Kelly Martin wrote:

On 11/28/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

Anthere wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Sabl...

yet another image deleted *without any personal warning to the uploader *even though it was uploaded before the tags ever existed...

I find that pityful. Really pityful. Really really pityful.

Ant

I would like a clarification, because I must have missed some step possibly.

I thought fair use images were still authorized on the english wikipedia. Is that still the case or not ?

Ant

Unlicensed media are allowed on the English Wikipedia only when they are being used under the fair use doctrine in at least one article. There can be no fair use justification for keeping unlicensed media on the server which are not actually being used in any article (fair use requires that there actually be some use). We allow a seven day window so that someone who uploads unlicensed media with the intent to attach them to an appropriate article has some time to actually do so.

This particular image appears to have been unused, and was therefore deleted as orphaned unlicensed media.

Kelly

This, I presume, does not apply to all the funny logos derivated from various copyrighted logos, which are commonly used in most editors pages, but are not used within main space, such as the mop or counter vandalism ?

Another question : does that mean that an image previously used in the main space but removed for whatever reason by anyone, does not qualify any more to be kept ?

Yet another question : on many user pages, editors upload a personal shot of their face. Given that GFDL authorize any one to transform their face in a monster or to use the personal face picture to make an advertisement for a cream to fight spots or other red blotches, is that authorized to put a picture of self under another licence than fair use ? In which case, which licenses are authorized ?

I ask the question, because many pictures of many editors are taken during wikimeetups. If the pictures are labelled with a non-restricted use, that should mean that anyone can use a picture of the face of a wikipedian to do anything that he would like to. If the pictures are labelled with a restricted use and used only in non-article space, do they qualify as "speedy deletion" as my pictures did ?

I am not sure I am clear here, but depending on the answers, I think I will delete many of my images on the english wikipedia. Somehow, I do not think we can forbid editors to delete their images, if the rules change upon time; Before, fair use images were authorized. If rules change, I suppose editors can change their license choice to protect themselves as well ?

Ant

Matt R wrote:

--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

I ask the question, because many pictures of many editors are taken during wikimeetups. If the pictures are labelled with a non-restricted use, that should mean that anyone can use a picture of the face of a wikipedian to do anything that he would like to. If the pictures are labelled with a restricted use and used only in non-article space, do they qualify as "speedy deletion" as my pictures did ?

I don't think so. While personally I'd prefer all images to be freely licensed, I don't think it matters that much if photos of Wikipedians and other images in User space are non-free. After all, they're not part of the encyclopedia, and the goal is to build a free encyclopedia -- the freedom of user pages is largely irrelevant.

Such images would, at least to my mind, be distinct from images that appear to be intended for the main encyclopedia, yet are not used and are unfree -- like the one you mentioned earlier.

-- Matt

Well, the image was used... here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/Contribs

it was only an orphan on the article page, as it was obviously delinked, but it was still in two of my user pages.

It was the little touch of light that accompanied the page where I listed my initial contributions. If you care looking, you will see that most of my contributions were in the field of agriculture, with a main focus on biodiversity and ecology (articles which I very largely authored) and a secondary focus on african biodiversity. So, having a little picture featuring a lonely plant courageouly trying to grow in an algerian sand dune, was originately definitly intended to be in the encyclopedia, as well as part of the images kinda defining my activity on wikipedia.

So, no, the image deleted, as well as those listed here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/PictAlgerie were pretty much meant to accompany my user page.

Now, I do not have time to write articles, but I still take some pictures; I upload them on commons (for example, here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/Alg%C3%A9rie_2004), where no one delete them for the reason they are orphans. But when I uploaded that collection, commons did not existed unfortunately.

I have been now on wikipedia for nearly 4 years. Not so many people have been here so long and some will agree that we tend to accumulate little things... because they are part of our history on wikipedia. When I uploaded these images, they were welcome. Without tags, because we had no tags then. Later, images with no tags were deleted. Today, fair use images are still welcome, on the condition they are used in the *right* place. Tomorrow perhaps, they will be deleted. Perhaps in a year, will we also delete all free images which are orphans. Maybe in two years, we will change licence, and then delete all GFDL images because they will be said unsuitable. That sound incredible to you ? Well, for me, deletion of images which were welcome 3 years ago sounds incredible.

Maybe I just feel old :-)

Ant

On 29 Nov 2005, at 08:23, Anthere wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jcmurphy

The Foundation received an email from the possible owner of one of the picture uploaded by Jcmurphy. From his talk page, this editor could have an history of copyvio upload. Please check. Thanks

Looks like blatent copyvio to me. Tagged and listed on http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_November_29 and removed from all articles.

Justinc

On 11/28/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

This, I presume, does not apply to all the funny logos derivated from various copyrighted logos, which are commonly used in most editors pages, but are not used within main space, such as the mop or counter vandalism ?

We are deleting these when we find them. The CVU logo, which you mention, and which uses a Wikimedia logo, was authorized by Angela on behalf of the Board for use on Wikipedia and is therefore not unlicensed.

Another question : does that mean that an image previously used in the main space but removed for whatever reason by anyone, does not qualify any more to be kept ?

We delete orphaned unlicensed images. Orphaned freely licensed images are not deleted as a matter of course, although they may be deleted if the community elects to do so. Another option is to move them to Commons.

Yet another question : on many user pages, editors upload a personal shot of their face. Given that GFDL authorize any one to transform their face in a monster or to use the personal face picture to make an advertisement for a cream to fight spots or other red blotches, is that authorized to put a picture of self under another licence than fair use ? In which case, which licenses are authorized ?

A community discussion is underway to establish a "community use only" licensing class for such images. I support the availability of such licensing options for media not intended for use in articles, but there does not seem to be consensus on this point yet. The image on my personal user page is currently licensed under such a license, and nobody has deleted it yet.

I ask the question, because many pictures of many editors are taken during wikimeetups. If the pictures are labelled with a non-restricted use, that should mean that anyone can use a picture of the face of a wikipedian to do anything that he would like to. If the pictures are labelled with a restricted use and used only in non-article space, do they qualify as "speedy deletion" as my pictures did ?

