On 3/23/06, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that this is largely true. My suggestion was meant to be more conservative, in that it would only expedite deletion of media where we are saying "This is fair use", and it is being used in an article, but we have no rationale whatsoever.
Fair enough. Is it required that the original uploader provide the fair use rationale, or can someone else? If we require the original uploader, that might be a problem. If you're not the original uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
-Matt
I've done a bit of thinking on this, and I believe that whoever includes the image tag in the article would be responsible for preparing a work containing the fair use material. If User A uploads the image, B puts it in the article, and then C breezes by and puts a fair use justification, then B would probably be responsible; but if D comes by and corrects a typo in the article and leaves the image tag in, then D could become responsible.
But this is all hopelessly speculative. My opinion is that the purpose that the source, tag, and fair use justification serve is allowing downstream consumers of the image database (future editors and also those who download the wikipedia database to build fork sites) to make a solid determination of whether they want to include the image in their work. It's a form of "rights clearance" database.
Legal arguments about the fair use rationale are hopeless. Any lawyer qualified to give advice on the matter would not give it for free on the Internet without that famous disclaimer, "this does not constitute legal advice, contact a licensed professional...", q.v. [[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer]]. I think my own opinion is pretty good just as an average US citizen with an interest in the law, but I won't bore anyone with it unless upon request. Therefore the bottom line is anyone who's concerned about themselves should talk to a lawyer about their specific case.
The decision is quite simply: "if I decide to take this article and edit it, and there is an image included in the previous version, do I want to include it in my version? Do I feel comfortable with the source and fair use justification? Would I feel better if I removed or replaced it, and why?" Life's much easier when you consider it in that light.
[[User:Kwh]]
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, KWH wrote:
Legal arguments about the fair use rationale are hopeless. Any lawyer qualified to give advice on the matter would not give it for free on the Internet without that famous disclaimer, "this does not constitute legal advice, contact a licensed professional...", q.v. [[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer]]. I think my own opinion is pretty good just as an average US citizen with an interest in the law, but I won't bore anyone with it unless upon request. Therefore the bottom line is anyone who's concerned about themselves should talk to a lawyer about their specific case.
Clearly we need an elite strike team of pro bono attorneys to judge each fair use claim, armed with deletion privileges. They can even have their own usergroup: "ninja-attorney".
On 3/24/06, KWH k.w.harris@gmail.com wrote:
The decision is quite simply: "if I decide to take this article and edit it, and there is an image included in the previous version, do I want to include it in my version? Do I feel comfortable with the source and fair use justification? Would I feel better if I removed or replaced it, and why?" Life's much easier when you consider it in that light.
Making Wikipedia editors for the entire contents of any article they edit would be a major, unwelcome change IMHO. Not just on the fair use side, but even implying that editors have necessarily read, let alone approved an entire article is unreasonable, when they may just be adding an interwiki link or fixing some spelling, for example.
Steve
On 3/24/06, KWH k.w.harris@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/06, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that this is largely true. My suggestion was meant to be more conservative, in that it would only expedite deletion of media where we are saying "This is fair use", and it is being used in an article, but we have no rationale whatsoever.
Fair enough. Is it required that the original uploader provide the fair use rationale, or can someone else? If we require the original uploader, that might be a problem. If you're not the original uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
-Matt
I've done a bit of thinking on this, and I believe that whoever includes the image tag in the article would be responsible for preparing a work containing the fair use material. If User A uploads the image, B puts it in the article, and then C breezes by and puts a fair use justification, then B would probably be responsible; but if D comes by and corrects a typo in the article and leaves the image tag in, then D could become responsible.
But this is all hopelessly speculative. My opinion is that the purpose that the source, tag, and fair use justification serve is allowing downstream consumers of the image database (future editors and also those who download the wikipedia database to build fork sites) to make a solid determination of whether they want to include the image in their work. It's a form of "rights clearance" database.
