This is beginning to become somewhat of a significant problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=25617...
On October 15, someone changed [[Template:Promophoto]] quite significantly. The old text read that "This work is a copyrighted promotional photo with a known source [...]" The new text reads that "This work is a copyrighted promotional photograph of a person that is '''known''' to have come from a media kit or similar source."
I can see the reasoning, that works which are not from a media kit or similar source are not acceptable. But I think that changing the text of such a template is very dangerous.
Looking at "what links here", there seem to be several instances of tagged images which probably did not come from a media kit or similar source. That is to say, I can't really say for certain that they definitely didn't come from a media kit or similar source, but they give no indication that they were, and they were tagged before this came into play.
This is bad for oh so many reasons. I won't get into the legal ones, in part because I'm not sure who exactly is to blame, but it should be enough reason that someone might come along, see this image, and assume that it's part of a press kit, because, well, *it says it is*.
Anthony
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that 1. there are instances of images with this template on them which are mistagged and that 2. people might think the tags are correct when they might not be. I'm not sure how this is different than any other image tag, whether they have been changed or not.
A lot of fair use tags were changed around then to make their definitions tighter, easier to understand, etc. I don't think that was a bad thing, and it makes it easier to spot when they have been misapplied.
Perhaps it would please you if "is known" is changed to something more ambiguous? Is asserted by the person placing this tag?
Perhaps we should put a little disclaimer on all tagging templates that they may in fact be incorrectly applied?
FF
On 2/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This is beginning to become somewhat of a significant problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=25617...
On October 15, someone changed [[Template:Promophoto]] quite significantly. The old text read that "This work is a copyrighted promotional photo with a known source [...]" The new text reads that "This work is a copyrighted promotional photograph of a person that is '''known''' to have come from a media kit or similar source."
I can see the reasoning, that works which are not from a media kit or similar source are not acceptable. But I think that changing the text of such a template is very dangerous.
Looking at "what links here", there seem to be several instances of tagged images which probably did not come from a media kit or similar source. That is to say, I can't really say for certain that they definitely didn't come from a media kit or similar source, but they give no indication that they were, and they were tagged before this came into play.
This is bad for oh so many reasons. I won't get into the legal ones, in part because I'm not sure who exactly is to blame, but it should be enough reason that someone might come along, see this image, and assume that it's part of a press kit, because, well, *it says it is*.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that
- there are instances of images with this template on them which are
mistagged and that 2. people might think the tags are correct when they might not be.
Yes, but also 3) this problem is becoming more and more widespread among these types of image tags.
I'm not sure how this is different than any other image tag, whether they have been changed or not.
It's different because when the template changes it makes makes tens or hundreds of tags incorrect all at once, as opposed to when an image is simply mistagged, that affects only one image.
You're right that both are a problem. The one of changing image tags seems to be easier to resolve, though. Don't change image tags except for minor grammatical changes. If you break that rule, at least go through all the tags and remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies. If that's too much work, start a new tag instead of changing the existing one.
A lot of fair use tags were changed around then to make their definitions tighter, easier to understand, etc. I don't think that was a bad thing, and it makes it easier to spot when they have been misapplied.
It is, of course, possible to define when a tag is supposed to be used without rewriting the actual text of the tag. Personally I'd suggest that policy changes should not be enacted by changing the text of templates, but that's just me. Another possible solution would be to remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies - a job which most naturally would fall upon the person changing the tag.
It seems to me that the result is quite obviously a bad thing - lots of images are mistagged. I don't really understand how you can suggest that there's nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps it would please you if "is known" is changed to something more ambiguous? Is asserted by the person placing this tag?
Changing "is known" would be one possible solution, though changing it to "is asserted by the person placing this tag" would be false and/or misleading in most of the same circumstances. I'd say such a change would actually make matters worse, because now anyone changing the tag is putting words into someone else's mouth - on top of being negligent now we're being libelous (and not just in the legal sense, giving people bad advice and attributing false statements to others is just plain *wrong*).
Perhaps we should put a little disclaimer on all tagging templates that they may in fact be incorrectly applied?
