User talk:LuisV (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from User talk:LVilla (WMF))
Jump to: navigation, search

Database copyright issues in link with Wikidata[edit]

Any progress on Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Clarifying_database_copyright_issues_in_link_with_Wikidata ? Filceolaire (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Update posted over there. LVilla (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Still no answer? It's been nearly 3 months. Filceolaire (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this thing on? Filceolaire (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It is on, and we're unfortunately really busy. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll interpret that as "Looks ok for wikidata to carry on but there might be some corner cases." rather than "Stop everything. There's a massive breach in the copyrights!" since you have decided it is not an urgent priority. If that needs a response then could you do it on the legal page?
I'm afraid I'm posting a second question over there for you to consider. Filceolaire (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: Specific questions over there are the best way to move forward. Also, I wouldn't necessarily judge what Wikidata should/shouldn't do just from the priority for the Foundation's legal team - too many other factors come into play in how we prioritize our time. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

side discussion on trademarks[edit]

Hello LVilla, since we seem to be talking past each other somewhat, I came over here for the moment, if that is okay with you. Once we hash out where we agree and where we differ, then I am happy to return to the trademark-policy-talkpage. (And of course, if you'd rather talk there than here, that is also perfectly fine by me.) Apologies in advance for the w:WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please feel free to *directly* edit my comment, using strikethru where helpful.

Here is what I'm hearing you say:

As you can probably guess, I disagree with a few of those.  :-)   The motivation here is specific, although the conversation is general. I want to improve retention, outreach, and similar things. I want to be able to sell t-shirts that say WikipediaA, pamphlets that explain WikipediA, and birthday-cakes that say WikipediA. Err, well, not me personally.

  But I want to incite others to do such things. Right now, it sounds like they will *not* be able to, unless they are global Stewards or ArbCom folk, who regularly sleep in Jimbo's guestroom. That is way too strict for my goals. Anyhoo, I'm appreciative of the loosening of the language relative to 2009, but I'm trying to loosen it up further, to permit the Inherent Right To Sell Wikipedia Stuff For A Profit... and I fully realize we need to simultaneously both preserve the legally-defensible trademark-status of the words/logos/etc, as well as prevent "bad actors" from abusing the marks in various ways.

  But my bald assertion is this: when the local t-shirt shoppe sells an otherwise-plain hoodie that says WikipediA, for a profit, when the local bakery sells happy-birthday-wikipedia cakes, for a profit, and when the local printer sells wikipedia-posters-and-books, for a profit... as long as the designs and graphics and texts of those items are all 100% CCBYSA&&GFDL... the winner is wikipedia herself. Competition will keep prices down. Will the WMF get a kickback? Nope, not in fiat-monies. But will the wikipedia community get something? Most certainly. Hope this helps; if I don't respond promptly, please ping my enWiki talkpage. 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, since I'm not sure who you are, I can't ping you on enWiki :)
I can respond in more detail if you'd like, but I think maybe before plunging into Wall of Text(tm) it might help to address two of the key misunderstandings.
First, we're happy to discuss changing the definitions, even to the point of including anonymous editors; but that discussion really has to happen on the main talk page.
Second, whether or not you're a community member is relevant only to using the community mark to show community membership (Sec. 3.4). You can use the other marks, or this mark in other ways, regardless of how community member is defined. So your examples - selling t-shirts, cakes, etc. - aren't relevant to the question of how community member is defined. It's still important to get it right, but it doesn't really touch on the questions you're raising.
Hope that helps make more sense of it. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Registering is not required for a talkpage; w:User_talk: is where you can ping me. As to who I am, well, I'm 74, you can think of it as a jersey number, if you like. Yes, I realize that getting anything *changed* will require gaining consensus on the article-talkpage. The point of coming here first, is to get my confusions ironed out with just us two people, so that the wider readership does not have to watch the flailing around. :-)
  On to your point about how community-member-is-defined: yes, my first question on the talkpage was about the restrictive definition of 'community member' with regards to the RGB-logo. But my original impetus for visiting the talkpage had to do with profitably selling cakes/shirts/pamphlets/etc that say "WikimediA" on them... *without* requiring that I first email in a permission-request, and wait for an answer back from the WMF, each and every time. Given your response to my question about the much-more-loosely-controlled *community* logo methinks it will be better to gab a little here with you first, before I post my freedom-to-sell-wikipedia proposals into the talkpage subsections related to some particular exceptions to the restrictions of 4.6, into the new section 3.8 which is "stuff you can sell without asking for a license first" and written much like the existing 3.7 section on make-your-own-but-do-not-sell. Does that clarify where I'm headed with the 20-claims-list? Do you *not* apply something stiffer than those twenty restrictions to the wikiLicense process? 00:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  For comparison, here is the Linux trademark, and their position on selling shirts.[1][2] Methinks something like that would be helpful to wikipedia, but slightly more restricted perhaps, to prevent tivoization of content/designs. 00:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The case for the cake, continued.  :-)       I left you a long missive, but I hope a clear one. Thanks for your help hammering this out. 06:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you've convinced me that it is a bit too legally risky to pull it off at this time. Still, I left you a *much* smaller reply (relative to the whale of the previous time), which in a nutshell argues that low-quality is exactly what wikipedia is all about... because we have a mechanism.
  1. for reverting (aka section 6.2 revocation),
  2. for improving (aka collaboration and/or competition),
  3. for anti-spam (aka some restrictions on the quantity of low-quality-stuff that one entity can produce).
That is the wikipedia philosophy, and methinks it can work for enabling free-as-in-freedom trademarks, just like it work for free-as-in-freedom content. I ask that in 2015 or whatever, when trademark-policy is revisited, we try again to unleash the horde of wiki-cakes, so as to spread our message throughout the land.  :-)   Thanks much for your efforts, see you around. 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Hope you will reply soon. It is very important to Commons as whether we can use original files if find somewhere else and also for photographers whether it is safe to share a reasonable size version if anyone can claim a free license for the original if they can somehow find it. JKadavoor Jee 14:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I'm talking with Creative Commons about the issue right now, but the community should continue discussing and analyzing the issue rather than waiting for us. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; we're continuing that discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg. JKadavoor Jee 17:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#File:Trabalhos.jpg. Does the legal has an opinion in this matter or it is also very vague as of CC and our admins? Jee 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Important: We definitely need some qualified legal advice on what to do with future and past uploads. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#A_real_case. :) Jee 07:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0 as default on Wikimedia Commons?[edit]

