User talk:OsmoseIt

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, OsmoseIt!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great videos, I've subscribed to your channels. What really got my attention was your video on acute myeloid leukemia. I've been watching all your videos since! Ralphw (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Ralphw Thanks so much! It means a lot! One day I hope we can translate the videos into other languages as well!OsmoseIt (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For more appropriate categorization

Please read: For_more appropriate categorization. Thus I recategorizate some of your files (i.e. File:Gallbladder adenocarcinoma.webm). --Jmarchn (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jmarchn Thanks for the tip and recategorizing some of our videos. I'll look into this.OsmoseIt (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jmarchn I've resolved this for all the newly added videos and it looks like the community has resolved all of the overcategorization of older videos. We'll restrict our categorizes going forward.

OK, I created a new category (Category:Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion) on recategorization File:Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone.webm. In this case, also I added a link to these category in Wikidata: syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion. For access easily to Wikidata you can click Wikidata item (below Tools) in the left menu bar of the article of the Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion. Then, in wikidata item you must add (I done already) in Other sites (bottom right) the commons category. A few minutes later you can see in the commons category page (after reload the page) several links (at bottom left) to different wikipedia articles. --Jmarchn (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hello, Great job and we appreciate these works in ar.wikipedia, if you wanna any help and wanna put any video in Arabic articles you can contact me here All respect for you, Ala'a Najjar (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

your welcome and really it is a fantastic work, yeah of course I'd, Just send me a message in my talk page in commons and the system will notify me All respect for you, Ala'a Najjar (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Lactose intolerance.webm

File:Lactose intolerance.webm 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!

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.webm

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.webm, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We need a url of the file by preference, otherwise we may need to get you to undertake Commons:OTRS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Arabic wikipedia

Hello, wish we can complete what we talked about before 1 year --Alaa :)..! 14:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	thank you , you are doing a GREAT job :) IsmailAZAZ (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis Attribution Requirements

Hi folks!

There is some concern regarding the attribution requirements of Osmosis videos, specifically, they require that the attribution in the first 2 seconds of the video, as well as the last 30 seconds of the video be maintained. They also require any modification made to the video to include a notice saying the new work is a derivative of the original work.

First, thanks so much for your thoughtful discussion around this. I personally find this topic very interesting, and it’s great to see how engaged the WikiMedia Community is with ensuring integrity of the licenses used on the site.

I do want to add some clarity to this issue. To start, the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license terms in Section 3(a) “Attribution” state that the licensee “must retain identification of the creator, copyright notice, and a hyperlink to the original material in any reasonable manner requested by the licensor.”

Osmosis attribution requirements can be considered “reasonable” because they mirror the Creative Commons Best Practices for attribution in video content, which specifically suggests including the identification of the creator and copyright notice in the video itself. Creative Commons also references this article as well as this PDF, both of which suggest including the video title, author, copyright notice in the video itself, and making the text clickable to the original work.

Wikimedia Commons has an official set of guidelines dedicated to explaining how they use materials from outside Wikimedia, and they specifically state “If the copyright holder has specified how [to provide attribution], be sure to follow this.” Moreover, the guidelines reference an essay about the credit line which specifically states “Some works might have specific instructions from the author on how they would like their work to be attributed. Those requests must be honored, as long as they fall within what is required by the license, and should be honored, if reasonable, otherwise.” In fact, other videos on Wikimedia Commons do have bumpers such as this video from the Gates Foundation.

Osmosis explicitly states the following: “For any video that was published under CC-BY-SA between December 01, 2016, and May 7, 2018 we require that you retain the front (first 2 seconds of the video) and back bumper (the last 30 seconds of the video). These bumpers have to be included in our videos, as they provide attribution to not only us, but also the authors of the Creative Commons material we used in our videos. If you want to modify our content, our Creative Commons license requires you to indicate that your content is a derivative of our content. If you want to take a screen capture from one of these videos, you must include an unobstructed watermark saying "Osmosis.org" in a corner of your choice within the image. This watermark must have 100% opacity, and be no smaller than a font size of 30 pt on an image resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels. Images of different resolutions must maintain the proportion of image to watermark.”