FF
Probably. But if a tag isn't correctly applied, what's the point of having it in the first place? Seriously, I'd rather have no tag at all than have an incorrect one. Image tags were originally descriptive, not prescriptive, and frankly I see no reason that should be changed.
Saying "this might be wrong" is arguably a good first step - but the real problem is that so many tags are wrong in the first place.
Anthony
On 2/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 2/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that
- there are instances of images with this template on them which are
mistagged and that 2. people might think the tags are correct when they might not be.
Yes, but also 3) this problem is becoming more and more widespread among these types of image tags.
Have any evidence? Most of these tags were revised three months ago as part of a general overhaul. The hope was that by improving the wording on the tags and making it more specific, it would be easier to spot inappropriately applied tags. Checking over all existing media is of course a much slower affair, but I think the goal was good. And I haven't seen any big changes of this sort for quite awhile, certainly not anything which deserves to be called "more and more widespread".
It's different because when the template changes it makes makes tens or hundreds of tags incorrect all at once, as opposed to when an image is simply mistagged, that affects only one image.
So, are you arguing that we should never change image templates? Or that we should go through each one after each change to check if it is up to date? Give me a break. You want to organize people do to that, go for it, but it seems like a foolish way to approach this.
Which is not to say that templates of this sort should be changed often or changed regularly. But these fair use templates have changed, what, once? At that was for a specific reason, which was discussed amongst editors both on the 'pedia and on the mailing list. And yeah, there will be some images for which the template no longer applies. And when we stumble across them, as good editors, we should change them. Same as anything else.
You're right that both are a problem. The one of changing image tags seems to be easier to resolve, though. Don't change image tags except for minor grammatical changes. If you break that rule, at least go through all the tags and remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies. If that's too much work, start a new tag instead of changing the existing one.
Well, in an ideal world we'd have hoards of people willing to do this. In reality we have only a handful. And there have been a number of re-cat projects. Anyway, if you really think this category should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb, there are ways to get this effected.
It is, of course, possible to define when a tag is supposed to be used without rewriting the actual text of the tag. Personally I'd suggest that policy changes should not be enacted by changing the text of templates, but that's just me. Another possible solution would be to remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies - a job which most naturally would fall upon the person changing the tag.
This was raised on this list and on multiple places on the 'pedia months ago when it was undertaken. Nobody voiced any real objections, and lots of people were supportive. I don't know where you were then but this wasn't something which was just done out of the blue and without any notification and deliberation. The goal was a re-haul of the fair use templates from their original forms ("This image is fair use") to something which would encourage better tagging and better understanding of fair use ("This image, when used in X and Y fashion, should be fair use"). Personally I think it has done a lot of work in getting people to better use fair use tags and helping people decide whether or not a given image is properly tagged.
It seems to me that the result is quite obviously a bad thing - lots of images are mistagged. I don't really understand how you can suggest that there's nothing wrong with that.
All I'm suggesting is that a unilateral dismissal of all change is foolish, and that not everything gets fixed overnight. And that there are actually places to discuss this thing if you are really trying to get things fixed, rather than just to complain.
Probably. But if a tag isn't correctly applied, what's the point of having it in the first place? Seriously, I'd rather have no tag at all than have an incorrect one. Image tags were originally descriptive, not prescriptive, and frankly I see no reason that should be changed.
Because it wasn't working AT ALL originally. There is some backward implementation which needs to be done, but the newer tags are, I think, better on every level in moving forward.
FF
On 2/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 2/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that
- there are instances of images with this template on them which are
mistagged and that 2. people might think the tags are correct when they might not be.
Yes, but also 3) this problem is becoming more and more widespread among these types of image tags.
Have any evidence? Most of these tags were revised three months ago as part of a general overhaul. The hope was that by improving the wording on the tags and making it more specific, it would be easier to spot inappropriately applied tags. Checking over all existing media is of course a much slower affair, but I think the goal was good. And I haven't seen any big changes of this sort for quite awhile, certainly not anything which deserves to be called "more and more widespread".
I don't have any presentable evidence, just that in general I've been seeing more and more of this. But you pretty much say it yourself - most of these tags were revised three months ago as part of a general overhaul. I consider three months ago to be recent.
It's different because when the template changes it makes makes tens or hundreds of tags incorrect all at once, as opposed to when an image is simply mistagged, that affects only one image.
