User talk:Krassotkin/Archive/2016 Voice of America

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.


VoA

Hi,

In 2013, Voice of America, now independant from US government, changed the license. Published media are with A NC clause.

So only medias from Voice of America < 2013 could be uploaded to Commons.

The template states "this template is valid only for material published before June 2013. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA.". --Dereckson (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files:

--sasha (krassotkin) 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
This is not coherent among language versions:
The template you put states: "See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Note also that there are conflicting statements on several of the language web sites, but that the Terms of Use on the parent site, www.voanews.com, very clearly state that the NC policy extends to all of the VOA sites.".
When there are contradictory statements between language versions, we should consider the most recent and restrictive ones, by Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.
--Dereckson (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It is clear that VOA has created a confusing situation by not conforming all of the local sites to its worldwide policy. It is equally clear what the world-wide policy is and that we cannot rely on any of the statements on the local sites to keep images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comments. But that's just our opinion. I sent them a formal request. It is strange that no one has done this before. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For information, I still have this answer only: "We will clarify the policy and get back to you shortly. I need to get in touch with the department that handles such policies" (2016-02-29). --sasha (krassotkin) 07:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dereckson, @Jameslwoodward, @INeverCry, @NickK and all interested (invite, please).

After extensive correspondence I have this response:

Dear Mr. Krassotkin,


There are no barriers in linking to VOA content, or citing our material with credit. If the Wikimedia Foundation has additional questions for whatever reason, we can arrange for additional discussions with our marketing/licensing departments. Material produced solely by VOA is governed under the following statutes: https://www.gpo.gov/help/public_domain_copyright_notice.htm


Please be aware that a portion of the material on our sites comes from third parties and does not fall under Title 17, Section 105. That distinction is laid out in our Terms of Service, available here. http://www.voanews.com/info/terms_of_use_privacy_policy/1363.html Such material may not be republished without permission of the copyright owner.


