Mailing List Archive

2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
> Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
> claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
> like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
> press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that.

That doesn't mean it is a responsible thing to do. This case could
bankrupt a member of our community, it has to be handled with care.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

John at Darkstar wrote:
> Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
> claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
> like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
> press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that.
>
>
Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
Norway's national gallery.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
> such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
> Norway's national gallery.
>
> Ec

I guess you are speaking about GalleriNOR, which is a joint effort
between Nasjonalbiblioteket and Norsk Folkemuseum. Sorry for my rotten
english, but I guess the information is more important than the grammr! ;)

In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
the plug on the majority of the traffic.

So the situation are they said they would not claim copyright on their
own copies of works in public domain. The wording in Norwegian is
slightly different but the net effect is about the same. They would
although forward any claim on copyright that isn't in the public domain
as no doing that would put them in an awkward position. Photographers
that are clearly dead early enough for the law to apply would not be a
problem, that is Axel Lindahl.[2] Photographers that died later and are
in the "snapshot category" compared to the "work of art" are difficult.
Typically this is Anders Beer Wilse.[3] The fist has a shorter time
limit before they go into public domain. Our "understanding" is that we
may claim a photo to be a snapshot but we may get a notice that a
specific image is a work of art. In that case - woopsie, our fault, we
start the process to remove it, no problem. We can't although get a
written statement upfront from them wetter a specific photo is a
snapshot or not simply because they are not in a position to make such a
statement, its something the heirs has to agree upon, and probably the
court if so. In that case we have more than enogh time to remove the images.

As a note, for the moment there is quite a lot of images uploaded that
are taken by Wilse, and I think they should be carefully examined to
verify that none of them are in the category "work of art". It would be
a shame if we upload images that creates trouble between us and NB/NF.
Probably we need a writeup about some general guidelines, but if we can
do without such a guideline it would be better.

NB/NF are asked if they want to join us in some future talks about how
such images can be better utilized. For them it is a real bonus to get
the traffic, especially that the images are of fixed resolution on
Commons, as that makes it possible for them to add services to their own
site, like selling copies of higher resolution. Sometimes it seems like
people forget that we must cooperate with the museums and galleries to
create a win-win -situation.

One of the things they are very eager on is to be able to add additional
information to the images. When we add photos to an article on Wikipedia
that will create additional information about it. Admins on Commons
isn't very eager to utilize that additional information, but that is a
prime selling point for those kind of pictures. I guess we need to
really rethink how we can utilize the new world of mashable sites. How
can GalleriNOR rip out the information we add to the images and reuse
that on their own site?

A few days ago there was a contest in the newspaper (website only) ABC
Nyheter where photos by Carl Curman owned by Riksantikvarieämbetet was
localized.[4] Those images were from about 1890. Within hours they were
pinpointed to locations in Valdres, Norway. This is extremely valuable
for museums as images suddenly become part of history.

[1]http://www.nb.no/gallerinor/
[2]http://www.nb.no/gallerinor/fotografer/lindal.php
[3]http://www.nb.no/gallerinor/fotografer/ab_wilse.php
[4]http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/90741

John Erling Blad
Wikimedia Norway

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:

> In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
> without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
> touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
> believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
> wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
> deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
> attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
> the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
> thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
> with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
> generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
> amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
> the plug on the majority of the traffic.


:-D

We should ask the NPG about their website traffic ;-)

Do all NPG images have a link back? They should.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
>
>> In the case of GalleriNOR several people uploaded images from the site
>> without prior agreement with neither NB nor NF. After a while I get in
>> touch with them and asked how we should handle the case, what people
>> believed was the right thing to do from our side and what NB and NF
>> wanted to do. First the stand was established as "the images must be
>> deleted" and "we don't want to delete them", then we said "okey we will
>> attempt to get them deleted through due process - but hey, how much of
>> the traffic come from our site?" Then things get a bit amusing. The
>> thing is, about 60% of the traffic originates from Wikimedia Commons and
>> with the additional internal traffic generated from this we probably
>> generates over 80% of the traffic on the site. This isn't neglible
>> amouths of traffic on a site, removing the images on Commons would pull
>> the plug on the majority of the traffic.
>
> :-D
>
> We should ask the NPG about their website traffic ;-)

Well, their site had a problem after the story has appeared on Slashdot.

> Do all NPG images have a link back? They should.

Yes, they have a link with this template
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:SourceNPGLondon

> - d.

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l