Evidently someone has decided that fair use doesn't apply to images of living people, that any image of a person (legitimately fair use or not) can be speedily deleted, on the grounds that a free image could be found or created.
I'm sure this issue has been hashed out at length somewhere, and I'm not trying to reopen the argument here on the mailing list. I just want to point out two things, in case someone here feels like trying to straighten them out.
1. [[Template:Replaceable fair use]] says, "If this image is determined to be replaceable within one week from <today>, the image may be deleted by any administrator. Do not remove this tag." This leaves me wondering what is supposed to happen if, after a week, the image is not determined to be replaceable.
2. [[Template:Speedy-image-c]], which is being added to pages which use images falling into this category, says "The image above is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted seven days after being nominated". But this conflicts with the above -- there is no "if" or "unless".
Also, if someone could let me know where this new policy has been discussed, I'd appreciate it, so that I can register my (belated) opinion on it.
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Evidently someone has decided that fair use doesn't apply to images of living people, that any image of a person (legitimately fair use or not) can be speedily deleted, on the grounds that a free image could be found or created.
There are exceptions but that is broadly speaking a correct interpritation of our fair use policy.
I'm sure this issue has been hashed out at length somewhere, and I'm not trying to reopen the argument here on the mailing list. I just want to point out two things, in case someone here feels like trying to straighten them out.
- [[Template:Replaceable fair use]] says, "If this image is
determined to be replaceable within one week from <today>, the image may be deleted by any administrator. Do not remove this tag." This leaves me wondering what is supposed to happen if, after a week, the image is not determined to be replaceable.
The administrator dealing with the deletion reads the reasons why it is not replaceable and removes the tag.
- [[Template:Speedy-image-c]], which is being added to pages
which use images falling into this category, says "The image above is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted seven days after being nominated". But this conflicts with the above -- there is no "if" or "unless".
That isn't the correct template. The correct template is:
[[Template:Refu-c]]
Which could probably do with some rewording.
Also, if someone could let me know where this new policy has been discussed, I'd appreciate it, so that I can register my (belated) opinion on it.
Isn't new exactly people have just finaly decided to inforce the policies we have had for a long time.
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Also, if someone could let me know where this new policy has been discussed, I'd appreciate it, so that I can register my (belated) opinion on it.
Isn't new exactly people have just finaly decided to inforce the policies we have had for a long time.
Hmm, not exactly. People have decided to interpret the policies we've had for a long time in a way that was not previously accepted.
-Matt
On 12/3/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Also, if someone could let me know where this new policy has been discussed, I'd appreciate it, so that I can register my (belated) opinion on it.
Isn't new exactly people have just finaly decided to inforce the policies we have had for a long time.
Hmm, not exactly. People have decided to interpret the policies we've had for a long time in a way that was not previously accepted.
-Matt
That's it. I don't remember this being discussed at large at all before deletions started.
Mgm
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:22:24 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Also, if someone could let me know where this new policy has been discussed, I'd appreciate it, so that I can register my (belated) opinion on it.
Isn't new exactly people have just finaly decided to inforce the policies we have had for a long time.
Hmm, not exactly. People have decided to interpret the policies we've had for a long time in a way that was not previously accepted.
-Matt
That's it. I don't remember this being discussed at large at all before deletions started.
I haven't been following the evolution of this too closely but I believe it's been happening in stages. By the creation of new or expanding of existing cpeedy deletion criterea.
First we got the criterea to speedy delete unused fair use images (CSD I5), wich for the most part have been fairly uncontroversial. Then came the criterea to speedy delete scertain kinds of fair use images if they did not have a fair use rationale (CSD I6). Then came the whole "invalid fair use tag" thing that made stuff like photos tagged with a {{logo}} template speedyable (CSD I7). Then I7 was expanded[1] to include any fair use image that fail any of the 10 fair use criterea within 48 hours of notifying the uploader[2]. Since the most common criterea to "fail" is the #1 one (wich I think we are all familiar with by now) a special tagging process was later introduced for these cases with a 7 day "timer" rater than a 48 hour one, and that's more or less where we are today.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_de... 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria/Amendment/Consensus
Sherool wrote:
First we got... Then came... a special tagging process was later introduced for these cases with a 7 day "timer" rater than a 48 hour one, and that's more or less where we are today.
