Multimedia:Licensing tutorial/Phase 1 feedback

From Wikimedia Usability Initiative
< Multimedia:Licensing tutorial
Revision as of 07:00, 18 October 2010 by Rocket000 (Talk | contribs) (Content and wording)

Jump to: navigation, search
Main questions
  • Does the tutorial convey all the important messages we want to fit in this limited space?
  • Does the character add value?
  • Are there mistakes?
  • Are the graphics appropriate?
  • Should the wording be changed?

General comments

  • On the web, ALL CAPS are usually associated with SCREAMING and thus discouraged. guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The CAPS don't bother me much since the style is so cartoony. Between the balloony caps and the blocky caps, I prefer the blocky style. Kaldari 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The reading flow is a bit unclear (where to start, how to navigate (zigzag, per column; how will that work on a screen?)). guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    This could be fixed with good use of color. For example, you could make the background of the "cool" side blue and the "uncool" side yellow. Kaldari 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Right. I forgot to say, we decided to work in black & white for the in-progress designs, and add color only at the end, to avoid relying too much on color for the meaning of the content. guillom 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At first, I wasn't a big fan of the character, but thinking more about it, I feel it's giving the tutorial a more personal touch. It's easier for users to relate to a character than to impersonal icons. guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I definitely think the character gives it personality, although I'm not a fan of the character's head being the Pan Am logo. Kaldari 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall, I love the concept and execution. It conveys a ton of information in a very small space. Well done. Kaldari 18:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The one with the character works far better. I don't think there's too much association with Pan Am. NeilK 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Content and wording

  • Column 2, frame 3: Screenshots of free software are ok to upload. Is it niche enough to omit? guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably, considering all the other edge cases we're omitting. Kaldari 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 2, frame 4: "Photographs of art and statues" are "ok" to upload if they were taken by the uploader, and if the original art/statue etc. was in the public domain. For example, it's ok to upload pictures of the Venus de Milo, but not pictures of Pablo Picasso's paintings. One way to improve this would be to say "photographs of recent art, statues". I thought of using the "frame" icon with a Picassoesque artwork for this bubble, and in contrast a stylized Mona Lisa for the "public domain" bubble, but I guess 1. the graphics would be too elaborated and 2. not everyone will understand. guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think it should probably say something like "Photographs of recently created art...". The graphic is probably fine how it is. Better to keep it simple. Kaldari 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 1, frame 4, and column 2, 6: "Freely-licensed works" and "media licensed under "non commercial only" license": Is this language too complicated? guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It's complicated, but I'm not sure there's any alternative that isn't overly vague. Kaldari 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Title of page 2: I don't think we want to explicitly label it as a "licensing tutorial". guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Kaldari 18:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thirded... let's try to avoid the use of the word "licensing". Actually what happened to the idea of using the word "donate"? Should the title be more like "Can I donate this image to WMCommons?" NeilK 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The double hyphen in Column 2, frame 5 should be replaced with an em dash or spaced en dash. Sorry, I can't resist copyediting :) Kaldari 18:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Same for Col 2, Frame 2--87.185.14.193 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Words to avoid: "media"? Can we try to avoid that, and say "anything" or "stuff" or "works" or something more colloquial? NeilK 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 2, frame 6: what about "non-derivatives"? (Probably a bit too specialized, but people don't grok the difference between CC-BY-SA (fine) and CC-BY-ND (not fine)). Do we need a second sheet that says which CC licences are OK? Lupo 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 2, frame 6: However, add "promotional photos". Either here or in column 2, frame 3 ("fair use"). Lupo 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 1, frame 4: why "... that you modified"? Freely licensed works are OK even if you don't modify them. Lupo 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 2, frame 2: instead of "often -- but not always --" just write "sometimes", and do point out that absence of a © sign doesn't mean there was no copyright on the item. Lupo 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what the current wording does? I'm not sure I see difference here. 216.38.130.167 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The current wording gives the impression that there needed to be some kind of indication for a work to be copyrighted. That's not true, and it's indeed one of the most common fallacies I see in new uploads. People all too often think that if there's no © sign, the item was free of copyrights. If you write "often - but not always - indicated by" a naïve reader may think that some indication were necessary; often that indication would be "©", and in the "not always" cases, the indication would be something else. I prefer to say that sometimes there may be an indication (typically "©"), but the work is "© All rights reserved" even if there is no indication at all. It's related to the point below. Lupo 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Might it be easier to not try to tell people what's not OK? Just tell them what is OK, and tell them that anything else is STOP. Include "photos of PD art and statues that you took yourself" in the OK column. Lupo 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that in particular column 2, frame 2, is difficult to get right. Freely licensed works are also copyrighted. What you'd need in column 2, frame 2 is actually "copyrighted work that is not freely licensed", but that's a concept probably too advanced already. Maybe "anything that isn't explicitly freely licensed", often indicated by "© All rights reserved"? Lupo 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • We should at least avoid being outright wrong, though. Simply saying "copyrighted" means disallowed will confuse as much as it will enlighten.--Ragesoss 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Column 2: "illegal, in fact" is wrong and very misleading. Some of the uncool uploads described aren't illegal to upload, they just aren't allowed at Commons, namely, fair use and non-commercial restrictions.--Ragesoss 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Would « often illegal » do? guillom 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yep. --Ragesoss 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    What if we just dropped the 'illegal' wording altogether. Otherwise it sounds a bit like the tutorial was written by the BSA/RIAA/FBI. Kaldari 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, illegal isn't particularly relevant. There a lot of grey area where we don't want to seem more conservative on unsettled legal issues than we are. We avoid that grey area, but that doesn't mean we take the side that everything in that grey area is actually illegal.--Ragesoss 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Say I took a picture of a building or other unique part of the built environment that isn't art. This isn't a "natural landscape," nor is it an "everyday object". Based on the tutorial, I don't know whether it's okay to upload. I wouldn't check anything in either column. --Ragesoss 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Well, we won't be able to fit every single case in the tutorial. The question is, are buildings a common enough case to be included (knowing that we can't explain freedom of panorama in this 10,000-ft. overview)? We could also end the tutorial with "Can't find your case? Still unsure? Ask on page X." as a catch-all. guillom 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Buildings and other built environments (neighborhoods, cityscapes) seem like one of the major categories of images to me. Maybe change "natural landscape" to "landscape"? --Ragesoss 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    And yes, a catch-all "still unsure?" hook at the end is a good idea. There are lots of edge cases, after all, and edge cases are more likely to turn to the tutorial for help than common cases where people can easily find examples.--Ragesoss 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Any copyrighted material (often -- but not always -- accompanied by this symbol)." The symbol has ceased to be relivant and is best not brought up.
  • copyright forfeited is seriously obscure.
  • Geni 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal errors

