for me to locate this.) --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zip files contains only list of files and objects with information who was author and/or donator, however they sent me directly several samples of agreements with authors and their heirs. They contain a clause that they grant copyrights to the University archive under condition that archive will publish it under CC BY-SA 3.0 PL license. The archive already did it already on their own page. Our GLAM coordinator have seen all these agreements in real. Agreements between Archive and authors/heirs cannot be made public as they contain personal data (home addresses etc.) and some donators (heirs of the authors) prefer to stay anonymous. Polimerek (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9: To clarify: WMPL was provided by JBDA with 1. The standard localised Polish consent statement (in the OTRS_UAM.pdf file) 2. Zip files mentioned by Polimerek: For each creator of images, an individual list of files released on a BY-SA license (for example, see file named "Linette Bogusław" for a 34-page-long list of images to which the BY-SA license and OTRS agreement applies); and 3. Scans of standardised license agreements the Adam Mickiewicz University (parent institution of the JBDA) had signed with listed image creators or their inheritors (one sample for creator agreement, another for inheritor agreement) fulfilling all the CC-BY-SA 3.0 PL and compatible license requirements. These have been sent for verification to Polimerek, an OTRS pl operator - and have been successfully verified (I am not an OTRS operator, but being the "WMPL employee" mentioned by Yarl I've been communicating with JBDA and have also laid eyes on this paperwork). So we've got a full set of JBDA permissions, as Polimerek stated above. --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS template should be used on the file description page. Apart from that, i have no further concerns. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yarl: Can you setup a custom license template that describes or lists the released images as best as possible, and use that with the uploads? See Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission for examples. --Krd 17:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yarl:  ? --Krd 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Sorry, for no response. This upload was already done using BursztaBot (bot request). I feel that there is no will to push this request forward, so I suggest to close/archive it. Yarl ✉ 07:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as withdrawn per above. --Krd 17:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bots/Requests/WMPL_GLAM_Bot&oldid=165387147"