Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy proposal

I've adapted this from w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. IANAL. In fact I'm an engineer by profession which is as far as one gets from a lawyer. I'm proposing this because I don't want a hole to be blown in Meta's content just because we somehow lack an EDP. I suppose this proposal can be accepted / rejected in chunks (sections) if necessary. Deryck C. 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this only relevant to Meta?

If so, it might be better in the Meta namespace (Meta:Exemption doctrine policy). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's proposed Meta policy rather than global policy. I'm not an admin so you'll need to do this for me. Deryck C. 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(Note: it's been moved). --Elvey (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Non-free media used with permission"

That section can't be in an EDP. It must be possible for anyone to use Meta content. If people can't use Meta content because it doesn't comply with fair use law, then it can't be allowed in the EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires that. In fact, "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status" (my emphasis) makes it clear that it is permissible for lawfully used copyrighted materials to be uploaded to a project even if they cannot be reused. Deryck C. 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires exactly what I wrote. The part which requires this is the one you just quoted: regardless of the licensing status, it needs to be possible to use a verbatim copy of a Meta page containing a non-free file (that is, using the non-free content in the context of the project). If the Wikimedia Foundation is the only one who is allowed to use verbatim copies of Meta pages, then the resolution isn't satisfied. This is exactly why WM:CSD criterion I1 doesn't permit "by permission" images, which is based on another dictate from the Foundation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Jimbo's decree applies to situation where "no free equivalent" is satisfied. Currently Meta has cautiously disallowed "by permission" uploads, but that isn't something we can't change. If "by permission" content is banned everywhere on Wikimedia, then we should've abolished Wikimania because they (both the conference itself and the conference sites eg. wm2013:) all contain "by permission" content from third parties. Deryck C. 00:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the conference itself counts as a project, or what parts of the conference you would count as being part of the project. For example, wm2013: is to be hosted in a building which neither seems to be freely licensed nor in the public domain. In either case, the resolution applies to all non-free files, so "by permission" files can't be exempt from for example the minimal use requirement. Also, the kind of content that you are trying to include doesn't seem to be covered by the resolution. For example, a non-free financial statement can easily be replaced by a freely licensed summary of the financial statement without preventing people from understanding the contents of the financial statement. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
"Minimal" in the licensing policy refers to the scope of the EDP. "Minimal extent [of a non-free piece of media]" is a concept specific to fair use.

"For example, a non-free financial statement can easily be replaced by a freely licensed summary of the financial statement without preventing people from understanding the contents of the financial statement." This is part of the biggest Wikimedia nightmare I've ever had to deal with. Nemo has pointed out that WMF is planning to require that such reports be hosted on a WMF site. Deryck C. 00:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, for financial documents in particular, "a quality sufficient to serve the purpose of inclusion" is basically the full original because the authority of the document is important. Deryck C. 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, a freely licensed text about the financial document would still give the same understanding. Is there anything preventing chapters from publishing their reports under a free license? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't "anything preventing chapters from publishing their reports under a free license" then it's not the case that "there is no possibility of replacing the content with a freely-licensed equivalent", and so the EDP won't allow the unfree reports to be hosted here. ""Non-free media used with permission" no longer appears in the EDP.

Country statistics

According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, an EDP has to respect the laws of "countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any)" in addition to the copyright law of the United States. Do we have any statistics for Meta use so that we can tell in which countries the project content predominantly is accessed? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We can ask for statistics (I don't think they're readily available), but I don't think this clause is applicable to Meta. Unlike a language-edition of Wikipedia, Meta isn't meant for one particular cultural or country community, so the answer to the "if any" is "no". Deryck C. 00:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Clear and logical

This proposal meets (even exceeds) all the concerns that I had while reading through the other proposal. I feel that these policies, combined with an easily obtainable (via request, similar to Common's License Reviewer) special permission for uploading, should be more than adequate for the task. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 07:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Thankyou Deryck for taking the time to put this together. Craig Franklin (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

Scope of this EDP

As it stands, the "policy" part of this proposal is a bit vague on what purposes the non-free media should be used for. It needs to better address Meta's non-free media needs. I personally think that, even though a lot of projects seem to use enwiki's NFCC as a basis for their own EDP, it is actually a poor place to start, as it is really geared towards the encyclopedic needs of enwiki. For example, the point on "contextual significance" is very encyclopedic in nature, and hardly applies to a multifaceted place like this.