This means that Osmosis’s request to have their attribution within the video (as well as the attributions of the other creators in the credits) is well within their rights. Their request is also reasonable, as they’re following the best practice guidelines of Creative Commons, and of the Wikimedia community guidelines. Until very recently there’s never been a problem because the attribution remained in the video, but now that it’s beginning to be removed, I am posting notice that the license is being violated.

If any content from Osmosis is to remain on WikiMedia Commons, it must follow the attribution requirements. Alternatively, there has been a suggestion to remove Osmosis content entirely off WikiMedia Commons, and I think that’s also a reasonable option.

For now, what I am going to do is make sure it’s easier for people to know what the license requirements of Osmosis videos are by including “Please attribute by retaining the initial logo and closing credits. See https://help.osmosis.org/faqs/how-can-i-attribute-reuse-or-share-osmosis-videos for additional details” in the source section of each video file.

Thanks again for your continuing passion and dedication to the Wikimedia community. I’m looking forward to continuing to work with this community :) OsmoseIt (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OsmoseIt, it is fine for you to request forms of attribution with the words "please". What you cannot do, and you should get legal advice on this, is use the words "must" and "require". The various guidelines you cite, from CC or Commons are just that, guidelines, and do not form either a legal contract nor legal advice. Commons generally errs on the side of suggesting users do not place themselves under any legal risk whatsoever. Additionally Commons:Watermarks states 'The DMCA makes it illegal to "intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information [...] having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title", without permission from the copyright holder'. This can only be determined by a US judge, hence the general advice against removing embedded credit. This is only advice, not policy, and your only means of removing such edited videos from Commons is to make a legal request to WMF to takedown media you believe infringes your copyright. The files were uploaded to Commons in good faith with a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, and the community is very likely to hold you to that.

Wrt what is "reasonable" I'm sorry but the CC "best practice" documents do not state what you claim they do, and nor do they have any legal weight. What is "reasonable" can only be determined by a judge, and I'm afraid they will tend to side with the accused rather than with yourselves. If a reasonable person considers it OK to attribute a video on the file description page on Commons, rather than retain end-credits and advertising title pages, then a judge will not be sympathetic to your argument. I am not a lawyer. Please seek professional legal advice. Similarly, your novel requirements for 100% opacity watermarks on any frames captured from the videos will likely be met with ridicule by any judge, and indeed your lawyer, who will remind you about the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. Your claim "I am posting notice that the license is being violated" appears to be a legal threat. I can only repeat my suggestion you seek legal advice and contact WMF before proceeding any further. -- Colin (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said over on en.wp:

IANL and all however a plain reading of CC-BY-SA-4.0 does not say there is requirement to maintain attribution within the adapted work. Section 3.a.1. is the 'retain reasonable attribution' clause. Section 3.2 says ("You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."^{[2](emp mine)}) I see nothing in the license which allows the grantor to specify the format of the attribution. There is some expository material relating to the 3.0 license at [3] (I do not see anything in 4.0 which would differ ) where it says:

To sum up, the license foresees three provisions: “requested attribution,” “unwanted attribution,” and “non endorsement.” “Requested attribution” allows the Licensor to require from the Licensee a particular way to attribute the work by citing:

- The name of the author, Licensor, or any applicable party

- The title of the work

- The source URL of the work

- For derivatives, a credit identifying the original author, the use of the original work and changes which have been made.

Note, the license specifies the content of attribution and the 'manner' term seems to refer to the manner of referring to the author ie "Mister Pseudonym" vs "John Smith" vs "John 'The Super Dude' Smith" not the manner of display. As near as I can tell they may ask that the bumpers may be retained but they may not require it. I am pretty confident in this reading because the bumpers are integral to the licensed work and CC-BY-SA allows modification of that work. Specifying the format of attribution would, in effect, be adding a requirement which would prevent the reuse/adaptation/remixing of the material as envisioned by the license that could make reuse impossible ie requiring 30 seconds of attribution for one frame used as a still.