So, are you arguing that we should never change image templates? Or that we should go through each one after each change to check if it is up to date? Give me a break. You want to organize people do to that, go for it, but it seems like a foolish way to approach this.
I don't see what's foolish about not changing image templates in ways that will make them inaccurate. But I'd love to hear an alternative plan.
Which is not to say that templates of this sort should be changed often or changed regularly. But these fair use templates have changed, what, once? At that was for a specific reason, which was discussed amongst editors both on the 'pedia and on the mailing list. And yeah, there will be some images for which the template no longer applies. And when we stumble across them, as good editors, we should change them. Same as anything else.
It's not the same as everything else. You don't just go in and change a few hundred articles to make them false, and then count on the fact that good editors will stumble across the errors. At least, I sure hope you don't.
You're right that both are a problem. The one of changing image tags seems to be easier to resolve, though. Don't change image tags except for minor grammatical changes. If you break that rule, at least go through all the tags and remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies. If that's too much work, start a new tag instead of changing the existing one.
Well, in an ideal world we'd have hoards of people willing to do this. In reality we have only a handful. And there have been a number of re-cat projects. Anyway, if you really think this category should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb, there are ways to get this effected.
No, I don't think the proper solution is to go over the category with a fine-toothed comb. I think the proper solution, for this particular case, is to revert the template so that it describes all the images, not just some of them.
It is, of course, possible to define when a tag is supposed to be used without rewriting the actual text of the tag. Personally I'd suggest that policy changes should not be enacted by changing the text of templates, but that's just me. Another possible solution would be to remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies - a job which most naturally would fall upon the person changing the tag.
This was raised on this list and on multiple places on the 'pedia months ago when it was undertaken. Nobody voiced any real objections, and lots of people were supportive. I don't know where you were then but this wasn't something which was just done out of the blue and without any notification and deliberation. The goal was a re-haul of the fair use templates from their original forms ("This image is fair use") to something which would encourage better tagging and better understanding of fair use ("This image, when used in X and Y fashion, should be fair use"). Personally I think it has done a lot of work in getting people to better use fair use tags and helping people decide whether or not a given image is properly tagged.
Obviously I disagree.
It seems to me that the result is quite obviously a bad thing - lots of images are mistagged. I don't really understand how you can suggest that there's nothing wrong with that.
All I'm suggesting is that a unilateral dismissal of all change is foolish, and that not everything gets fixed overnight. And that there are actually places to discuss this thing if you are really trying to get things fixed, rather than just to complain.
Discussing this thing is exactly my purpose in sending these emails. And I'm not suggesting unilateral dismissal of all change. I'm saying that changes which break things shouldn't be made unless the person making the change is willing to fix the things that broke.
Probably. But if a tag isn't correctly applied, what's the point of having it in the first place? Seriously, I'd rather have no tag at all than have an incorrect one. Image tags were originally descriptive, not prescriptive, and frankly I see no reason that should be changed.
Because it wasn't working AT ALL originally. There is some backward implementation which needs to be done, but the newer tags are, I think, better on every level in moving forward.
FF
Heh, well, we clearly disagree here. I think the tags were working before. They helped to identify images which were promotional photos. And now I think they're broken, because they don't identify much of anything without the reader doing research into when the tag was added, etc.
"This is a copyrighted promotional photo. It is believed that the copyright holder has granted permission for use in works like Wikipedia or, in the alternative, it may be used under the fair use provision of United States copyright law." Short, simple, and to the point. Sure, you could have removed the part about fair use and permission, as it was fairly useless, but the point of the tag was to identify promotional photos, not to educate the public on how fair use works.
Anthony
On 2/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Image tags were originally descriptive, not prescriptive, and frankly I see no reason that should be changed.
One last note on this:
The old templates said things like, "Posters are thought to be fair use on Wikipedia." and "Television show screenshots are thought to be fair use on Wikipedia."
The new ones are mostly written along the lines of "This is a form of X media. It is copyrighted. It is thought that low-resolution and limited numbers of X media are used on Wikipedia in Y way, it is fair use. Any other use of this media could be a copyright violation."