Note that I said "unlicensed media". Media uploaded under a "community use license" would not be unlicensed and therefore not subject to deletion under our orphaning policy. However, we have not yet approved the use of a "community use license".

I am not sure I am clear here, but depending on the answers, I think I will delete many of my images on the english wikipedia. Somehow, I do not think we can forbid editors to delete their images, if the rules change upon time; Before, fair use images were authorized. If rules change, I suppose editors can change their license choice to protect themselves as well ?

Please note that our change in policy about fair use images has been heavily motivated by this odd fellow known as Jimmy Wales. Jimbo's been pushing us for months to cut back on copyright infringement and unnecessarily reliance on fair use. You may wish to discuss this issue with him.

Kelly

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

Given that images used on used pages are unlikely to end up in a DVD or a book, I seriously doubt who would suffer copyright infringement attacks for images hosted on community pages.

However the material on userpages does get reused. Why do you think people have the big this is a wikipedia userpage tag on thier user pages

It strikes me as odd, that we authorize fair use on encyclopedic content (which is likely to be reused and to irritate copyright holders), while forbidding it on personal pages (where it is unlikely to be much troubles).

It's to do with wether the fair use claim is legit or not. It is harder to establish a fair use claim for images on userpages

Overall, our license issues strike me as being more confusing and messy every day that goes by.

/me perplex

Simplified version

GFDL= fine Some versionsof CC=fine PD=fine Fair use= maybe fine may not be. What you are seeing is only stage 2 of sorting out the situation Wih permission (wikipedia only)=not allowed noncomercial lisences.=Not allowed Copyrighted no fair use= not allowed

There are some other odds and ends but the above covers the vast majority of cases.

-- geni

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

I do not understand well how you make the difference between "unlicensed" and "licensed". Afaik, fair use is licensed. No tag is unlicensed. No ?

Fair use is NOT licensed. Fair use is a doctrine under which copyrighted content may be used without obtaining a license. There's a big difference.

Let me repeat that again for the bystanders: Fair use is not a license.

Media used on Wikipedia pursuant to a license allowing the use (e.g. the GFDL or CC-BY-SA, or some other free or nonfree license) is licensed. Media that is used on Wikipedia not pursuant to a license but instead either a claim of fair use, or invalidly as a copyright infringement, is unlicensed. We are strict on the use of unlicensed media because the distribution of unlicensed media content is a copyright infringement unless privileged under fair use.

I have the feeling that in one year or so, freely licensed orphan images will indeed be deleted on the english wikipedia. That would be well within what I currently observe.

I see no reason to share your pessimism.

Kelly

--- Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

I see no reason to share your pessimism.

Kelly

it is a deal :-) I keep this in memory to see what the future will offer us :-)

See you next december ...

ant

OOh! Ladies, lets not be catty now. Remember wisdom is no substitute for inexperience.

Stevertigo

__________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/

Andrew Gray wrote:

On 28/11/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

...

...

I have the feeling that in one year or so, freely licensed orphan images will indeed be deleted on the english wikipedia. That would be well within what I currently observe.

I see no reason to share your pessimism.

it is a deal :-) I keep this in memory to see what the future will offer us :-)

If single-login-across-projects is working by then, I strongly suspect we *will* see deletion of orphaned free images on en.wikipedia - because they'll be being shifted over to Commons...

--

• Andrew Gray

I am not really sure how setting up single login could make it possible for images to be shifted from one project to another ? Did developers suggest it could be automated somehow ? if so, it sure is an additional motivation...

On 11/28/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:

I believe, though I've not looked into it, that one of the problems holding up large-scale shifting of images between projects is that it's tricky to credit someone who has an account elsewhere. Single-logon may make this easier.

Well that and the issue that wikipedia admins are a buch of control freaks who have seen commons's record of dealing with vandalism and are not impressed.

-- geni

On 11/28/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:

I don't know how many admins on en would be offended by you saying that they are harsh on vandalism.

-- Sam

Well as an en admin I'll own up to being a control freak when it comes to vandalism. A while back a picture on commons was vandalised resulting in the wikipedia portal page carrying a vandalised image. It took some time for it to be fixed.

-- geni

On 11/28/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

On 11/28/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:

...

I don't know how many admins on en would be offended by you saying that they are harsh on vandalism.

-- Sam

Well as an en admin I'll own up to being a control freak when it comes to vandalism. A while back a picture on commons was vandalised resulting in the wikipedia portal page carrying a vandalised image. It took some time for it to be fixed.

I believe that was my point. ;-)

-- Sam

Kelly Martin ecrit:

We are deleting these when we find them. >The CVU

logo, which you mention, and which >uses a Wikimedia logo, was authorized by >Angela on behalf of the Board for use on >Wikipedia and is therefore not unlicensed.

You can start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2kip.png

As the artist I can say for a fact that it is not copyright by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Stevertigo

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

Fastfission wrote:

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

Given that images used on used pages are unlikely to end up in a DVD or a book, I seriously doubt who would suffer copyright infringement attacks for images hosted on community pages.

It strikes me as odd, that we authorize fair use on encyclopedic content (which is likely to be reused and to irritate copyright holders), while forbidding it on personal pages (where it is unlikely to be much troubles).

Overall, our license issues strike me as being more confusing and messy every day that goes by.

It strikes me that you don't really know what fair use is. It might aid you if you read our page on the fair use policy at [[WP:FU]] first, because you seem confused on a few legal points which are not terribly difficult but most people haven't been exposed to them.

The reason people have been cracking down on fair use tagging is because if something is tagged as such but is not actually "fair use", then it is a copyright violation and puts us in a legally bad position. People have been generously mopping up some of the simple cases (i.e. where images are claimed as "fair use" but are not used in an encyclopedia article) with the sole intention of helping Wikipedia keep a "clean" legal status. The goal is to avoid getting sued and having Wikipedia donations spent on lawyers rather than new servers.

I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but I'm having a hard time understanding why you absolutely needed to have an image whose copyright was owned by someone else and not released freely kept on the Wikipedia servers even though it wasn't being used.

