User talk:Revent/Archive 7

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

Photos of packaging/products

Hi Revent. Not too long ago, there was an interesting discussion of photos of product packaging, etc. at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/02#File:Dr Pepper bottle.JPG. I am wondering what you think about File:Bandera Uruguaya 01.jpg, File:Bandera Uruguaya 02.jpg, File:Bandera Uruguaya 03.jpg, and File:Bandera Uruguaya 04.jpg. For reference, only the third file is being used in any articles. File #4 seems to be a case of de minimis, but the first three seem, in my opinion, to run afoul of COM:PACKAGING. Any opinion either way? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't think COM:PACKAGING really applies here, since the actual 'packaging' shown in most of these is just transparent plastic (it's purely utilitarian). The only one where it appears to me that it might apply is #3, where the printed card is shown.
The designs on the objects themselves, however, are likely copyrightable as works of applied art.... the designs are based on the flag, which is itself not copyrightable, but they are not 'just' copies of the flag. Reventtalk 13:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Do you think these images are OK for Commons? Should they be taken to COM:DR, tagged with {{No permission since}}, or tagged with {{Copyvio}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If anything, DR would be most appropriate... they are not speedies IMO. I think it's mainly #1 and #3, that show the 'not the flag' design on the mousepad, that would actually be an issue... the mouse and... I guess those are speakers... are really just the flag itself wrapped on an object. Reventtalk 22:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Understand. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Single pixel blank images

Hello, thank you for starting a deletion request. Could you also take a look into a Transparent pixels category, please? There are 14 identical pictures (which could be merged into 2 or 3 I think). --Dvorapa (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dvorapa: Assuming you mean the 'white squares' category, most of those are either different file types (and useful for that reason) or 'specific' sizes that are used in Wikipedia templates (like the chess board squares). Having ones that are 'exactly the same' is probably a bit silly, though their might actually be a reason for it because of how they are used. Reventtalk 20:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Sorry, typo in link above. I mean the Transparent pixels category. --Dvorapa (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dvorapa: Odd, but about half of those have dozens of uses, and some are used over a hundred times... File:1x1.png, interestingly, goes over 10k hits a day on a regular basis. I'm not sure messing with them is a great idea... a couple say they are used for pretty specific things, and they might be 'technically' different even though they look the same. Reventtalk 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but I think at least some of them could be merged. E.g. File:No image.png and File:Noimage.png. What do you think? --Dvorapa (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dvorapa: I think it makes sense, I'm just leery of breaking something obscure. Reventtalk 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Accurate definitions

Whether the term wiktionary:copyfraud implies bad faith has been argued on en-wiki (e.g. here), and the evidence against you on that, as I see it. Mazzone's article makes it clear that copyfraud does *not* require bad faith: "Falsely marking a public domain work undermines expression even if the false marking was not made with any intent to trick somebody into making payment. ... it makes sense to impose liability for copyfraud without requiring plaintiffs to establish all of the elements of the traditional tort of fraud." Without intent, there can be no fraud. Mazzone coined the term copyfraud; he does get to define it, IMO. As used by Techdirt, and in the 3 Wiktionary examples, the word copyfraud does not imply fraud/bad faith/intent either. But I'm willing to agree that folks who don't know the correct meaning of the term are likely to assume it implies bad faith, as you apparently did, simply because it contains the word "fraud", and that therefore it would be optimal to clarify that the term doesn't imply fraud when using it in discussions. Are you willing to accept that copyfraud does not require fraud/bad faith/intent?--Elvey (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: You are quite right, as I understand it, that the 'legal term' as defined by Mazzone does not require any actual intent to commit fraud, and I'll admit that I had not (until it came up a while back) actually read his article on the subject. I do think that it would be best to either avoid the term itself (because of it's implications, even if they are incorrect) or make it clear... and the former would probably be more effective in most cases. It's worth remembering that a lot of people don't really read an entire thread, so it would be easy for them to miss such an explanation and have the conversation end up back in the same place. Most people will, I think, assume that the term copyfraud implies an intent to knowingly make a false claim, and if you use the term regarding another editor's contributions it's likely to start an argument.... it's a case where the 'obvious' meaning, and the 'real' meaning, are distinctly different. I suspect that if you use the term much, you're going to get tired of repeatedly explaining it to people and trying to defuse drama. Like I said, 'copyfraud' (in both senses) is rampant on Commons, and I think it's probably better to use other terms in most cases, even if copyfraud is technically correct.... I don't think it's going to make it clear, in most cases, what the actual issue is, and will upset people.
When I said your idea of it is 'overbroad' recently, I did not actually mean your understanding of the term itself (I read what Mazzone said about it a while back), but instead when it's really appropriate to actually use it on Commons, for the reasons I said above. I'm glad you pinged me about it, however.... I'm quite willing to admit that I had not known that it was not actually a form of 'fraud' until you pointed that out and I read the article.
Thanks for bringing this up here, by the way. Reventtalk 00:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately your four (!) accusations that I used the term incorrectly (not just sub-optimally) still stand at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_57#Long_patern_of_uncivil_and_pushy_behaviour. I'd appreciate some post-closure comments or retractions there to set the record straight. I didn't bring it up sooner/there because I almost certainly would have been shouted down if I had. --Elvey (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: I wish you'd asked me that before it was archived, since editing it now wouldn't really be appropriate (and, honestly, most people would likely never notice) but if it's really important to you I guess I can do so. I wasn't really trying to argue about if you knew what it meant there, though... I think I just said your idea of when to use it was 'overbroad', or something like that... I really don't think it's a helpful term to use. Reventtalk 12:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree; "just said your idea of when to use it was 'overbroad'" minimizes what happened. Each of the four times you used the term, you indeed made a false, unfair accusation: Times 1,3&4:You claimed I used a "term that implies bad faith" and Time #2:You claimed I used it incorrectly - in a case where you claim "it had nothing to do with 'copyfraud'". In fact I did not use it incorrectly. You even claimed I failed to "discuss the actual issue", or "escalat[e the] debate to a wider community". The fact is, I not only discussed it, I opened multiple discussions of the issue, thereby "escalating the debate to a wider community"! I have been the victim of a spate of false accusations and it helps when they are retracted. Otherwise it seems as if there's a strong pattern but there isn't, so it is really important to me, so please do so. And, I reiterate that I'm willing to agree that folks who don't know the correct meaning of the term are likely to assume it implies bad faith, and that therefore it would be optimal to clarify that the term doesn't imply fraud when using it in discussions, and I intend to use it far more selectively. But I don't think Mazzone's coining of the term was unhelpful! --Elvey (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So your four false accusations still stand - that I supposedly used a "term that implies bad faith" and used it in a case where you claimed "it had nothing to do with 'copyfraud'" and your mis-characterizations of the meaning of copyfraud still stand there, at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_57#Long_patern_of_uncivil_and_pushy_behaviour, too. Will you please set the record straight there as you said you would? Or do you now want to let your words that portray me in a false light (and mis-describe "copyfraud) stand? They already contributed, surely, to Ellin's mis-characterization pile-on there, of me and her own actions. (She seems to have uh, forgotten that she indeed misunderstood PD-CAGov: she asserted that if the work of a California City Councilman is the work of a volunteer, not an "employee," {{PD-CAGov}} (which I created in '09) doesn't apply, and nominated the work for deletion. But, The work has been kept, and is tagged w/{{PD-CAGov}} as the Councilman's work, because it does apply.