We should really think about exactly what non-free media will be needed here, and tighten up this policy a bit to make it relevant to the specific needs of this project. Surely it would suffice to have a simple dot-point list of what is permitted, e.g.

• Reports, financial statements, letters, and other documents related to the operation and governance of the Wikimedia Foundation and its associated organizations, which were created by an external entity that did not release them under a free license, or which cannot be freely licensed for some other reason.
• Proposed logos, and other logos (e.g. of external sites) as required. (Not sure about this one.)
• Images which cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons due to lack of freedom of panorama in the jurisdiction in which they were taken, and which are required as part of a process that takes place on this wiki (e.g. Wikimania bid),

(This was per NickK's comment at Meta:Babel.) What do you think? This, that and the other (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion, except that I hesitate to put a closed end to the list of things that can be permitted by the EDP. "Contextual significance" and "one-article minimum" effectively defers the scope to Meta:Inclusion policy, and discourages people from using Meta as a dump of uncurated non-free data related to Wikimedia affiliates and events. How would you rewrite the EDP if we were to limit the scope as you suggested? Deryck C. 15:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think not everything allowed under WM:IP needs to be allowed as non-free content. For example, "essays or advocacy" should not require non-free content, nor should "documentation intended to help users ...". As for closing the scope of the policy, I think that is important. A good EDP should not only fulfill the requirements of the WMF resolution, but also provide clear guidance to wiki users as to what non-free media is appropriate or acceptable here.

See User:This, that and the other/edp for a narrower, IMO clearer version of the Policy section of this page. This, that and the other (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, yours is better. "other documents" and "a process that takes place on this wiki" leaves the scope sufficiently open to defer to the inclusion criteria. I've merged your version into the proposa. Deryck C. 00:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it. For the benefit of those reading this discussion, here is a link to the original EDP proposal. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• The EDP doesn't need to mention buildings as USA has FOP for any building regardless of location. All we would need is to copy over w:Template:FoP-USonly. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The way it mentions it is not inappropriate, I think, but I agree that it's not necessary. We should copy over w:Template:FoP-USonly to Template:FoP-USonly. I can't use Special:Import, and copying it requires copying a bunch of other stuff, like the docs, w:Template:FoP-US to Template:FoP-US,.. --Elvey (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

General support

I don't have the time to review this in depth, but I'd like to voice my general support for adopting an EDP for Meta Wiki. Glad to see others sorting out the details here. -Pete F (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do we need to do to get this approved? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Trijnstel drew my attention back to this discussion. I will attempt to answer this question, but I will gladly defer if somebody with more experience in deliberating and passing policy changes on Meta wants to weigh in.

It seems to me there are two viable drafts: this one, and also the one on this user sandbox: User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox

I am not sure about the history of there being two distinct drafts, but it does seem to me that there are important differences. This one is highly specific, and anticipates very narrow use cases; the one by User:TeleComNasSprVen is a bit more general, but in my view is not overly permissive.

I therefore would think it worthwhile to open a discussion, presumably at Meta:RFC, in which both drafts are formally presented to the community, with a bit of advocacy for each by their authors. I would suggest a timeframe of one month; that it be announced that a decision will be reached in one month. During that month there could be a !vote held, with commentary and (likely) improvements made to each draft. These four options could be presented to voters:

• Option 1 (this draft)
• Option 2 ([[User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox])
• Call off the vote, a new draft needs to be written
• No EDP should be adopted for Meta

