I'm not one to post to the mailing list complaining, but I've just been informed by my fellow Uncyclopedians that the Uncyclopedia logo has been removed from hundreds of userpages by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed_g2s. I understand why supposed "fair use" images are not allowed on userpages and I do not wish to contest that. However, the copyright holder did not upload the image, and furthermore, "I'd like to allow the logo to be used for Wikipedia userpages, userboxes, etc. - in other words, as "decoration" for Wikipedians." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_g2s#Uncyclopedia_logo)
I'm not saying this is an ideal situation and Ed g2s was wildly out of control. It's true that Rc hasn't edited the image description page describing the fair use rationale, but removing it without saying boo to anyone and then demanding that he relicense it under a "free license" is unfair to him. I think this could've been avoided if those removing fair use images were less lazy and thought to look at who the copyright holder might be. The description page gives a link to the description page at Uncyclopedia, where the uploader is clearly displayed. Furthermore, Uncyclopedia is a wiki and it's not that hard to contact said uploader and ask what the logo may be used for.
However, what's done is done, but I'd like this to be sorted out. As far as I know, if the copyright holder explicitly says that the image may be used on userpages and userboxes, then WP:FUC shouldn't apply (in that area). I don't wish to force Rc to relicense the image, although it seems to me that if he had been uploading the image, he might have stated the license differently. Once this is explicitly stated or whatever needs doing, someone needs to re-add all the images that were removed.
My only point is that this whole mess could have been avoided if there had been a little discussion involved and involving the copyright holder only /after/ all is said and done is very unwise.
Thank you for your time and for reading this.
On 5/17/06, Katie (keitei) katiefromuncyc@gmail.com wrote:
However, what's done is done, but I'd like this to be sorted out. As far as I know, if the copyright holder explicitly says that the image may be used on userpages and userboxes, then WP:FUC shouldn't apply (in that area). I don't wish to force Rc to relicense the image, although it seems to me that if he had been uploading the image, he might have stated the license differently. Once this is explicitly stated or whatever needs doing, someone needs to re-add all the images that were removed.
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
Under current policy: even in userspace, intentionally, and it matters even for personal pictures.
There have been proposals to change that, but none adopted. I suspect changing our rules as to licensing of content would have to go through the Foundation, anyway, rather than simply being up for vote on en.Wikipedia.
-Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
/Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can at least make a case for fair use). And people had better be uploading those pictures of themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC, or PD.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
/Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can at least make a case for fair use). And people had better be uploading those pictures of themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC, or PD.
Why?
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
On 18/05/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
/Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can at least make a case for fair use). And people had better be uploading those pictures of themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC, or PD.
Why?
You don't think mirrors grab user pages? Check again. They're available in dumps and via all the usual routes of grabbing the stuff.
Wikipedia's licence policies are clear; images must be available under a free-content licence, release or expired into the public domain, or else used in articles under the fair use provisions of United States copyright law, with an appropriate rationale for each use.
Rob Church
Rob wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
/Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can at least make a case for fair use). And people had better be uploading those pictures of themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC, or PD.
Why?
Presumably for the same reason that the text on your user page is GFDL.
Stan
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Why?
Presumably for the same reason that the text on your user page is GFDL.
Haha yeah. It's curious that people questioning the fair-use image policy aren't questioning why we make people GFDL the text on their userpage, too.
Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
/Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can at least make a case for fair use). And people had better be uploading those pictures of themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC, or PD.
Why?
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
If you don't want trolls using your family photos then you shouldn't be posting them on Wikipedia in the first place. Our licensing policies are non-negotiable.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't want trolls using your family photos then you shouldn't be posting them on Wikipedia in the first place. Our licensing policies are non-negotiable.
They should be for articles, of course, but I don't see a compelling reason why they should be for userspace.
On May 17, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Rob wrote:
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
Sounds like putting a pic of yourself on Wikipedia is not for you.
On May 17, 2006, at 6:24 PM, Rob wrote:
If you don't want trolls using your family photos then you shouldn't be posting them on Wikipedia in the first place. Our licensing policies are non-negotiable.
