Open main menu

WMF people and CommonsEdit

Hallo Mdennis (WMF), you may be interested in User_talk:Saibo#Jorm_.28WMF.29. Maybe you can help to prevent such problems with/by "user:.*(WMF)" in the future for more smoothness. Another discussion is at Commons:VPC#Are_those_icons_ineligible_for_copyright.3F and in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WP_SOPA_asset_Radial_Gradient.png. Thank you! --Saibo (Δ) 21:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Saibo. :) With Commons:Deletion requests/File:WP SOPA asset Radial Gradient.png, I see that Jorm explained at least part of the confusion. I'm afraid that it's quite likely that he used the {{PD-textlogo}} tag because the directions are not entirely clear at Commons:Licensing#Simple design. It only mentions two possible templates for such images: {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-font}}. Neither of these are entirely appropriate, but I would imagine he chose the one he did because the text itself does apply: "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain" and because the directions at #Simple design would seem to mandate it: "Moreover, Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a recent trademarked logo, on the grounds that such an image is not sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection.[2] Such images should be tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}." (I've omitted the footnote.) "Even if" doesn't mean only if, and there's no alternative instructions for simple designs that are not part of logos. :/ I wonder if {{PD-shape}} should be mentioned at Commons:Licensing#Simple design to make it easier for people to find.
In terms of general staff awareness of licensing requirements, there is a current and active project to improve awareness amongst new hires of project requirements and conventions, and copyright is part of that.
In terms of talk pages, I prefer archiving myself, but the relevant section at Commons:ARCHIVE#User talk pages does note that some users delete. My own experiences on English Wikipedia, where I am most active as a volunteer, suggests that these tend to be those who've been around longer and/or use their talk pages less. I'd be lost if I had to search through my volunteer history to find conversations! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for looking into! Regarding the radial gradient: yes, he explained how it happened but did not react to my note on his talk page explaining that the "copyright by WMF" is awfully (Wikimedia is devoted to free content, isn't it?) wrong for those simple designs - so apparently the copyvio/copyfraud issue isn't understood well.
Nice to hear that WMF is already having a project devoted to this (despite non-free content is not allowed on Commons except for some, sadly copyrighted, WMF logos). I have tried to make Commons:Licensing#Simple_design a bit more clear, thanks for the pointer! While we are at it: it would be best if WMF would simply {{CC-zero}} simple works, then no one would need to make up their mind about copyright eligibility or not.
Archiving: yes, I know it is just a guideline and it does note that some prefer deletion. If it would not happen with active/very recent discussions ... However, let's leave that aside. --Saibo (Δ) 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the situation may be different in Germany, as laws certainly do vary widely around the world, but in the United States, fraud requires intent. Human error would not typically qualify, as there is no intentional deception. His last edit to Commons was to that discussion; is there something in there that leads you to believe that the issue isn't understood? He seems to have understood and to have altered the image in accordance with the instructions that used to be published at Commons:Licensing#Simple design. While there was a better tag, it wasn't made apparent to users who may be less familiar with local protocols.
I appreciate your addressing that guidance, by the way. :) That might help avoid future errors.
In terms of the Wikimedia Foundation's stance on copyrighting its logos, I'll bring up your suggestion to the legal team. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The talk page of J. is a bit intransparent... ;-) so - here is the long link: As far as I know, I got no answer nor correction to this note - and instead the deletion of all. Therefore I brought it to VPC.
Please do not take the term "fraud" (part of copyfraud) in the strong meaning of "fraud" - I don't mean it that way. I mean it just in the neutral sense of "(whyever) claiming copyright ownership of public domain material". In 2011 we had discussions at Village Pump about the simple WMF logos of Wikisource and Wikiquote - which were tagged as copyrighted [1] [2] (probably just per history, since there maybe never was a information from WMF about the logos foundation:Trademark_Policy#Overview is also silent about copyrights. Maybe just no one asked before, I don't know. At least the logos are not freely licensed what could be expected from an organization promoting free content.) It is really annoying to be not able to take a screenshot of our own websites without placing a tag "copyrighted by WMF" on the screenshot to warn others - not even clear if such screenshots really should be in Commons therefore. We are all about free content here, host -as exception- some WMF copyrighted logos and the parent organization who should promotes free content is claiming copyright on content which is not copyright eligible and is claiming own copyright on content which is likely copyrighted by twitter. Find the error. :-) Hope you understand. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my delay in response. I'm afraid I overlooked the new email notice of the talk page change as it was stacked with the earlier one. :/

I do not yet have an answer from the legal team regarding the copyright of our logos, but I can certainly help correct copyright licensing tags for those specific images, if there are any remaining that are mistagged. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie, since it perfectly fits into this section I notify you here of another case of "WMF vs. Commons":Commons:Village_pump#Saibo_maliciously_tagging_work_with_clear_licenses. I just notify you since I think it is interesting for your position. If you already know of my "malicious tagging" then just ignore this. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. We definitely need some clarity, for staff and community, as to what expectations should be. I'll read through the discussion. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, thank you. Will read your comment at VP now. --Saibo (Δ) 13:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for appreciating my work! --Jovian Eye storm 05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


