Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Michael Snow wrote:
>> We still need to get a system in place that requires people to provide
>> source information when uploading images. For the types of uses for
>> which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention requires
>> that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair use if
>> we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
>
>While it would be nice to have a "system" that's all database-happy,
>wouldn't it be nearly as effective, and immediately possible, to
>simply update the text of the upload page to ask people to give as
>much detail as they possibly can as to the source of the upload? They
>can be warned that if they don't do so, there is a strong risk of
>deletion.
>
It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For about
the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are uploading
an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text
'{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the
image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing the
source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I can't.
Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many
images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source
information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two
fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields are
called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most
uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is.
Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.
Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are unlikely
to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if they
change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected to
input information.
We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that may
not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if
this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's
not very effective against the joker who says his source is
"df39rhjufuasl2".
>And we should, again with an appropriate lead-time to allow people to
>try to fix existing problems without edit wars over deletion, just
>start deleting stuff that doesn't have proper attribution. (I'm not
>asking people to start deleting stuff today, because a good-faith
>effort to do the right thing all around will take a bit of time.)
>
I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go
through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case
somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale effort
to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more
aware of the need to provide attribution.
But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so
that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a separate
field that requires source information.
--Michael Snow