There are two benefits to this. First, it gives users a quick way to see if their invocation of fair use is likely to actually be fair use -- without having to know the first thing about copyright law.
Second, it is not necessarily descriptive at all. Descriptive and misplaced tags are the sort of inaccurate things you are talking about. They make claims about the copyright status that may or may not be true. The sorts of tags I am talking about, when written well, are much more ambiguous. They discuss it in terms of conditions -- if condition Y is met, then X is probably fair use.
When mistagged, they do not necessarily give incorrect information. They point out whether or not the current image is likely to be fair use or not. Sometimes it is not. Now the way to fix this, in my opinion, is to change the tag to say, "This image SHOULD be X type of media." Now, if it is wrong, it is wrong, but it is clear when it is wrong and nobody gets in a snit.
The benefits of this sort of approach are, I think, legion, over the other. It is a way of both encouraging correct use, allowing users without detailed copyright understanding to quickly spot inappropriate use, and encourage a mindset about fair use which is hinged on the conditions of use rather than the form of the media. Personally, I think it has worked for the mostpart. I hadn't thought about changing the labeling wording itself ("this image SHOULD BE" versus "this image IS"), but if people think that is a good idea then that is easy enough to put into place.
The only recurrent arguments I have ever seen against this approahc is, "Copyright tags shouldn't try to instruct users as to their use." I've never really heard a good reason of WHY that should be true, except for a rather vague and hazy notion about separating out functions, and about how copyright law was hard and fair use was really about the four factors. I know it is, that's why I tried to come up with a model which would result in the factors being fairly satisfied in most situations, if the tags were properly followed. Perhaps it isn't perfect, and I'm completely open to suggestions for improvements.
In any case, simplistic and poorly thought out tags lead to simplistic and poorly thought out tagging; the evidence of this is quite clear, or at least it was months ago.
FF
On 2/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Second, it is not necessarily descriptive at all. Descriptive and misplaced tags are the sort of inaccurate things you are talking about. They make claims about the copyright status that may or may not be true. The sorts of tags I am talking about, when written well, are much more ambiguous. They discuss it in terms of conditions -- if condition Y is met, then X is probably fair use.
When mistagged, they do not necessarily give incorrect information. They point out whether or not the current image is likely to be fair use or not. Sometimes it is not. Now the way to fix this, in my opinion, is to change the tag to say, "This image SHOULD be X type of media." Now, if it is wrong, it is wrong, but it is clear when it is wrong and nobody gets in a snit.
In the interest of trying to reach consensus, I'll boil everything down to this. "''This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photo with a '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known source]]'''" was changed to "This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photograph of a person that is '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known]]''' to have come from a media kit or similar source."
That wasn't a comment about copyright or fair use or anything of that sort. It was a comment on *what the image was*. If people want to add extraneous text to image tags about what may or may not qualify as fair use under copyright law, let them waste their time. But in this instance a sentence describing the image itself was changed in a significant way.
Anyway, I've made an attempt to clear up the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=38458... Let me know if this sufficiently addresses both your objection and mine.
Anthony
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90602060519n2b2e7b11o67cdfe01176b774c@mail.gmail.com... [snip]> In the interest of trying to reach consensus, I'll boil everything
down to this. "''This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photo with a '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known source]]'''" was changed to "This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photograph of a person that is '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known]]''' to have come from a media kit or similar source."
That wasn't a comment about copyright or fair use or anything of that sort. It was a comment on *what the image was*. If people want to add extraneous text to image tags about what may or may not qualify as fair use under copyright law, let them waste their time. But in this instance a sentence describing the image itself was changed in a significant way.
Absolutely. To take a concrete example, I uploaded a picture of the author [[Jim Butcher]] after checking with the webmaster for his website, where the original picture was hosted, and receiving confirmation from Jim's wife that they were OK with tagging it as I had suggested.
This picture is *not* from a "press pack" or "media kit", it's from the personal/professional website for its subject.
It *is* a promotional photograph, and when I tagged it as such, the working of the template was accurate and satisfactory to the providers of the picture.
