Difference between revisions of "Wikimedia Commons"
NeilWalker (talk | contribs) (FTFY) |
NeilWalker (talk | contribs) (headings and order of sections; text unchanged apart from the removal of one sentence) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Wikimedia Commons''' (simply called '''Commons''' within Wikimedia projects) is a project of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] that seeks to create a database of "free" media, such as [[image]]s, [[sound]]s, and [[video]]. Media stored in Wikimedia Commons can be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikipedia]].<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikimedia_projects</ref> | '''Wikimedia Commons''' (simply called '''Commons''' within Wikimedia projects) is a project of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] that seeks to create a database of "free" media, such as [[image]]s, [[sound]]s, and [[video]]. Media stored in Wikimedia Commons can be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikipedia]].<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikimedia_projects</ref> | ||
| − | + | ==Explicit images== | |
| + | Under the pretext of free expression, Wikimedia Commons hosts thousands of sexually graphic videos and images. It is unsuitable as an unsupervised resource for minors.<ref>Morris, Kevin. (June 26, 2013) "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/how-wikimedia-commons-bec_n_3502688.html How Wikimedia Commons Became A Massive Amateur Porn Hub]". ''Huffington Post''. Retrieved September 1, 2017</ref> | ||
| + | ==Copyright issues== | ||
The WMF attempts to second-guess the copyright status of photos that are claimed to be copyrighted. In 2011, David J. Slater, a British wildlife photographer, had a monkey grab one of his cameras. Before Slater could recover the camera, the monkey had snapped a number of photos. Slater then publicized his story and copyrighted and licensed the photos. However, an editor uploaded a digital copy of the photo to Wikimedia Commons claiming that the copyright was invalid because the monkey had taken the photo. Slater asked that the photo be removed from Commons because people were downloading and reproducing the image without paying Slater royalties. The WMF denied his request.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/monkey-see-monkey-click|title=Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie|work=New Yorker|first=Jay|last=Kang|date=August 8, 2014|accessdate=August 8, 2014}}</ref> | The WMF attempts to second-guess the copyright status of photos that are claimed to be copyrighted. In 2011, David J. Slater, a British wildlife photographer, had a monkey grab one of his cameras. Before Slater could recover the camera, the monkey had snapped a number of photos. Slater then publicized his story and copyrighted and licensed the photos. However, an editor uploaded a digital copy of the photo to Wikimedia Commons claiming that the copyright was invalid because the monkey had taken the photo. Slater asked that the photo be removed from Commons because people were downloading and reproducing the image without paying Slater royalties. The WMF denied his request.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/monkey-see-monkey-click|title=Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie|work=New Yorker|first=Jay|last=Kang|date=August 8, 2014|accessdate=August 8, 2014}}</ref> | ||
| − | == | + | |
| − | + | ==Hypocrisy and nepotism== | |
| + | In 2009, a teenager took a couple of photos of himself and posted them to Wikimedia Commons. The first photo was of his bare legs, the second photo was of his nipple. In January 2012 he made a formal request asking Wikipedia commons remove the photos for him. Commons administrators denied his requests three times on the grounds that once he licensed Commons to distribute his photos, he could not revoke that license. Finally, another administrator who does not primarily focus on Commons took pity on the teenager and deleted the photos. In contrast, a director of the Wikimedia UK charity uploaded a bondage photo of himself naked from the waist down. He changed his mind about having that photo publicly available because he was selected to testify on behalf of Wikimedia UK before [[Parliament]], and got one of his Commons administrator friends to quietly delete the image without a debate.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/14/wikimedia-needs-your-nipples/|title=Wikimedia needs your nipples|date=October 14, 2013|work=Wikipediocracy|accessdate=March 16, 2014}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 14:21, September 1, 2017
Wikimedia Commons (simply called Commons within Wikimedia projects) is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation that seeks to create a database of "free" media, such as images, sounds, and video. Media stored in Wikimedia Commons can be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia.[1]
Explicit images
Under the pretext of free expression, Wikimedia Commons hosts thousands of sexually graphic videos and images. It is unsuitable as an unsupervised resource for minors.[2]
Copyright issues
The WMF attempts to second-guess the copyright status of photos that are claimed to be copyrighted. In 2011, David J. Slater, a British wildlife photographer, had a monkey grab one of his cameras. Before Slater could recover the camera, the monkey had snapped a number of photos. Slater then publicized his story and copyrighted and licensed the photos. However, an editor uploaded a digital copy of the photo to Wikimedia Commons claiming that the copyright was invalid because the monkey had taken the photo. Slater asked that the photo be removed from Commons because people were downloading and reproducing the image without paying Slater royalties. The WMF denied his request.[3]
Hypocrisy and nepotism
In 2009, a teenager took a couple of photos of himself and posted them to Wikimedia Commons. The first photo was of his bare legs, the second photo was of his nipple. In January 2012 he made a formal request asking Wikipedia commons remove the photos for him. Commons administrators denied his requests three times on the grounds that once he licensed Commons to distribute his photos, he could not revoke that license. Finally, another administrator who does not primarily focus on Commons took pity on the teenager and deleted the photos. In contrast, a director of the Wikimedia UK charity uploaded a bondage photo of himself naked from the waist down. He changed his mind about having that photo publicly available because he was selected to testify on behalf of Wikimedia UK before Parliament, and got one of his Commons administrator friends to quietly delete the image without a debate.[4]
References
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikimedia_projects
- ↑ Morris, Kevin. (June 26, 2013) "How Wikimedia Commons Became A Massive Amateur Porn Hub". Huffington Post. Retrieved September 1, 2017
- ↑ Kang, Jay. "Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie", New Yorker, August 8, 2014. Retrieved on August 8, 2014.
- ↑ "Wikimedia needs your nipples", Wikipediocracy, October 14, 2013. Retrieved on March 16, 2014.