Hi Luis,

Don’t know if you remember me − we met at Wikimania last August. Hope you are well!

As you know, over on Wikimedia Commons we had some discussions about CC v4.0, and about a possible move to default to 4.0 in the UploadWizard. During the last Metrics & activities meeting you said (yes, that was me on IRC! ;-) « Not yet », especially as there was no much traction to make switch yet.

Well, the Public Library of Science announcement decided me to move forward with that! I opened a section on COM:VPP to get some opinions, with a tentative switch date of January 1st (just because deadlines help making things happen − this is of course no hard requirement).

Your input would be valuable over there. Yann notes that a review from Legal would be appreciated, may I let you comment on this as well?

(I am pinging you as you mentioned you followed the discussions on that subject on Commons ; of course feel free to notify/transmit to whoever might want to weigh in).

Thank you for your time!

Jean-Fred (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely remember, of course! I will weigh in and explain the situation a bit. Thanks for pinging me about this - I have been following, but have also been swamped the past few days. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Expecting your opinion here. We are not talking about making CC BY-SA 4.0 as the default (recommended) license for all future uploads; but making them (CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0) as available options so that people can choose if they prefer so. Currently we have to use the old form and add the license manually; so only experienced users can do it. :( Jee 13:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: Thanks for pinging me on this, I will take a look. —LVilla (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Images taken "by proxy"(?)[edit]

Hello Luis! Would you mind giving some thought (or some pointers to existing comments) over the question at the core of Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bejinhan.JPG#File:Bejinhan.JPG:

If you hand a friend/stranger your camera and ask him/her to take a picture of you. Who owns the copyright.

Is there a clear cut answer to this? Is this a work for hire? Does it matter if specific instructions with respect to the framing of the shot are given? Is that "meat remote release"? Does i matter if it is a friend or stranger. Or do we not care about any of the circumstances and have to assume that the friend/stranger is the copyright holder? Cheers --Dschwen (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dschwen: We can't generally provide advice on specific files like this one, but I'll ask our interns to look at the general question for a Wikilegal memo so that it can be referred to in future issues like this one (since this one is resolved). -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thanks, Luis, that is exactly what I wanted. That specific file was just sparking the idea. --Dschwen (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue has now come up again in this discussion on the Commons Village Pump. --Dschwen (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We almost have a memo ready. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Where can we see it? And see this discussion too. Jee 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We will post it on m:Wikilegal when it is ready. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Posted. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this detailed analysis. Very useful. Jee 16:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Luis, can you please look at Talk:Non-disclosure_agreements#Non-disparagement. Thanks, Russavia (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

European Commission copyright consultation[edit]

Dear Luis, thank you for your official Foundation response proposals. They reflect what Wikimedians like me have commented. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing :-) SJ talk  12:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Luis, have you prepared an official document? I would like to share it with Wikimedia Uruguay and related organizations. Thank you, NaBUru38 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I sent it to advocacy-advisors on Tuesday- I'll put it up on the wiki today. Thanks again for your help! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let us know when you publish the document.

