Commons:Requests for comment/Grandfathered old files

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
COM:GRANDFATHER is adopted as a guideline. Rd232 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that COM:GRANDFATHER becomes a guideline

[edit]

I wrote the essay Commons:Grandfathered old files (abbreviated as COM:GRANDFATHER or COM:GOF) a few months ago for using it in future discussions about files which predate the OTRS system (ca. 2006). This sometimes turns up at (un)deletion discussions. See e.g. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Talbot_Tagora_2.2_green_profile.jpg. It would be useful to have this as a general guideline. I hope to hear your input about this.

After discussion at the talk page and at the Village Pump which indicated that there is support for this proposal I would like to ask the community to consider that Commons:Grandfathered old files becomes an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons. SpeakFree (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: The undeletion request given as an example has been archived. It can be found at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-03#File:Talbot_Tagora_2.2_green_profile.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]
 Support--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - I'd be willing to support this if we made two changes. First, when we come across a file that has been granfathered in, it should be added to a tracking category. I'm not saying we need to go out and find all the old files, that'd be a pain, but when we do find them, add them to a category. The better an idea as to how many of these we have, the better our future actions in regards to them will be if this comes up again. Secondly, we should make an effort to reach out to the permission givers and ask them to confirm. If we never hear back from them, we can default to keep, but if we do hear back from them, than we can put the files into OTRS (or delete them if it turns out that the communication was bougs). How do these changes sound? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should try our best to get OTRS permissions as much as possible. But this is not always possible. I do think that permission granted at the time should be treated the same as permission given under the current OTRS system. The CC-BY-SA license does not allow for revocation so even if a copyright holder has changed their mind (or they are deceased and their heirs decide otherwise) this should not play a part, unless it is clearly established that they had not been been properly made aware of the consequences of their release of their work under a free license. SpeakFree (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support trying to mass contact every person who gave permission for a file prior to 2006. Unless there is actual reason to believe that the file might be a copyright violation, we should let sleeping dogs lie. These copyright holders and the uploaders who interacted with them followed all of the proper procedures for the time. They should not have to jump through extra hoops now. Considering that it's been 7 or 8 years, I imagine most of them wouldn't even know what you're talking about if you did try to contact them. Kaldari (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there is now a tracking category: Category:Grandfathered old files. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that it is hard to know if people really had a valid permission. I frequently find images where I suspect that the permission claim is plainly wrong (e.g. en:File:Klein Constantia Vin de Constance.jpg) and where it may be unwise to keep the images. I understand that it would be good to respect old permissions, but I am also wondering how a court would argue if someone were to take a grandfathered image to court and no permission can be presented. For OTRS files, you could just ask the OTRS volunteers for some evidence that the permission is valid. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would come to a court case. If someone had a valid copyright claim they could send a DMCA takedown notice and the WMF would likely comply. Still COM:PRP applies (which is mentioned on the page). If there's reasonable doubt that it's COPYVIO have it deleted the regular way, if not AGF. The alternative would be the precautionary deletion of all such files, I don't think that should be the preferred course of action. SpeakFree (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone states that a file without OTRS permission is a copyvio, I don't think this guideline would prevent anyone from deleting it. This guideline is simply to give the files the benefit of the doubt in the case where there is no conclusive evidence one way of the other. Kaldari (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I will have to  Oppose this as it is now, per my comment above. DMCA takedowns help to protect the WMF, but if a reuser decides to use an image for whatever purpose and it turns out to be a copyright violation, then there could be problems for the reuser. There could easily be a case where some copyright holder might claim that he never gave any permission, thus filing a lawsuit with a reuser, and I have frequently seen situations where people have misread licences (e.g. thinking that CC-BY-NC-SA on Flickr means CC-BY-SA), or where someone might have mixed up "permission for Wikipedia" with GFDL. However, if there is a way to read the original e-mail in which the permission was given (for example because there is a verbatim quote on the file information page), I don't see an issue. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created Template:Grandfathered old file Bulwersator (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. I think it's good to have this spelled out. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If there is evidence that such a file is not freely licensed then we have processes for removal --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --Carnildo (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --Kaganer (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is enough to show how the situation is, like you did. If there are doubts, files will have to be deleted. On the other hand they shouldn’t blindly tagged and deleted. -- RE rillke questions? 12:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment can we move emails quoted before 2006 somewhere in file description to OTRS system, and replace them with OTRS templates to grandfather them that way? It would be less confusing. --Jarekt (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be better (especially if the process involved some sort of "does this email sufficient evidence/permission/etc?" review), but we'd have to identify them first. Rd232 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against that. An OTRS ticket gives an impression of "this is legitimate, period", and we can't be 100% sure with the grandfathered stuff. We can get to 99%, but never 100%, and to me, that means no OTRS without reconfirmation. If it's reconfirmed, then yes, stick it all in an OTRS. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - I found this page during checking what I should do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drewbeer.jpg and I think that it is a good idea Bulwersator (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - Seems reasonable. Tabercil (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


@AFBorchert - I'm closing the RFC without changing the date as you suggest, because most comments were long before this suggestion. Please pursue this date change as an amendment to the new guideline. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Grandfathered_old_files&oldid=93013868"