On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Excuse me? Is there any particular reason that you would bring my name up here? Neither I nor any person or thing acting on my order has ever edited that page. Believe me, I have absolutely no desire to get involved in this. I was dissapointed enough be the responses of some people the last time we were forced to beat this particular horse. Next time you decide to implicate me in something like this please get your facts straight.

On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: It's also linked from the archives of OrphanBot's talk page. Does that mean OrphanBot is involved in deleting the image? -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

On 5/14/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: CC-BY-ND? No but what has that got to do with anything. Our copyright policy is more restrictive than the law and rightly so. We could steal a lot of photo without people complaining. However youtube is that way if that is what you want. So contact them and try and get the photo released under a free licence. Or accept that the legacy exists beyond the photo. You've just proposed allowing the addition of 4,390,475 unfree images to wikipedia. No thank you. um unblock-I? Not at all it would be trivial to flat reject it. Short of an outright board resolution it is not going to happen. Of course en.wikipedia is not the only wiki managed by the wikimedia foundation. Projects such as meta appear to have rather different copyright polices. You can only die once (ignoring some unsubstantiated reports). -- geni

David Gerard wrote: Just for the record David... ahum... the Foundation-wide copyright policy does allow fair-use. However, it restricts it significantly. So, for me to argue for A fair-use case is not working against the Foundation-wide policy. Some projects will choose to keep some objects under fair-use rationale, whilst others will not. However, the decision to forbid use of fair-use images in the user space is purely a local decision (which is within the bounderies of the general policy, so it's fine). The english wikipedia could have decided to allow fair-use images in the user space, or could have authorized the use of fair-use images of the user himself in the user space. For very good reasons probably, it was decided to forbid fair-use in user space but to allow it in the main space. I will not argue that the decision to forbid it in user space is wrong, however, I will say that, as any local policy, every user can question this decision, and if a huge majority of editors agree, the policy will be changed. I am not saying that as chair, but simply as editor. Any non-critical policy can be overcome one day or another. Maybe not by you, not by me, not by the pope, but maybe in 15 years by your daughter and mine. Reference of the policy with excerpt: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above. In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content.

On 5/14/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: That was not the entire content of your email. You registered disagreement with en's copyright policy. That fine if everyone agreed with all of it I would be worried. It needs to be discussed and debated. How else can we hope to keep it up to date with changing conditions? However equally I will defend some elements of it. You would rather I used phrases like "I'll let him die a little bit a second time."? The fair use images outside the article namespace issue is a long running and rather bitter conflict on en. However it is one that has largely been settled. I do not wish to see it restarted. Happy to do so. As I said I think this case would be best dealt with through options than other en.wikipedia such as meta or the foundation wiki. Particularly in the case of the foundation wiki we need to be less worried about potential opening of flood gates. -- geni

On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Claiming stuff is under a licence it is not is lying. It is also unlawful. GFDL presumed is legit on en.wikipedia for images uploaded between 18:23, 19 September 2004 and 20:00, 17 May 2005 (ok technically it isn't between 03:10, 21 September 2004 and 20:22, 21 September 2004 but that isn't something I'm going to worry about yet). I suppose the template should be altered to reflect this but eh wording would need some work. -- geni

On 5/15/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Uploadtext&diff=604… removed the bit of text I'm relying on for GFDL presumed claim. -- geni

On 14/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: There are no shortage of images on enwp which are marked with something like: "The uploader did not specify a copyright status, but it appears likely and plausible that they were the author and intended to release this material under the GFDL" {{GFDL-presumed}}, perhaps? Not sure. Obviously it requires common sense, and some thought about the context and content of the image, but it's a legitimate decision to make, especially in contexts such as this (where we *know* the uploader was a community member, we *know* they knew and understood our copyright situation...) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

geni wrote: He did make that choice three months after uploading the image. It is a matter of speculation whether he would have changed the licence if he had been approached. The presumption should be that someone uploads under GFDL, and that presumption should hold in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the case of a self-portrait it would be especially difficult to find contrary evidence. The fact that the picture was originally GFDL would not be changed by the addition of the CC-BY-ND licence. The actions of the rule obsessed in seeking to enforce their POVs retroactively upon the dead is disturbing. This person has been dead less than two years, so it's conceivable that his heirs are there, and steps can be taken to annoy them with petty requirements. However, the copyright on this would stiill have another 68 years to go, and we would do well to seek strategies that would make such images free before things get too far beyond the copyright owner's death. Ec

geni wrote: Justttt for the record. I was there at that time, and I participate *heavily* in setting up a proper form. The image was uploaded on the 14th of may 2004. At that time, the template was in this state: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Uploadtext&oldid=44… It said Être vigilant sur les <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Copyright">copyri… sans tomber dans la paranoïa. Pour l'utilisation de la doctrine <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/fair use</a>, merci de respecter les indications fournies sur <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Fair use</a> ; Des modèles pour les images sous fair use peuvent être trouvés sur <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Modèle">fair use</a> ; Which refers to the Wikipedia:copyright of that time. http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipédia:Copyright&oldid=508… Which clearly mentions GFDL. My memory of that time is that there was a crystal clear assumption that any image uploaded was GFDL. I doubly remember it because I worked heavily on all these pages, and I spent a LONG time working on this fair-use issue with Alex Roshuk. If you look at the history of these two links at that time, I was a major author of these pages. Bottom line (not to argue with the fact Norbert image is free, it is not), uploads done at that time on the french wikipedia are under the assumption of GFDL license. At that time, the image was GFDL. We worked a lot on licenses issues over that summer, and during summer 2004, we started applying tags. This is when Med and many others started tagging "unknown license" to force editors to make a clear statement. The image was taggued unknown in august and this is when Treanna changed the license. Infancy :-)

On 5/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG &lt;guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net&gt; wrote: Then it will be listed as an orphan again. You don't seriously think that IDF can establish an exception to our copyright policy. You do what?? Have you even read special:upload since 20:00, 17 May 2005? -- geni

On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: in this case a misspelling of [[WP:IFD]] IAR only applies to encyclopedic content not wikipedia namespace memorials No it is appalling since it results in a load of images labeled as free which are not. There was a change to [[en:mediawiki:uploadtext]] at that point which made assumptions of GFDL on uploaded author created images questionable. Before that point GFDL presumed was legit. We then enter a grey area where GFDL presumed may be legit on en.wikipedia until 17:06, 17 October 2005 when it ceases to be remotely legit. -- geni

geni wrote: Since when? The image was uploaded in May 2004. He died in September 2005. On that timetable "presumed legit" should apply. Ec

On 14/05/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: o_0 Anyone who tries to rules-lawyer "Ignore All Rules" has missed the point by a new record. - d.

geni wrote: "Ignore All Rules" doesn't mean "do whatever you damn well like." It does mean "If the rules are getting in the way of taking a patently obvious action, or would result in a ridiculous outcome in an edge case they were never really designed to deal with, shove the rules out of the way." If a lot of people object to your ignoring the rules, chances are, you screwed up, because the action is apparently not as obvious as you thought it was. If that happens, have the courtesy to reverse yourself and let the normal processes handle the issue. If everyone (or effectively everyone) backs you up, well then, you were quite obviously right! It's necessary sometimes, but it should be used very judiciously, and only with a very good rationale as to why.