They should be for articles, of course, but I don't see a compelling reason why they should be for userspace.
By the site's design and architecture, anything on it, including images, can be changed, deleted, altered, replaced, etc. by anyone. The reason for PD/GFDL/CC is that without these measures, it would be illegal to use the wiki process on, say, your userpage.
My userpage is copyright me, but released under GFDL. It is, in design, a derivative work of Talrias's userpage, which is copyright him but released under GFDL. Without GFDL, I couldn't steal Talrias's user page design.
A couple people have added pirate jokes to my userpage. Again, the revisions they submitted are copyright them, derivative works of my revisions under the GFDL. Wikipedia works the same way everywhere as it does here due to technical convenience—if userspace wasn't free content, it would have to be locked and protected from everyone except the user whose userpage it is. This isn't even desirable, and even if it was, it would waste valuable developer time and resources.
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 17, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Rob wrote:
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
Sounds like putting a pic of yourself on Wikipedia is not for you.
No, it's not, and I won't be doing it regardless of what the policy is. But I think contributors who wish to add pictures of themselves and their family to their userspace should be allowed to do so without giving up the rights to those photos. I don't see why we can't give contributors this minor concession.
On 18/05/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 17, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Rob wrote:
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
Sounds like putting a pic of yourself on Wikipedia is not for you.
No, it's not, and I won't be doing it regardless of what the policy is. But I think contributors who wish to add pictures of themselves and their family to their userspace should be allowed to do so without giving up the rights to those photos. I don't see why we can't give contributors this minor concession.
It's still all political. You're publishing something. If someone wishes to steal and deface it, they will do.
The licence at the bottom of the page applies to everything.
Rob Church
On May 18, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rob wrote:
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
Sounds like putting a pic of yourself on Wikipedia is not for you.
No, it's not, and I won't be doing it regardless of what the policy is. But I think contributors who wish to add pictures of themselves and their family to their userspace should be allowed to do so without giving up the rights to those photos. I don't see why we can't give contributors this minor concession.
I don't see why contributors can't give us this minor concession :)
EXCEPT... that Wikipedia is not your personal blog nor a free webhost (**Official policy** at [[WP:NOT]] ). Userspace IS SUPPOSED to be relted to your wikipedia work, not to post pictures of your family. If you misuse it, don't cry about it later. And , do you really think vandals will care about the copyright? they WILL get the pictures and post them anyway.
Wikipedia IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA not an scrapbook, but there's plenty of sites where you can put your family pictures if you like
On 5/17/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission" images.
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply
when
people upload photos of themselves?
/Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can at least make a case for fair use). And people had better be uploading those pictures of themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC, or PD.
Why?
If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage. Of course, they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
EXCEPT... that Wikipedia is not your personal blog nor a free webhost (**Official policy** at [[WP:NOT]] ). Userspace IS SUPPOSED to be relted to your wikipedia work, not to post pictures of your family. If you misuse it, don't cry about it later.
Wikipedia IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA not an scrapbook, but there's plenty of sites where you can put your family pictures if you like
Yes, I am obviously aware that Wikipedia is not my blog or my scrapbook. But neither is my workplace my home, and my desk at work is supposed to be related to my work there. But I am allowed to place pictures of my family on my desk at work without giving up the copyright to those pictures.
And , do you really think vandals will care about the copyright? they WILL get the pictures and post them anyway.
No need to make it easy or legal for them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob stated for the record:
Yes, I am obviously aware that Wikipedia is not my blog or my scrapbook. But neither is my workplace my home, and my desk at work is supposed to be related to my work there. But I am allowed to place pictures of my family on my desk at work without giving up the copyright to those pictures.
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't tell us when you do.)
- -- Sean Barrett | A thunder of jets in an open sky, sean@epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!" | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb, | And once again you know it's time....
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't tell us when you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't tell us when you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
No. The wikipedia interface is GPL.
On 18/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't tell us when you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
No. The wikipedia interface is GPL.
