![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
John Limey |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 387 Joined: Member No.: 12,473 ![]() |
See the letter issued by solicitors for the UK National Portrait Gallery. Looks like the WMF and User:Dcoetzee might be headed for some serious trouble.
Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea... |
![]() ![]() |
tarantino |
![]()
Post
#2
|
the Dude abides ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,441 Joined: Member No.: 2,143 ![]() |
Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images.
Discussion is here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#3
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
Lar has removed Dcoetzee's administrator rights, four minutes after a request by Gmaxwell, so he won't be tempted to unilaterally delete the images. Discussion is here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...etzee_adminship As a note, that wasn't my reason, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead. Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing. That wasn't why either, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead. I think Lar's actions make WMF's liability worse, if you follow your logic to its conclusion. Lar is effectively taking responsibility for ensuring that Dcoetzee cannot rectify his alleged theft, and ensuring that the responsibility becomes the whole of Wikipedia's not Dcoetzee. Also, it gives lie to the "can't break it so do what you will" philosophy of Wikipedia. So what if the images are deleted - surely they can be restored? So why is there any need to withdraw rights. Withdraw the bit for bringing WMF into disrepute as a repository of stolen goods, but don't take the bit away for something that reputedly can be fixed. Admin deletion makes something not publicly visible. Except to other admins. Oversight makes something not visible, even to admins. Except to other oversighters. The only way to truly delete something from WMF servers is to actually truly delete it, that is, go and find the files and nuke them, and find the database links from the File:blabla.jpg to the file itself, and nuke those, which requires developer access. Everything else is just setting visibility flags on various pieces of data that remain in the DB. GMaxwell's request pointed out that Dc was being put in a potential conflict of interest, he might feel pressured to do something that, in actuality, would not resolve NPG's claim, in that it does not actually satisfy their request for deletion. Removing that conflict of interest lessens the pressure on Dc... if you then analyse the situation to infer that it thus increases the pressure on WMF... no comment, except suffice it to say that I don't like volunteers being left out to dry. I think I have a reputation for doing fairly sensible things, most of the time. I think this was a sensible thing to do or I wouldn't have done it. I could be wrong. The action is reversible by any steward or any Commons 'crat. I doubt that avoiding WMF liability was your motive, but you do seem to be leaving the sphere or reasonable and moderate folk and joining the ranks of free culture nutters. Gosh I hope not. Speaking purely as myself and without any particular standing to make anything come out any particular way... the NPG expended time and effort and money to make these high quality images. It wasn't zero cost to them to make them or to host them. By analogy, the GPL makes provisions for paying "copying costs", and most people agree that's reasonable... the information is free, but you pay something to help defray costs of bringing it to you. We had a discussion a while back regarding the Edo images, in which a different museum asked politely that Commons not host their very high quality images, because doing so cut into their revenue stream. In exchange, they offered to give Commons some medium quality images instead... way good enough for illustrative purposes. I was among those arguing FOR the deletion of those images (as was SB Johnny). I think that's the right thing to do. Even if the subject art is public domain, work nicely with the organization that has the images to find a good compromise. Because while the art itself might be PD, it is fair to ask for compensation of some sort for the resource expended to do something to preserve and present the art. At least in my view. If I were a UK taxpayer I would be happy that the NPG was sheperding taxpayer dollars wisely by trying to raise some revenue to defray their expenses. My hope is that the NPG offers up medium resolution images, that they are accepted as replacements, and that all the images carry a big banner on their description page saying "if you want really nifty hires versions of these, go (here, a link on the NPG site) and donate to get acces, or buy some awesome prints" or something like that... (I would also hope the NPG drops its no photography rule) |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
Let's cut the bullshit here: the WMF is afraid that the "admin" bit Dcoetzee has can be used to argue the WMF has liability. Employee status, that kind of thing. That wasn't why either, but if you would like to think it was, go ahead. Where would we be if it wasn't for Lar bestowing upon people the rights they normally have? How did we ever get along before he arrived on the scene? QUOTE Admin deletion makes something not publicly visible. Except to other admins. Oversight makes something not visible, even to admins. Except to other oversighters. The only way to truly delete something from WMF servers is to actually truly delete it, that is, go and find the files and nuke them, and find the database links from the File:blabla.jpg to the file itself, and nuke those, which requires developer access. Everything else is just setting visibility flags on various pieces of data that remain in the DB. GMaxwell's request pointed out that Dc was being put in a potential conflict of interest, he might feel pressured to do something that, in actuality, would not resolve NPG's claim, in that it does not actually satisfy their request for deletion. Removing that conflict of interest lessens the pressure on Dc... if you then analyse the situation to infer that it thus increases the pressure on WMF... no comment, except suffice it to say that I don't like volunteers being left out to dry. I think I have a reputation for doing fairly sensible things, most of the time. I think this was a sensible thing to do or I wouldn't have done it. I could be wrong. Well, Lar, you are simply wrong, and you must know this. The NPG doesn't care a fuck how the WMF/Dcoetzee stops serving those files. Not the slightest! Really! If, when deleting things, little magic WMF fairies are told to intercept the database queries and re-write them, if the disks have to be dropped into incinerators, or setting little delete flags, or making the proper chants to the Great Database Gods, they don't care. All they care about is that the files will not be served anymore. So if Dcoetzee did wake up with the realization he is about to start living in a world of shit because, at one point he felt the WMF would stand up for him, but now realizes it won't, then him organizing the data structures at the WMF so the files "disappear" would in fact satisfy NPG completely. Again, you, and by extension, the WMF must know this is true. Naturally, you or Gmaxwell or David Gerard or even the Jimbo himself can just go an reset the flags, re-upload the content, or any other reversal of the reverse ... but that gets you into the "taking the piss" department, doesn't it? Something which I'm pretty sure none of you are willing to undertake. I wonder why? (He asks rhetorically). This leads straight to the issue as to why your blather about "conflict of interest" is disgustingly disingenuous. In essence, everyone at the WMF is permitted plausible deniability, protection, conflict or not, but poor Dcoetzee is no longer permitted any option to reverse his mistake, on the grounds of "conflict of interest". This logic is especially odious due to basic WMF that editors are liable for all content they add. Of course, this is not widely known to contributors at large (which may explain why Dcoetzee did what he did). What this means is that Dcoetzee is "on his own", which means that, in practice, and in direct contradiction to your claim, he is actually in no conflict of interest, since he has no interest in the project, while he does have a massive interest in his house or other property he currently owns. Lar, you are a smart guy. So is Gmaxwell. A lot of you are. But what you are doing is is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels, and your arguments are not even passing a simple sniff test. Stop drinking that kool-aid and do the right thing: 1) erase all the images NPG wants deleted, but whatever process you like 2) Dcoetzee and NPG can then shake hands and part company, 3) choose, among you, someone and let them re-upload the images and "take the piss" It is the only honorable action. |
Apathetic |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 594 Joined: Member No.: 7,383 ![]() |
Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in the first place, but I probably would've mass-deleted them as soon as I received the email - to at least comply in spirit with the demand as to my ability, whether the files actually got permanently deleted or not.