FF

Simple. At the same time, we were working with a lawyer (participant) to wikipedia, Alex, on the french wikipedia, setting up a policy to clarify fair use on our project.

When we set up the policy, we worked on a collection of "explanations" the editors had to provide for the images to be acceptable under the fair use doctrine. Amonst those "explanations" were the possibility to reuse some images in poor quality, while the high quality images were under copyright. For example, an image of a movie advertisement, or a cd print (the jacket ? is that the word ?), could be used, while uploading a full high quality movie picture could not.

Most of the images I uploaded on Wikipedia are mine and are under the gfdl, even those of my children, which is probably a serious mistake (and I presume I will soon delete them, because I think they could be used in inappropriate ways). Amongst the few not under gfdl, those from Algerian desert were taken by my husband. When I uploaded them, there were no tags. So, I did not even asked him really. But I knew there were a couple he might have desired to use later in his own reports (ie, in a professional book or leaflets, where the printer usually retain copyright... poor life of researchers :)). For this reason, I uploaded them in low quality, rather than printing quality. It was also a time when they were no images on these topics at all.

In december 2004, when a hord of fanatic started deleted all my images, upon the reason I never taggued them (of course, they were no tags when I uploaded them), I hurried tagging them. And fell on these few from my husband. He was away on a expedition far away at that time, and I thought "do I have the right to put a GFDL tag on them, whilst he does not even know what it means, but while I know he approves the reduced quality use... but might put the high quality in a book later on ?). I asked a couple of people, who said "fair use". And since it was accepted at that time, fair use it was. it was not a problem a year ago. he does not care for the copyright of the low quality at all.

When we went to Algeria again together, we both together took more than 800 images. Most are mostly professional and would not interest wikipedia I think. Mostly plants (for me) and rocks (for him). I uploaded a few of these pictures on commons. I put all of them under GFDL. Some of them were uploaded in low quality on purpose. But being better informed then, we put them under a free licence. And kept the high quality for us.

Does that clarify ?

Ant

Fastfission wrote:

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

Does that clarify ?

It clarifies your particular situation but it doesn't clarify why I should be terribly heartbroken that an image you didn't see fit to use on any page whatsoever got deleted as part of a generally sensible policy. The people doing this sort of maintenance are neither psychic nor have nor need the patience required to notify the hundreds of users who have uploaded images tagged as fair use but not used in articles and then wait for responses. If they are tagged as fair use, they should be either used or deleted -- I don't think this is in any way a rash policy, it is just one which recognizes that a "fair use" claim resides in "use" and is not a license or a free ticket to "I want to keep this image here but I cannot or will not license it freely".

Some of the images were used at a point, but were for some reasons delinked from the articles.

It sounds to me like you feel somewhat entitled to use Wikipedia as a personal file server. But perhaps I am misinterpretted or misreading something.

FF

Personal file server ?

Again, maybe you may not really realised, but when I uploaded these images, Commons did not existed. So, it was perfectly understandable that an editor with a bunch of images that could be useful for the encyclopedia would upload them where it was possible to upload them.

Now that we have commons, there is no more valid reason to upload images on wikipedia, and I very very rarely do so (I decided not to upload any more images on the english wikipedia a year ago anyway).

Images are uploaded on commons precisely to build up a huge database of images. Would you tell any editor uploading an image on commons that he is using commons as a personal file server ????

Ant

Fastfission wrote:

On 11/29/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

Personal file server ?

You seem to be saying that the images were not used in articles for quite some time, were labeled as being used without a license (fair use), but because they were images personally important to you, they should be kept on Wikipedia servers forever. To me, that sounds like a "personal file server" -- a place to keep images for yourself, with no substantive relation to the Wikipedia project.

A long time ago (3 and a half years ago perhaps ?), I started a wikiproject called the ecoregions, both in english and french. The idea was to describe what some authors have been calling ecoregions, ie, regions ecologically homogeneous, as opposed to "regions" defined by political borders. In starting that project, I was aware it would go very very slowly. There are more than 800 classicaly defined ecoregions on Earth. On the french wikipedia, at that time, I was the only one with remotedly a biology/ecology/geology/pedology background, so it was unlikely the project could interest anyone. While I was quite involved in it in english, we were only 3-4 editors taking care of it. In particular Tom Radulovitch. Still, over the years, a few ecoregions were drafted, some in french, others in english.

The project was inspired by a project started by the WWF, with funding by the National Geographic, with a decent presence on the net and particular a real neat GIS. I contacted the National Geographic two years ago now, for a grant. It unfortunately did not succeeded.

I thought that if I could get a grant for this, I would stop working and take care of this full time, because for me, it made more sense than the real life job I was doing.

On the world map, work has been quite extensively done for some continents, or rather political areas. In particular Canada and Europe, and of course, quite a bit in the USA as well. Now, other areas are practically undone. And amongst those, Africa. I had the opportunity to go several time in Africa in the past years, and other times my husband as well. I, as an agronom and soil scientist, he, as a geologist and mineralogist, were typically people who had great opportunities to bring back real neat pictures of these areas, in particular areas which are not reachable unless you accept to sleep on the rocks several nights in a row.

When I decided to take care of that project, I had a long long long time perspective. Not thinking in days or weeks as many contributors, nor in months; but rather in years. So, little by little, I built up a frame for that project, and on the 3 computers I have owned since I started participating, I stored images. I put some on Wikipedia. The ecoregion project was definitly in substantive relation to the Wikipedia project and I would find a bit hurting that my storing a few images in the perspective of some of the articles I would write later would be interpretated as "personal storing" area.

As it happened, I was diverted from my original project, and chose instead to offer much of my free time to the community good.

These weeks, I sometimes regret it. I must confess it. In the past few weeks, I have spent possibly 15 hours taking care of trying to remove mails from the english mailing list and english help desk per request of a person. I have found it deeply UN-satisfying experience.

And I am now facing the question : is it really more worth to the project that I answer jerks on OTRS, for the good of the community, while I get no satisfaction of this activity, while it brings me so appreciation from my peers and while it will *never* help me find a job again in the future ?