And you, Revent, knew, or should have known, better. I just noticed that I patiently explained to you last September, with evidence, what copyfraud meant, and am having a hard time not getting really angry, having just realized that that you continued to misuse it anyway - and I see it as libel. It's outrageous behavior. --Elvey (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: I do not believe that a statement by a third party (a commons uploader) that a copyright claim is being made, when that statement is not correct (when the supposed copyright holder did not actually make that claim) is copyfraud. That was the case regarding the CC icons... CC was not actually claiming to own anything other than trademark rights, and the statements made by Commons uploaders were simply wrong. It was not a case of copyfraud, and using that term did not help the discussion.... it in fact made it far more heated. I think it's clear, now, that you were not actually accusing people of 'fraud', but you were in fact accusing people of acting in bad faith... essentially, a conspiracy to ignore an issue that you had not made clear.
The exact conversation in September that you linked... you replied to someone with the language "For fuck sake, Mr Ostrich".... that is exactly what is the problem with your behavior, whether you are 'right' or 'wrong' about a specific issue. Reventtalk 04:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
When I read that, I'm surprised, because you are again failing to understand the 'real' meaning of copyfraud, and you say so many wrong things that refuting each one would be an unreasonable use of valuable time. No. I will say this though: If the definition of copyfraud is
  1. False claims of copyright
or
  1. Copyfraud refers to false copyright claims by individuals or institutions with respect to content that is in the public domain.
and those are copied from wikisource and wikipedia, respectively, and follow Mazzone, then
I DO believe that the claim by a third party (a commons uploader) that the work is subject to copyright restrictions, when that statement is not correct (when the supposed copyright holder did not actually make that claim) indeed meets the definition of copyfraud. «For example: It would be preposterous to say that an employee of a printer working on behalf of a contractor working for a publishing house does not commit copyfraud when he puts a copyright notice (©[Publishing House] 2016...) on a work of Shakespeare just because it says [Publishing House], not [Employee Name].» So you are wrong to claim otherwise. And I reject the implication that my language last year excuses your outrageous behavior last week. Sure, my behavior could have been a bit better - and the behavior of others that prompted it could have been much better. Acknowledged already, but by contrast, you seem to want to let your words that you acknowledged portray me in a false light (and mis-describe "copyfraud) stand! If your false accusations stand and I do not respond further, it's because I've little hope of seeing and given up on actively seeking an appropriate response that sets the record straight, not that I accept your last utterance. When you wrote this: You are quite right, as I understand it, that the 'legal term' as defined by Mazzone does not require any actual intent to commit fraud, and I'll admit that I had not (until it came up a while back) actually read his article on the subject. and this: it's a case where the 'obvious' meaning, and the 'real' meaning, are distinctly different, I got my hopes up, but now I'm angry and disappointed and wish to disengage. And, being hypercritical about tone, when I was responding to an outrageous, libelous statement, that you are giving a free pass to, was inappropriate. I'd like to see you being impartial, as an administrator is supposed to be required to be, by seeing to the issues on the other side too - such as by noting that though I was responding heatedly, I was relatively calm, considering it was a response to another user defaming me by falsely accusing me of trying to delete "million of pages". I take your lack of comment on your libel, which I called "outrageous behavior" as acknowledgement that your behavior was indeed outrageous and libelous. Still, charitably, since you've acknowledged that you didn't understand the 'real' meaning of copyfraud and portrayed me in a false light, I'll assume that you regret doing so and accept your acknowledgment as a form of apology. --Elvey (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #202

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

This DR

If your Josvevo have time, please reply to this DR above because it is from an official government site. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #203

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #204

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Flickr images under CC 2.0 Generic

Will I need to request approval of Flickr images under CC 2.0 Generic if all its terms are met? For example, this image. I appreciate any clarification. --Light show (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll also ask at the Village Pump. --Light show (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #205

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Wikidata weekly summary #206

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Wikidata weekly summary #207

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Wikidata's coverage as of April 2016
Difference of Wikidata's coverage between April 2016 and 6 month before
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_7&oldid=211714524"