[19:53:17] fyi, halfak… https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anon_productivity_and_productive_efficiency_in_English_Wikipedia_(Showcase,_Jan._2016).pdf#File%3AAnon_productivity_and_productive_efficiency_in_English_Wikipedia_.28Showcase.2C_Jan._2016.29.pdf [19:53:53] crap. [19:53:57] Was going to get to that. [19:55:38] Looks like it got deleted on my bday :( [20:11:50] Modifications made: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anon_productivity_and_productive_efficiency_in_English_Wikipedia_(Showcase,_Jan._2016).pdf [20:11:59] I hope they are sufficient. [21:04:04] :( [21:04:05] * yuvipanda has nothing positive to say [21:04:37] halfak: Did you read my comments at the bottom of that page? [21:04:50] About which images needed "attibution" etc.? [21:05:08] Josve05a, I'm sorry. Did I miss one? [21:05:50] The bucket on the last page is public domain. [21:05:55] "The two images on page 17 need attribution and clearer copyright status. The image of the bucket on the last page needs attribution and clearer copyright status. AutoWIkiBrowser (AWB) is a software licened under {{GPLv2}} not compatible with the CC-license of this PDF." [21:06:24] I see let me try to apply that. These are some strict requirements. Maybe I can find an AWB logo or something like that. [21:06:27] Feel free to use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:AttribFile if on COmmons [21:06:50] one of my images is nom'd for deletion because there was no version specification on the CC BY-SA [21:07:21] Looks like we're probably going to stop uploading our slide decks to commons. Being able to screenshot in a presentation is pretty critical for HCI research. [21:07:33] But in the meantime, I'll try to address your concerns Josve05a [21:07:36] Thanks for your patience. [21:07:43] * halfak fires up editor [21:08:24] I just noticed it, since reuploading images deleted after DRs are like recreating articles on WIkipedia after AfDs...creates alarm bells [21:09:28] I figured as much. :) [21:09:47] Josve05a, are you going to require me to attribute public domain images? [21:10:04] Well, how could I know if the image was PD or not...? [21:10:39] Josve05a, you wouldn't but why do you need to if I'm abiding copyright? [21:10:55] I could take 'your word' for it, but...will set bad precedence for other (and new) users [21:11:09] Why even release things PD if we're going to require attribution anyway? [21:11:20] Seems like PD == BY for our purposes. [21:11:21] One could simply say "it is not copyrighted" and discussion would be over [21:11:31] Oh. It's not copyrighted :) [21:11:46] Yeah, what if everyone would say that [21:12:07] So everything is considered "by" unless it is not copyrightable? [21:12:18] And then we get to debate copyrightable, right? [21:12:35] Well, everything is considered fully copyrighted and reserved unless proven otherwise [21:12:45] Well, unless asserted otherwise [21:13:10] yeah, well, proven or aserted [21:13:15] asserted* [21:13:28] Well the bucket was asserted PD [21:13:34] but with [[c:COM:EVIDENCE]] [21:14:03] This is getting pretty tedious. [21:14:20] I highly recomend that you read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Evidence it is actually a good read [21:14:54] can we accept the AWB ... I dunno what the image is. I didn't look, but if we get the creator(s) (I know them both) to grant use of the image or whatever under cc? [21:15:45] apergos: well, issue is that maybe more than 2 developers have ever contributed to the source code and...you know...equals more copyright holders [21:15:48] We should probably just start uploading to another wiki so that we can claim fair use. [21:16:07] <3 commons, but it's not great for slide decks. [21:16:09] halfak: you have wmfwiki to your disposal [21:16:14] it's from so long ago I don't even remember, but am happy to let it go [21:16:16] is the image of the code in operation then? [21:16:18] Especially ones with screenshots. [21:16:54] what's wmfwiki? [21:17:02] apergos: doesn't matter. Only matters who "the developers that decided the look of that page" are [21:17:06] wikimediafoundation.org? [21:17:13] yeah [21:17:16] Can we render images from there on Meta? [21:17:26] sorry, I just mean, I don't