Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:MichaelMaggs

I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013


FoP queryEdit

Hi Michael,

Just had someone ask me about the contents of Category:Goodwood Festival of Speed monuments and whether or not these images would be covered under the UK FoP. My thought (based on Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Permanent_vs_temporary is that the artwork is permanently on display in a venue open to the public for the full life expectancy of the artwork, although the artwork itself is only temporarily displayed with a new sculpture every year. What would your thoughts be on this, given there's both a permanent and temporary nature about the artwork ? Nick (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If Michael doesn’t mind and forgives me butting in here: It appears that Goodwood commissions these as ephemeral sculptures. Which would pass FOP as they only live for the moment, in a place open to the public and erected there for the purpose that the public can view and admire them (only to be then, get unceremoniously cut-up and carted off to the scrap yard). Also, image File:EType sculpture.jpg is authored by Bruno Postle who notes: “this sculpture weighs 178 tons.” and he should know, because he is the engineer that turns the artist concepts into reality for Goodwood. See: jaguar-sculpture, and [http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.capita.com/media/1179/goodwood-festival-of-speed.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjRuuLij6_WAhUFbVAKHXV5DRwQFggaMAE&usg=AFQjCNFbo0EbX7PxrY3a-oGOy6lusAuOog] Goodwood festival of speed. This is not saying this is the sole and whole reason, etc., why WC should keep these images, rather I am adding it as background information. For, if the question has come up once, it may do again in the future. A well thought out justification by us to cover all these Goodwood images may save future editors much time and repetition concerning FOP debates for these images. Then, we can add it to the intro text to Category:Goodwood Festival of Speed monuments linking back to this discussion. Thoughts, Michael, Nick and all? P.g.champion (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nick, P.g.champion. I don't believe that there is any decided case under UK law which has turned on the question of whether an artwork is ”permanently situated” in a public place. The Commons text you refer to sets out specifically the situation under German law (see the heading to the section), and as this is not a matter of European Union copyright there is no reason to suppose that the law in the UK will be the same. In any event, as I understand the German position, permanence refers to an artwork which is displayed in public for the full term of its natural life (for example an ice sculpture which is left in position until it melts), and not to an artwork that is deliberately destroyed at the end of a temporary exhibition.
Where there is no guidance from case law, words in UK statutes have to be given their normal, natural, meaning. I think it highly unlikely that an artwork designed to be exhibited for a defined short period, and then removed, could be held to be “permanently situated”. Its purpose is in fact the exact opposite, namely to be “temporarily situated”. It cannot I think matter from the legal point of view whether the artwork is removed and stored in a shed, or whether it is removed and destroyed. It would make no sense for the copyright status of a publicly displayed artwork to change retrospectively depending on whether the owner decides to keep or destroy it; and in many cases the artwork's subsequent history can never be known to the photographer or indeed to anyone other than the artwork’s owner.
Although we don't seem to have anything written up about this, I have myself deleted quite a number of similar images using this rationale in the past, and none have ever been successfully challenged. It’s not too difficult to find images and categories of images where this issue is of concern, and I do think it would be worth getting this agreed and documented. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Because WC is international and thereby crosses legal boundaries as well. What would, in your opinion, be the right approach on WC to bring this issue to a wider audience - for discussion and resolution? Looks like the three of us ( and maybe many others ) have a tacit understanding that the temp/perm definitions are unclear. Obviously, we can not make any legal decelerations because this is outside of our remit but we can find out (on the basis of probabilities) where WC stands. Not just for the Goodwood exhibits but for all others. P.g.champion (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: because of our rule that images have to be free both in the US and also in the country where the image was taken we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution to this. Different countries have different rules and the community has decided that we need to respect all of them to the best of our ability. So far as the UK is concerned, our written instructions do accurately reflect UK law, but there is a gap in the statute that can only be filled by educated opinion such as the one I have expressed above. To be honest, the entire FoP page is such a practical and legal mess that it needs re-structuring and re-writing from scratch. That's a huge job, though, that I don't at the moment have the energy to get involved with. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the person who originally asked about this. I have the impression Commons shouldn't be hosting these images, although it might well be possible to get the artist to donate one or two. I don't have the heart—or the gall—to propose them all for deletion, but I'm thinking someone should (with a note left on the talk page of the en.wikipedia article). Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that these images ought to be deleted, and I'd support anyone who wants to open a DR. Would prefer not to do it myself, as I'm quite involved in Wiki Loves Monuments at the moment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have agreed to have come to an impasse. Without clear case law we can not unequivocally give these images the OK. Yet, instinctively it would seem that any court would recognize that these are ephemeral. In permeant works, consideration has to be given to such things as permanency of foundations, anti‑corrosion treatments etc. So from the outset the 'intention' is that of temporary. Also, as these large projects take so long to commission, plan and erect, that the next contenders/replacements are probably already being considered before the paint on the last has dried. Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. Admiral Lord Nelson got round a similar problem by raising his telescope to his blind eye and declared “I see no ships” So, I'm happy to employ some masterful inactivity for now. P.g.champion (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Adrian EvansEdit

Please see conversation at User talk:Adrian Evans Photography. User is having some problem with a couple of his photos not being included in the competition. Can you fix? I spotted one of the images at QIC and suspected the sky may be replaced. This seems to be the case. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  •   Done. Thanks for the note.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

WLM mass postingEdit

Hi MichaelMaggs, your recent mass posting with thanks for participation in the WLM UK competition is unfortunately broken as the table construct is not properly closed. This edit shows what needs to be fixed. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I had seen that issue on one of the talk pages, but I didn't realise how it had happened. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017Edit

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC
  • The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.
Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017Edit

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MichaelMaggs".