All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_used_with_permission
Are the relevant categories.
Examples of images which must be deleted include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:100_0062.JPG
(This is a standard photo of the Mission District in San Francisco -- getting a free alternative will be simple.)
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:167957_7674BoyVerticalBlindsSilhouette.jp...
(This is a non-commercial only image for the purpose of illustrating the concept "vertical blinds" -- getting a free alternative will be simple.)
As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use".
It is very unfortunate that such images are still being uploaded _new_ when we have not be happy about them for a long time. It is not fair to contributors who are working on such things, since we have no intention to keep them in the long run.
Therefore, these templates should be modified to warn people that these images are temporary only and will be deleted soon.
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote: [snip]
It is very unfortunate that such images are still being uploaded _new_ when we have not be happy about them for a long time. It is not fair to contributors who are working on such things, since we have no intention to keep them in the long run.
Maybe we should disable image uploads and have all images go through a review panel to check that they have correct source and licence info (and would prevent image content disputes as well).
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
Maybe we should disable image uploads and have all images go through a review panel to check that they have correct source and licence info (and would prevent image content disputes as well).
Any other ideas how to destroy the Wiki principle?
Excellent, Jimbo, thanks for this declaration. My guess would be that much of the material will simply be retagged as fair use. If the approach on Wikinews works out, we could then move towards a fair use whitelist, which could include
- album and book covers - important historical photos - logos - screenshots - publicity photos - material that is very old but not yet PD, orphaned works - ...?
These could then all get their own templates, e.g.
{{Fair use - screenshot}} {{Fair use - publicity}}
while the generic {{Fair use}} template would be deprecated and images without a ''specific'' tag would be deleted.
I suggest reviewing the situation again in two months or so.
All best,
Erik
On 5/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_used_with_permission
Are the relevant categories.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_NonCommercial-ShareAl... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer...
But you have to be careful - just because a image is licenced under cc dosn't mean that it isn't also GFDL.
ABCD
On 5/19/05, David Benbennick dbenbenn@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_used_with_permission
Are the relevant categories.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_NonCommercial-ShareAl... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-NonCommer... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
ABCD wrote:
But you have to be careful - just because a image is licenced under cc dosn't mean that it isn't also GFDL.
While that is true, how many people are there who would license something as both CC and FDL, but then choose a non-commercial-use-only variant of CC when FDL will allow commercial use?
On 5/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged.
What about images from STOCK.XCHNG? It's normal for the image authors on the site to label their images as "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." but the cite pretty clearly states that all downloaded images are subject to a list of rules, including: "# Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here. # You are not allowed to use any of the images found herein for the purpose of spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures. # You are not allowed to use these images to promote adult oriented and dating services. The same goes for drug retailers!"
If we're trying to harmonize the media in wikipedia under GFDL compatible licensing, then these may need to go, or at least have permission cleared with their authors.
Gregory Maxwell:
On 5/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged.
What about images from STOCK.XCHNG?
We have cleared this already on the Wikimedia Commons. In short, the terms of use are invalid, and the click-through declaration on the upload submission form of the site is what matters, since there is no transfer of rights to Stock.Xchng. If the uploader -- the copyright holder -- specifies that there are no usage restrictions on the photo, we can use it as such.
See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stock.xchng_images/vote http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stock.xchng_images
All best,
Erik
On 5/20/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
We have cleared this already on the Wikimedia Commons. In short, the terms of use are invalid, and the click-through declaration on the upload submission form of the site is what matters, since there is no transfer of rights to Stock.Xchng. If the uploader -- the copyright holder -- specifies that there are no usage restrictions on the photo, we can use it as such.
Ugh. Without a clear grant we have no right to use the images whatsoever. Copyright defaults closed not open. But I'll accept that the decision has been made and I will complain no more. ... and I will still replace at least the lower quality ones with GFDLed image as the opportunity presents itself.