That's MediaWiki, and be aware that he needn't include visible screen detail. Having acted the pedant; no, it would be deleted as being inappropriate.
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 18/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't tell us when you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
No. The wikipedia interface is GPL.
That's MediaWiki, and be aware that he needn't include visible screen detail. Having acted the pedant; no, it would be deleted as being inappropriate.
Only developers are allowed to work on Wikipedia in the nude, right?
On 18/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 18/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't tell us when you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
No. The wikipedia interface is GPL.
That's MediaWiki, and be aware that he needn't include visible screen detail. Having acted the pedant; no, it would be deleted as being inappropriate.
Only developers are allowed to work on Wikipedia in the nude, right?
That would make us even more vulnerable to stabbing. I prefer to code *wearing* clothing, thanks. Mind you...I do only speak for myself.
Rob Church
On 5/18/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
That's MediaWiki, and be aware that he needn't include visible screen detail. Having acted the pedant; no, it would be deleted as being inappropriate.
Rob Church
So the original varsion of [[:Image:Sunglass.jpg]] was around for a quite a while.
On 18/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
That's MediaWiki, and be aware that he needn't include visible screen detail. Having acted the pedant; no, it would be deleted as being inappropriate.
Rob Church
So the original varsion of [[:Image:Sunglass.jpg]] was around for a quite a while.
So? Precedent means nothing. I'd like to think we're getting smarter about removing crap. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Rob Church
On 5/18/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
So? Precedent means nothing. I'd like to think we're getting smarter about removing crap. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Rob Church
The photo did have a use. It appeared on out [[Chubby culture]] page. So if we ever end up with an article on useing the internet while nude I supose we could end up with a picture.
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 19:00 +0100, geni wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
So? Precedent means nothing. I'd like to think we're getting smarter about removing crap. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Rob Church
The photo did have a use. It appeared on out [[Chubby culture]] page. So if we ever end up with an article on useing the internet while nude I supose we could end up with a picture.
You never know; Po Bronson wrote a book (partly) about nude programming.
And Commons will always take these things.
Discussions a bit off topic now though.
j
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other
hand, you are
allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't
tell us when
you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
That's fine. Female editors might find themselves the target of harassment from the anti-userbox brigade.
-- Pete, requesting spoiler warnings as well
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other
hand, you are
allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't
tell us when
you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
That's fine. Female editors might find themselves the target of harassment from the anti-userbox brigade.
{{user edits nude}}?
Pete, requesting spoiler warnings as well
{{spoiler-nude}}?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not your desk at work. You are not allowed to post copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia. On the other
hand, you are
allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude. (But please don't
tell us when
you do.)
Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
That's fine. Female editors might find themselves the target of harassment from the anti-userbox brigade.
{{user edits nude}}?
Ahhh, please forgive. I wasn't thinking of a template.
Pete, blushing
On May 17, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
People should release photos of themselves under GFDL or CC-BY-SA if they upload them. If they aren't the original photographer they should not upload other people's copyrighted photos to Wikipedia.
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 17, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Even in userspace? Was that an intentional decision? Does it apply when people upload photos of themselves?
People should release photos of themselves under GFDL or CC-BY-SA if they upload them. If they aren't the original photographer they should not upload other people's copyrighted photos to Wikipedia.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
The image this thread was originally about did have a CC license. It's technically a free license, just not THE free license. CC-BY-NC-SA should be allowed in userpages, in my opinion.
On 5/18/06, Katie (keitei) katiefromuncyc@gmail.com wrote:
The image this thread was originally about did have a CC license. It's technically a free license, just not THE free license. CC-BY-NC-SA should be allowed in userpages, in my opinion.
NC images are not allowed on wikipedia.
On 5/18/06, Katie (keitei) katiefromuncyc@gmail.com wrote:
The image this thread was originally about did have a CC license. It's technically a free license, just not THE free license. CC-BY-NC-SA should be allowed in userpages, in my opinion.
CC-BY-NC-SA is not a free license according to http://freecontentdefinition.org/
Angela