And people are quoting Jimbo as having said that it's better to have no image than a nonfree one. And if that's true and if it applies in every case, then we shouldn't be using things like promotional photos, and the fair-use deletion effort that's underway is appropriate.
On 3 Dec 2006, at 20:25, Matthew Brown wrote:
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Also, if someone could let me know where this new policy has been discussed, I'd appreciate it, so that I can register my (belated) opinion on it.
Isn't new exactly people have just finaly decided to inforce the policies we have had for a long time.
Hmm, not exactly. People have decided to interpret the policies we've had for a long time in a way that was not previously accepted.
No, it has been accepted but not enforced. It has always been agreed that we dont accept fair use images when we can have free ones. We are a free encyclopaedia - thats the whole idea.
Justinc
On 12/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
No, it has been accepted but not enforced. It has always been agreed that we dont accept fair use images when we can have free ones. We are a free encyclopaedia - thats the whole idea.
That's always been accepted in the most part, yes. However, the meaning of 'can have free ones' has changed. Previously, it required more than a theoretical possibility of a free alternative.
I am concerned that the definition of 'can have free ones' will be stretched further so that we start removing pictures of things that no longer exist under the theory that someone else may have a similar photo that they might be willing to free license.
-Matt
On 12/4/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
That's always been accepted in the most part, yes. However, the meaning of 'can have free ones' has changed. Previously, it required more than a theoretical possibility of a free alternative.
These days, political activism is definitely getting in the way of the concrete goal of producing an encyclopaedia.
Steve
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Justin Cormack wrote:
No, it has been accepted but not enforced. It has always been agreed that we dont accept fair use images when we can have free ones.
But "can have" is, I think, being interpreted in a way which is far from universally accepted. Was it really intended all along that we "can have" a free image when all that that means is that someone, somewhere, could track down a person and take a photograph under a free license, regardless of how hard the person is to track down or how much stalking one would have to do to get the photograph?
On 12/4/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Justin Cormack wrote:
No, it has been accepted but not enforced. It has always been agreed that we dont accept fair use images when we can have free ones.
But "can have" is, I think, being interpreted in a way which is far from universally accepted. Was it really intended all along that we "can have" a free image when all that that means is that someone, somewhere, could track down a person and take a photograph under a free license, regardless of how hard the person is to track down or how much stalking one would have to do to get the photograph?
That's not what's being enforced here. If someone is a noted recluse and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image passes FUC #1. On the other hand, if someone makes weekly appearances in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a non-free image of him.
It's much like the "reasonable person" standard in law: is it possible that a [[reasonable person]] can make or find a free-license picture of this? If yes, then any non-free image of it fails FUC #1.
Mark Wagner wrote:
That's not what's being enforced here. If someone is a noted recluse and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image passes FUC #1.
I've ran into people who read FUC #1 in a way that would mean deleting an image of J D Salinger. They don'tt hink someone like him would pass FUC #1.
FUC #1 is a dismal failure.
-Jeff
On 12/4/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I've ran into people who read FUC #1 in a way that would mean deleting an image of J D Salinger. They don'tt hink someone like him would pass FUC #1.
And I've run into rather a lot of people who object to any type of copyright policy being inforced. I don't think either are relivant to debate en.wikipedia over FUC#1.
FUC #1 is a dismal failure.
Only because up until now it has not been inforced.
On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
That's not what's being enforced here. If someone is a noted recluse and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image passes FUC #1. On the other hand, if someone makes weekly appearances in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a non-free image of him.
If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means, someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?
If it's just about motivating someone to go and do it, isn't that a separate problem?
It's much like the "reasonable person" standard in law: is it possible that a [[reasonable person]] can make or find a free-license picture of this? If yes, then any non-free image of it fails FUC #1.
Paparazzi are reasonable people now?
Steve
On 5 Dec 2006, at 01:18, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
That's not what's being enforced here. If someone is a noted recluse and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image passes FUC #1. On the other hand, if someone makes weekly appearances in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a non-free image of him.