I'm curious if others like that approach. If so, I am happy to help make it happen. -Pete F (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Peteforsyth As I see it, the concerns brought up on this page have been addressed. I think the need for an EDP is clear, so either refer to that, or skip option 4. Both Option 1&2 are in reasonable shape (and can always be improved even after adaptation) I say 'Make it so, Number One'. ;-) At the moment, we are in violation of policy (point 6)! --Elvey (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support verdy_p (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC) :

  the EDP which will allows hosting some limited contents on Meta, as long as they remain clearly isolated and clearly identified as non reusable elsewhere by partal or complete inclusionà is viable as long as it is in the interest of the mission of Wikimedia projects to be able to advertize on their own activities and venues, and helps organizing these events and making them better visible to the public. The alternative would be to organiza all this secretely on non-open sites, without much collaboration possible with the community (this would mean lower participation to these events, and more money being wasted due to poor visibility, assistance and results of these events, and the community would not like of these events were the place where decisions were taken without informing them enough).

  Without the EDP it is also impossible to translate the necessary documents with help of the community, unless this is done on a closed site (such as the Foundation site where participants will agree to transfer immediately all authors rights to the Foundation for their work on this site and all derived works; there is also another legal risk because this wouldforce the Foundation to endorse the contents submitted this way by the community, so the Foundation would require contributors to enter in otractual agreement wit them and not just in exclusive licencing agreements, and check the identity of everyone ; it would also violate the existing agreements with local chapters that want to organize their own event: they would become immediately subject to US law, even if these chaters are located outside US and will not organize their event in US or will not even attempt to collect data from users located in US).

  The EDP is the simpler way to resolve these issues : it reserves the independance of parties where appropriate, it preserves privacy of contributors, it reduces the administative work needed to be performed by the limited WMF staff, and the WMF does not have to endorse any content (which can be removed easily if needed via UDRP or OTRS requests, even without waiting for a decease subpoena). It will not make readers into trouble as long as the "non-free" status of the page is clear and visible (for this reason all non-free media files and pages using them on Meta should contain a banner specfuying that the content is not free and not reusable elsewhere then on Meta. The non-free status should be stated in the licencing info, of media files, and the description of page these medias should be write protected to avoid removing that banner. Ideally MediaWiki should be able to infer itself that any reuse of files with that licence is non free and that media file applies its licence to any page reusing it: this should be a licence tracking category, with a possible viral effect.

huh? TL!!!! support what? Option 1&2 ? This draft, which is Option 1? --Elvey (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• There seem to be two drafts. I have tried to review both of them.
  1. Meta:Exemption doctrine policy:
     • "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." However, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that an EDP must be "in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any)". It is not clear where the content predominantly is accessed, but the EDP may have to be adjusted to take the laws of additional countries into account.
       • Presumably that clause is for wikis such as, say, Indonesian Wikipedia, which is presumably predominantly accessed from Indonesia. As Meta is an international project, it is accessed from all countries, and it would not make sense to set apart some countries as being those from which Meta is "predominantly accessed", just as it would not make sense to say that Meta (as an international project) needs to abide by the laws of all countries in the world. This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
     • "Reports, financial statements, letters, and other documents related to the operation and governance of the Wikimedia Foundation and its associated organizations, which were created by an external entity that did not release them under a free license, or which cannot be freely licensed for some other reason." However, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." It would seem that a report or financial statement could be replaced by a freely licensed summary of the document.
       • For audit and transparency purposes it is likely that these documents, particularly financial and legal documents, must be provided in their entirety. A summary may not adequately obviate the need to upload the original document, as inevitably some detail will be lost, and the details are often the important part of these types of documents. This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
     • "they are meaningfully linked from at least one page, whether by transclusion, file inclusion, or wikilinking. (Links from housekeeping pages, such as deletion requests and Meta:Babel, are not considered 'meaningful'.)" It is not clearly defined what "meaningful" means here, and this could lead to disputes.
       • A "meaningful" link is any link that is not from "housekeeping pages, such as deletion requests and Meta:Babel". That is what was meant here; does it need to be clarified? This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
         • I think I've Fixed this. This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
     • It is not clear if point 2 in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is satisfied. On English Wikipedia, this is satisfied by placing all non-free content in a category: w:Category:All non-free media.
       • That could easily be remedied. This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
         • Fixed. This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox:
     • This page fails to discuss the geographical requirements in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy.
     • "The file must be strictly in scope; that is, it must pertain to the Wikimedia movement in some way" This sounds very vague and is likely going to lead to disputes.
       • That is indeed far too vague. The scope at least needs to be defined without using unclear terms such as "in some way". This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
     • Point 3 of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy doesn't seem to be satisfied. The only checks are that the file mustn't be replaceable, that it must be in use and that it must be related to the Wikimedia movement. However, the page does not discuss use on multiple different pages. If a file is suitable on one page, but unsuitable on another page, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy would require that the file is removed from the second page. Counting linking as "use" risks causing trouble here, as discussing a file may be difficult. This problem also seems to exist in the other EDP proposal.
     • "The file must be irreplaceable; that is, there is no freely licensed equivalent media that is able to convey the same meaning." This text seems to misunderstand the word "irreplaceable". The replacement doesn't have to be a media file; it could also be text placed on a wiki page.
     • It says that the file may be deleted one month after {{delete}} has been added, but {{delete}} asks for immediate deletion.
• It seems that at least some parts of the proposals need to be modified. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward?