Further, Creative Commons specifically addresses a licensor's ability to specify the placement of attribution here. Where it says

"Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit? No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the medium, means, and context in which a licensee is redistributing licensed material. For example, providing attribution to the creator when using licensed material in a blog post may be different than doing so in a video remix. This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees and reduces uncertainty about different types of reuse—minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded."

Even if there were some basis within the license for your requirements, Osmosis released these videos under CC-BY-SA-4.0 with no special attribution requests when they were uploaded to Commons. That grant is irrevocable and, as I understand it, you may not later go back and change that grant or add additional restrictions. You may, of course, release any new material under whatever terms you wish but what is out there, is out there. If you wish to make an issue of it, my recommendation would be for all of your videos to be deleted from Commons because they do not meet the free use requirement for being hosted here. I firmly believe it is in no one's interest to debate the meaning of CC-BY-SA-4.0 with you here. Feel free to bring the matter up at Commons:Village pump/Copyright to get input from the people who deal with such matters on a day to day basis. Jbh ^Talk 23:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Osmosis Inc wants to specify place and manner of attribution for CC-BY-SA-4.0 videos. Jbh ^Talk 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A request

As these videos have become contentious, please don't do anything to change the attribution on file pages until there is community consensus about how to proceed.

Your company added a new FAQ page on or around 11 May 2018. At first it sought to add a new requirement to videos released "between May 3rd, 2017, and May 7, 2018". A few hours later, it changed those dates to "between December 01, 2016, and May 7, 2018". Now you're adding a new request to all your videos, including File:Chronic bronchitis.webm, [4] which was uploaded in October 2016. Although you're adding this in the form of a request, you're linking to a document that phrases it as a requirement and that doesn't apply to October 2016.

The whole thing has become a bit of a mess, and it needs informed community input before you do anything else. The best thing would be for you to take part in the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Osmosis Inc wants to specify place and manner of attribution for CC-BY-SA-4.0 videos, and we can try to ping some people for advice about how to proceed. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

AN/U

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:OsmoseIt adding additional restrictions to CC BY-SA 4.0 licence via external site

I have requested some adminstrator assistance wrt the edits you made to the video pages. -- Colin (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Would you care to comment there please? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Serious concern

I am concerned about the poor quality in relation to the content of (at least part of) the videos that this user has uploaded.

There are very serious problems, with erroneous, inaccurate and outdated information. (At least a part of) videos instead of informing, they misinform.

It is also very worrying the lack of interest of this user in correcting these errors. He is simply ignoring the multiple warning messages.

He has even dared to qualify as "my opinions" the information I have provided, supported by current references of unquestionable verifiability, giving more value to the information that an assistant professor of Dentistry Pathology prepared for a video about a digestive / systemic disease. See here and follow the links: [5] --BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐ File:Malaria.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

FV Promotion

★ This file has been promoted to Featured media! ★ The file File:Cocaine dependence.webm, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest file on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Cocaine dependence.webm. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FVCBot (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐ File:Cocaine dependence.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ventricular fibrillation video.webm was nominated for MOTD

Your file has been nominated for a Media of the Day.

Your contribution to this project has been noticed. A file Ventricular fibrillation video.webm, which was uploaded by you, has been nominated to be displayed on the Main Page of this project as a Media of the Day. You can view this and other nominations at Commons talk:Media of the day. It is always a good idea to let other contributors know when you think your file would look good as a featured media file, provide descriptions in different languages, and perhaps spread the joy by nominating media of other uploaders, that you believe deserve that. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Breastfeeding.webm

File:Breastfeeding.webm 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!

Clayoquot (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)