Or is it best for the project that I go back taking care of the ecoregions, and maybe at least get some academic recognition for my work as well as the satisfaction of seeing the project grow ?

My mistake might be to have a long-term vision of Wikipedia. In keeping these images under my user name, I go on believing that one day, I will go back to doing something "constructive" as an editor, rather than loosing my time on OTRS and other administrative tasks.

For me, deleting these images is a bit like abandonning the idea of that project.

...

Again, maybe you may not really realised, but when I uploaded these images, Commons did not existed. So, it was perfectly understandable that an editor with a bunch of images that could be useful for the encyclopedia would upload them where it was possible to upload them.

The images in question, I thought, were tagged as "fair use". Which would not be allowed on Commons anyway. Nobody is deleting PD images which are unused, to my knowledge. The entire discussion is about the deletion of images labeled as "fair use" which are unused. If that's *not* what you are talking about then I suppose I (and others) have been confused about what you are complaining about from the beginning.

Maybe there is a language barrier here, because I'm not quite following you.

FF

I already explained the "fair use" issue around these images. What I wrote above is an attempt to explain why these images are not used. Possibly, for the topics which interest you, Wikipedia is roughly done. For the topic which interest me, Wikipedia is still in infancy. It is still a work ongoing :-)

In case you wonder, here is a link to one biome page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_and_xeric_shrublands

Here is an example of one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Deccan_dry_evergreen_forests

No pictures are available...

Still a lot to do :-)

Ant

Stan Shebs wrote:

Anthere wrote:

...

I have the feeling that in one year or so, freely licensed orphan images will indeed be deleted on the english wikipedia. That would be well within what I currently observe.

It wouldn't surprise me, I seem to recall some people muttering about that a while back. Just imagine all the AfDers migrating over to IfD!

...

I do not think people will bother moving them to commons, it is too heavy to do.

As a board member, isn't it within your power to pay a developer to come up with an automated way to transfer images from language WPs to commons? It's been wanted for some time, and would solve a lot of our image management problems. Commons has evolved much better ways to deal with large masses of images.

Nod. But frankly, it would not be considered as the most urgent thing a developer would have to take care of. Issues such as single login, or very simply, having the site run smoothly and with a decent efficiency (images loading time...) would be the priority.

Beyond this, we always fall back on the same issue, paying developers means more money. More money means having more fundraiser or fundraiser lasting longer, or people willing to take the time to ask for more grants (not so many people interested in doing that...) or simply looking for more sponsors, or putting ads ;-)

...

Overall, our license issues strike me as being more confusing and messy every day that goes by.

Organizations that deal professionally with as many images as are now in WMF's collection often have persons paid to do nothing but deal with license issues, calling and writing copyright holders for permissions, negotiating prices for licenses, etc. Pinching down on non-free images is basically our strategy to simplify things so that the Foundation doesn't have to start interviewing job candidates...

Stan

correct. This said... did you hear about the major uproar on the german wikipedia due to massive copyright infringment ? It is now in the press. And the german wikipedia, I believe, choose to entirely forbid all fair use images at least a year ago.

incidently, this major issue is the reason why Jimbo will probably not answer the questions about the arbcom for a while... so, please, show patience :-)

ant

Matt Brown wrote:

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

correct. This said... did you hear about the major uproar on the german wikipedia due to massive copyright infringment ? It is now in the press. And the german wikipedia, I believe, choose to entirely forbid all fair use images at least a year ago.

Is there an english-language place to read about this? First I'd heard of it.

Thanks,

-Matt

I do not think so. Maybe the english wikinews tomorrow ?

But see http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/66701 for now.

Ant

Stan Shebs wrote:

Anthere wrote:

...

Stan Shebs wrote:

...

As a board member, isn't it within your power to pay a developer to come up with an automated way to transfer images from language WPs to commons? It's been wanted for some time, and would solve a lot of our image management problems. Commons has evolved much better ways to deal with large masses of images.

Nod. But frankly, it would not be considered as the most urgent thing a developer would have to take care of. Issues such as single login, or very simply, having the site run smoothly and with a decent efficiency (images loading time...) would be the priority.

Beyond this, we always fall back on the same issue, paying developers means more money. More money means having more fundraiser or fundraiser lasting longer, or people willing to take the time to ask for more grants (not so many people interested in doing that...) or simply looking for more sponsors, or putting ads ;-)

At one point, I was keen to do some wikimedia development, so as to help with this sort of thing, and set up a test wiki, but it's more fun to upload images than to hack on PHP...

...

correct. This said... did you hear about the major uproar on the german wikipedia due to massive copyright infringment ? It is now in the press. And the german wikipedia, I believe, choose to entirely forbid all fair use images at least a year ago.

I've not heard a thing about this. Do you have a link?

Stan

provided in the other mail. You may also follow http://news.google.de/news?hl=de&ned=de&ie=UTF-8&q=wikipedia&...

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

incidently, this major issue is the reason why Jimbo will probably not answer the questions about the arbcom for a while... so, please, show patience :-)

ant

We've shown a lot of patience however we have run out of time. D-day is december the 1st.

-- geni

On 11/29/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

Then, I fear you will have to handle the issue all by yourselves :-)

see schedule : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales

:-)

We could if jimbo did not insist in interfearing (ok we would need a developer to swtich on the voteing softwear.)

-- geni

On 11/29/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

...

We could if jimbo did not insist in interfearing (ok we would need a developer to swtich on the voteing softwear.)

-- geni

When people talk about Jimbo "interfering" with what they want to do, I immediately acquire a strong suspicion that what they want to do is not in the best interests of Wikipedia, and it becomes difficult to assume good faith.

Lets see we had the candidate page set up, we had had a full disscussion on reform (pretty much everything was rejected by the way), Signpost was running a string of pre-election areticles and candidates were declaring themselves. Everything was going along nicely for december elections. Then jimbo made a hit and run edit and messed everything up. That is interfearing.

En is not the only wiki with an arbcom. Is jimbo going to apoint people on other language projects as well?

