Hello,
A long time ago, I uploaded this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norbert3.jpg
It is the picture of contributor number 1 on the french wikipedia, much beloved, and who unfortunately died. He appears in the deceased wikipedians as well as on the sign post.
Of course, I could not ask him authorization *after* his death, so whilst I think he would have wholeheartedly agreed, this is under cp, with fairuse rationale.
I got a message on my talk page, telling me the picture was orphaned (it is orphaned in the main article space of course, Treanna was only famous for us - it is linked in two wp articles), so would be deleted in 7 days, unless I could provide a replacement or change the tag. I can do neither of course.
But my question - as an innocent - the only choice I am given on the template is to replace or change the license. There is already a rationale to keep it. There is no link to the place where the issue is discussed (I suppose it is not). The message is from a bot. Where am I suppose to discuss and with who, to have it kept ? What can I do to avoid automatic deletion ? It seems there is no clear venue where to argue in favor of keeping this little memory of a pillar.
Is there a venue ? If there is, should not be added in the template ? How can people know what to do ?
/confused Anthere
Florence Devouard wrote:
Is there a venue ? If there is, should not be added in the template ? How can people know what to do ?
Hrm. There's the {{not orphan}} template, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Not_orphan, but it appears that a template for deletion debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:notorphan just got it changed to specifically exclude non-free images.
Looks like another instance where robotically applying a rule as an exception-free absolute law can cause problems.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Is there a venue ? If there is, should not be added in the template ? How can people know what to do ?
Hrm. There's the {{not orphan}} template, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Not_orphan, but it appears that a template for deletion debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:notorphan just got it changed to specifically exclude non-free images.
Looks like another instance where robotically applying a rule as an exception-free absolute law can cause problems.
If the user himself uploaded this self-portrait why wouldn't this automatically be under GFDL? It's GMaxwell's bot that's doing this so he should be able to answer for it.
Ec
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the user himself uploaded this self-portrait why wouldn't this automatically be under GFDL? It's GMaxwell's bot that's doing this so he should be able to answer for it.
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.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the user himself uploaded this self-portrait why wouldn't this automatically be under GFDL? It's GMaxwell's bot that's doing this so he should be able to answer for it.
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.
If the page [[User:Gmaxwell/kill]] has nothing to do with you then an apology would be in order, but a link to the now quickly deleted image is definitely there. Are you saying that you have no control over your user sub-pages?
Ec
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the user himself uploaded this self-portrait why wouldn't this automatically be under GFDL? It's GMaxwell's bot that's doing this so he should be able to answer for it.
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.
If the page [[User:Gmaxwell/kill]] has nothing to do with you then an apology would be in order, but a link to the now quickly deleted image is definitely there. Are you saying that you have no control over your user sub-pages?
It's also linked from the archives of OrphanBot's talk page. Does that mean OrphanBot is involved in deleting the image?
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the page [[User:Gmaxwell/kill]] has nothing to do with you then an apology would be in order, but a link to the now quickly deleted image is definitely there. Are you saying that you have no control over your user sub-pages?
"now quickly deleted" ? Please, it was deleted by Florance, surely you can't imply that I had something to do with that.
The subpage you're talking about is an automated list of non-free images which have been unused in the main namespace for ~6months. I put it up the list when someone asked for a such a list so they could manually look through it through for copyright infringements to kill. It had nothing to do with the page being tagged for deletion. The image is also linked from User:Anthere/archive1 and User:Alai/fairuseartorphans, among other places.
Rather than admitting and apologising for your simple error you just continue to accuse.
Florence Devouard wrote:
this is under cp, with fairuse rationale. (it is orphaned in the main article space of course, Treanna was only famous for us - it is linked in two wp articles),
As I understand it, the policy is clear that 'fair-use' can only be used in the article main-space - since only there can we claim that it is for educational or fair commentary purposes.
Whilst that may seem unfortunate in this case, I'd point out that to allow deviation from that rule would open the floodgates to copyright pictures being used all over userspace - or at least another bout of incessant wikilawyering to try to open the gates. Especially if an exception were made for the WMF chair. We are a free encyclopedia - and that means free.
Bottom line is that this picture is copyright. Morally, there may be no problem with using it - but legally there is (or at least in the strict way we are applying the fair-use exception). Further, since it is not adding to the content of the encyclopedia - I see no real reason for us to bend over backwards to allow some further exception.
The loss of the picture may be a pain....but finding a way to save it will cause all sorts of problems.
Doc
doc wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
this is under cp, with fairuse rationale. (it is orphaned in the main article space of course, Treanna was only famous for us - it is linked in two wp articles),
As I understand it, the policy is clear that 'fair-use' can only be used in the article main-space - since only there can we claim that it is for educational or fair commentary purposes.
