Kelly Martin wrote:
On 11/28/05, Anthere anthere9@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.
I do not understand well how you make the difference between "unlicensed" and "licensed". Afaik, fair use is licensed. No tag is unlicensed. No ?
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.
I have the feeling that in one year or so, freely licensed orphan images will indeed be deleted on the english wikipedia. That would be well within what I currently observe. I do not think people will bother moving them to commons, it is too heavy to do. And I can perceive as well, uploaders will not be warned of the deletion either. So, that could means, any unwanted freely offered image will end up being deleted. I find this pretty unfortunate.
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.
It would be a good idea.
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 however worry that if each project starts having its own licence, for contain and for community, it will soon be a real mess...
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
Given that images used on used pages are unlikely to end up in a DVD or a book, I seriously doubt who would suffer copyright infringement attacks for images hosted on community pages.
It strikes me as odd, that we authorize fair use on encyclopedic content (which is likely to be reused and to irritate copyright holders), while forbidding it on personal pages (where it is unlikely to be much troubles).
Overall, our license issues strike me as being more confusing and messy every day that goes by.
/me perplex