-- geni

Anthere wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Sabl...

yet another image deleted *without any personal warning to the uploader *even though it was uploaded before the tags

ever existed...

I find that pityful. Really pityful. Really really

pityful.

The image (whatver it was -- we will never know) was a danger to Wikipedia and to Wikimedia itself. The erasure of one single insignificant image (whatever it was -- we may never know) is insignificant compared to the increased security that Wikipedia and Wikimedia now has, as a result of not hosting that image.

Stevertigo Le calembour a prévu

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

Norvy wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Sabl...

yet another image deleted *without any personal warning to the uploader *even though it was uploaded before the tags ever existed...

I find that pityful. Really pityful. Really really pityful.

To be fair, you were asked to tag them on December 16th, 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Image_tagging Seems like plenty of warning to me. -- Norvy

Yes, I taggued them all. And for these ones specifically, I chose fair use for personal reasons. Fair use was allowed at that time. So, I received plenty of warning and I complied and taggued them. The problem is the policy has changed since then... and fair use is no more acceptable. So ?

So, yes, it bugs me that for the second time, my images are deleted. The first time, some were deleted for not having tags, which was acceptable when I uploaded them (there were no tags then). So, I taggued them, according to what was possible when I was asked to tag them. They complied with the rules... and later, they do not comply anymore, so are deleted.

So, yes, admittedly, that is bothering me a bit :-)

ant

Anthere wrote:

Norvy wrote:

...

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Sabl...

yet another image deleted *without any personal warning to the uploader *even though it was uploaded before the tags ever existed...

I find that pityful. Really pityful. Really really pityful.

To be fair, you were asked to tag them on December 16th, 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Image_tagging Seems like plenty of warning to me. -- Norvy

see for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Unverified_images

it says

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image: ▪ Image:DjeDje.jpg ▪ Image:Dune.JPG I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 04:02, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC) P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

To be fair, the above looks like an automated message, so it doesn't actually state that fair use tags are acceptable on user pages.

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

I think you should not play on words if you were fair.

A year ago, fair use was authorized, with no mention if it was authorized in the encyclopedic content or in the user page. Amongst the two untaggued pages listed above, one was a picture of my daughter and labelled as such. It was clearly not meant for encyclopedic space.

Besides, see the message just below as well : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Image_tagging

It says

P.P.S. I hope all is well with you, and that you are enjoying your labors with Angela and Jimbo. :)

Looking here, I'd like to add that the following images need tags: ▪ Image:Acacia.JPG ▪ Image:Dessication.JPG ▪ Image:SablePlante.JPG ▪ Image:Hoggar.JPG ▪ Image:Hoggar2.JPG ▪ Image:Hoggar5.JPG ▪ Image:Oasis.JPG ▪ Image:Sahara3.JPG ▪ Image:Sahara5.JPG Any more tags would be a great help. Thanks! --[[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682 (talk)]] 08:11, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Does that look like an automated message ? The P.P.S. ?

Look, I find the general behavior which consist in saying to an editor "you are allowed to do that", then a year later, to rudely delete work without warning, upon the reason it is no more allowed now to do that, a bit difficult to admit.

But I find the behavior which consist one year later to deny that what was done a year before, was authorized at that time, much more difficult to admit. Fair use was authorized a year ago. Period.

I think what you are arguing is something different to quite a lot of others. They are saying why the policy was necessary. Your complaint is actually that you weren't warned. I don't think anyone would disagree that you should have been notified before the deletions took place.

-- Sam

On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

Thanks, you are absolutely correct Sam. Yes, what bugs me is the change of policy and no-warning.

Well you probably have better acess to jimbo than the rest of us to complain

I have no problem with adopting a much stronger policy against fair use myself. I think it will empoverish the project, but protect it greatly, as there has been a lot of abuse on this tag use.

Ant

In many ways it would help the project since it would provide a greater incentive for people to find free content.

-- geni

On 11/28/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

On 11/28/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:

...

I think what you are arguing is something different to quite a lot of others. They are saying why the policy was necessary. Your complaint is actually that you weren't warned. I don't think anyone would disagree that you should have been notified before the deletions took place.

There were thousands of images (possibly tens of thousands) that qualified for speedy deletion under the new policy. Issuing warnings to the uploader of each such image would have interminably delayed the cleanup, which was already well-overdue. Repeated public notices were issued; we're sorry you missed them or did not realize they applied to you.

Kelly

I fail to see the need to rush in this instance, though. I think a better policy would have been to remove the images from the articles first, then contact the uploaders, and then delete the images in round two. At the most that would take twice as long, which wouldn't be so bad, and more likely it would take less time than that.

But again, I don't see the rush to *delete* the images. It's not like they posed a legitimate legal threat. Their threat was more to the project, to the encyclopedia, and removing them from the articles (and hey, if you really want, from the other pages too), removes that threat.

In any case, the two images I had deleted without being warned were tagged. One was tagged as GFDL, the other was tagged as public domain as I got it from the VOANews website. I actually don't have any idea why the second was removed. The reason given for deletion pointed to a diff that didn't actually exist.

In case anyone cares, the latter image was [[Image:Tv MarkFelt 1jun05 150.jpg]]. It was displayed on http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-01-voa30.cfm and the actual image is at http://www.voanews.com/english/images/tv_MarkFelt_1jun05_150.jpg. Ironically, it has actually been replaced by [[Image:W Mark Felt screenshot.jpg]], which is clearly *not* a public domain or free image at all.

Anthony

On 11/28/05, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:

20 000 images tagged as having no source information 5 000 images tagged as having no copyright information 8 000 images tagged as being "fair use", but unused in any article

And how many were by unique individuals? It's not like someone can't be notified about more than one image at the same time.

If the administrator places a warning on the uploader's talk page, in addition to removing the image from articles where it's used, and waits a week to give the uploader a chance to respond, it takes over two minutes to delete an image. This represents the additional time needed to check for responses on the user's talk page, check for responses on the talk page of the admin informing the user, and check for responses on the image description page and image talk page -- and 99% of the time, it's wasted effort, as the uploader has forgotten about Wikipedia entirely. Total effort involved in cleaning up the problem images: 1100 man-hours.

