{"word_count": 650, "character_count": 4882}
Da das Listenarchiv von Wikimedia-L seit einiger Zeit hinterherhinkt, dokumentiere ich den Brief von Argentinien hier:Dear movement fellows,Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter byWikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions inWikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to theFoundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and especially to thoseworking in Wikimedia Commons.Volunteers from Argentina have been among the most affected by the policyadopted by Wikimedia Commons administrators regarding images that couldfall under URAA copyright provisions. Argentine copyright law provides thatimages enter the public domain "only" 25 years after their production and20 after their first documented publication. This relatively generouscriterion has enabled unaffiliated volunteers and we as Wikimedia Argentinato enrich Commons with hundreds of thousands of historical images that areabsolutely free under Argentine law: images of the political and every daylife of the country, of its culture, of its popular idols, of its joyfuland dark days, of its customs and architecture.However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators haveconducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involvingentire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of havingto justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers haveto devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. Thishas caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access tofree educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors andvolunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain andthat our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certainlegal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome.We acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation BoT and its Legal team haverepeatedly stated, as has been reinforced in recent communications, thatimages shouldn't be deleted unless we receive a takedown notice, and thatit has not received a single URAA-motivated notice to date. CertainWikimedia Commons administrators have dismissed the Foundation's statementas a mere opinion vis-à-vis the SCOTUS ruling. Yet, it is an opinion by theorganization that is legally responsible for the contents being hosted inWikimedia Commons.We respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on thepractical consequences of its current policy on URAA's implementation.Those files generating potential conflict could be even identified as suchwithout the need for a pre-emptive deletion. And we would like the Commonscommunity to reflect not only on the preventive loss of free contents weare generating, but also on the harmful disconnection between WikimediaCommons and all of the other Wikimedia projects it serves as mediarepository, mostly Wikipedia.Many years ago, the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia decided to close thepossibility to directly host images, choosing instead to use WikimediaCommons. If we miss the opportunity to find a workaround that saveshundreds of thousands of images from an unrequested deletion that hurts ourvery mission, Wikipedia editors could ultimately evaluate reversing thatdecision, reopening "project-hosted" uploads just to avoid the restrictiveand exclusionary URAA interpretation that Wikimedia Commons has beensustaining against the Foundation's political and legal advice. That wouldbe far from being an optimal outcome.We are sure that we as the broader community of Wikimedia volunteers canfind a common ground that permits to adapt to all legal conditions andchallenges while putting in the first place the fulfillment of our goaltowards free knowledge.Approved by the Board of Wikimedia Argentina on February 22, 2014Ähnliche Briefe liegen bisher vor von: Israel, Spanien, Venezuela.https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:URAA_issuesZum Thema URAA hier:?s=uraaUpdate: Ich hätte die Antwort der Foundation erwähnen sollen:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA#Response_from_Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees"The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices." das ist an sich ein vernünftiger Standpunkt, der die wildgewordenen Commons-Admins in ihrem Furor kaum stoppen wird, auch wenn das Meinungsbild aufhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAArecht eindeutig erscheint. URAA-betroffen Paul Klee