--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
The image itself has been deleted too. Does anyone have a copy to hand? I want to put it on Uncyclopedia, where it would almost certainly be just fine in a suitable context. Parody and satire allow *fantastic* leeway for fair use ...
Why can't we use it as parody and satire within Wikipedia user space?
Well, theoretically we could. But it's IMO a bit sideways from the mission (we're here to write an encyclopedia) *and* it's a fair use image, and we do have a reasonably accepted policy to minimise fair use images to when there really isn't a substitute. And to get the fair use images off the user pages. So it really doesn't belong on my userpage and Gmaxwell was entirely right to remove it (and I left a note on his talk page thanking him).
People can still link to it at [[Uncyclopedia:Image:Wp ayb.gif]] as they wish (interwiki link), though you can't make it display as an image that way.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Well, theoretically we could. But it's IMO a bit sideways from the mission (we're here to write an encyclopedia) *and* it's a fair use image, and we do have a reasonably accepted policy to minimise fair use images to when there really isn't a substitute. And to get the fair use images off the user pages. So it really doesn't belong on my userpage and Gmaxwell was entirely right to remove it (and I left a note on his talk page thanking him).
I feel we've got this backwards. We've set about removing fair use images from user pages because we usually don't have a fair use rationale for them; OK, that's reasonable. We avoid fair use images in articles if we can because we want to be as free as possible -- again, completely reasonable. However, when we do actually have a solid fair use rationale for using an image on user pages, and it's a piece of community humour, why then should we remove it? It just seems like the tail wagging the dog.
My apologies; I don't think this is worth this much debate, but it ticked me off.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Matt R wrote:
I feel we've got this backwards. We've set about removing fair use images from user pages because we usually don't have a fair use rationale for them; OK, that's reasonable. We avoid fair use images in articles if we can because we want to be as free as possible -- again, completely reasonable. However, when we do actually have a solid fair use rationale for using an image on user pages, and it's a piece of community humour, why then should we remove it? It just seems like the tail wagging the dog.
My apologies; I don't think this is worth this much debate, but it ticked me off.
Because fair use images are fundamentally against the principles of a free content encyclopaedia. If a fair use image isn't improving an article, or if there is a replacement free image, then the fair use image should be deleted with impunity. Each fair use image on Wikipedia hinders our efforts to create a distributable free content encyclopaedia.
Chris
--- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Because fair use images are fundamentally against the principles of a free content encyclopaedia. If a fair use image isn't improving an article, or if there is a replacement free image, then the fair use image should be deleted with impunity. Each fair use image on Wikipedia hinders our efforts to create a distributable free content encyclopaedia.
You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not* the distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the framework which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.
There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in *articles*, wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use images from user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use rationale for using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for the AYB image.
It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the article space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad thing to delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Matt R wrote:
You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not* the distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the framework which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.
There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in *articles*, wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use images from user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use rationale for using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for the AYB image.
It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the article space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad thing to delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.
They all get bundled together in the downloads, though.
Chris
--- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Matt R wrote:
You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not* the distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the
framework
which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.
There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in
*articles*,
wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use images
from
user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use rationale for using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for the AYB image.
It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the
article
space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad thing to delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.
They all get bundled together in the downloads, though.
Do you mean the databse dumps? You can download just the articles.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:15:53 +0100, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Matt R wrote:
You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not*
the
distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the
framework
which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.
There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in
*articles*,
wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use
images from
user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use
rationale for
using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for
the AYB
image.
It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the
article
space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad
thing to
delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.
They all get bundled together in the downloads, though.
Do you mean the databse dumps? You can download just the articles.
Yes you can download just the articles, the image dump don't discriminate though, it simply contains all the images on the server AFAIK.
So if someone download the article dump and the image dump with plans of publishing it in the US (outside they would have to delete all the faur use images anyway, or obtain permission for each individual image) then your humorous fair use image from your userpage become a copyright violation for that reuser because without your userpage he has no fair use defence for it. This means that re-users would have to spend time and effort to purge these humor, parody and other orphanded userpage stuff from the dump, and while it's not rocket sience to automate such a purge it's still an extra burden on re-users that is completely unnessesary.