So if 25 people spend 1 hour a week it'll take...less than a year. The problem with this would be?

Even if it's wasted effort 99% of the time (and I think this is a gross exaggeration), what about at least notifying users who *are* active, like, say, someone who currently serves on the board of the foundation?

It's not as if efforts to notify people haven't been undertaken. The policy change was announced on the WikiEn-L mailing list, on the administrators' noticeboard, on several Village Pump subpages, in the Signpost, and for several weeks everyone's watchlist had a note on the top informing them of the change. The only thing that hasn't been done was individual notification on the talk pages of uploaders, and that's because there are almost 35000 problem images.

-- [[User:Carnildo]]

It's a big problem. I don't see that as an excuse to not do things right.

Anthony

On 11/28/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:43, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

...

...

So if 25 people spend 1 hour a week it'll take...less than a year. The problem with this would be?

The other tens of thousands of images uploaded in the mean time. The fact that when people complain about removal of one non free image they point to others and say this hasnt gone yet why should mine go.

But, this person is specifically complaining about an image that was uploaded years ago. I could see deleting the tens of thousands of images uploaded more recently first, though I think you're severely exaggerating how many unfree images are going to be uploaded in the next 44 weeks. And you ignored the point about how many of those images are by *unique individuals*. There's no need to tell someone who has already been told time and time again, but telling people at least once (look, here's a list of images of yours we're going to delete unless you add a tag) is the least that can be done.

...

Even if it's wasted effort 99% of the time (and I think this is a gross exaggeration), what about at least notifying users who *are* active, like, say, someone who currently serves on the board of the foundation?

How is anyone supposed to remember the usernames of everyone on the foundation and why do they expect to get special treatment? For a while we had some bot assisted notification for some classes of speedy delete; hopefully these will return soon if the bot bureaucracy can be overcome (er, performance improves). This particular deletion is not about this really, it is about communication of changing policies to people.

Justinc

C'mon, if you're going to remember just three usernames, Anthere should be one of them. Does she deserve special treatment? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'd expect the same treatment for any active user, at the least.

Are there really admins who don't know who Anthere is? I mean, I don't know what I'm supposed to call her as her real name (just noticed she signs her emails "Ant", but it feels strange calling her that I guess in part 'cause that's what my family calls me), but, anyway, I digress.

Anthony

Steve Block wrote:

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

...

Are there really admins who don't know who Anthere is?

Yes.

Very likely yes.

I know of many non-english editors who have absolutely no idea who Jimbo is :-) So, yes.

Steve, I am a very dangerous dissident. Beware.

Amongst my crimes, I am french (which in itself is a crime for some editors, or a quality for others :-)).

Another crime is that my english is far from perfect, which sometimes lead me to make strange statements, which might be shocking to some (or making their day...).

Another crime is that I love arguing. A worse one is that I tend to take things personally.

Also, I tried to keep the recipees in the english encyclopedia...

I put 5 images or so under fair use, thus threatening the project in its whole.

<small>I use powerpoint, word and excel at home</small> (which was very strongly criticized by a few at Wikimania...)

I was blocked once by Jimbo in a 142 issue (granted, the situation was quite confused...).

I have been called a vandal by RK (where is RK by the way ?).

Now that I think about it, Mav also called me a vandal once, because I was working on an old computer with an old system, and I was all the time breaking special caracters and pages over 32 k... My technical inability is great.

If you are a dangerous admin, I will unsysop you :-) Especially under PMS situation.

Another crime is that I do consider Jimbo as a human being much more than a king. So, in spite of great respect for him, and long term appreciation to him for having changed my life, and much dedication to him as well, I also dare tell him when he is wrong and when he should get out of the way. So to speak.

Other than that, I am 37, straight married female, 2 kids and pregnant (which might save admins).

Uh, and yes, I joined the project in feb 2002, so rules have changed a lot since then..

Anthere wrote:

Steve Block wrote:

...

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

...

Are there really admins who don't know who Anthere is?

Yes.

Very likely yes.

I know of many non-english editors who have absolutely no idea who Jimbo is :-) So, yes.

Steve, I am a very dangerous dissident. Beware.

Amongst my crimes, I am french (which in itself is a crime for some editors, or a quality for others :-)).

Another crime is that my english is far from perfect, which sometimes lead me to make strange statements, which might be shocking to some (or making their day...).

Another crime is that I love arguing. A worse one is that I tend to take things personally.

Also, I tried to keep the recipees in the english encyclopedia...

I put 5 images or so under fair use, thus threatening the project in its whole.

<small>I use powerpoint, word and excel at home</small> (which was very strongly criticized by a few at Wikimania...)

I was blocked once by Jimbo in a 142 issue (granted, the situation was quite confused...).

I have been called a vandal by RK (where is RK by the way ?).

Now that I think about it, Mav also called me a vandal once, because I was working on an old computer with an old system, and I was all the time breaking special caracters and pages over 32 k... My technical inability is great.

If you are a dangerous admin, I will unsysop you :-) Especially under PMS situation.

Another crime is that I do consider Jimbo as a human being much more than a king. So, in spite of great respect for him, and long term appreciation to him for having changed my life, and much dedication to him as well, I also dare tell him when he is wrong and when he should get out of the way. So to speak.

Other than that, I am 37, straight married female, 2 kids and pregnant (which might save admins).

Uh, and yes, I joined the project in feb 2002, so rules have changed a lot since then..

You forgot to mention your sense of humour, which is always a useful suppository when dealing with anal people.

Ec (who joined in the same month)

On 11/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:

On 11/28/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

...

On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:43, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

...

...

So if 25 people spend 1 hour a week it'll take...less than a year. The problem with this would be?

The other tens of thousands of images uploaded in the mean time. The fact that when people complain about removal of one non free image they point to others and say this hasnt gone yet why should mine go.