  • "Everyday objects not considered artwork" Buildings present an bit of an issue with this. Particularly in france
  • "Photographs of art, statues, and commercial packaging". Actualy all 3 fall into the "maybe" category. By art I assume 2D art is meant in which case there is the issue of PD work. For statues it depends where you are. Commercial packageing is very much a case of it depends. See Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.
  • "Work whose usage rights aren’t specified". Well there goes the public domain. Geni 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • There's a "public domain" section already. It's relatively tricky to know when something is in the public domain, unless it's very old. NeilK 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes but most public domain works don't state their usage rights.Geni 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphics

  • Column 2, frame 6: Would it make sense to reuse the Creative Commons Non-commercial icon there instead? guillom 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. Kaldari 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Handy guide to sharing legally" part looks like it needs to be moved to the left a bit (or horizontally compressed). Kaldari 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove the hat from the character. It implies "male"... Lupo 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Or even better, how about we switch the genders of the two characters so that we aren't perpetuating the male-dominance on Commons. Kaldari 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Panels that I think are clear and have good visual metaphors: the "own work", "diagrams", "modifications of freely-licensed" (although that wording could be improved), "fair use", "photographs of art", "drawings of (c) characters", "unspecified". NeilK 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Panels that could have their visual metaphors improved: "public domain" - the book on a pedestal isn't so obvious. There's a lot of misunderstanding around "public domain" these days, many people on Tumblr think that anything they find on the net is public domain. Maybe we have to indicate great age somehow, but in a culturally neutral way. Maybe the globe man could be holding up a microphone to an old phonograph player, the kind with the big trumpet-amplifier? That also gives us an example of music. NeilK 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the lock isn't a great metaphor for non-commercial. Also, it's pretty common to have to deal with no-derivatives licenses too. How about saying something like "Anything where the license restricts what we can do with it later." As for an illustration, the "lock" icon makes more sense if we think about it as "restrictions". So maybe it could be a painting that's behind bars or chained up or the globe-man has handcuffs or is attached to a ball and chain (or several). Then we could label than ball and chain(s) "non-commercial", "no derivatives". NeilK 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the character has a basketball for a head. Maybe the head could be based on the Commons logo or the WMF logo? Also, I agree with Lupo about the hat.--Ragesoss 19:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)