On 26/09/2007, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/26/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2007, John Vandenberg
<jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In what way are they an issue?
1)there appears to be a market for low res album covers
How does this impact our use of album covers under fair-use?
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
2)the shear
number of them we use
This is due to the the shear number of albums in Wikipedia.
Doesn't help.
3)the lack of
commentry on the cover art in articles.
The majority of our hosted cover art are due to us having an article
about the work. Fair-use on the article about the album can be
minimally justified as for identification purposes. Not ideal, but
also not disputable.
Please don't say things like not disputable with regards to fair use.
The closest you can get is consistent with piece of case law X in this
case there isn't any.
As a result, it should be clearly undesirable to
delete images of album covers where we have an article about the
album, or expect to in the near future. Yet they are deleted from the
fair-use pile on a daily basis. Of the 100 images in [[Category:mages
with unknown copyright status as of 18 September 2007]] when I looked
this morning, five appeared to be album covers, and they were all
deleted (as many logos were also deleted):
[[Image:Trapt LIVE!.jpg]]
[[Image:Sugababeschangeofficial.jpg]]
[[Image:Thevines highlyevolved.jpg]]
[[Image:Evanescencecover.jpg]]
[[Image:66 chobits002.jpg]]
Obviously we would prefer a commentary to strengthen our fair-use
claims and to improve our encyclopedia. Necessary improvements in
articles can be noted and managed with tags. I wouldnt be surprised
if there was a group of Wikipedians that would love to
work on [[Category:Album articles with cover art in need of commentary]].
Been tried. How many of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Album_covers_with_no_commentary
Have been improved since they were added to the cat?
Things like
[[Abbey Road (album)]] are not a problem but
[[Endless_Love_soundtracks]] is (ignoreing the other problems with
that article).
Obviously unnecessary. Do we have bots/tools tracking cases like this
where non-free media is being used on articles without a fair-use
rationale?
Yes.
Have we had any complaints?
Honestly interested..
I don't belive so. However sites with simular content have had issues
in the past:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3608.cfm
Thanks. That does look like a concern. Where they hosting high res
images? Do we know why they were targeted?
Speculating on the motives of the RIAA is risky.
However, the recent practise is to replace AGF with
bots because they
cant assume, judging good in black and white, and dont have time for
the messy business of intentions. The balance has shifted without
consensus due to the efficiency of the bots, and the backlogs they
cause. Admins clearing those backlogs on Wikipedia rarely spare the
time for the easy cases such as logos, PD images that can be detected
with the human eye and brain
PD images should not be turning up in the fair use pile.
I have seen them in the fair-use pile, and I have put some in the
fair-use pile because I wasnt adequately confident that PD applied.
Then don't call them PD images.
The "no license pile" is treated with even
less care. Automating the
tossing of images onto piles considered to be junk inevitably leads to
this, and taking them off that pile is difficult work.
Just need to show that the image is under a valid license. If it isn't
it needs to be processed.
For example, before breakfast
[[en:Image:Edward_Ginn.jpg]] ([[Edwin
Ginn]]) was also in the nld pile for September 18; not surprisingly it
was deleted by the time I came back from breakfast. It takes time to
figure out whether an image is PD, or failing that to justify that the
image is not replaceable.
You had 7 days.
and user contributed images that are
almost certainly intended to be donated to Wikipedia under any
license, except that the new user has no idea how to do that.
The legal situation with regards to these is so messy such images are
best deleted.
No. We should require that they are put onto a separate pile, and
reasonable attempts are made to contact the uploading user. As it is,
there is little point contacting the user as another admin will delete
the image before the user has responded and understands how to address
the license problem.
If the user doesn't respond within 7 days they are unlikely to respond ever.
The more use able an encyclopedia is the better it is.
In context of the email you responded to, this is an argument for
gracefully degrading when images cant be used. We can, and should,
have the 1000 words as well as the image. Free images are of no use
to the blind.
That is not a copyright issue.
Only if you dont want it to be.
No I'm aware of the copyright issues around blind people. What you
list is not one of them
No
Then I misunderstood your comment. What type of non-free do you want
protected and encouraged on English Wikipedia?
I'm reasonably happy with the status quo for the time being.
I really
really don't feel like trying to trace all unfree images to
country of origin and then haveing to learn any more elements of
french law than I've already needed to.
You personally don't need do all this for my suggestion to be
workable. We have residents of France amongst us, and it only takes a
few copyright savvy people in each country for the rest of us to know
the clear cases.
Clear cases?
For jurisdictions where we dont (yet) know the
boundaries of acceptable non-free, we would err on the side of caution
and reject dubious non-free.
That would be our current system except we only worry about US law.
There are over 100 legal systems on this planet. Have fun working that
one out. While most of the former british empire has fair dealing
based systems there are the other european empires to consider as well
as all the local modifications.
Time is on our side.
Copyright law isn't static.
This would of course be coupled with measures to tag
images that are replaceable and try to find replacements as soon as
possible.
Been suggested from time to time.
On a
local level we have found we are more likely to get free media
where non free media is forbidden.
{{fact}}
See our living people bios. Used to be almost every pic of non US gov
person was non free. Now this is not the case and images numbers in
that area are riseing again.
I attribute that more to the growth of our Commons project;
Going by the size of the image flow to commons I suspect the impact
has been limited.
the body
of readily accessible knowledge about what is "free" in other
countries,
Not really. Since the US doesn't use the rule of the shorter term and
non US countries tend not to put PD stuff online effect of that is
limited.
and a strong team of people dedicated to finding
assisting
people find and upload free content. Deleting a set of non-free
images "resets" the project a little, and of course the second time
Wikipedians are likely to do a better job, and will try to find a free
image with assistance of the Commons community.
The same result could also be achieved by identifying types of readily
replaceable free images, listing them all and driving the list down to
zero.
No. Because you see people view unfree images as good enough and thus
see little reason to replace them.
Forbidding non-free media has a cost of churning through non-free
images,
Fairly low once people get that we are serious about this free media thing.
We are serious about it. There is a project dedicated to it.
We are now. Back when we were not the number of invalid fair use
uploads was much higher.
or
uploading historically valuable works to Wikisource, or writing more
free content on Wiktionary, Wikipedia and Wikibooks. As you know,
putting works on Wikisource also usually involves adding free media to
the commons, and expanding Wikipedia increases the visibility of
Wikimedia, in turn promoting the addition of free media by new
contributors.
No. You get free media from new contributers by sending a clear
signal. Allowing unfree media does not help with that.
At present, we scare new contributors away.
If people are only here to upload images they found on a google search
we don't have much choice.
Even if a new user makes
it through the upload form, it is quite probable that they wont tag it
sufficiently or be able to work out how to add it onto the article,
and it will probably be deleted anyway.
Free media does not need to be in an article to avoid deletion.
We need to be careful not to put free media ahead of
the other free content.
We put it considerable behind.
No; we strongly prefer free media, and have a project dedicated to
cultivating it.
We do not tolerate unfree text to any significant extent. We do
tolerate a level of unfree media. Thus we put free media behind other
content.
We accept
copyright as is. The GFDL doesn't really work otherwise.
Right, nobody who is well informed in this debate is against
copyright; we all know that it underpins our daily contributions.
Most of us have been around long enough to intimately understand the
basis, motivations and long term effects of different copyleft
strategies. The debate here is similar to the nature of the "open
source" vs "free software" debate, only in this case it is "fair
use/dealing is a human right" vs "free content".
That would suggest that I accept that "human rights" have some kind of
real existance beyond people's power to enforce them. I do not.
By qualifying and using them appropriately, we strengthen the ability
and resolve of the wider public to keep fair-use alive. This in turn
keeps copyright laws in check and ensures that copyright holders know
that if they want to control all access, they should keep their works
out of the public eye.
US with fair use recently extended copyright through the Sonny Bono
Copyright Term Extension Act. The UK without fair use appears to be
rejecting any further extension of copyright.
In any case wikipedia is not interested in political campaigning.
If you want to bolster fair use join the EFF.
We do not have
the ability to only block people from uploading.
Software can change. What limitations on uploading would you like to
see in the software?
Experence suggests that if your solution to a problem requires a
software change you are wasting your time unless the problem causes
mediawiki to crash.
Strong opinions from motivated individuals are not
avoidable.
Actually the current system is pretty good at dealing with that.
Deleting images before they notice only results in
churn and
resentment.
I can live with that.
It is better that they are aware of new images as
they
are uploaded, and are forced to pick and choose.
Who is this they?
Also if new images
are seen by more eyes on upload, and they are tied to a specific
article, we can strengthen the image CSD to allow deletion of
unjustified fair-use on sight rather than wait seven days.
It doesn't matter how many eyes you have. One admin with fast
reactions can make all other eyes meaningless. No the 7 days is there
for a reason.
So people
upload it twice under different names.
This is a lesser evil that can be discouraged, identified easily and
fixed with no harm done.
You really feel like explaining to a new user why the pic is perfectly
okey on one article but we are deleting the second image even though
it has a legit fair use case?
At least the current system is internally consistent.
--
geni