Legal arguments about the fair use rationale are hopeless. Any lawyer qualified to give advice on the matter would not give it for free on the Internet without that famous disclaimer, "this does not constitute legal advice, contact a licensed professional...", q.v. [[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer]]. I think my own opinion is pretty good just as an average US citizen with an interest in the law, but I won't bore anyone with it unless upon request. Therefore the bottom line is anyone who's concerned about themselves should talk to a lawyer about their specific case.
The decision is quite simply: "if I decide to take this article and edit it, and there is an image included in the previous version, do I want to include it in my version? Do I feel comfortable with the source and fair use justification? Would I feel better if I removed or replaced it, and why?" Life's much easier when you consider it in that light.
[[User:Kwh]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone else put in an article. Too many people know too little about copyright law or are just completely ignorant.
I think we should have some project that tags images as they come in (or throws them out) to stop this from getting out of hand and to make sure valid images aren't deleted just because the original uploader forgot to tag it. All of them should get reviewed by at least 3 people before being thrown out. Deleting something is very easy, a similar effort should be made to tag an image properly.
Mgm
KWH wrote:
On 3/23/06, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
Fair enough. Is it required that the original uploader provide the fair use rationale, or can someone else? If we require the original uploader, that might be a problem. If you're not the original uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
I've done a bit of thinking on this, and I believe that whoever includes the image tag in the article would be responsible for preparing a work containing the fair use material. If User A uploads the image, B puts it in the article, and then C breezes by and puts a fair use justification, then B would probably be responsible; but if D comes by and corrects a typo in the article and leaves the image tag in, then D could become responsible.
As a non-American with little knowledge of U.S. law, I'd nonetheless find it unlikely that in your scenario D could be liable. The way I'd expect a court to see it, should it ever come to that, is that whoever made the (implicit or explicit) claim that "this image may be fairly used in that article", or acted based on such a claim made by another, _when they should've known better_, would be liable.
D, who only corrects a typo in an unrelated part of the article, could hardly be expected to know that the fair use claims made implictly by B and explicitly by C are in fact bogus. Unless, perhaps, the copyright violation was _really_ blatant and obvious; but if one were to argue that, one might as well argue that anyone who read the article without fixing it is also liable. I doubt either argument would actually fly.
As for the liability of B, that would rather depend on what, if any, description A provided when they uploaded the image. If A claimed the image was PD-self, and the image was such that B would've had no reason to doubt that claim, then it would be A's fault for misleading B. But even than C might still be held liable, since, in providing the fair use rationale, they could be assumed to have been aware that A's claim was invalid.
Of course, in practice there'd be a lot more to it than that. For example, a court might certainly debate about exactly how much due diligence an editor could be expected to apply in verifying claims made by other editors. And certainly lawyers would be expected to make all sorts of claims and counterclaims, however weak, just in case they might get lucky. Not to mention the possibility of local laws that might explicitly create a presumption of "should've known better" on certain individuals that in other jurisdictions might have no such responsibility. Or...
In any case, the practical guideline I would draw from all this is to use common sense in making or acting upon fair use claims, and to assume that one _might_ assume liability in doing so if one did not apply due diligence. "Trust, but verify."
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
D, who only corrects a typo in an unrelated part of the article, could hardly be expected to know that the fair use claims made implictly by B and explicitly by C are in fact bogus. Unless, perhaps, the copyright violation was _really_ blatant and obvious; but if one were to argue that, one might as well argue that anyone who read the article without fixing it is also liable. I doubt either argument would actually fly.
I'm not sure what a "blatant" copyright violation would be. There's always the chance that the copyright owner of any image gave permission to Wikimedia to use it - an editor who simply edits the article cannot know whether that is true or not.
