Commons talk:Wiki Loves Public Art 2013

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Main page     Results     Countries     Timeline     Progress     Documentation     Tools     FAQ     Media     Contact     Translations     Survey     Discuss    

This is the right place for questions and discussions regarding Wiki Loves Public Art 2013. Another right place is the mailing list.

Start a new section by klicking here or help out with ongoing discussions.

"definitely" participating[edit]

Hi,

under the topic 'definitely participating' I see that there's a red link to the Netherlands. Who exactly are organizing that? I'm currently not aware of people planning this, and I didn't see it in the annual plan of Wikimedia Nederland. Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some email communication, it seems I was unaware of a pilot in December 2012 which will influence the go/nogo of the project. Curious for the outcomes and evaluation! Effeietsanders (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Panorama[edit]

Is it already clear whether this competition would be allowed under US law. As I understood it, a number of images have been deleted after a DMCA request to the WMF because they would be infringing rights of the sculptor. I don't know the details, but is there already clarity on this? Effeietsanders (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Given the recent DMCA takedown request, and the ongoing (somewhat stalled) RfC, I suggest that WLPA 2013 should be explicitly limited to public domain art. There seems little point in doing a contest to encourage people to upload images which will later need to be reviewed and possibly deleted. cmadler (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The US copyright for public art is only completely clear for statues published (publicly displayed) before 1923 -in which case there are no restrictions. See the discussion at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. For PA published between 1922 and 1978, there is at least a theoretical understanding, if there is no visible copyright symbol or notification, then there are no restrictions. The problem here is that we'd be requiring newbies to do a dance around the statue (which I do all the time and I'm sure looks very strange). They have to get right up close, look the statue up and down, while walking in a complete circle around it. Could we trust the newbies to do this on a mass scale? It does get a bit more difficult - I'd rather not be too specific here - but it comes down to "what do you mean by visible? When does it have to be visible?" Most of this is IMHO complete BS. "Visible" means "visible," as in "it can be seen." But confronting pushy lawyers via newbies, perhaps on a mass scale, would seem difficult. Smallbones (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for copyright symbol and registration only applies to US works. URAA restored the copyright of most non-US works that failed to comply with US copyright formalities, if the work was still copyrighted in the source country on the URAA date (usually 1/1/96). For example, a German work for which the artist was alive beyond 1943 got US copyright restored via URAA, and based on the recent FOP discussion, might need to be deleted from Commons. cmadler (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the U.S. specifics: If a team would like to organize WLPA in the U.S. then there would have to be limitations as pointed out above. But wouldn't it still be doable if we get our hands on a good database and a programmer that can sort out the artworks that are okay to take photos from the ones that isn't? What I am thinking is that (s)he could create a list for the contest with the artworks that are okay to take pictures of for the contest (such as w:List of artworks in Texas that are Public Domain). John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Effeietsanders tells the problem. Since the Office action by the Foundation I'm not longer willing to do something in this Area. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am very sorry for the late reply! I totally missed your questions here Effeietsanders.
All of the European countries that are currently participating in Wiki Loves Public Art all have Freedom of Panorama. The organizing teams in the different countries are adjusting what is included in their national contests depending on the details in the national law.
As I have understood the discussion we would have to take down any pictures that individual artists or interest organizations tells us to take down, i.e. we would simply have to follow that if we get the request. But if they don't ask/tells us to do that, we can keep pictures that are taken in a country with FoP.
I was in contact with the legal team regarding the logotype of the contest, so they know about the contest for sure, and they did not mention this as a problem. If you think that would be needed to double check this with them, I would love some suggestions how to formulate it in a good and clear way as my judicial English is a bit weak...
Cheers, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as waiting for copyright owners to issue take-down notices; the Precautionary Principle requires us to be proactive in removing known copyright violations. At the very least, all non-PD art uploaded under a Freedom of Panorama claim should be tagged with {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, warning that they might not be free in the US and might need to be deleted in the future. The RfC yielded clear consensus for using such a template. cmadler (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent the WMF legal team a few questions and asked them how they think we should act. John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if this is just a matter for the legal team - I feel that also there should be positive confirmation from the community side (although I wouldn't know how you would get that) that the images will not be deleted halfway the contest because in the US they would fall outside the scope of the Freedom of Panorama. Because as a contest organizer, that would be a nightmare scenario. Also, when images win a contest, the odds increase that the sculptor complains, because attention is drawn to it. I guess it would be suboptimal if the winning picture has to be deleted shortly after the announcement... Effeietsanders (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Suboptimal"...what an understatement! cmadler (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear everybody,

Thank you for your suggestions and thoughts regarding this! First I would like to say that I am sorry for the late reply. We needed to get some answers so that we could take an informed decision (and then there was also the Christmas holidays in between :).

