How exactly should these images be treated? I'm talking about the image tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia-screenshot and it's category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_Wikipedia. The template only says that Wikipedia text is licensed under GFDL and that Wikipedia is copyright of Wikimedia, but it doesn't rely address the issue of the copyright status for the image itself.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags it's a "fair use" tag (that's where it's listed anyway), but we are not currently treating it as such. Gmaxwell's bot originally tagged these images as "far use orphans" if they where not used in articles, but after a storm of protests (well 3-4 anyway, I raised some questions myself back then) he (reluctantly) excluded them from his bot. Problem is you can't rely argue that they are free images, as many of them include either copyrighted GUI elements from the users browser and OS, and a lot of others include copyrighted "fair use" images from articles.
The way I see it we have 3 choices.
1) Keep using it as a semi-free "special" case, maybe we can argue that the screenshot as a whole give enough context to declare the inclusion of copyrighted images to be within fair use or some such (IANAL).
2) Make it a GFDL tag, and run an extensive cleanup project to crop, blur or otherwise remove all copyrighted elements from the screenshots (and clean out other mis-tagged junk).
3) Confirm that it's a fair use tag, and delete all the images that have not been used in any articles for at least 7 days (in other words most, if not all of them).
Any thoughts? Whatever status they should have needs to be made more clear IMHO.
On 7 Dec 2005, at 01:18, Sherool wrote:
How exactly should these images be treated? I'm talking about the image tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia-screenshot and it's category <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Category:Screenshots_of_Wikipedia>. The template only says that Wikipedia text is licensed under GFDL and that Wikipedia is copyright of Wikimedia, but it doesn't rely address the issue of the copyright status for the image itself.
According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags> it's a "fair use" tag (that's where it's listed anyway), but we are not currently treating it as such. Gmaxwell's bot originally tagged these images as "far use orphans" if they where not used in articles, but after a storm of protests (well 3-4 anyway, I raised some questions myself back then) he (reluctantly) excluded them from his bot. Problem is you can't rely argue that they are free images, as many of them include either copyrighted GUI elements from the users browser and OS, and a lot of others include copyrighted "fair use" images from articles.
The way I see it we have 3 choices.
- Keep using it as a semi-free "special" case, maybe we can argue
that the screenshot as a whole give enough context to declare the inclusion of copyrighted images to be within fair use or some such (IANAL).
- Make it a GFDL tag, and run an extensive cleanup project to
crop, blur or otherwise remove all copyrighted elements from the screenshots (and clean out other mis-tagged junk).
- Confirm that it's a fair use tag, and delete all the images that
have not been used in any articles for at least 7 days (in other words most, if not all of them).
Any thoughts? Whatever status they should have needs to be made more clear IMHO.
There is also the case that came up yesterday of screenshots including definitely non free wikimedia foundation logos.
My view is that they should only be allowed if they only include free content and then can be tagged as GFDL (or GFDL+CC if they include some CC images).
Justinc
On 12/6/05, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
How exactly should these images be treated? I'm talking about the image tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia-screenshot and it's category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_Wikipedia. The template only says that Wikipedia text is licensed under GFDL and that Wikipedia is copyright of Wikimedia, but it doesn't rely address the issue of the copyright status for the image itself.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags it's a "fair use" tag (that's where it's listed anyway), but we are not currently treating it as such. Gmaxwell's bot originally tagged these images as "far use orphans" if they where not used in articles, but after a storm of protests (well 3-4 anyway, I raised some questions myself back then) he (reluctantly) excluded them from his bot. Problem is you can't rely argue that they are free images, as many of them include either copyrighted GUI elements from the users browser and OS, and a lot of others include copyrighted "fair use" images from articles.
There's also the fact that many of them contain the Wikipedia logo, which as I understand it is not GFDL or even free.
The way I see it we have 3 choices.
- Keep using it as a semi-free "special" case, maybe we can argue that
the screenshot as a whole give enough context to declare the inclusion of copyrighted images to be within fair use or some such (IANAL).