In french version of the survey, the second question about the project we contributes the more seems problematic Neither Wikisource or Commons are listed when Wikinews is listed twice. Regards, and thanks for the notification on local village pump. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh! That's a big problem. Thank you for letting me know, and I will see about getting that repaired immediately. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Difficult caseEdit

Thanks for your comments about the global lock decision; I'm sure it took a lot of consideration. I'm not sure if this is possible/appropriate for WMF to do, but my main question at this point concerns the recruitment of editors of articles about schools in northeast US and eastern Canada to the Wikia project. Is it possible for WMF to find out whether M___ visited Canada during 2005 or 2006? And if so, is it appropriate to check with holders of those accounts after all this time? Wnt (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Since I am limited in what I can say related to this specific case, I'm afraid all I can really say is that I can pass along the suggestion to the WMF that they do so, if they have not already. I'll do that. Thanks for the suggestion. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I really hope I've wasted your time... Wnt (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Collaborating with other institutionsEdit

Hi Maggie, Commons:Village_pump#Collaborating_with_other_institutions is an interesting suggestion, which I think would benefit from some WMF input. I guess it falls under the heading "outreach"? Rd232 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's a pretty ambitious idea. :) I'll toss it around among staff and get back with you. It may wind up being something we need a "feature request" for, but I'll see what I can find out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WMF fails to provide a reason since 2012-03-16Edit

Hi Maggie. WMF still need to change the user account lock decision (user account Beta_M) or justify it (which probably is impossible for WMF) - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Info_based_on_personal_documents_vs._the_SPTimes_artifact. Thanks for commenting there. --Saibo (Δ) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Saibo. The Office action accurately reflects the Foundation's intentions. As I explained in email, they will not be making additional public comments on the matter, and I do not foresee any further public discussion of this lock from the Foundation. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And as I wrote in my mail: you do not need to discuss - you just need to change the decision based on the fact that you cannot justify it - you name it. --Saibo (Δ) 20:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are not happy with the amount of information we are able to provide you. I wish we could talk freely about it, but we can't. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And since you cannot justify it you cannot do it. Quite simple, isn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, they can do it, and have already done it. You do not have the authority or the ability to override an Office Action, so what do you plan to do now? Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not talking with you. Go back where you came from. --Saibo (Δ) 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am talking to you, and as for the second comment, I think my mom would find that to be a very uncomfortable proposition. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DCMA takedownEdit

Hello Maggie, User talk:Brandonhibbs got a nice message on the talk page by Philippe after a file was deleted for DCMA reasons. It would be great if we could uphold this tradition. It is important for the user and also, if the user does not respond, for the reusers of content and for the Commons-community. Thank you -- RE rillke questions? 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rillke. :) The attorneys are in direct communication with the uploaders. If a message on the talk page would be of use to the reusers and community, I'd be happy to put something there, but I'm not sure that most reusers will know to find it there? Do you think it is more useful than the COM:OFFICE/Takedown page? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
At least it is helpful if we have the suspicion of further possible copyright violations. Before we block users, we usually have a look at the talk page. But I don't know anything about the two cases (e.g. whether direct communication means knowing the addresses where they live or whether they responded to an e-Mail), if you have the feeling it would be inappropriate, it's your decision. -- RE rillke questions? 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I know they've already spoken to one of them; the other, I think, has only been notified via the "email this user" option. You raise a good point about the talk page log for future issues, to be sure. I'll check with the attorneys and, if they feel it appropriate, make a note. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Posted on one; still waiting on word about the other. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 09:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, have word on the other. Because of the different circumstances, they'd rather I didn't. That one was a "derivative work" issue rather than an accusation of direct copy-paste. Since they've already talked to the contributor and since it seems quite possible that he didn't realize there would be a problem with taking an element from another image and manipulating it, they don't want to seem bitey by piling public notice on top of the private conversation they've already had. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia/layoutEdit

Hi Maggie,

I noticed your edits on the Wikimedia servers photos (example). It is generally a bad idea to use such a construction as you lose any template internationalisation, and preferable to amend the template/create a new one to accomodate the slight change of formulation.

In this case, though, is not {{Wikimedia trademark}} what you were looking for?

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That one says exactly what I'd like it to say. :) I'll use it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You’re welcome − glad I was of some help :) Jean-Fred (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thank youEdit

Thanks Maggie for your appreciation. JKadavoor Jee 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Community logo and derivativesEdit

Dear Maggie,

My recollection is that the Community Logo and all derivatives should not be trademarked; that was the whole point of creating it. (both the desire for a TM-free logo not subject to VIG, and the perennial awkwardness the WMF has had in supporting creative community uses of our marks).

I suspect this may have been a misunderstanding among people who weren't around when the logo was created - and were trying to helpfully protect any mark used by a big Project. Assuming we can get the intent for that logo sorted out, I think the most accurate description of their status would be a purely positive template saying "free for community reuse" and linking to a detail page noting their history and status.

