Commons:Administrators/Requests/Krd

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 25;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 1 - 89% Result. Successful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krd

Vote

Krd (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 12:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd like to request admin rights for myself, mainly as support for my support team (OTRS) work, which I am active at since Aug 2011. As files without permission are deleted quite quickly at commons, there is often need to look into deleted versions to verify OTRS tickets, and also to restore images that have got permission. I currently am quite busy in the German permissions queues and would like to help a bit more in the English permissions-commons queue to reduce the backlog, which is intolerably high again. (I don't think that I would be much active in other admin ressorts for the time being.)

I am dewiki admin since Jul 2012 and German arbcom member since Jun 2011 (just if anyone cares).

Thank you. --Krd 12:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

To get this right: you are punishing Krd for a discussion in which he even wasn't involved? Very convincing logic. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(bk)You are against just because there is an argument about a questionalbe vote? Krd did not even take statement on the page you linked to. --93.132.221.194 13:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hekerui (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer 1: I don't think that the corresponding template PD-shape can apply here, so I would not move this file to commons. Up to current state of discussion it is legal on the German Wikipedia, though.
  • Answer 2: As long as there is no evidence that an United States public domain tag can be added, tagging with Template:Not-PD-US-URAA seems reasonable to me for this file.
--Krd 13:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 3: You say "it is legal on the German Wikipedia". Please elaborate - do different laws apply to the German Wikipedia than to Commons? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is consensus that the German Wikipedia mainly addresses Germany, Austria and Switzerland and lex loci protectionis applies there as the image does not reach the level of originality to be protected in Germany. --Krd 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my question: just a "yes" or "no" will suffice. Since copyright issues are an important part of an admin's work here on Commons, a clear understanding is kind of important. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The short answer is "yes". --Krd 09:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have answered that de.wiki questions belong there and I wouldn't apply their "community consensus" about what fits pd-ineligible to Commons; especially when I am not the uploader of this questionable (also scope!) file. I would not transfer this file nor make a decision about its deletion. If you delete and this deletion is against the community consensus which of course can't trump copyright law (that's why we have a lot of ways to complain about a copyright infringement, including DMCA), you will loose your administrative power or you have to do it like LX did (who retired hope this is the correct description after a wrongful "decision" was made at Commons about PD-Art, simple photographs and Swedish copyright law). -- Rillke(q?) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course de.wp differs from Commons because there is a different audience. The laws you apply are basically the same but you have to consider the differences: No court will agree that de.wp is dedicated to U.S. citizens. I am sure that this does, indeed, matter in some cases. -- Rillke(q?) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand this is the position on German Wikipedia. What I don't understand is the legal logic for it. "fair use" covers a lot legally for Wikipedia use (though German Wikipedia doesn't have a fair use policy, this isn't legally necessary, it's a Wikimedia requirement), but not everything. With the servers in the US, on what basis does US copyright law not need to be respected? If there's a good answer, this should really be written down somewhere (if it is, I've not been able to find it). lex loci protectionis is not the answer - that just means that copyright holders wouldn't be able to sue in Germany if the content was out of copyright there. But AFAIK they would be able to sue in the US, if the content is in copyright in the US and being hosted on US servers and available to US visitors. Google does geolocation for example with Google Books, so US visitors can't access things in copyright in the US; but Wikimedia doesn't. So again, what is the legal basis for German Wikipedia hosting things in copyright in the US but not in Germany/Austria/Switzerland? Rd232 (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The named issue seems to be a problem, if any, within the German Wikipedia, not Commons. Is this page the right scope to generally discuss this issue? --Krd 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally discuss" - no. Ask your view/understanding of it - yes. You're not getting away that easily, sorry! :) Rd232 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I already noticed that interrogation here is more detailed than expected. :) Anyway, I am not a lawyer, and what I trying to do here is volunteer and help to implement common sense. If common sense is doubted in this specific case, I am not a qualified discussion target to solve the entire problem. If this disqualifies me for the intended work, that's just how it is. --Krd 18:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't expect German Wikipedia users and most admins there to read and understand the U.S. copyright law monster. Most of the scientific publications from the U.S. are 3 times more interesting and 2 times easier to read. -- Rillke(q?) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's too hard to understand" is not generally recognised as a reason for ignoring the law. Many don't like (*cough* understatement *cough*) that German Wikipedia is subject to US law, but as a US-based website, it is. And as I said before here and on German Wikipedia, a Fair Use Policy would cover many of those US issues quite straightforwardly for in-Wikipedia use (but that does go into general discussion we shouldn't have here...). Rd232 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And the consequence is moving de.wp out of the Wikimedia Cluster and hosting it in Germany, Austria, ...? I don't think a fair-use policy will be established in de.wp; lots of admins there even never heard of "fair-use". Of course you are free to propose changes there. I see the issue but without serious efforts in explaining U.S. copyright law, which perhaps involves even tutorials and training [which I would really appreciate if offered for free by the WMF or WMDE for the people in concern], you can't expect volunteers to learn such sophisticated stuff. BTW, just saying is often not enough. Fight for it! -- Rillke(q?) 17:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget that it would also require forking the Foundation - simply moving the servers wouldn't make much of a difference, since the Foundation is incorporated in the U.S. Although I don't know if it would be legally possible to have a "parallel" Foundation with the same membership as the "main" one.... – Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Krd&oldid=84334378"