By the way, did you see this? It seems that consumers only provide money, private data and user-generated content (the latter two with thin arrows). Artists and producers are a totally separate category. Communities like Wikipedia don't appear anywhere -NaBUru38 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It was supposed to have been posted Friday; I'll nag my intern about it :)
Yes, I posted about the "value tree" on advocacy-advisors list. Pretty ridiculous. I think it would be a very interesting exercise to rewrite it from our perspective (since I think we can do better than just saying "this is a forest"). —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) (sometime earlier this week that I forgot to sign like an idiot)
@NaBUru38: It is now posted. Thanks again for your help. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Could you verify the legal accuracy of Template_talk:Personality_rights#Version_6? Jee 07:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

...paging doctor Hugh Moore... is Hugh Moore here...[edit]

"trust me, if we'd wanted to write something much longer or more complex, we could have!"

Thanks, that was classic.  :-)   — 02:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 :) —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How about adding political affiliations whether paid or not?[edit]

I have noticed in wikipedia articles about certain politicians and their parties (especially those of the right) a marked tendency to gloss over the politician's faults and extoll his or her virtues (which are frequently dubious and subjective. I think, given the nature of politics, it would be useful to know who is composing the biography of any given politician or description of a political party.




This means that most of your inexpert users are finding themselves unable to leave comments.

2. The comment I wish to make:

THIS CHANGE IS INSUFFICIENT. For the most part, I rely on to gain quick clarification about the meaning of something I come across in my readings or internet use. Sometimes I also want a more in-depth understanding and read large parts or even all of an article. I assume that many users are like myself.

THIS MEANS THAT I NEED TO KNOW IF SOMETHING IS POTENTIALLY BIASED -- such as being paid for -- AS I USE THE ARTICLE -- that is, quickly. I do not want to have to do research to find this out. I might add, I would have to start by finding out how to access the user page, etc., in order to do so! This changes a quick look -- 30 seconds or more -- into a major undertaking! I am appalled.

Suppose, for example, I want to find out who a particular person mentioned in what I am reading is. What's their outstanding contribution, opinion, reason why they are cited? It might be a political point of view or series of writings (John Stuart Mill, Lincoln, Thoreau, 1984, Marx, urban myth?, etc.). (I have not taken time to figure out good examples.) In these cases, BIAS MATTERS -- but I am not taking the time to research the writers. There should be information RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE [in a set-off such as this] to WARN me!!! If the detailed background info can't be included, a link to where it is should be!!

As my exclamation points show, I feel VERY STRONGLY about this. In fact, I am shocked to learn that I may have unwittingly been using the encyclopedia w/o this info. And again, I strongly suspect that I am like the vast majority! of users, who are probably "casual" like myself -- looking for good, reliable, fast background on something we don't (quite) understand.

I feel saddened -- and deprived.

3. It also means that I apparently have had a misunderstanding of the objectivity of Wikipedia -- and that this is so for the vast majority of your users.

4. If a note is not made at the point that something paid for is in the article -- or that something (or the whole article) is by someone who is paid -- then A NOTE SHOULD BE ADDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ARTICLE (or PART of the article which is being looked at) -- THAT THE ARTICLE OR PARTS OF THE ARTICLE MIGHT BE PAID FOR OR BY SOMEONE WHO WAS PAID. That at least would alert naive users (like myself) to be wary.


Your opinion on this matter is appreciated. Jee 16:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jee: thanks for bringing it up. We're talking about it already; I hope we can do something to help out but it does come up against some of our legal constraints. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Luis; and please look on the other matter I mentioned below too. We need a uniformity in guiding our reusers about the reuse requirements. Currently it is different in different places (file page, license tags, crditline, "use this file" option in Media Viewer, etc.); which only helps to confuse the reuser. As we are not professionals, we are struggling to find a perfect solution. :( Jee 02:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I understand - it is a difficult situation, and we'd like to help. But interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us, so we're working on it. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; we'll wait. :) Jee 02:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds[edit]

This needs your attention. Thanks. Jee 15:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation on WMFlabs[edit]

Rich Farmbrough 21:33 7 September 2014 (GMT).

Privacy policy plan[edit]

Rich Farmbrough 21:33 7 September 2014 (GMT).