Whilst that may seem unfortunate in this case, I'd point out that to allow deviation from that rule would open the floodgates to copyright pictures being used all over userspace - or at least another bout of incessant wikilawyering to try to open the gates. Especially if an exception were made for the WMF chair. We are a free encyclopedia - and that means free.
Bottom line is that this picture is copyright. Morally, there may be no problem with using it - but legally there is (or at least in the strict way we are applying the fair-use exception). Further, since it is not adding to the content of the encyclopedia - I see no real reason for us to bend over backwards to allow some further exception.
The loss of the picture may be a pain....but finding a way to save it will cause all sorts of problems.
Doc
Hmmmm. True. Well, I do believe it is a bit stupid though. There is not even a legal problem really. I doubt the copyright holders of that picture (hmm, parents ?) would complain. They know their son loved Wikipedia, they were happy that he left a legacy there and the picture is at the same time acceptable but of poor quality. If I were just a anthere, I would try to suggest new rules so that every user is allowed ONE non free image of himself on his user page :-) It seems to me there should be room for negotiation on such matters.
But a new policy proposed by the chair would cause all sorts of problems and messes I am not willing to get in. Accusation of favoritism or abuse of authority or all that kinda crap. Forget it.
I'll let him die a little bit a second time.
ant
On 5/14/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmmm. True. Well, I do believe it is a bit stupid though. There is not even a legal problem really.
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.
I doubt the copyright holders of that picture (hmm, parents ?) would complain.
We could steal a lot of photo without people complaining. However youtube is that way if that is what you want.
They know their son loved Wikipedia, they were happy that he left a legacy there and the picture is at the same time acceptable but of poor quality.
So contact them and try and get the photo released under a free licence. Or accept that the legacy exists beyond the photo.
If I were just a anthere, I would try to suggest new rules so that every user is allowed ONE non free image of himself on his user page :-)
You've just proposed allowing the addition of 4,390,475 unfree images to wikipedia. No thank you.
It seems to me there should be room for negotiation on such matters.
um unblock-I?
But a new policy proposed by the chair would cause all sorts of problems and messes I am not willing to get in.
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.
I'll let him die a little bit a second time.
You can only die once (ignoring some unsubstantiated reports).
On 14/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmmm. True. Well, I do believe it is a bit stupid though. There is not even a legal problem really.
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.
Indeed ... it falls outside the Wikimedia copyright policy that Florence, as chair, ratified.
They know their son loved Wikipedia, they were happy that he left a legacy there and the picture is at the same time acceptable but of poor quality.
So contact them and try and get the photo released under a free licence. Or accept that the legacy exists beyond the photo.
Contacting them to relicence the photo would be the most productive angle.
I'll let him die a little bit a second time.
Or you could contact them to relicence the photo, rather than working against the Foundation-wide copyright policy that you as chair accepted. Then we all win.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Or you could contact them to relicence the photo, rather than working against the Foundation-wide copyright policy that you as chair accepted. Then we all win.
- d.
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.
Did you, sweet Geni, read me well here ? I said I will just let the picture be deleted. I do not understand your aggressivity (though I am used to it). I wish that you would allow a peaceful working environnement though.
Ant
geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmmm. True. Well, I do believe it is a bit stupid though. There is not even a legal problem really.
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.
I doubt the copyright holders of that picture (hmm, parents ?) would complain.
We could steal a lot of photo without people complaining. However youtube is that way if that is what you want.
They know their son loved Wikipedia, they were happy that he left a legacy there and the picture is at the same time acceptable but of poor quality.
So contact them and try and get the photo released under a free licence. Or accept that the legacy exists beyond the photo.
If I were just a anthere, I would try to suggest new rules so that every user is allowed ONE non free image of himself on his user page :-)
You've just proposed allowing the addition of 4,390,475 unfree images to wikipedia. No thank you.
It seems to me there should be room for negotiation on such matters.
um unblock-I?
But a new policy proposed by the chair would cause all sorts of problems and messes I am not willing to get in.
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.
I'll let him die a little bit a second time.
You can only die once (ignoring some unsubstantiated reports).
On 5/14/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Did you, sweet Geni, read me well here ? I said I will just let the picture be deleted.
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.
I do not understand your aggressivity (though I am used to 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.
I wish that you would allow a peaceful working environnement though.
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 wrote:
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.
Refusing to discuss something once it has been "settled" leads to stagnation. All policies should be open to discussion at all times.