Hi. I have returned from an extended wikibreak and I am somewhat surprised that the RFD that caused this discussion to take place and this proposal has not gone anywhere and are both freezed. I think it is best for the interests of this project and its users that we should move forward: continue with the discussion and eventually approving or rejecting this proposal in a vote. Some users and administrators would like to start doing some file cleanup, but having this in a limb doesn't really help. This and the RFD can't be opened forever IMHO and if we can't arrange ourselves to reach an agreement, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy all unfree files must be deleted. At present we are violating that resolution. Any ideas would be awesome about how can we move forward. Will anyone oppose to advertise this discussion on our watchlist so we can have more input on this? Thanks. — M 16:41, 01 December 2014 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: I would welcome any steps to move this forward! This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you This, that and the other. I opened a thread at RFH seeking advice on what to do but the result was not very satisfactory to me. Perhaps we could start a Meta:Requests for comment and get more input? -- M\A 14:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know the procedures of enacting this as formal Meta policy? Deryck C. 10:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to draw up an RFC page. Deryck Chan if you'd like to start one, I could help improve it. I think it would be worthwhile to have a little discussion ahead of time, to refine the proposal, before formally inviting comments from everybody. The main question, I think, is -- how do we present the different options? There are two proposals -- I think we should present them both in some form, and present clear choices such as "I oppose any EDP" or "I support either one of them, but prefer #1" or "I support #2, but oppose #1". Thoughts? -Pete F (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we've had a lot of discussion already... the current draft at Meta:Exemption doctrine policy is actually written primarily by User:This, that and the other rather than myself. User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:This, that and the other - is it possible for us to combine the drafts in a mutually agreeable manner so we can present a unified policy draft to the rest of the Meta community? Deryck C. 20:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I would like to present a unified draft, I think they represent two different approaches (top-down vs. bottom-up, if you will) and it is probably best if the community is allowed to choose between the two options.

On a related note, I would really like to get rid of the line "the author or copyright holder has granted permission for the file to be uploaded to Meta" from the Meta:Exemption doctrine policy proposal. I'm not sure why it is there; certainly for no-FoP photos I do not see how it is necessary, and for the other category of non-free content (documents etc), I really don't see why it should be required - for some types of documents (court documents come to mind) the author may not be able or willing to grant such a permission, yet the document is of clear benefit to the movement. 124.170.7.98 This, that and the other (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should centralize the discussion at WM:RFC (local RFC process) and prepare a vote. —MarcoAurelio 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think an RFC would be the logical but long overdue next step. On a related note I would like to see the eventual removal of most of the free licenses in Category:License templates in order to encourage future freely-licensed uploads to be done at Commons. There is also the question of what to do with the files in Category:Presumed GFDL images, because presuming the license is one thing but Commons requires explicit licensing, so they couldn't be transferred there. However these are questions that can be answered after an EDP is adopted. Green Giant (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

See Meta:Babel#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta. Let's discuss first if we really want to allow fair use. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Green Giant 5.112.107.49 21:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)