If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means, someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?
If it's just about motivating someone to go and do it, isn't that a separate problem?
Thats no different from saying if we dont have an article on Mr John C Popular Esquire why dont we just copy the one from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica until we get around to writing one. Yes it makes us look better but it doesnt belong to us. This copyright theft is "justified" as "fair use" because we allegedly dont steal too much from one place at a time, eg we only have pictures of all the Pokemon charcaters, so each one is fair use.
And if we had copied all the articles from EB and hadnt got sued, so you think we would be where we are today? People improve things where there are gaps, and stolen images are not gaps.
Justinc
On 12/5/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Thats no different from saying if we dont have an article on Mr John C Popular Esquire why dont we just copy the one from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica until we get around to writing one. Yes it makes us look better but it doesnt belong to us. This copyright theft is "justified" as "fair use" because we allegedly dont steal too much from one place at a time, eg we only have pictures of all the Pokemon charcaters, so each one is fair use.
I've been assuming that the policy about not applying "fair use" for these photographs was entirely of Wikipedia's design, and is not really related to copyright law. You're suggesting that we're actually breaking copyright law if we do use "fair use" for promotional photographs instead of going out and taking a new photo. Does anyone know either way?
And if we had copied all the articles from EB and hadnt got sued, so you think we would be where we are today? People improve things where there are gaps, and stolen images are not gaps.
Can you steal a promotional image which some B grade hollywood star desperately wants everyone to use at any opportunity? I certainly agree with you about people filling gaps - I've taken quite a few "gap-filler" photos myself - but taking good photos of celebrities is pretty hard. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jerry_Seinfeld_%281997%29.jpg
We're not even sure that this *is* a free image, and this is at the better end of the scale of the free celebrity photos we have. And do you think Seinfeld, his publicist, us, or anyone is really happy that we have a crappy photo of him rather than a professionally executed publicity shot? This is sort of the opposite of the victimless crime - the beneficiary-less act of kindness.
Steve
On 12/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've been assuming that the policy about not applying "fair use" for these photographs was entirely of Wikipedia's design, and is not really related to copyright law. You're suggesting that we're actually breaking copyright law if we do use "fair use" for promotional photographs instead of going out and taking a new photo. Does anyone know either way?
It depends.
Questions of what the law says can only really be answered on a case by case basis and generealy need to be quite carefuly defined (for example a trivial answer to you question is that it would be illegal but that is because you failed to specify the legal system you were tlaking about).
Can you steal a promotional image which some B grade hollywood star desperately wants everyone to use at any opportunity?
Certainly the most obvious case would be one in which the hollywood star did not own the copyright to the photo.
I certainly agree with you about people filling gaps - I've taken quite a few "gap-filler" photos myself - but taking good photos of celebrities is pretty hard. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jerry_Seinfeld_%281997%29.jpg
We're not even sure that this *is* a free image, and this is at the better end of the scale of the free celebrity photos we have. And do you think Seinfeld, his publicist, us, or anyone is really happy that we have a crappy photo of him rather than a professionally executed publicity shot?
The publicist is free to release a photo under a lisence we can use.
On 12/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Questions of what the law says can only really be answered on a case by case basis and generealy need to be quite carefuly defined (for example a trivial answer to you question is that it would be illegal but that is because you failed to specify the legal system you were tlaking about).
Whatever legal system the rest of en Wikipedia operates under - presumably US law.
Certainly the most obvious case would be one in which the hollywood star did not own the copyright to the photo.
We're talking about publicity shots aren't we? As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept free images, we accept fair use...but not "permission granted for Wikipedia". It's a strange one.
The publicist is free to release a photo under a lisence we can use.
I guess "we can use" is a self-imposed limitation that doesn't have much to do with the law. These photos probably *are* released under a license we can use, but we choose not to accept them as they are not free enough. Causing us to take the weird backdoor route of "fair use".
Steve
I think somebody has previously said that that's because it wouldn't be compatible for use outside of Wikipedia, and we do have a lot of forks and mirrors. We don't regulate that, so we would need to get the copyright holder to completely give up rights to the image for safety. And that's not always fun for everybody. The contradiction is peculiar and unfortunate, but makes some sense.