This matter could be in a list of specific situations where GFDL is presumed. Thus a possible wording in this situation might be "A self-portrait of his own self uploaded by a Wikipedian is presumed to have been done in accordance with GFDL." There is no need to refer to fair use at all.
Ec
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Refusing to discuss something once it has been "settled" leads to stagnation. All policies should be open to discussion at all times.
This matter could be in a list of specific situations where GFDL is presumed. Thus a possible wording in this situation might be "A self-portrait of his own self uploaded by a Wikipedian is presumed to have been done in accordance with GFDL." There is no need to refer to fair use at all.
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.
On 5/15/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Why isn't it? Probably a minor thing, but it would be interesting. ~~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Uploadtext&diff=6047...
removed the bit of text I'm relying on for GFDL presumed claim.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Well, I do believe it is a bit stupid though. There is not even a legal problem really.
Agreed. The problem is not with the law; it's with extremist interpretations of internal rules.
I doubt the copyright holders of that picture (hmm, parents ?) would complain. They know their son loved Wikipedia, they were happy that he left a legacy there and the picture is at the same time acceptable but of poor quality. If I were just a anthere, I would try to suggest new rules so that every user is allowed ONE non free image of himself on his user page :-) It seems to me there should be room for negotiation on such matters.
But a new policy proposed by the chair would cause all sorts of problems and messes I am not willing to get in. Accusation of favoritism or abuse of authority or all that kinda crap. Forget it.
Your delicate approach to potential conflicts of interest is duly noted and appreciated. Would it were not the exception.
Wc
On Mon, 14 May 2007 07:41:10 +0200, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
But my question - as an innocent - the only choice I am given on the template is to replace or change the license. There is already a rationale to keep it. There is no link to the place where the issue is discussed (I suppose it is not). The message is from a bot. Where am I suppose to discuss and with who, to have it kept ? What can I do to avoid automatic deletion ? It seems there is no clear venue where to argue in favor of keeping this little memory of a pillar.
A good point, but I think this is a time to ignore all rules. One possibility is to replace the tag with an images for deletion tag, and then we summon the cabal to snowball keep it. Another possibility is to point to the original upload, which was by the user, and take that as evidence of permission as we do with emails to the OTRS permissions queue.
Guy (JzG)
On 14/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Another possibility is to point to the original upload, which was by the user, and take that as evidence of permission as we do with emails to the OTRS permissions queue.
Well, uh, yeah. Or seek GFDL permission from their estate.
- d.
On 14/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 07:41:10 +0200, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
But my question - as an innocent - the only choice I am given on the template is to replace or change the license. There is already a rationale to keep it. There is no link to the place where the issue is discussed (I suppose it is not). The message is from a bot. Where am I suppose to discuss and with who, to have it kept ? What can I do to avoid automatic deletion ? It seems there is no clear venue where to argue in favor of keeping this little memory of a pillar.
A good point, but I think this is a time to ignore all rules. One possibility is to replace the tag with an images for deletion tag, and then we summon the cabal to snowball keep it. Another possibility is to point to the original upload, which was by the user, and take that as evidence of permission as we do with emails to the OTRS permissions queue.
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...)
On 5/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com 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.
There are a few thousand yes but the problem is that only works with an old working of the upload page that fr.wikipedia did not have when the image was uploaded. see
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Uploadtext&oldid=447...
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...)
Except they made a posertive choice in favour of CC-BY-ND
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Norbert3.jpg&diff=239605...
geni wrote:
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...)
Except they made a posertive choice in favour of CC-BY-ND
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Norbert3.jpg&diff=239605...
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
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net 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 photo was never GFDL. The french upload form did not mention the GFDL when the upload was done so any assumption of GFDL is unwarranted.
The actions of the rule obsessed in seeking to enforce their POVs retroactively upon the dead is disturbing.
The rules are being enforced on those using wikipedia now.
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.
Given french law the requirements are hardly petty
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.
The easy option would be to shift the whole thing over to the foundation or meta wikis where there are no wider copyright issues to consider.
geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net 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 photo was never GFDL. The french upload form did not mention the GFDL when the upload was done so any assumption of GFDL is unwarranted.
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=447...
It said
Être vigilant sur les <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Copyright">copyrights</a> 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/Wikip%C3%A9dia: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=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Copyright&oldid...
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 5/15/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com 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=447...
It said
Être vigilant sur les <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Copyright">copyrights</a> 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/Wikip%C3%A9dia: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=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Copyright&oldid...
Which clearly mentions GFDL.
Yes. But there is no outright statement that by uploading you are releasing under GFDL as far as I can tell (I have not studied french since GCSE and even then was very bad at it).
Incidentally can anyone remember if [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]] used to be displayed below the image upload page?