Steve
On 24 Mar 2006, at 12:12, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
D, who only corrects a typo in an unrelated part of the article, could hardly be expected to know that the fair use claims made implictly by B and explicitly by C are in fact bogus. Unless, perhaps, the copyright violation was _really_ blatant and obvious; but if one were to argue that, one might as well argue that anyone who read the article without fixing it is also liable. I doubt either argument would actually fly.
I'm not sure what a "blatant" copyright violation would be. There's always the chance that the copyright owner of any image gave permission to Wikimedia to use it - an editor who simply edits the article cannot know whether that is true or not.
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Justinc
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really doubt it.
Steve
On 24 Mar 2006, at 12:30, Steve Bennett wrote:
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really doubt it.
For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader cant produce documentation, delete the image.
So for example this blatent copyvio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2012legacymap.jpg
Randomly claimed as PD and promo needs a detailed justification (of course there isnt one as it is simply a lie).
Justinc
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really doubt it.
For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader cant produce documentation, delete the image.
I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which there is no supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private emails).
(One sharp fellow PGP-signed his agreement to license some photos under the GFDL. I couldn't verify his key through the web of trust, though, nor could I find *absolute* proof that he was the copyright holder. We have to start trusting at some point...)
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really doubt it.
For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader cant produce documentation, delete the image.
I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which there is no supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private emails).
(One sharp fellow PGP-signed his agreement to license some photos under the GFDL. I couldn't verify his key through the web of trust, though, nor could I find *absolute* proof that he was the copyright holder. We have to start trusting at some point...)
You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is a special email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
Verifiability is vital.
Justinc
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really doubt it.
For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader cant produce documentation, delete the image.
I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which there is no supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private emails).
You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is a special email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
At some point you have to trust someone. I propose that it's OK to trust trustworthy Wikipedians.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 3/24/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
It's more work.
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/24/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
It's more work.
Not that much more work. You could do it with a couple of one-liner emails.
-- 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 3/24/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
It's more work.
Not that much more work. You could do it with a couple of one-liner emails.
But anyway, couldn't the foundation just reply to the original email and check? I mean, unless you went to all the trouble of creating a fake email account with the person's name?
Steve
I could use a little input. I've been working on trying to clear out the copyrighted or no source images from pages about Olympic athletes.
A user had uploaded an image to the page on Mellisa Hollingsworth-Richards, which he sourced as coming from TSN.CA (similar to ESPN.com). I marked it for deletion as a copyright violation, added it on IfD, sent him a note on his talk page, and noted it on the picture. A few minutes later, he deleted the picture from the page and uploaded a new picture - this one taken directly from CBC.ca (another clear copyright violation). I again marked it for deletion and followed the other steps.
The user has now referred to me as a ninny on my talk page, which I really don't mind all that much. Another user, on the IfD page has said that the image should be kept ... whether or not it's a copyright violation.
I could use a little feedback in whether I'm headed in the right direction or not, as I frequently run into this very same issue on other pages. Uploaders try to claim the images as "fair use" even if they're taken directly from a copyrighted source.
Sue Anne [[User:Sreed1234]]
On 3/24/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
I could use a little input. I've been working on trying to clear out the copyrighted or no source images from pages about Olympic athletes.
A user had uploaded an image to the page on Mellisa Hollingsworth-Richards, which he sourced as coming from TSN.CA (similar to ESPN.com). I marked it for deletion as a copyright violation, added it on IfD, sent him a note on his talk page, and noted it on the picture. A few minutes later, he deleted the picture from the page and uploaded a new picture - this one taken directly from CBC.ca (another clear copyright violation). I again marked it for deletion and followed the other steps.
This is absolutely the right way to do things.
The user has now referred to me as a ninny on my talk page, which I really don't mind all that much. Another user, on the IfD page has said that the image should be kept ... whether or not it's a copyright violation.
Utter nonsense.
I could use a little feedback in whether I'm headed in the right direction or not, as I frequently run into this very same issue on other pages. Uploaders try to claim the images as "fair use" even if they're taken directly from a copyrighted source.