- Make it a GFDL tag, and run an extensive cleanup project to crop, blur
or otherwise remove all copyrighted elements from the screenshots (and clean out other mis-tagged junk).
- Confirm that it's a fair use tag, and delete all the images that have
not been used in any articles for at least 7 days (in other words most, if not all of them).
Any thoughts? Whatever status they should have needs to be made more clear IMHO.
-- [[User:Sherool]]
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about deleting images simply because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as well as "fair use" anyway).
Anthony
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:02 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about deleting images simply because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as well as "fair use" anyway).
You are not being very clear. What do you think the misconception is?
Commons is for potentially unused images, and many of the images in this category could go there. The others are under a wide variety of licenses depending on the content, but they should be no less free than the content they cover.
Justinc
On 12/7/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:02 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about deleting images simply because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as well as "fair use" anyway).
You are not being very clear. What do you think the misconception is?
The misconception is that it has something to do with whether or not it is legal to have these images. The truth is that we don't want to rely on fair use, because *reusers* of the content can't necessarily rely on it.
Commons is for potentially unused images, and many of the images in this category could go there. The others are under a wide variety of licenses depending on the content, but they should be no less free than the content they cover.
Why aren't these images being moved to commons instead of being deleted, then?
Anthony
On 12/7/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Commons is for potentially unused images, and many of the images in this category could go there. The others are under a wide variety of licenses depending on the content, but they should be no less free than the content they cover.
Why aren't these images being moved to commons instead of being deleted, then?
Because Commons doesn't take fair use images.
FF
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:02 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about deleting images simply because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as well as "fair use" anyway).
You are not being very clear. What do you think the misconception is?
The misconception is that it has something to do with whether or not it is legal to have these images. The truth is that we don't want to rely on fair use, because *reusers* of the content can't necessarily rely on it.
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
Steve Block wrote:
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia, not solely to make an encyclopedia hosted on wikipedia.org and distributed by the Wikimedia Foundation (if that were the goal, there would be no reason to have an open-content license in the first place). In the case of fair use, this is a tradeoff: We want to make as unencumbered an encyclopedia as possible, with maximal possible reuse by anyone for any purpose, balanced against the fact that we'd like maximal coverage of everything as well. So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia, not solely to make an encyclopedia hosted on wikipedia.org and distributed by the Wikimedia Foundation (if that were the goal, there would be no reason to have an open-content license in the first place). In the case of fair use, this is a tradeoff: We want to make as unencumbered an encyclopedia as possible, with maximal possible reuse by anyone for any purpose, balanced against the fact that we'd like maximal coverage of everything as well. So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
You seem to have misunderstood me, which is entirely my fault, I wasn't clear enough. What I want to know is, if as you say:
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia
Then that means we can create an encyclopedia, and as long as all uses of information qualify for encyclopedic purposes, there is no problem. However, where you say:
So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
That to me implies there is a potential conflict between creating an encyclopedia which is reusable, and making an encyclopedia tailored to reusers. If we are doing the latter, then I for one would rather be renumerated for my work, thank you very much. At what point do we censor the encyclopedia for the commercial sensitivities of reusers?
I may be missing something here, and am willing to cede that, and I admit my language is rather strong, for which I apologise, but I draw your attention to this quote from Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."
Now to me, "the highest possible quality" doesn't imply that such quality is tempered by potential reuse considerations, because, let's be frank, what we are arguing about here is commercial reuse, isn't it? Now, I do not see why, if the material is useable on the online Wikipedia, it should be removed due to reuse considerations.
However, if it is decided that commercial reuse does place limits on the material we use, then some mention of that fact should be made quite explicitly somewhere. Unless I have really got the wrong end of the stick. However I see no mention of the fact that Wikipedia tailors its material to suit commercial considerations in the article at [[Wikipedia]]. If someone can clarify that is the case, I will gladly correct that.
