Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14/News and notes


 * One of Wael Ghonim's latest Twitter posts was about an interview in which he said that "our revolution was like Wikipedia". &mdash;innotata 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence about it to the article (with a link). Kaldari (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DMCA "take down" discussion
 * DMCA take down requests should be filed on Chilling Effects. The fair-use takedown request is especially worrying. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I recently asked to make it standard operating procedure to file these with chillingeffects.org; this may not have happened with this request yet but it should going forward.--Eloquence* 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have started filing DMCA notices with chillingeffects.org; I'm working on having all notices received since the beginning of the year filed with them. They were having site issues the day I started getting them uploaded, so I only got one or two in, but I'm hoping to get the rest of them submitted today.  Going forward, we'll be filing with chillingeffects.org each time a DMCA notice comes in.  Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Somehow i wasn't logged in when i initially signed this, sorry! Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Are we bothering to fight back about fair use takedowns? - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with the takedown notice. It was a professional, artsy photograph by a professional photographer, who may very well still have a legitimate commercial interest in licensing it out for republication. We were not using it under a "transformative use" justification; in particular, we were not discussing the photograph as the object of critical analysis, but were merely using it as a vehicle to illustrate an article unrelated to the photographer's work. While we habitually do that with photographs of deceased people, we'd better make sure we stay very much on the safe side of NFCC#2 in each case, avoiding all items where commercial value may be at stake. If the matter was important enough to the photographer to go to the trouble of a takedown notice, then the most likely reason is that it actually was infringing on his commercial opportunities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can file a DMCA counter-notice with the Foundation. It takes about 15 minutes. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "We" aren't the ones that get to make that decisions. The original uploader is the one who gets to decide whether to fight back or not. The foundation's duty is to protect itself by complying with the safe harbor requirements. This is exactly what the put-back provisions of the DMCA were made for, so that providers like the WMF don't have to second guess these decisions.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's sad, because even if it's law and WMF policy to not take further action other than delete the content, these ridiculous takedown notices are simply removing legitimate material. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just the original uploader, anyone who's content is removed due to the DMCA notice can file the counter-notice. Anyone that wants to can upload the content, have the Foundation remove it, and then file the counter-notice. Of course, it's better to do it with a throw-away account since you'll be blocked as well. 208.64.187.110 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think users with legitimate counterclaims should be able to re-upload works without being blocked, but they should be clear about what they're doing before they do it (explicitly acquiring the legal right to issue a counter-claim by means of a strategic re-upload), and they should warn Christine about this as well. Otherwise editors whose works are indirectly damaged by the removal have no recourse. Dcoetzee 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not seeing anything ridiculous about these particular takedown notices. They clearly own the copyright. Fair use doesn't mean you get to use copyrighted material willy nilly. It's a good thing we don't fight cases like these. It'd be bad publicity, and if it ever got to court we would likely lose. On top of that, it'd make it that much more difficult to fight against the takedown notices that are clearly fraudulent. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After 10 years, we are finally deciding to merchandise T-shirts? LOL! Well, better late than never! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merchandising
 * They've been selling stuff on CafePress for some time, see here. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's silly. Who edits wearing a shirt? Ocaasi (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They should sell underwear. Oh wait... :D -- Luk  talk 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)