So if someone download the article dump and the image dump with plans of publishing it in the US (outside they would have to delete all the faur use images anyway, or obtain permission for each individual image) then your humorous fair use image from your userpage become a copyright violation for that reuser because without your userpage he has no fair use defence for it. This means that re-users would have to spend time and effort to purge these humor, parody and other orphanded userpage stuff from the dump, and while it's not rocket sience to automate such a purge it's still an extra burden on re-users that is completely unnessesary.
Wouldn't they purge the entire User: namespace anyway? We're not so interesting as for our user pages be republished in an actual encyclopedia.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:10:08 +0100, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
So if someone download the article dump and the image dump with plans of publishing it in the US (outside they would have to delete all the faur use images anyway, or obtain permission for each individual image) then your humorous fair use image from your userpage become a copyright violation for that reuser because without your userpage he has no fair use defence for it. This means that re-users would have to spend time and effort to purge these humor, parody and other orphanded userpage stuff from the dump, and while it's not rocket sience to automate such a purge it's still an extra burden on re-users that is completely unnessesary.
Wouldn't they purge the entire User: namespace anyway? We're not so interesting as for our user pages be republished in an actual encyclopedia.
Yeah, but the images are not stored in the User: namespace. Currently there is no way to selectively download images that are just used in articles (unless you use a spider to grab content instead of the database dumps, wich realy is not a good idea as it kills our servers).
Now granted our image dump already contains a *lot* of copyright problems (like our 30.000+ untagged images), so orphanded fair use parody images from userpages might not be the biggest problem for re-users at the moment, but at least we are working toward the goal of cleaning up that mess. However if we allowed fair use on user pages those would never be cleaned up on our end (unless a better image dump system gets developed), meaning we would basicaly force reusers to download a bunch of files they can't use and have to delete just because some Wikipedia users wanted to have something funny on theyr userpage. Personaly I don't think can rely be justified.
Wouldn't they purge the entire User: namespace anyway? We're not so interesting as for our user pages be republished in an actual encyclopedia.
Yeah, but the images are not stored in the User: namespace. Currently there is no way to selectively download images that are just used in articles (unless you use a spider to grab content instead of the database dumps, wich realy is not a good idea as it kills our servers).
Now granted our image dump already contains a *lot* of copyright problems (like our 30.000+ untagged images), so orphanded fair use parody images from userpages might not be the biggest problem for re-users at the moment, but at least we are working toward the goal of cleaning up that mess. However if we allowed fair use on user pages those would never be cleaned up on our end (unless a better image dump system gets developed), meaning we would basicaly force reusers to download a bunch of files they can't use and have to delete just because some Wikipedia users wanted to have something funny on theyr userpage. Personaly I don't think can rely be justified.
Perhaps in addition to the Image: namespace, each page could have an additional image page much like the talk page, where images intended for use only on that page (i.e. fair use in articles, but also userpage images) could be uploaded. I have no idea how this would work with respect to our db and image dumps but it might be a partial solution.
Philip Welch wrote:
Wouldn't they purge the entire User: namespace anyway? We're not so interesting as for our user pages be republished in an actual encyclopedia.
Yeah, but the images are not stored in the User: namespace. Currently there is no way to selectively download images that are just used in articles (unless you use a spider to grab content instead of the database dumps, wich realy is not a good idea as it kills our servers).
Now granted our image dump already contains a *lot* of copyright problems (like our 30.000+ untagged images), so orphanded fair use parody images from userpages might not be the biggest problem for re-users at the moment, but at least we are working toward the goal of cleaning up that mess. However if we allowed fair use on user pages those would never be cleaned up on our end (unless a better image dump system gets developed), meaning we would basicaly force reusers to download a bunch of files they can't use and have to delete just because some Wikipedia users wanted to have something funny on theyr userpage. Personaly I don't think can rely be justified.
