User talk:Hahnw
Add topicWelcome to Meta!
[edit]Hello, Hahnw. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome and thanks
[edit]Thanks for researching and creating the page on midi policies. I have already added a query to the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. I'll go take a look at the talk page. Hahnw (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is another issue
[edit]It seems that copyrights were extended in Russia if the creators were 'rehabilitated'. Should we ask to verify that these creators were before we delete all of their works on commons? Sorry if it seems like I am adding paperwork to your desk.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Issue #3
[edit]The article on Sondra Locke at en:wp. There was a squabble about a BLP article. I boldly removed the disputed facts which were her two birth years. 1947 and 1944. Both had been left in the article while they discussed for months which one was accurate. Is there a way that WMF can get a public record of her birth year without relying on copies from the internet? To leave both years in the article implies that she may have falsified one year when it could be just a typo by others. To leave this implication in the article borders on libel in my opinion. A simple email to the hospital and an office action may suffice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Canoe1967 - it's really important to understand the role of legal interns at the Foundation. We can't have them doing the fact checking that goes into articles - that's the community's role. We can not engage, as the Wikimedia Foundation, in that type of content work. It puts into peril our independence as a content host, which is the foundation upon which our legal relationships are built. So please understand that Hahnw can not help with this - this should go through normal editorial processes. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me directly (email is usually fastest, but I watch my talk pages too). Thanks. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand completely. I am an electrician. When someone says 'ceiling fan install', I say $50,000 for friends and $100,000 for family. They usually change the subject at that point. Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
"Freedom of panorama"
[edit]Thank you for your work on the legal notes regarding sweat of the brow and MIDI files. I wonder if you or another qualified person would consider addressing some issues surrounding "freedom of panorama"? Although this concept is frequently cited in deletion discussions on Commons, there seems to be a lot of confusion about some key issues, such as 1) for a given photo, what country's laws should be considered (I've seen suggested variously that it should be the country depicted as here, the country from which the photo was taken as here, the country of which the photographer is a citizen, or the country in which the resultant photo is "published"); 2) does a photo relying on a freedom of panorama claim allow us to ignore US copyright in depicted works (e.g., can Commons host a photo of a statue which has US copyright -- whether or not the US is the country of origin -- if the statue is located in Germany, relying on the German Panoramafreiheit?); 3) similar to #2, does a photo relying on a freedom of panorama claim allow us to ignore country-of-origin copyright in depicted works if the photo is taken in a third country (e.g., suppose that a statue which, for copyright purposes was first "published" in Mexico and which is still under copyright, is now permanently situated in Germany such that German Panoramafreiheit applies); and 4) when copyright terms vary from country to country or a work copyrighted in one jurisdiction is deemed uncopyrightable in another (perhaps not being adequately original), how does this interact with freedom of panorama (in the prior example, since Mexico's copyright term is longer by 30 years than Germany's, there will be a period during which the work is in the public domain in Germany, so I think freedom of panorama would no longer apply, but it would remain copyrighted in Mexico, the country of origin -- since freedom of panorama would no longer apply, should the photo then be deleted as unfree in the country of origin)? Any clarification you could offer on these points and how they might sensibly be applied in the context of internet publishing, such as Wikimedia Commons, would be very helpful! Thank you, cmadler (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
