Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 35

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:38, Tuesday, March 28, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Slightly alters text in non-free use rationales to incorporate a new Supreme Court ruling (Star Athletica v Varsity Brands)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): None; a simple matter of accuracy with a low edit count

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 427

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Changes "Not replaceable; protected by trademark owned by above organization" to "Not replaceable; protected by copyright of design and/or trademark owned by above organization". The Supreme Court recently ruled that designs of clothing can be themselves copyrightable (traditionally not true) if they can be (i) divorced from the useful article in a 2D or 3D work of art, such as a picture, and (ii) the work of art itself would be copyrightable. The relevant case is Star Athletica v Varsity Brands. I stumbled upon about 400 file pages for sports uniforms which note that the only restriction on the images are trademark. This is no longer true in almost all cases, excepting only those uniforms which are so simple that the resulting images do not pass the threshold of originality (link takes you to Commons for a better explanation of the legal concept). This corrects the inaccuracy. There is no regex used, just a very simple find-and-replace.

However please post a notice to relevant WikiProjects and boards, like possibly WP Law/WP USA/whatever project normally covers those articles, to inform them of the trial/task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I don't think I was very clear. This affects files, not articles. It only changes a small line in the non-free use rationale. This doesn't impact how the already non-free files may be used in articles. The only community group relevant to this would be the loose group of editors who maintain the file namespace. The more substantive discussions are going on at Commons, I believe, although I'm not a part of those discussions. Are any notices required in light of that information? I can't really think of a good place to notify, other than perhaps WT:FFD. When I have more time, I'll start a more thorough discussion about this court ruling and how it affects Wikipedia, but that's outside the scope of this task in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFD or WP:FAIRUSE or some other relevant notice board. The point is to let people know this will be done, and preferably those projects who will be most affected by it. If this affects, say, a lot of soccer articles, then WP:SOCCER too. Basically I want the affected people to be noticed of the task proposed, and to make sure this is desired / that this is actually in line with the ruling (and not just your own take on it), and to notify them that the next time such an image is uplodaded, the right rationale will be in place.

Going to ping @Philippe (WMF): for legal advice here. (Or any other person from the WMF legal departement). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Notices posted at both places you suggested. There's not really a relevant notice board for files. There should be. While all images I'm looking at here are sports uniforms, this doesn't actually impact articles in any way. We're not saying the non-free use is invalid, just correcting a factually incorrect statement that the images are only under trademark protection. The way images are being used or can be used is unaffected in all articles based on this ruling. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: By the way, Philippe is no longer employed by the Foundation. If you want to query legal, you'll need to go through some other channel to do so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (after Rob posted at NFC). Seems like a reasonable fair change to reflect that, even though I think we would have generally considered this aspect already. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I'm mostly trying to preemptively combat a well-meaning editor converting to PD and transferring to Commons, since we don't pay much attention to non-copyright restrictions. It seems like an easy mistake to make when the text of the rationale explicitly states the only restriction is trademark. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, completely agreed. I do think that if someone took the uniform images (the ones I think you're talking about) and previously tried to move them to commons on the claim it was only trademarked, they would have still flagged the image as bad because the logo would have been considered as part of it and found as a non-free element not used in de minimus, thus unable to qualify for free. I fully support making that more explicit language here given the clear legal case law at work. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mpaulson (WMF): - Hi Michelle, could you (or someone from your team) look into the legal ramifications of Star Athletica v Varsity Brands and tell us if this bot proposal (as outlined in the "Function details") is a good idea? Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ping @Ocaasi (WMF) and Astinson (WMF): as potential interested people too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't affect the Wikipedia Library in any way. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see a major GLAM implication, since the photos are created by the institutions themselves. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank for pinging us! I am from the WMF Legal Team and User:Mpaulson (WMF) has asked me to look into this. We don't have any issues with your proposed wording changes. ZZhou (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ZZhou (WMF): Thanks a bunch for the response and analysis. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: In principle, all of our technical disclaimers/documents should be legally accurate and up to date. I'm no expert, but if WMF says this is a good change, I can see no reason to oppose. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Contribs ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Task approved for one-time run. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.