know which image is at stake or what it contains [21:17:40] not sure. You could also try uploading on meta? [21:17:45] whether it contains code from awb or an image of it running or... [21:17:59] just running it, but the UI is till protected [21:18:24] apergos, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/6c/20160406161153%21Awbscreenshot.jpg [21:18:50] so now we have to dig into the 'look-alike' lawsuits [21:18:52] In the presentation, I point to the list on the left and use the screenshot to explain how it works. [21:18:56] I really have no idea of the status of those [21:19:11] I'm just going to cover it with a big gray box. [21:19:15] heh [21:19:46] halfak: How aout a "See File:Awbscreenshot.jpg on Wikimedia Commons for screenshot"-text [21:19:50] lol [21:19:51] if you blur it sufficiently that might be ok (IANAL) [21:20:07] "Screenshot censored due to Commons copyright policy." [21:20:15] I dunno if that's better to look at or not [21:20:16] lol @ blur! [21:20:21] That would defeat the purpose! [21:20:29] Maybe I can just re-draw the interface [21:20:42] "it sort of looks like this" [21:20:45] maybe [21:20:50] "Why don't you have a screenshot" Not allowed [21:21:17] well, copyrights suck [21:22:41] you could probably at least make a few boxes that describe what goes where (t"wikitext of article", "original content", "content with changes", ...) [21:23:32] It's too bad that fair-use isn't a global policy. [21:24:32] halfak: To get back to the point of PD: The usage of pd images without attributing, is just fine. But as Commons is a hosting platform and not just a random blog, and our goal is to provide free media, we need to "ensure" (for our own, and our re-users sake) it is all free, hence why we ask all uploaders to state why or how the image is free. Wheater or not [21:24:32] it is because it is their work and they release itr, or because it is an old painting by an artist who's been dead for hundreds of years. Without such "statements or [[c:COM:EVIDENCE]], we can not assume anything per [[c:COM:Precautionary principle]]. [21:24:56] Arg, I forgot to note the bucket. I'm going to put that in the description. [21:25:16] halfak: Well, Commons' goals is the exact opposite of what fair use is all about [21:26:01] Commons probably has more than one goal [21:26:05] Right? [21:26:13] Anyway, I don't mean to run contrary to it. [21:26:27] But if fair use was global, all fair use images on commons would be free. [21:26:34] non-copyrightable. [21:27:18] Oh wait. I made edits to this bucket. It was PD before and now, with my modifications, it's mine? [21:27:39] I deleted the handle. Not useful. [21:28:02] Josve05a, not sure what to do here. Maybe you'd like me to assert where I'd adapted it from. [21:28:09] fair use has to do with the use, not just the extraction of material from the source [21:28:10] anyways [21:28:11] halfak: It is your, which you have released under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but attribution would still be needed since it is still a derivative work [[COM:DW]]; if kept in the PDF [21:28:39] But it's PD and I modified it. [21:28:44] I'm not required to attribute. [21:29:06] (not trying to argue -- just making sure I understand) [21:29:08] Not if you use it elsewhere, but commons still needs you to [21:29:32] It is like modifying a painting, the original artits may still have a copyright, since you haven't proven with evidence it was PD yet [21:30:08] This is weird as heck. Has nothing to do with copyright law. Seems like I'll need to do this for all of my images. [21:30:11] Prove that they are mine. [21:30:12] SO, your [[COM:Derivative work]] have crreated one copyright, which you have released, but the original artist may sill have a copyright of the original artwork, which you need to present to be PD [21:31:02] But the original author doesn't. Shall I prove PD one or every time I use it? [21:31:08] *once [21:31:17] your not LEGALLY required to attribute Public domain image. But in order to be hotsted on COmmons, all images needs to have [[COM:EVIDENCE]] as to their copyright status [21:32:16] So, every time I use it then? [21:32:20] yup [21:32:42] Well then. [21:33:16] Hence why most of WMF's ad-videos have long "attribution