But, this person is specifically complaining about an image that was uploaded years ago. I could see deleting the tens of thousands of images uploaded more recently first, though I think you're severely exaggerating how many unfree images are going to be uploaded in the next 44 weeks. And you ignored the point about how many of those images are by *unique individuals*. There's no need to tell someone who has already been told time and time again, but telling people at least once (look, here's a list of images of yours we're going to delete unless you add a tag) is the least that can be done.

To answer these points: 1) Back at the beginning of the drive to clear out [[Category:Images with unknown source]], I sometimes checked the image contributions of uploaders. I would usually find two or three other images tagged as unsourced, and an equal number of other unsourced images. Assuming this rate is typical, that's between 5 000 and 9 000 uploaders that need to be notified. 2) When I did check the contributions of uploaders, about 75% didn't have a userpage. 90% had fewer than 50 edits. All but one had not contributed in the last month. 3) Deleting images "in order of upload" or "most recently first" is almost impossible. The category system sorts images alphabetically by filename. 4) Judging from the amount of churn on the first page of [[Category:Images with unknown source]], somewhere between 200 and 500 unsourced images are uploaded each week. If the proportions are similar for the other categories, then in the year you're saying should be taken to delete the existing 33 000 images, another 17 000 to 43 000 bad images will be uploaded.

-- [[User:Carnildo]]

On 11/29/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:

Ant and others: If you have lost images to zealous copyright enforcement, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_images

SJ

I looked at that page, and it seems to be only for images "which were formerly available under a compatible license". AFAICT Ant's images aren't available under a compatible license.

Anyway, I've restored all the images except for one (wasn't found under en/upload/d/d9/Acacia.JPG). So tack on another hour to the amount of volunteer time it takes to handle this deletion in a half-assed manner.

Anthony

On 29 Nov 2005, at 08:30, Anthere wrote:

Justin Cormack wrote:

...

How is anyone supposed to remember the usernames of everyone on the foundation and why do they expect to get special treatment? For a while we had some bot assisted notification for some classes of speedy delete; hopefully these will return soon if the bot bureaucracy can be overcome (er, performance improves). This particular deletion is not about this really, it is about communication of changing policies to people. Justinc

On another note, I think it is not a good idea to use a *bot* for any action that can not be reverted (such as image deletion). Bots are not intelligent, they should not be given such power.

They dont do the deletion, just tagging and notification, and putting into categories for human checking.

Justinc

In message 31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a@mail.gmail.com, Mark Wagner carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes

Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly. Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.

If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image. This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.

Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them? Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!

On 11/29/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

On 11/29/05, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:

...

In message 31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a@mail.gmail.com, Mark Wagner carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes

...

Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly. Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.

If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image. This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.

Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them? Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!

{{sofixit}}

-- geni

Is {{sofixit}} a valid response to someone systematically going through the encyclopedia and breaking stuff? If I go around and delete all facts which are both uncited and not in my own personal knowledge, can I respond to anyone calling me a vandal with {{sofixit}}? The way to fixit is to adopt a policy which doesn't intentionally create broken links in the first place.

Anthony

On 11/29/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:

That could be the single most obnoxiously unhelpful thing you've ever posted to wikien-l, certainly per character.

• d.

Is that a challange? Anyway what happened to eventualism? Those red links will get removed sooner or latter (ok not entirely serious there).

If people don't like the way image deltion is being do they are free to get involved and do it better. Personaly I can't do much since the image deltion bug is a killer.

If you want better warning either run a bot yourself or find someone with the technical know how to.

If you want to change the way deletion is done then get involved.

The image situation on wikipedia is a toxic dump of a mess. Sorting it out is not easy. If you think you know a better way do it do so. No one is going to stand in your way.

-- geni

On 11/28/05, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:

In message 31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a@mail.gmail.com, Mark Wagner carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes

...

Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly. Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.

If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image. This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.

Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them? Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!

Guess why images tagged as "fair use" but not used in any article (such as the image Anthere was complaining about) are being deleted so quickly? It's because the images can be deleted without removing any links to them. Links from talk pages shouldn't be removed, because doing so would disrupt history, links from userpages can be ignored because they shouldn't have been made in the first place, and links from templates have mostly been taken care of by the drive to remove fair-use images from template-space.

-- [[User:Carnildo]]

This screwing up of articles has been bugging me for weeks, as has deletions without any notifications. I hear all the complaints about how time consuming it is contacting people and how few reply and how time consuming it is cleaning up articles. My response is simple: tough. If you want to delete images, you make sure you don't screw up things in the way you do it.

Bertie's article is just one of many that has been thoroughly turned into a mess. The only bigger mess is the whole deletion process. Good images are being lost with the bad, as Anthere highlighted. Fixable images are being lost with the unfixable ones. I recently lost one image that I myself took because there was a minor error in categorisation, all because it was downloaded when I joined WP in 2003 and I put the wrong tag on it because I didn't know there was a better one. If the deleter had bothered to inform me about the problem I could have fixed it. (And checked other images to make sure there were no problems.) They didn't, just deleted it, and left a featured article missing its primary image. The image was also used elsewhere and all other articles were left with ruddy great holes in them. As I no longer had the photograph I had to go on a journey and take another one.

I've seen images deleted that were described as 'no source' even though the source was explicitly stated in detail on the page. I recently uploaded an image (not a great one, but a temporary holding one until a better version could be prepared, for an infobox). A new one was found by another user and installed. In fact the new image wouldn't work. When I discovered the new one was corrupted I went back to get the old one to find that it had been proposed for deletion and deleted. Again no-one informed me. At this stage, having spent so long cleaning up the deleters screw-ups I can't be bothered doing any more. So that article has no image and will have no image from me. And I'm not spending another week patching up articles that have been torn to shreds by wholescale deletion of images without fixing what is left.

And why the hell when people delete images now that a version is in commons, can't they bother to check to make sure the commons image is linking to the articles the original one was. I've had to trawl through commons four times recently to trace images that had been deleted without the commons images being linked. That sort of incompetent amateurism is making WP a joke, and annoying the hell out of me, Anthere, Adam and a host of others because we are the ones left cleaning up other people's mess, or worse undo damage where images that should never have been deleted have been.

Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote: That's all very well, but the links I was referring to are from principal articles - I first noticed it when the picture disappeared from the infobox in [[Bertie Ahern]] leaving a damned great broken link prominently at the top of the article. But then, he's only the Irish Prime Minister, so no-one would notice....

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos

Perhaps the way to square this is that for all images tagged with any fair use tag but fairusein, we follow the links to the articles to which it is linked and place a template on the linking articles talk page to the effect that the image should be tagged with fairusein and that an argument for such fairuse should be made on the image description page. Would there also be agreement on requiring a timelimit within which this should happen, somewhere between a week and a month perhaps?

With fair use and related tagged images which are orphan, including those not in the article space, perhaps we need to start tagging uploader talk pages notifying them that the image will be deleted if not tagged with fairusein and used within the body of an article. I can understand both sides of this argument, and it seems that this might be the best way to solve the problems posted to this list recently.

Any thoughts?

On 12/4/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

The bigger mess I see is large piles of artwork from within games or anime - pictures of seemingly every object and character in a work, displayed in lengthy list/gallery articles. Seems like it really pushes the bounds of fair use, and yet it's hard to imagine the copyright holders ever complaining much ("what's that you say? WP is using our artwork to illustrate extended quasi-advertising articles for ''EverFinal Half-Life of Gundam Doom XXIII''? And for free? Excellent!")

The danger in this is that it could potentially prohibit the copyright holder to market the copyrights towards the creation of "authorized guides" to the content.

See the "Twin Peaks" case at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.htm...

FF

On 12/4/05, Puddl Duk puddlduk@gmail.com wrote:

On 12/4/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 12/4/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

The bigger mess I see is large piles of artwork from within games or anime - pictures of seemingly every object and character in a work, displayed in lengthy list/gallery articles. Seems like it really pushes the bounds of fair use, and yet it's hard to imagine the copyright holders ever complaining much ("what's that you say? WP is using our artwork to illustrate extended quasi-advertising articles for ''EverFinal Half-Life of Gundam Doom XXIII''? And for free? Excellent!")

The danger in this is that it could potentially prohibit the copyright holder to market the copyrights towards the creation of "authorized guides" to the content.

See the "Twin Peaks" case at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.htm...

FF

I think we have almost 600 fair use images in the pokeman category

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pok%C3%A9mon_images

On 6 Dec 2005, at 03:12, Fastfission wrote:

On 12/4/05, Puddl Duk puddlduk@gmail.com wrote:

...

I think we have almost 600 fair use images in the pokeman category

That's true, and may or may not be a problem. The sheer number isn't necessarily the problem, though -- images which are individually "fair use" are still "fair use" whether there are two of them or 600 of them. There is a case on this relating to Beanie Babies, I believe: Ty, Inc., vs. Publications International, Ltd. (discussed at http://www.ivanhoffman.com/beanie.html)

Not having 600 can be more significant than having one: it is the use as a whole which will be taken into account; the extent of the copying includes collections in many cases. The Beanie Babe case is not necessarily applicable (although it might be) as it relied on 2D photos not being substitutes for 3D dolls; we normally rely on being able to take pictures of 3D objects anyway without infringement. The problem with the Pokemon is that the actual images are also straight copies (not artistic photos off a screen say), and to some extent images on a screen of pokemon do substitute for the originals, certainly more than Beanie babes do. There is also the trademark infringement issue (which was not used in Beanie Babes, but I would not be surprised if Pokemon fell into this. But its unclear.

How the Twin Peaks and Seinfeld rulings apply to Wikipedia and Wikiquote is unclear to me. Personally I'd be very, very suspicious of having detailed pages about copyrighted material which is purely descriptive (and not analysis, parody, etc.) or, at worse, relies upon heavy use of copyrighted content (images, quotes), even if we are non-profit. But I'm no lawyer, and this seems to be ground which is not very clearly spelled out legally.

I hope we are unlikely to get to the stage of Twin Peaks, ie almost copying in scripts.

This is nice and cheerful: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/screen.html

On 11/28/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

There were thousands of images (possibly tens of thousands) that qualified for speedy deletion under the new policy. Issuing warnings to the uploader of each such image would have interminably delayed the cleanup, which was already well-overdue. Repeated public notices were issued; we're sorry you missed them or did not realize they applied to you.

It's called a bot. ;=)

-- Sam

Steve Block wrote:

...

A year ago, fair use was authorized, with no mention if it was authorized in the encyclopedic content or in the user page. Amongst the two untaggued pages listed above, one was a picture of my daughter and labelled as such. It was clearly not meant for encyclopedic space.

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes it looks like policy was changed in this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_dele... on the 24 Septembe 2005, 23:53 by Kelly Martin, who comments it is Jimbo approved. There's probably an important lesson here somewhere.

Sigh. Thanks for finding it. I tried yesterday, but I did not find it. I was not in the correct page. My mistake for not following :-(

ant

On 12/1/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

That page has been edited nearly 100 times since. It's tagged as official policy, but it's difficult to consider a page as representing policy when its text is so unstable. Since checking the background of each paragraph in a policy page would be unreasonable everything on the page is in doubt.

Ec

No in so far as policy is ment to reflect practice it is broadly correct.

-- geni

On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

geni wrote:

...

On 12/1/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

...

That page has been edited nearly 100 times since. It's tagged as official policy, but it's difficult to consider a page as representing policy when its text is so unstable. Since checking the background of each paragraph in a policy page would be unreasonable everything on the page is in doubt.

No in so far as policy is ment to reflect practice it is broadly correct.

Being "broadly" correct doesn't help unless you accept the principle that these rules are only guidelines. Failing that, even small changes in wording can alter the meaning of a "rule".

Ec

As long as people continue to apply IAR to speedies CSD can never do anything more than broadly reflect reality.

-- geni

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

Thanks for restoring them Anthony

I talked to hubby yesterday and his comment was roughly "what the f***", so I put them under GFDL.

Meanwhile, Submarine explained to me how to use an upload tool, with automated tagging on commons. It works pretty well and is a huge relief compared to using our current system. So, some good comes out of all this :-)

Cheers

Ant