--Ryan
On 12/4/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly the most obvious case would be one in which the hollywood star did not own the copyright to the photo.
We're talking about publicity shots aren't we? As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept free images, we accept fair use...but not "permission granted for Wikipedia". It's a strange one.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever legal system the rest of en Wikipedia operates under - presumably US law.
Assumeing you mean what legal system wikipedai puts the most effort into following then yes that would be US law when it comes to copyright.
We're talking about publicity shots aren't we?
You didn't state that in your example.
As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
Also may not be legal to edit the images which pesents problems. Would need to see the exact terms of the release though.
The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept free images, we accept fair use...but not "permission granted for Wikipedia". It's a strange one.
Very stong fair use cases could potentialy be the equiverlent of free.
I guess "we can use" is a self-imposed limitation that doesn't have much to do with the law.
It has a fair bit to do with the law since the problems verious restictions (or strangely the lack of them) can cause are part of the reason we try to avoid them.
On 5 Dec 2006, at 03:31, geni wrote:
As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
Also may not be legal to edit the images which pesents problems. Would need to see the exact terms of the release though.
I have never seen the terms of the release on a wikipedia "publicity" photo. Many of the pictures that are labelled as such clearly arent anyway, but it would be good if people would find the terms of use. They probably exclude redistribution...
Justinc
Steve Bennett wrote:
We're talking about publicity shots aren't we? As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
Publicity shots usually come with some kind of limited permission to use in news articles or whatever; not necessarily to use on a t-shirt - or on the front cover of a biography in wikibooks.
I think a worse problem is mislabeling - every magazine and news agency photographer takes all kinds of publicity-shot-like photos of the person they're featuring that month, and those guys would not be pleased at WP usage. Worse, the photographer is almost never credited, so the visibility of WP usage doesn't even help their careers.
Stan
Steve Bennett wrote:
We're talking about publicity shots aren't we?
Well, I was, but naturally the thread has expanded somewhat. (And see below.)
As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about them [...] So presumably also legal for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
Just so. But:
The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept free images, we accept fair use...
Not quite. The current climate is that we accept nothing but free images. Fair use is not free, so we're stamping out fair use. Licensed-for-almost-anyone-to-use publicity photos are not free, so we're stamping out those, too. I'm sure magazine covers and DVD packages will be next.
And this isn't necessarily such a bad thing. Certainly, accepting only free images, and upping the incentive to acquire free images, by declining to accept nonfree ones in the meantime, is a noble goal.
I started this thread talking about publicity photos, but it became clear to me that this is not the fundamental issue, and I suspect it's not even worth debating publicity photos until the fundamental issue is resolved (or changed).
The people campaigning to get rid of all nonfree images have got Jimbo's statement to fall back on: it's better for an article to have no image at all than to have a nonfree one. A licensed publicity photo of J.D. Salinger is not free, ergo it's better for the [[J.D. Salinger]] article to have no image, until such time as a free one can be found.
Stated another way, not only does a poorly-composed fan shot of an author at a book signing trump a professionally-photographed headshot, an imageless article trumps that headshot, too.
On 12/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Not quite. The current climate is that we accept nothing but free images.
This is not the case on en.
Fair use is not free, so we're stamping out fair use. Licensed-for-almost-anyone-to-use publicity photos are not free, so we're stamping out those, too. I'm sure magazine covers and DVD packages will be next.
We've been through magazine covers once already.
And this isn't necessarily such a bad thing. Certainly, accepting only free images, and upping the incentive to acquire free images, by declining to accept nonfree ones in the meantime, is a noble goal.
I started this thread talking about publicity photos, but it became clear to me that this is not the fundamental issue, and I suspect it's not even worth debating publicity photos until the fundamental issue is resolved (or changed).
The people campaigning to get rid of all nonfree images have got Jimbo's statement to fall back on: it's better for an article to have no image at all than to have a nonfree one. A licensed publicity photo of J.D. Salinger is not free, ergo it's better for the [[J.D. Salinger]] article to have no image, until such time as a free one can be found.