I'm leaving this comment on your meta talk page and a similar one for Rkwon who posted the legal analysis. Be well, --SJ+ 04:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage logo proposalEdit

Hi Mdennis,

I'm agree with the submission rules and I'm willing to submit again my logo   for consideration under those rules. Thanks --Isatis78 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

you've got mailEdit

Onam greetings!Edit

Have a nice Onam tomorrow! JKadavoor Jee 17:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


A filter which may be of interest, or for which you may just wish to say that it is the concern of the volunteer admins at WikiCommons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


INeverCry 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Images of Pierre LemaitreEdit

Hello, this issue will be a serious problem, because en:Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." (In fact, no Wikimedia project may allow fair use for such images according to foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy), If we fail to get free images of him. The images of the world-known writer Pierre Lemaitre (Who has his articles on several Wikipedia editions, including English Wikipedia) has been deleted from Commons, by the subject's request. However, I think hosting the images would be permitted under French law, since he is a person of public interest and the deleted images are taken in a public event. Also other his images except deleted from Commons can easily find from Google Search, and seems to be legally taken and published. Why can't we host his images? He has exercised his alleged right on Commons, but not on other places, such as Google. --Puramyun31 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Puramyun31. :) The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to have been involved in this deletion, and it does not look like the images were deleted for legal reasons. It was a community discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pierre Lemaitre that led to the deletion of the images as a courtesy to the subject and uploader according to the Commons policy Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions. I'm afraid that this may not be something that the Wikimedia Foundation can help with, as it is a matter of community policy and consensus not their action; since it's not a legal matter, I'm not sure that there's even a meta:Wikilegal statement I could ask for. :) Have you considered Commons:Undeletion requests if you believe that particular policy should not have been applied in this case? If you are concerned about the larger principle of courtesy deletions, Commons:Village pump might be the place to talk about it with other community members, who can consider the best application of policy. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Village Pump as you said. thank for your advice. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

American copyright law in Dutch language projectsEdit

Dear Maggy, over at the Dutch wikipedia we are having a discussion (as a result of the removal of the Anne Frank diary from wikisource) that involves the questions:

  • Should the evaluation whether previously copyrighted material can be used involve the evaluation whether the material is public domain in the US?
  • Should this evaluation also encompass whether the material is in the public domain in the Netherlands and/or Belgium (the main target -and source- of the project); or is it a choice of the community to do so?

Here you indicated some years ago you could forward further questions to the legal department regarding URAA. Could you do that in this case as well or direct us to a place where we can get some assistance? Tnx! L.tak (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi L.tak, I would suggest you consider U.S. law in deciding whether something is in the public domain and appropriate to put on one of the projects. This is because WMF must consider U.S. law if we receive a DMCA takedown request and would be forced to remove content if it is not public domain in the U.S. As an aside, I do want to emphasize that the Anne Frank removal was a nearly unique case because of its fame, the clear U.S. copyright analysis, and the level of detail of the communications with WMF. We normally don't look into the content on the projects unless someone sends us a DMCA notice about it. Back on the main point, an evaluation of public domain in a country other than the U.S. is something that would be a community decision, since that would certainly vary by project and WMF has the ability to host content that is legal under U.S. law so there's no need for a rule affecting every project. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Templates and policyEdit

Hi Maggie, sorry to bring up an annoying old issue, but hoping to move it toward resolution. In the past, I know you have established that contents created by WMF staff are generally available under CC BY-SA. I'd like to work toward clearing a backlog of files on Meta Wiki that have no license info; many of them were uploaded by WMF staff without explicit license info. But I can't find a suitable template to add here if I move them to Commons. The closest I have found is Template:WMF-staff-upload, but I can't reasonably use that one, as I'd be putting words in the mouth of WMF staff. Any suggestions? Is there a relevant template I'm not finding? -Pete F (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Pete F. :) That's really the only one that I know of - I can understand why you wouldn't want to use it. What about creating a new template with an attached category of something like "staff uploads that are unlicensed" so I can get staff to help clean up? At the very least, we should be able to help identify stuff that is clearly work-related and convert it to the existing template (because clearly work related stuff would be licensed or co-licensed to the WMF). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Maggie, it would be really good to have staff pitching in to clean this stuff up as part of their official work. Something I think a number of us would be very pleased to see. Your suggestion is a good one, and I'll take a stab at creating the category and template as you suggest. In the meantime -- the files I'm currently looking at are in the category meta:Category:Images with unknown license. (Maybe about half the files in that category?) -Pete F (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PC DIY SHOP FreeT 発売記念イベント 西明日香さん 2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Puramyun31Edit

Hello Mdennis, the deletion issue is still raised again for several years, although the file has been kept, and as per this discussion page where I told the image has no problem under Japanese law. Could you help me for this situation? --Puramyun31 (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Puramyun31. I can well imagine that would be distressing! I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do here - the Wikimedia Foundation can't curate content on Wikipedia, and repeated discussions is really a policy process for Commons to determine. I note that commenters there are right that the individual can reach out to the Legal team if they feel that they have legal grounds for removing the image. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mdennis (WMF)".