section at the end of their video, in order to not have to do it on description pages on Commons. They attribute PD works as you may have seen [21:35:03] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Edit_2014.webm << [21:35:41] damn. WIll have to nominate that for deletion... [21:36:44] Josve05a, that's on enwiki [21:37:04] OK Josve05a, I think I got it all: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anon_productivity_and_productive_efficiency_in_English_Wikipedia_(Showcase,_Jan._2016).pdf [21:37:11] no, on commons, just bad link [21:37:28] thanks! [21:37:38] What's wrong with that ad? [21:38:32] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikipedia_Edit_2014.webm [21:39:18] but it shows good attribution on at least...to bad it includes non-free images.... [21:40:30] lol this is ridiculous! Commons is sure an interesting place. Excuse me while I go have a healthy face-palm. [21:40:50] Not commons specifically, but copyright generally. [21:40:55] Cascading copyright issues. [21:41:01] No derivative work is safe! [21:41:07] * halfak facepalms [21:42:03] * J-Mo is gaining a fascinating education on commons policy and copyright from reading the scrollback [21:42:43] I'm going to be drawing my own bucket [21:43:11] * Josve05a grunts https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAnon_productivity_and_productive_efficiency_in_English_Wikipedia_%28Showcase%2C_Jan._2016%29.pdf&type=revision&diff=228561238&oldid=228560531 [21:43:55] Josve05a, isn't attribution in the PDF OK? [21:44:25] yes, it is, but...it is not machine readable :p [21:45:33] Josve05a, what do you do with machine readability? [21:45:38] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paramecium.artistic_color_vector.svg [21:45:43] Time to do one of these for the bucket! [21:45:58] Also needed a Trademark-note for the wikipedia logo etc. so, just did this for the "heck" of it [21:46:57] halfak: RIght now, not much. Soon (years...?) we'll migrate all commons info to wikibase [21:51:07] J-Mo, halfak: One simple rule for commons: If you upload anything which includes content not entirerly made by you from scratch, always attribute the source. Always. Otherwise in the future they may be deleted, since the "deleting admin" can't find the source and can not detirmine if the "bucket" is actually PD, or just a clipart from Google, and will delete [21:51:07] it. [21:51:48] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110409 <<<<<< [21:52:00] Josve05a, yeah. Understood. I'll be looking into moving slide decks off of commons asap [21:52:06] lol [21:52:29] Will reduce work for all of us. [21:52:41] thanks for your patience, Josve05a [21:53:02] well, it will in turn also undermine one of our core principle of sharing free content etc...but oh well [21:54:14] Josve05a, well, free in the US includes fair-use and I think that's critical for HCI work. [21:54:16] (English) Wikipedia also REQUIRE you to attribute public domain sources when pasting text from it [21:55:15] halfak: it is, but imo (and most likely the board, since they make the fair use doctrines), we should not work to protect fair use, but work to promote free licenses [21:55:45] Josve05a, I want to work to do my job [21:55:52] fyi Josve05a the creator of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikimedia_Research_Showcase_--_March_2016.pdf has been provided with instructions for declaring ownership of the offending image to permissions-commons@, and may choose to re-attribute and re-upload the deck. [21:55:54] I appreciate that others are pushing for the best licenses possible [21:56:29] I'm trying to get researchers to employ open practices and certain types of purisms are examples of the perfect being the enemy of the good. [21:56:37] That doesn't mean I don't respect it. [21:56:40] (since you mentioned that re-uploads of deleted content sometimes raise suspicions) [21:56:47] And I'll keep putting my drawings and figures on commons :) [22:50:39] haha! Now I won't need to attribute my bucket! Because it's MINE! [22:50:39] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Bucket_vector_illustration.svg/200px-Bucket_vector_illustration.svg.png [22:50:45] And there goes my lunch break :) [22:50:51] Woops. Bad link [22:51:00] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bucket_vector_illustration.svg [23:15:05] halfak: sorry to disapoint, but it may still cause issues if not attributed to you, for the same reason I didn't know that the bucket was PD. It wasn't attributed as PD, and any usage of this bucket unattributed to you may still cause issues (not legal issues, just "questiosn raised" issues) [23:15:29] Even the one I just made? [23:15:32] like "who made the bucket in this PDF"? [23:16:01] I did [23:16:02] Own work [23:16:14] Just like every other illustration in the PDF that is not attributed. [23:16:33] I asked that exact question (Ok, was more like "The image of the bucket on the last page needs attribution and clearer copyright status."). [23:16:33] Yeah, I know that, but that question might arrise if you use it in another file [23:17:04] <+halfak> Just like every other illustration in the PDF that is not attributed. << they should be deleted.... [23:17:04] Josve05a, how come you chose to not ask the copyright status of any of the graphs? [23:17:34] Might be PD-shape, or PD-text, if not, we just haven't tagged/asked yet [23:17:58] Graphs are certainly copyrightable. [23:18:12] But seriously, this is a little much even for commons policy, right? [23:19:02] Don't take ma bucket from me. [23:19:39] no, the bucket is fine :D Just if you use it elsewhere in another lide/pdf, then we will need to to say that it is your bucket/link to the bucket [23:19:44] slide* [23:20:16] I just can't see that happening. [23:20:48] Have you seen https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Commons_policies_and_guidelines ? This is not even the tip of a Commons iceberg. And people ask us why we are swamped in copyvios and underpowered... [23:21:14] Josve05a, did you intend to link me to a template page? [23:21:55] no..ment to link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_licensing_help which incldes the template [23:24:28] Josve05a, what if I put my own name in big letters next to the bucket in my "thanks" slide? [23:25:54] I can't say. Still nothing legally wrong with doing it or not doing it. Just depends on if another user understands it is your work or not. [23:26:32] http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/000/026/lolrus.jpg [23:26:47] BTW, charts; depends on cases, but usually they are simply mechanical creations from the underlying data. And would most lilley be jut "facts", numbers and figures which are not copyrightable... [23:27:00] halfak: lol xD [23:27:21] Josve05a, I know that case law says otherwise about graphs and figures. They are hardly simply mechanistic. [23:27:39] They are creative representations of something that isn't copyrightable. [23:27:53] Just like a program might be a creative representation of binary. [23:28:05] If you can copyright a UI you can copyright a graph. [23:28:51] but did "you make the graphs, or did a computer tool amke the graphs? Were there human crreativity involved, or was it simply a "monke selfie momenet" or CCTV image, both of which have no human creativity and therefore not copyrightable in the US [23:29:00] make* [23:29:46] You cna copyright a UI, due to huamn design of the UI, but you can't copyright output which are just mechanical with no human creativity put in to it [23:29:49] can* [23:31:58] Why is it that you think there's creativity in making a visual representation of a user interface but not in the rendering of a visualization of data? [23:32:17] Also lol about not thinking visualization is creative :P [23:33:44] The UI is designed (with code) to look one way. But a graph is dependent on the data you provide...it is 00:33 am here and I'm tired atm... [23:35:22] Bah! Go to bed. Thanks for the chats. Honestly I had a lot of fun talking to you about commons. :) [23:38:24] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577af5abebbd1a47dbef7d24/t/57bb37d4b8a79b6a706ec7c8/1471887320091/?format=500w [23:38:45] G'Night. I'm always around to speak about commons though :) [23:39:42] Ooh nice image find. [23:45:48] Feel free to buy my images www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/josve05a :p [23:49:56] Only if you'll transfer copyright to me. [23:58:49] NEVER xD [23:59:05] I am DIsney!