Wouldn't spend my own money on a lawyer for this. This post has been edited by Apathetic: |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in the first place, but I probably would've mass-deleted them as soon as I received the email - to at least comply in spirit with the demand as to my ability, whether the files actually got permanently deleted or not. Wouldn't spend my own money on a lawyer for this. Although merely deleting the images might not meet the requirements set out in the Farrer & Co. letter it might well have been sufficient. At least the images would not be available to the public and would not have any serious economic impact on the gallery. NPG could then take action against any fool admin that was later willing to undelete the images. Farrer & Co seemed reasonable and willing to talk. Like you say it would have shown a spirit to comply. |
Apathetic |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 594 Joined: Member No.: 7,383 ![]() |
Don't think I would've uploaded 'em in the first place, but I probably would've mass-deleted them as soon as I received the email - to at least comply in spirit with the demand as to my ability, whether the files actually got permanently deleted or not. Wouldn't spend my own money on a lawyer for this. Although merely deleting the images might not meet the requirements set out in the Farrer & Co. letter it might well have been sufficient. At least the images would not be available to the public and would not have any serious economic impact on the gallery. NPG could then take action against any fool admin that was later willing to undelete the images. Farrer & Co seemed reasonable and willing to talk. Like you say it would have shown a spirit to comply. Indeed. Didn't I read earlier somewhere that NPG was willing to provide lower-resolution versions of these images to WMF free of charge? Seems like taking up that offer in good faith might have been a good idea as well. |
Cedric |
![]()
Post
#8
|
General Gato ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,648 Joined: From: God's Ain Country Member No.: 1,116 ![]() |
Didn't I read earlier somewhere that NPG was willing to provide lower-resolution versions of these images to WMF free of charge? Seems like taking up that offer in good faith might have been a good idea as well. Yes and yes. I believe that what you are referring to is this bit of the "Wikipedia Signpost" article from earlier this morning: QUOTE Maxwell also noted that "a copyright complaint by the NPG in 2006 where the initial response from our side was 'What we're doing is permitted by US law' was satisfactorily resolved by providing attribution and back-links on the image page." Matthew Bailey, the Assistant Picture Library Manager for the NPG, stated at the time that the NPG would "allow Wikipedia to use the images available on our site (www.npg.org.uk), providing there is a direct link from the image displayed on Wikipedia to the page it appears on in the NPG website."[6] In other words, free use of pictures of about the quality that you have on this page from the NPG site. I thoroughly agree that this should have been a totally satisfactory arrangement of benefit to both websites. Wikipedia would have had the use of the pictures to illustrate articles, and the NPG would have had credit and a direct link for those readers who wanted more information on the portrait; a win-win situation. (IMG:http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1087/johnbelushi.jpg) "But NOOOOoooo! THAT just wasn't GOOD ENOUGH for the WMF!" Think about this: why the hell does an online encyclopedia need 1.0MB+ pics anyway? They are WAY to large to put on a browser page interspersed with text. 200KB or less (most often significantly less) is quite sufficient. Unless you are deluded enough to fancy yourself a "photograph restorer" just because you know how to alter a digital image in Photoshop (e.g., Durova), I can see no reason to desire such ultra hi-res images. The more I think about this whole kerfuffle, the more convinced I become that it really has nothing to do with "free culture" at all. It's really about a tiny group of self-appointed gatekeepers attempting to force professional curators to jump through a bunch of hoops, while all the while feeling very superior to those curators. Fucking assholes! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
Think about this: why the hell does an online encyclopedia need 1.0MB+ pics anyway? Well, the Commons isn't targeted specifically at the encyclopedia -- it's supposed to be a more generic compilation of free stuff. High-resolution imagery does have uses for full-page stuff like magazine or book covers, exhibit panels in museums, and other purposes. But I have another question: exactly why can't anyone who uploads an image unilaterally delete it? If the image is a piece of crap that no one will miss, then who cares? If, however, it was an excellent work worthy of admiration by future generations, and licensing terms permit, then someone probably would have cached it on their own, and they can re-upload it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |