[WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

[Kelly Martin]

On 11/28/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This, I presume, does not apply to all the funny logos derivated from
> various copyrighted logos, which are commonly used in most editors
> pages, but are not used within main space, such as the mop or counter
> vandalism ?

We are deleting these when we find them.  The CVU logo, which you
mention, and which uses a Wikimedia logo, was authorized by Angela on
behalf of the Board for use on Wikipedia and is therefore not
unlicensed.

> Another question : does that mean that an image previously used in the
> main space but removed for whatever reason by anyone, does not qualify
> any more to be kept ?

We delete orphaned unlicensed images.  Orphaned freely licensed images
are not deleted as a matter of course, although they may be deleted if
the community elects to do so.  Another option is to move them to
Commons.

> Yet another question : on many user pages, editors upload a personal
> shot of their face. Given that GFDL authorize any one to transform their
> face in a monster or to use the personal face picture to make an
> advertisement for a cream to fight spots or other red blotches, is that
> authorized to put a picture of self under another licence than fair use
> ? In which case, which licenses are authorized ?

A community discussion is underway to establish a "community use only"
licensing class for such images.  I support the availability of such
licensing options for media not intended for use in articles, but
there does not seem to be consensus on this point yet.  The image on
my personal user page is currently licensed under such a license, and
nobody has deleted it yet.

> I ask the question, because many pictures of many editors are taken
> during wikimeetups. If the pictures are labelled with a non-restricted
> use, that should mean that anyone can use a picture of the face of a
> wikipedian to do anything that he would like to. If the pictures are
> labelled with a restricted use and used only in non-article space, do
> they qualify as "speedy deletion" as my pictures did ?

Note that I said "unlicensed media".  Media uploaded under a
"community use license" would not be unlicensed and therefore not
subject to deletion under our orphaning policy.  However, we have not
yet approved the use of a "community use license".

> I am not sure I am clear here, but depending on the answers, I think I
> will delete many of my images on the english wikipedia. Somehow, I do
> not think we can forbid editors to delete their images, if the rules
> change upon time; Before, fair use images were authorized. If rules
> change, I suppose editors can change their license choice to protect
> themselves as well ?

Please note that our change in policy about fair use images has been
heavily motivated by this odd fellow known as Jimmy Wales.  Jimbo's
been pushing us for months to cut back on copyright infringement and
unnecessarily reliance on fair use.  You may wish to discuss this
issue with him.

Kelly