On 12/3/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:22:24 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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_d… 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria/Amendment/Consensus -- [[:en:User:Sherool]]

On 3 Dec 2006, at 20:25, Matthew Brown 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. Justinc

On 12/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.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. 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 Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Justin Cormack wrote: 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?

Mark Wagner 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. FUC #1 is a dismal failure. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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? Paparazzi are reasonable people now? Steve

On 12/5/06, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.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? 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, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Whatever legal system the rest of en Wikipedia operates under - presumably US law. 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. 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

On 12/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. You didn't state that in your example. Also may not be legal to edit the images which pesents problems. Would need to see the exact terms of the release though. Very stong fair use cases could potentialy be the equiverlent of free. 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. -- geni

Steve Bennett wrote: 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

On 12/5/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: This is not the case on en. We've been through magazine covers once already. 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

On 12/6/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: 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. 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). -- Robth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)

On 12/5/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: 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

Justin Cormack wrote: If something is truly fair use it is not copyright theft, and should not be characterized as such. Ec

On 12/3/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- Robth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)

On 12/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: No. 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. -- geni

On 12/5/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: The en.wikipedia community or at least the parts of it that care about our fair use policy. -- geni

geni wrote: 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. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 05/12/06

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: -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/573 - Release Date: 05/12/06