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.
When dealing with copyright en prefers to keep assumptions to a minimum.
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.
The french wikipedia is free to take this aproach.
At that time, the image was GFDL.
Maybe maybe not
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 :-)
Yes en has various similar legacy issues but they are being cleared out.
On 5/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A good point, but I think this is a time to ignore all rules. One possibility is to replace the tag with an images for deletion tag, and then we summon the cabal to snowball keep it.
Then it will be listed as an orphan again. You don't seriously think that IDF can establish an exception to our copyright policy.
Another possibility is to point to the original upload, which was by the user, and take that as evidence of permission as we do with emails to the OTRS permissions queue.
You do what??
Have you even read special:upload since 20:00, 17 May 2005?
geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A good point, but I think this is a time to ignore all rules. One possibility is to replace the tag with an images for deletion tag, and then we summon the cabal to snowball keep it.
Then it will be listed as an orphan again. You don't seriously think that IDF can establish an exception to our copyright policy.
I don't want to take time to track down what "IDF" means. Ignore all Rules is well applied when the literal application of the rules has a patently ridiculous outcome. While the tagging approach could make sense in this case, I would be concerned with people who might take it as a precedent to take this road in future circumstances that are much less appropriate.
Another possibility is to point to the original upload, which was by the user, and take that as evidence of permission as we do with emails to the OTRS permissions queue.
You do what??
Guy's idea is excellent. At least it's constructive.
Have you even read special:upload since 20:00, 17 May 2005?
I fail to see the relevance of this comment.
Ec
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't want to take time to track down what "IDF" means.
in this case a misspelling of [[WP:IFD]]
Ignore all Rules is well applied when the literal application of the rules has a patently ridiculous outcome.
IAR only applies to encyclopedic content not wikipedia namespace memorials
Guy's idea is excellent. At least it's constructive.
No it is appalling since it results in a load of images labeled as free which are not.
Have you even read special:upload since 20:00, 17 May 2005?
I fail to see the relevance of this comment.
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.
On May 14, 2007, at 11:26 AM, geni wrote:
IAR only applies to encyclopedic content not wikipedia namespace memorials
I tend to agree that there is not a persuasive reason to throw out our copyright policy for this. "I like it" has its place, but copyright isn't one of them.
That said, surely demarcating the limits of IAR is an astonishing missing of the point. The reason IAR is a bad thing to cite here is not that IAR doesn't apply - it's that the reason for ignoring the rules is a poor one.
-Phil
geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ignore all Rules is well applied when the literal application of the rules has a patently ridiculous outcome.
IAR only applies to encyclopedic content not wikipedia namespace memorials
Since when?
Have you even read special:upload since 20:00, 17 May 2005?
I fail to see the relevance of this comment.
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.
The image was uploaded in May 2004. He died in September 2005. On that timetable "presumed legit" should apply.
Ec
On 5/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The image was uploaded in May 2004. He died in September 2005. On that timetable "presumed legit" should apply.
Sadly no. The image was uploaded on fr.wikipedia not en.wikipedia. On the date the image was uploaded to fr.wikipedia the fr.wikipedia upload page did not have any text that would result in the image being released under the GFDL.
On 14/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore all Rules is well applied when the literal application of the rules has a patently ridiculous outcome.
IAR only applies to encyclopedic content not wikipedia namespace memorials
o_0
Anyone who tries to rules-lawyer "Ignore All Rules" has missed the point by a new record.
- d.
On 5/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
o_0
Anyone who tries to rules-lawyer "Ignore All Rules" has missed the point by a new record.
Well hopefully that has killed off the codified constitution suggestions.
Actually the claim is rather questionable since it used a definition of wikipedia from [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] rather than [[WP:NOT]] (the two conflict).
However since direct citation of IAR is itself mearly a rather poor form of rule layering it seems only fair that an attempt be made to rule lawyer around it.
No I understand IAR I just object to people citeing it rather than putting forward a logicaly solid but outside rules argument. Do that well enough and people are unlikely to bring up rules in the first place.
geni wrote:
On 5/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
o_0
Anyone who tries to rules-lawyer "Ignore All Rules" has missed the point by a new record.
Well hopefully that has killed off the codified constitution suggestions.
Actually the claim is rather questionable since it used a definition of wikipedia from [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] rather than [[WP:NOT]] (the two conflict).
However since direct citation of IAR is itself mearly a rather poor form of rule layering it seems only fair that an attempt be made to rule lawyer around it.
No I understand IAR I just object to people citeing it rather than putting forward a logicaly solid but outside rules argument. Do that well enough and people are unlikely to bring up rules in the first place.
"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.