Best,

Scot Riddlesberger



Scot Riddlesberger

Acting Director, Public Relations

Rm. 3453

330 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C., 20237

voanews.com/insidevoa.com

I can send this response to OTRS. We must change our mind (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA) and restore all deleted images. At least it concerns language projects of VOA with valid Public Domain license, as I wrote above. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think OTRS is the next step indeed, if they accept it they could restore the files themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that this changes anything. The main VOA Web site is very clear that VOA material is NC. I don't think we can rely on an opinion of a non-officer staff member that contradicts the Web site. I suspect strongly that the writer does not understand that Commons requires that material be free for all use, including commercial use -- he is thinking only of WP as an educational use.
In order to reverse our stand on VOA, I think that we need a message from an officer of VOA, ideally the General Counsel, that very explicitly deals with the NC clause on the main Web site and the contradictions on several of the individual language sites. Also, by our rules such messages must go directly to OTRS from the source -- forwarding is not generally permitted.
I have taken ownership of the two OTRS tickets and put them on hold until we get a resolution of the differences here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It directly contradicts VOA's stated policy on its Web site. If I had received that answer, I would have written back and asked why the response differed from the stated policy.
In order to change our policy, I think you need to ask questions such as the following:
"Mr. Riddlesberger:
At http://www.voanews.com/info/terms_of_use_privacy_policy/1363.html it says
"The content appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may download the downloadable content items appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites for your personal use only."
Your e-mail contradicts that. Since WMF projects require that all media by free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works, we need a very clear statement that the VOA Web site is wrong.
Later on the same page, it defines "VOA News and Information Websites":
"This website, all websites linked in the ‘Sites by Language’ tab at the top of this page, as well as all news, information, and features available on these websites (collectively, “VOA News and Information Websites”)..."
That makes it clear that the non-commercial policy cited above applies to all of your Web sites worldwide. Notwithstanding that, many of your foreign language sites (including at least the Russian, Turkish, and Chinese) say that their material is free for all uses. If WMF is to reuse your material from those sites we need clarification of that as well.
Yours truly,
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Jim: Heh... Yes, I agree. I originally asked these questions ("including at least the Russian, Ukrainian and Turkish" with quotations and references to the differences in the policies:). Initially, I asked these questions to the local sites (ru, uk, tr). Then they translated my letters and sent its to the main office. Now it turns out that I am asking the same thing. :) Therefore it will be good idea if you to ask them directly. You and any interested can send me your e-mail addresses publicly here or privately and I connect you to our discussion with VOA. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: What is your decision? This is urgent issue. We have a lot of problems in Wikimedia Projects due to the lack of a clear outcome on Commons. Now, everything depends only on you. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not at all up to me -- it is up those who believe images should be kept to prove beyond a significant doubt that they are freely licensed. Also, I firmly believe that Commons jobs that can be done by non-Administrators should be done by non-Administrators, leaving active Administrators to do the work that only they can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: I did everything. I asked the right questions (similar to your) and got answers. I can send you my original letters to verify this, but they are in Russian and Ukrainian. Now I have a clear and unequivocal answer from the copyright holder. But you continue to insist on your position. Above I wrote why is it wrong initially. You ignore my arguments and the official response from the copyright holder. You do not want to ask questions directly. You also have blocked the possibility of addressing this issue by anyone else. I do not know what to do. Sorry :( --sasha (krassotkin) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: Thank you for your direct request to VOA. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jim: There are also ways to proof the integrity of forwarded messages, for example by forwarding the raw eml file which often contains a w:DKIM signature from the source mail server (voasomething.com in our case). Does OTRS accept more 'technical' proofs like such? This is roughly as technical as using GnuPG in w:Template:User committed identity. --Arthur2e5 Crap·Toy 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoria2e5 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The VOA has not responded to me either. The acknowledged my request, never got back to me. The VOA images have to be deleted. Not public domain. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • For information:
    • Mr. Riddlesberger has not responded to our emails since 2 March. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I started all over again and was tied up with Mr. Kligerman from Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Perhaps this is the information about him: 1, 2. He said: "Thank you for staying on top of this issue. We have located the proper persons to meet and address your follow up questions. I fully expect that we respond with the answer that you seek next week". I gave him the questions of Jim. And Mr. Kligerman also stopped to answer questions. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I still hope to resolve this issue and I am working on it. If someone is willing to help I recommend to contact with BBG (about), US Department of State (contact) and US politicians. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure if anyone have noticed this but the wording regarding "noncommercial use" was quietly removed on VOA's TERMS OF USE/PRIVACY POLICY page between Mar 30 and Apr 5, according to the Wayback Machine ([1][2]). --Wcam (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Interesting, thank you! But now the English site has no indication of the license... and therefore it has a strict copyright. :( --sasha (krassotkin) 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: BBG (owner of VOA) have project BBG Direct. See Terms Of Use >> Copyright Statement: "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain". Now the Terms of Use/Privacy Policy >> PERMISSIONS of VOA contains the direct links to BBG Direct and not contains any license restrictions. Besides Russian VOA redesigned site and save statement about PD-license: "Все тексты, а также аудио- и видеоматериалы, публикуемые на сайте и произведенные сотрудниками компании «Голос Америки» являются общественным достоянием" (the same than before "All original ..."). This is all done after our abundant communication with them. Thus they knowingly claim that license their content under public domain. Our speculative conclusions have no any basis now. We lose a lot of opportunities because of a wrong decision. How can we revise it? --sasha (krassotkin) 06:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That appears to be a clear and satisfactory statement that we can rely upon -- finally! .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jim: Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad to hear this. How can we better do next? How do we inform other users? How can we restore deleted files? --sasha (krassotkin) 05:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you should post an UnDR, naming the files deleted and pinging everyone who commented above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


File:RD-180.jpg

File:RD-180.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dereckson (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krassotkin/Archive/2016_Voice_of_America&oldid=206416981"