Perhaps in addition to the Image: namespace, each page could have an additional image page much like the talk page, where images intended for use only on that page (i.e. fair use in articles, but also userpage images) could be uploaded. I have no idea how this would work with respect to our db and image dumps but it might be a partial solution.
IIRC there's a way to Base64 encode images so that they can be pasted as text onto a webpage; loading them as a URL displays the image in question.
(Someone help me out here? What's this called again?)
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
IIRC there's a way to Base64 encode images so that they can be pasted as text onto a webpage; loading them as a URL displays the image in question.
(Someone help me out here? What's this called again?)
It's done using the URI "data:" scheme. See RFC 2397. Supported by Gecko, Opera, Safari. Not supported by IE until v7.
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Because fair use images are fundamentally against the principles of a free content encyclopaedia. If a fair use image isn't improving an article, or if there is a replacement free image, then the fair use image should be deleted with impunity. Each fair use image on Wikipedia hinders our efforts to create a distributable free content encyclopaedia.
I really want to get this bit straightened out:
1. Copyrighted images should not be used in any situation that is not considered fair use. 2. Wikipedia articles should be maximally redistributable. 3. Images which are used within fair use on Wikipedia may not be elsewhere, and as such, limit the redistributability of the page they're used on.
#1 is the only one of those that also applies to user pages.
The whole point in getting rid of images which actually are fair use (as opposed to copyvios claiming to be) is allowing redistribution. User pages have no need to be redistributable. They're available for download, for a variety of very good reasons, but that's not the download that mirrors and downstream users are supposed to use for content that's going to be put back out.
-- Jake Nelson
On 1/20/06, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
- Copyrighted images should not be used in any situation that is not
considered fair use.
Not to pick on you, but this irritated my inner pedant. We use copyrighted images all the time. In fact, every image we use that isn't public domain is copyrighted.
What you meant to say is that copyrighted images *that are not under a free license* should not be used.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/20/06, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
- Copyrighted images should not be used in any situation that is not
considered fair use.
Not to pick on you, but this irritated my inner pedant. We use copyrighted images all the time. In fact, every image we use that isn't public domain is copyrighted.
What you meant to say is that copyrighted images *that are not under a free license* should not be used.
-Matt
I've been exceeded in pedantry; hats off to you, sir.
Yes, you're quite correct. I was using the shorthand form all-too-commonly used in these discussions, which is less clear than it should be.
Let the record read "Images which are not available in the public domain or under a free license should not be used in any situation that is not considered fair use."
-- Jake Nelson
On 1/20/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Well, theoretically we could. But it's IMO a bit sideways from the mission (we're here to write an encyclopedia) *and* it's a fair use image, and we do have a reasonably accepted policy to minimise fair use images to when there really isn't a substitute. And to get the fair use images off the user pages. So it really doesn't belong on my userpage and Gmaxwell was entirely right to remove it (and I left a note on his talk page thanking him).
I feel we've got this backwards. We've set about removing fair use images from user pages because we usually don't have a fair use rationale for them; OK, that's reasonable. We avoid fair use images in articles if we can because we want to be as free as possible -- again, completely reasonable. However, when we do actually have a solid fair use rationale for using an image on user pages, and it's a piece of community humour, why then should we remove it?
To simplify things. "Fair use" is a very, very complicated part of copyright law, with much of it coming from court decisions rather than statute law. It's full of grey areas, and situations where the outcome of the case depends upon which appeals court you wind up with.
The goal of the Wikipedia fair-use policy is to avoid as many of the grey areas as possible, and only use images where we're almost certain to win if it winds up in court. Critical commentary is one of the best-understood areas of fair use, with few grey areas, which is why Wikipedia allows it. Parody, on the other hand, is one of the least-understood areas, and one which results in lawsuits even for cases where it's clearly allowed. That's a pretty good reason for not allowing it on Wikipedia.
-- Mark Wagner [[User:Carnildo]]