HTH HAND
The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct. If the wording is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
-Matt
On 2/5/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct. If the wording is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
-Matt
I agree. All of the templates should have warning text saying something like <!--- Do not make changes which alter the meaning of this text. If you want to replace this tag with a more specific one, please create a new tag --->
Ian
Totally agree. The wording of a tag should never be used once any image uses it. By all means, create {Promophoto2}, or even retag all old images using the old version {promophotov1} and then update {promophoto}. But yeah, changing the text after the tag has been used completely undermines the whole system.
Steve
On 2/5/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. All of the templates should have warning text saying something like <!--- Do not make changes which alter the meaning of this text. If you want to replace this tag with a more specific one, please create a new tag --->
Guettarda wrote:
On 2/5/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct. If the wording is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
I agree. All of the templates should have warning text saying something like <!--- Do not make changes which alter the meaning of this text. If you want to replace this tag with a more specific one, please create a new tag --->
Copyright is something where we can't afford to get it wrong. We need to have all of the image tags permanantly protected to prevent this happening again.
Matt Brown wrote:
The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct. If the wording is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
An argument for using subst?
Cheers,
N.
On 2/5/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct. If the wording is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
An argument for using subst?
Personally I have mixed feelings about that solution. In order to be useful for sorting the template would have to include a category link, and to some extent you're just redirecting the problem to one of defining the category. At the same time, at least categories are somewhat more obviously ambiguous.
Using subst makes it harder for automated tools to parse things. But, again, if you have a category this problem is somewhat mitigated.
I guess I could see using subst for the more in-depth arguments. If you are using the template, to use a quote from the talk page, "to make a fair use claim in the template itself", then subst is probably better. But that's not why image tagging was started, image tagging was started for the purpose of facilitating the sorting of images. For that use, categories and {{templates}} are about equal (I believe image tagging predated categories or we might not have used templates in the first place), but using subst isn't so much so.
I guess the best way to go, if one had the luxury of starting from scratch, would be to use categories for the simple stuff (this is an album cover, this is a promotional photograph, this is GFDL), and subst templates for the more complicated stuff (this is a promotional photo of a person for which there is no free alternative being used only in an article about the person depicted in the photo). Of course, one doesn't have the luxury of starting from scratch...
Anthony
On 2/5/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct. If the wording is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
This is the precise reason the licensing templates on my userpage are substituted (and that unnecessary template transclusion is, well, unnecessary(
-- Sam
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This is beginning to become somewhat of a significant problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=25617...
On October 15, someone changed [[Template:Promophoto]] quite significantly. The old text read that "This work is a copyrighted promotional photo with a known source [...]" The new text reads that "This work is a copyrighted promotional photograph of a person that is '''known''' to have come from a media kit or similar source."
I can see the reasoning, that works which are not from a media kit or similar source are not acceptable. But I think that changing the text of such a template is very dangerous.
Looking at "what links here", there seem to be several instances of tagged images which probably did not come from a media kit or similar source. That is to say, I can't really say for certain that they definitely didn't come from a media kit or similar source, but they give no indication that they were, and they were tagged before this came into play.
This is bad for oh so many reasons. I won't get into the legal ones, in part because I'm not sure who exactly is to blame, but it should be enough reason that someone might come along, see this image, and assume that it's part of a press kit, because, well, *it says it is*.
This is indeed very bad for the reasons you give. I think the old wording is better. Also, 'being part of a press kit' is too high a bar to prove and I'm not sure if 'being part of a press kit' is well defined enough anyway.
Just my IANAL 2 cents.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/5/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This is beginning to become somewhat of a significant problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=25617...
This is bad for oh so many reasons. I won't get into the legal ones, in part because I'm not sure who exactly is to blame, but it should be enough reason that someone might come along, see this image, and assume that it's part of a press kit, because, well, *it says it is*.
This is indeed very bad for the reasons you give. I think the old wording is better. Also, 'being part of a press kit' is too high a bar to prove and I'm not sure if 'being part of a press kit' is well defined enough anyway.
Just my IANAL 2 cents.
-- mav
Personally I'd go with something like: "This work has been tagged as a copyrighted promotional photo. Promotional photos should only be used in Wikipedia under the terms of [[Wikipedia:Publicity photos]]." And then let that referenced page decide the *policy* of when to use the photos.
I'm not sure if others would agree with this or not, so I'm just throwing it out there.
Anthony