It's generally unlikely that photos from news websites are fair use, as the value to the holder is diminished considerably.
Of course, to be fair use it ipso facto must be copyrighted, else we wouldn't have to claim fair use.
Note IANAL.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
Of course, to be fair use it ipso facto must be copyrighted, else we wouldn't have to claim fair use.
To be pedantic, there is of course the case of "We don't know if this is copyrighted or not, but if it is, we can still claim fair use."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sue Reed stated for the record:
I could use a little feedback in whether I'm headed in the right direction or not, as I frequently run into this very same issue on other pages. Uploaders try to claim the images as "fair use" even if they're taken directly from a copyrighted source.
Sue Anne [[User:Sreed1234]]
Sue, you are absolutely in the right.
I speedy-deleted the latest version as a blatant copyvio from a commercial source. I'm now standing by, waiting to be called a ninny ... let's see if a short sharp slap with the cluebat will cure him of his fondness for personal attacks.
- -- Sean Barrett | You'll be sort of surprised what there sean@epoptic.org | is to be found once you go beyond 'Z' | and start poking around! --Dr. Seuss
Matt R wrote:
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting documentation somewhere for that case.
Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really doubt it.
For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader cant produce documentation, delete the image.
I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which there is no supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private emails).
You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is a special email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
The correct procedure is to get the copyright owner to write to permissions@wikimedia.org which goes into an OTRS queue which can be accessed by anyone listed on [[m:OTRS]] - finding out if a claim is bogus or not is as simple as looking it up.
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which there is no supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private emails).
You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is a special email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
Verifiability is vital.
Justinc
"Supposed to"? Well, it's not in the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|policy]]. I dunno where this has been communicated, but not on the policy page.
I know I've added such photos where I've received affirmation of free use a number of times, and done just what Matt R. did.
Kdt
You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is a special email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
"Supposed to"? Well, it's not in the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|policy]]. I dunno where this has been communicated, but not on the policy page.
It's mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission
It's more of a sensible guideline than a policy, since it helps to prove permission was really given, but isn't the only way of doing that.
Angela.
Justin Cormack wrote:
For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader cant produce documentation, delete the image.
I'd say claimed self-made images are often the worst cases. If you can't find a source online, what can you do but trust the uploader? Or, even if you do find an online source, how do you know that the uploaded _isn't_ the creator if the other site doesn't document _its_ sources in sufficient detail?
Okay, you can choose _not_ to trust the uploader and instead nominate the image at IFD. But that's hardly assuming good faith.
For a specific recent example, see [[Image:JP4.jpg]] on enwiki. Or, for that matter, [[Image:Teabagging.jpg]] and the ensuing IFD debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_Ja...
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
I'd say claimed self-made images are often the worst cases. If you can't find a source online, what can you do but trust the uploader? Or, even if you do find an online source, how do you know that the uploaded _isn't_ the creator if the other site doesn't document _its_ sources in sufficient detail?
Is it arguable that if someone falsely claims to have made an image and releases that under GFDL, and we use and distribute that image, then the copyright violation is his, not ours?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not sure what a "blatant" copyright violation would be. There's always the chance that the copyright owner of any image gave permission to Wikimedia to use it - an editor who simply edits the article cannot know whether that is true or not.
High-resolution scans of every page of a recently published bestselling graphic novel? The current U.S. #1 album as Ogg files? A full-length Theora stream of a movie currently in theaters? A Microsoft Office XP install CD image, with key?
In general, something that anyone would be expected to recognize immediately and that no-one could possibly assume to have been released under a free license without extraordinary evidence.
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
High-resolution scans of every page of a recently published bestselling graphic novel? The current U.S. #1 album as Ogg files? A full-length Theora stream of a movie currently in theaters? A Microsoft Office XP install CD image, with key?
Ok, well I was thinking in terms of images embedded within an article. You win the "thinking outside the box" prize. :)
Steve