In response to your comments and thoughts we have decided to widen the concept of "public art" in the contest to also include PD artworks in museums. I.e. this will be something of a mix of WLM (the outdoor artworks) and Wiki Loves Art. The term "public art" can, according to our article about the topic, also be applied to "include any art which is exhibited in a public space including publicly accessible buildings". The idea is that the artworks in a museum collection are both publicly accessible and often, but not always, publicly owned (i.e. owned by the state), hence this arguably fits within the "public art" theme, regardless if the piece is within a museum or outside (of course there might be museums that do not fit within "public", but that will be up to the national teams to identify). As this is a hypothetical "what if" discussion it will be up to the national teams if they want to limit themselves to public domain artworks or if they consider it worth taking the risk.

There will obviously have to be certain limitations regarding what museums/collections that can be included (so that the photographed artworks are PD). Hence, the artworks that will be part of the contest will still have to be based on datasets that we will need from the museums. In the end it will be the organizing teams that will be the ones to decide what museums and collections that will be included.

The potential risks that are mentioned here should at least be reduced when the focus is widened and more great PD artworks are included in the mix. Furthermore, WMF's legal team has informed me that these types of take down requests happen very rarely (a total of only 15 times in 2012 and 14 in 2011).

The community as a whole seems to have very dispersed views on what to do and from the discussions that we have read (and I believe that to be most of the discussions) we draw the conclusion that there as of now isn't a consensus for any mass-deletion. Hence, based on where the community discussions currently stand, and what the legal team answered us, we believe that limiting ourselves to only include PD artworks and conduct such self-censoring would not be a good option and would greatly reduce the value of this effort. This was also the view that was expressed by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team.

Regards,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLPA announcement on talk pages of WLM participants[edit]

Odder has agreed to put a notice saying WLPA has started on talkpages of WLM2012 participants in the countries/regions where it is easy to sort them out. So far he mentioned Sweden and Austria, but I guess Israel would be possible as well. I'm not sure about Barcelona and I don't know if putting it on all WML-es participants is a good idea. If I have done things right there should be a start at template:WLPA 2013 start to modify and translate.

/Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for Barcelona, I think it is appropiate to send a notice to participants in WLM-ES with some image of Catalonia. As there was a special prize for Catalonia we keep a record of all participants at ca:Viquiprojecte:Monuments/Estadístiques/2012/Catalunya#Dades per participant (in the collapsed box "Llista completa"). Flickr participants can be excluded and possibly those with only 1 photo. Let me know if this list should be formatted somehow. --V.Riullop (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vriullop's POV :)--Kippelboy (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLPA Barnstar[edit]

WLPA Barnstar

Using my non-existing graphics skillz I created a WLPA barnstar by putting the logo on top of this barnstar. If someone could make a better looking version of it I'd be very happy. But most of all, do award it to anyone that deserves it. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

translatewiki:Thread:Support/WLPA survey[edit]

Siebrand asks, "Is this [translation] request still current?" (please reply there or on #mediawiki-i18n IRC channel). --Nemo 22:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI LOVES PUBLIC ART project[edit]

Please I would like to know when the next WLPA will be held. I want to take lead in my country Ghana. --Kwameghana (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwameghana: Great to see that you want to run a WLPA in Ghana, and feel free to take the lead and either run a local contest only in Ghana, or do it bigger and try to get some more countries with you. With respect to the outcome of the trial and the current FoP status in Sweden no one at Wikimedia Sverige will take the lead in running another WLPA unless the law is changed here. Feel free to come back with questions if you are interested in running a WLPA, and we'll do our best to answer them. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Axel Pettersson (WMSE): Thank you for your response. How do I start? --Kwameghana (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Axel Pettersson (WMSE): (pings only work if you set a fresh signature.) Effeietsanders (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Public_Art_2013&oldid=368316386"