On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its source. You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that does not establish the fact. I don't know what the standards are for drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be some aspects that will be constant. Are these even copyrightable?
I can not agree with your position.
We are only able to discover the source of so many violations because the people who have submitted them have put so little work into finding the material themselves. This does not imply that all or even most of our violating images can be identified this way.
If we want our contributors behave with responsibility we need to treat them like people who have responsibility and allow them to execute professional judgement.
When people put in effort to clean up violations they do it because they care about making an improvement. No one is paying them to spend their time making sure our Free Encyclopedia is actually free. So they actually care if something they know to be bad is kept... their work is not just hours on a timeclock.
Our users know that uploaders make mistakes, they know that some are confused, they know that some lie... so if you ask them to take an unsupported and unbelievable claim at face value you are demeaning them, disrespecting them, and worst of all: discouraging them.
Of course, it is equally critical that we respect the involved uploader. But part of that respect is treating the uploader like an adult. If we behave rationally and fairly, they should understand. At least we can completely undo our deletion if we later find it to be mistaken... which is a lot better than most situations in life.
When there is an obviously problem, such as an which has an obvious halftone pattern yet the uploader comment claims that the 'made the image himself', it's possible that the uploaders claim is correct, that there is some complicated explanation which didn't fit into the edit summary.... But it is unlikely.
So we ask the uploader, .. to the extent we can... and we delete the image in due course because our experience and careful consideration allow us to reach a conclusion, free of unreasonable biases, that it is most likely the case that the image is not acceptable.
The material, if it's worth while, will be recreated in time... perhaps sooner if we'd quit obsessing about the 1.5 millionth article and focus on quality... perhaps sooner if we could delete all the copyright violations.... to make room for real contributors who want to sit down with the community and produce the new and free works that we need, completely with the right justification that would ensure the material stays free.
Requirements mean nothing if we cant enforce them... and a commitment to free content is worth nothing if it is all words and show without substance.