Stated another way, not only does a poorly-composed fan shot of an author at a book signing trump a professionally-photographed headshot, an imageless article trumps that headshot, too.
Assumeing a fan pic is in fact posible. Clearly it unlikely that there is going to be a free pic of say [[Stella Rimington]] for the next 50 years.
geni wrote:
On 12/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Not quite. The current climate is that we accept nothing but free images.
This is not the case on en.
I should have said, the current attitude of a significant number of active admins is that we accept nothing but free images. See for example some of the arguments at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok]], and especially the outside view by Jimbo Wales. (Most of these arguments are nominally about fair-use images, but they're being interpreted to apply to other kinds of nonfree content, such as promotional photos.)
I'm sure magazine covers and DVD packages will be next.
We've been through magazine covers once already.
And I'm guessing that we'll be going through them again soon. (We didn't get the You-know-who Association of America article deleted on the first try, either. :-) )
On 12/6/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I should have said, the current attitude of a significant number of active admins is that we accept nothing but free images. See for example some of the arguments at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok]], and especially the outside view by Jimbo Wales.
As someone who participated in that RfC, I have no idea how you got the idea that anyone there was advocating the removal of all unfree images--and the same goes for the recent discussion on the pages of the Wikproject talk page. The recent debates at both locations are specifically about replaceable fair use images--images of subjects for which a free image could reasonably be created. We do accept fair use images of dead people, historic events, copyrighted fictional characters, and a number of other subjects, and a move to change that at this moment would find very little traction. On that specific RfC, even Jimbo (who has advocated a more restrictive fair use policy in the past) isn't arguing for anything more than that.
(Most of these arguments are nominally about fair-use images, but they're being interpreted to apply to other kinds of nonfree content, such as promotional photos.)
In general, people on those pages are using the term "fair use" to mean "stuff covered by Wikipedia's fair use policy", some of which would be best described as by different legal terms. Thus, "replaceable fair use" actually means "replaceable unfree images". (See why we need to rename our policy?) From the perspective of the immediate legal concerns of Wikipedia, the various types of unfree images are different; from the perspective of the project's goals with regard to free content (which is the basis of the policy being discussed on those pages) they are the same (i.e. not fully reusable).
On 12/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Stated another way, not only does a poorly-composed fan shot of an author at a book signing trump a professionally-photographed headshot,
Maybe. From a licensing perspective, sure.
an imageless article trumps that headshot, too.
That is a profoundly dangerous opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and an exercise in aggressive social change via copyleft second.
On 12/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Stated another way, not only does a poorly-composed fan shot of an author at a book signing trump a professionally-photographed headshot, an imageless article trumps that headshot, too.
I think this needs the clarification that this might only apply if the professionally-photographed headshot has not been licensed appropriately. I certainly am very in favor of notable individuals providing us their press photos under a free license.
I don't agree with either extreme proposition here. I don't think that an article is automatically better with no image than a fair use one, but neither do I think that a fair use image is automatically better than no image. It is definitely the case, though, that imageless articles tend to inspire properly-licensed image contributions much more so than articles with an appropriate but fair-use image.
I also agree that in the majority of cases, fair use images on articles on living persons could be replaced with a free image. There are some cases where such replacement is extremely unlikely, and in those cases I would accept an argument for a fair-use image, particularly if it is one that would be freely available to us under a Wikipedia-only or noncommercial-only or educational-only license, so that we are not actually in potential legal difficulties.
What do people think about fair use images of historical things that no longer exist? In these cases, nobody can go and photograph the thing - our only hope of getting a free-licensed image is persuading someone who owns the copyright to one to donate it. (Short of waiting for copyright expiration, if it ever even happens given the continual raising of copyright periods)
-Matt
On 12/4/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
And if we had copied all the articles from EB and hadnt got sued, so you think we would be where we are today? People improve things where there are gaps, and stolen images are not gaps.
Can you steal a promotional image which some B grade hollywood star desperately wants everyone to use at any opportunity?
They might want us to use it in the article on them, but can you be sure they won't object to it being an example image in [[Black people]]? And I'd bet they'd *really* object to a crossed-out version of the image used in an anti-(insert star here) userbox.