Steve Block wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia, not solely to make an encyclopedia hosted on wikipedia.org and distributed by the Wikimedia Foundation (if that were the goal, there would be no reason to have an open-content license in the first place). In the case of fair use, this is a tradeoff: We want to make as unencumbered an encyclopedia as possible, with maximal possible reuse by anyone for any purpose, balanced against the fact that we'd like maximal coverage of everything as well. So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
You seem to have misunderstood me, which is entirely my fault, I wasn't clear enough. What I want to know is, if as you say:
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia
Then that means we can create an encyclopedia, and as long as all uses of information qualify for encyclopedic purposes, there is no problem. However, where you say:
So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
That to me implies there is a potential conflict between creating an encyclopedia which is reusable, and making an encyclopedia tailored to reusers. If we are doing the latter, then I for one would rather be renumerated for my work, thank you very much. At what point do we censor the encyclopedia for the commercial sensitivities of reusers?
I may be missing something here, and am willing to cede that, and I admit my language is rather strong, for which I apologise, but I draw your attention to this quote from Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."
Now to me, "the highest possible quality" doesn't imply that such quality is tempered by potential reuse considerations, because, let's be frank, what we are arguing about here is commercial reuse, isn't it? Now, I do not see why, if the material is useable on the online Wikipedia, it should be removed due to reuse considerations.
However, if it is decided that commercial reuse does place limits on the material we use, then some mention of that fact should be made quite explicitly somewhere. Unless I have really got the wrong end of the stick. However I see no mention of the fact that Wikipedia tailors its material to suit commercial considerations in the article at [[Wikipedia]]. If someone can clarify that is the case, I will gladly correct that.
Please ignore this, my apologies, I think I may well have over-reacted ever so slightly. I wish to humbly retract this statement, since, after further thought, can quite clearly see the error in my thinking, I believe. Apologies to one and all for wasting time.
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:02 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about deleting images simply because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as well as "fair use" anyway).
You are not being very clear. What do you think the misconception is?
The misconception is that it has something to do with whether or not it is legal to have these images. The truth is that we don't want to rely on fair use, because *reusers* of the content can't necessarily rely on it.
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
Commercial reuse is only part of the problem with fair use, though yes, it is one of them. But even if you don't agree about commercial reuse, what about non-commercial reuse by people subject to non-US laws?
You ask what is more important, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it. The answer is that both are absolutely essential. Fortunately, they're not mutually exclusive.
Anthony
Well, that's a question that has been at the center of our policy for a long time. At the moment the vote seems to be "Let the re-user sort it out" though I don't think that's entirely adequate, personally. It'd be nice if there was a possibility of creating "totally-free" database dumps but alas the database dumping technology seems to be fairly primitive still (all or nothing).
FF
On 12/7/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Commercial reuse is only part of the problem with fair use, though yes, it is one of them. But even if you don't agree about commercial reuse, what about non-commercial reuse by people subject to non-US laws?
You ask what is more important, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it. The answer is that both are absolutely essential. Fortunately, they're not mutually exclusive.
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 Wed, 2005-12-07 at 12:44 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:02 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about deleting images simply because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as well as "fair use" anyway).
You are not being very clear. What do you think the misconception is?
The misconception is that it has something to do with whether or not it is legal to have these images. The truth is that we don't want to rely on fair use, because *reusers* of the content can't necessarily rely on it.
We also dont want to rely on fair use because there are no rulings outside a court on what is fair use. And we are trying to make a free encyclopaedia. We are relying on it far far too much. Some is perhaps necessary, but most of the "fair use" rubbish we have isnt.
Commons is for potentially unused images, and many of the images in this category could go there. The others are under a wide variety of licenses depending on the content, but they should be no less free than the content they cover.
Why aren't these images being moved to commons instead of being deleted, then?
Because most of the ones that are left arent free. Some were moved to commons but were not free enough for it. Its a bit of a mess as they are composite works. And hardly any of them are used in article space anyway. Its just some work that needs doing.
Justinc