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 5 Dec 2006, at 01:18, Steve Bennett wrote:
Thats no different from saying if we dont have an article on Mr John C Popular Esquire why dont we just copy the one from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica until we get around to writing one. Yes it makes us look better but it doesnt belong to us. This copyright theft is "justified" as "fair use" because we allegedly dont steal too much from one place at a time, eg we only have pictures of all the Pokemon charcaters, so each one is fair use.
If something is truly fair use it is not copyright theft, and should not be characterized as such.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
That's not what's being enforced here. If someone is a noted recluse and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image passes FUC #1. On the other hand, if someone makes weekly appearances in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a non-free image of him.
If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means, someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?
Because collecting other people's images and inserting them into WP is just as much a violation of their rights as it would be to insert the entire texts of their books and articles? We can hardly expect anybody else to respect WP's licenses if we don't respect theirs. Fair use is supposed to be a way out of unavoidable binds, not a justification for extreme laziness.
Stan
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That isn't the correct template. The correct template is:
[[Template:Refu-c]]
Which could probably do with some rewording.
Turns out that {{subst:refu-c}} was just adding in {{speedy-image-c}} with the correct date and {{replacethisimage}}. That was rather misleading, so I have changed this.
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Evidently someone has decided that fair use doesn't apply to images of living people, that any image of a person (legitimately fair use or not) can be speedily deleted, on the grounds that a free image could be found or created.
There are exceptions but that is broadly speaking a correct interpritation of our fair use policy.
You mean Wikimedia's? Is that based on advice of counsel?
On 12/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
You mean Wikimedia's?
No.
Is that based on advice of counsel?
No. No legal counsel would agree to do anything more than view images on a case by case basis trying to create a general policy that woulde be legaly safe is unlikely to be posible.
On 12/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote
Evidently someone has decided that fair use doesn't apply to
images of living people, that any image of a person (legitimately
fair use or not) can be speedily deleted, on the grounds that a
free image could be found or created.
There are exceptions but that is broadly speaking a correct
interpritation of our fair use policy.
You mean Wikimedia's?
No.
Then who?
On 12/5/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Then who?
The en.wikipedia community or at least the parts of it that care about our fair use policy.
On 12/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Then who?
The en.wikipedia community or at least the parts of it that care about our fair use policy.
BTW, I care about fair use policy.
geni wrote:
On 12/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
- [[Template:Replaceable fair use]] says, "If this image is
determined to be replaceable within one week from <today>, the image may be deleted by any administrator. Do not remove this tag." This leaves me wondering what is supposed to happen if, after a week, the image is not determined to be replaceable.
The administrator dealing with the deletion reads the reasons why it is not replaceable and removes the tag.
This actually happened to me. Rather than discuss the issue, the person who had applied the tag reapplied the tag with the edit summary "what part of do not remove this tag do you not understand". I pointed out I was an admin removing it because I didn't agree that it met the criteria, as I noted in my removal edit summary, and that they were welcome to list it at IFD. I was then told that I should list it there because I removed the tag. At this point another admin speedied it because it didn't fit his fair use criteria, namely that book covers aren't fair use in articles on books unless they are first edition covers or something, and I moved onto something more productive.
Huh?! That sounds unecessarily arbitrary.
--Ryan
On 12/5/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
At this point another admin speedied it because it didn't fit his fair use criteria, namely that book covers aren't fair use in articles on books unless they are first edition covers or something
It was. To be fair, the admin in question later agreed the point, but I am so tired of all the little hoops that need to be jumped through on Wikipedia that I had already moved on. If the image is necessary it will be uploaded again. To be honest, I was posting more to illustrate the inanity of a speedy tag which declares it cannot be removed rather than the mis-deletion, a regular occurrence on Wikipedia, and something I am sure even I have been guilty of.
Ryan Wetherell wrote:
Huh?! That sounds unecessarily arbitrary.
--Ryan
On 12/5/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
At this point another admin speedied it because it didn't fit his fair use criteria, namely that book covers aren't fair use in articles on books unless they are first edition covers or something
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l