Gregory:
Ugh. Without a clear grant we have no right to use the images
The grant is clear. In fact, the grant is more clear than the grant to license your Wikipedia contributions as GFDL. It's an agreement on the upload form where the copyright holder has to make a conscious decision to put no usage restrictions on their photo. Wikipedia, on the other hand, merely states that by editing, you implicitly license your contributions under GFDL -- a less clear grant, but I'm sure you will agree that it is sufficient.
If Wikipedia put, in its terms of service, a clause that none of its content may be used commercially without written permission from the Wikimedia Foundation, that clause would be meaningless. The Wikimedia Foundation is not the copyright holder; the individual contributors are, and they indicate their choice of license by editing. It would be even more silly for Wikimedia to do so if the pages themselves state that the content is GFDL. This is effectively what Stock.Xchng is doing.
Erik
On 5/20/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Gregory: The grant is clear. In fact, the grant is more clear than the grant to license your Wikipedia contributions as GFDL.
I really must protest here.
The stock.xchng site rules (which presumably the uploader and downloader have both read) states that "1. Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here." so when a user indicates that there "are no usage restrictions" it would appear quite clear that they are speaking in terms of condition 1 on the website. ... These terms would likely permit the normal use in wikipedia articles, but they should not be accepted in commons and we should probably find them unacceptable like we find non-commercial-only media unacceptable.
In copyright law usage and redistribution are distinct concepts, my GFDLed works are available to you without any restriction on usage and with a clear set of grants and conditions on redistribution. It's not clear that without a written contract if any limitation on *usage* could ever be imposed on a copyrighted work, in any case.
Even if you disagree that usage and redistribution are distinct, the terms on the stock.xchng website make it quite clear that the licensesor of the works considers them distinct for the purpose of establishing your rights to redistribute his works.
If I were a stock.xchng contributor I'd be quite rightfully angered if I stumbled across my work listed on wikipedia as 'public domain' (which some of them are). Our behavior is especially in inexcusable in light of the fact that stock.xchng usually provides a means to email a contributor and strongly encourages such communications: Why are we even bothering to argue over stock.xchng when we could just contact the copyright holders directly?
Wikipedia has grown past the point where we need to rely on grey legality images, and preserving them only discourages people who would submit free ones in their place.
Gregory Maxwell:
The stock.xchng site rules (which presumably the uploader and downloader have both read) states that "1. Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here." so when a user indicates that there "are no usage restrictions" it would appear quite clear that they are speaking in terms of condition 1 on the website.
No, this is not clear at all. In fact, the upload form contains no link to the terms of service; it links to http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=license which says nothing at all about any further restrictions. When I upload a file, I get a dropdown:
usage rights [no restrictions ] contact me contact me and credit me written permission needed
This is the only grant that takes place. For the purposes of Wikimedia, we have always considered {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} to allow for distribution.
Even if you disagree that usage and redistribution are distinct, the terms on the stock.xchng website make it quite clear that the licensesor of the works considers them distinct for the purpose of establishing your rights to redistribute his works.
Not at all. For example, the TOS also state
"You are not allowed to use these images to promote adult oriented and dating services."
This is clearly a restriction on *use*, even if the uploader specifies no usage restrictions. The TOS contradict the copyright holder's own explicit assignment. They are irrelevant. (It is also quite likely that they were written before sxc.hu had a usage rights dropdown, as this was only added in version 4 of their software.)
Wikipedia has grown past the point where we need to rely on grey legality images,
I do not consider this grey at all, and nor does the vast majority of the Wikimedia Commons community, including Villy, who is a judge and also provides legal advice to Wikimedia. However, if an sxc.hu uploader feels that one of their images is improperly used, then we will of course take that into account.
Erik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thing is, if someone says "contact me for permission", and gives a possibly years unused email address, what can you do? People who give Yahoo, Hotmail or other free webmail addresses are virtually unreachable, because
a) the account could be dead b) the account could get so much spam that messages never get through c) the account might be alive but not used anymore
I can think of at least one image where this is the case. I tried emailing the author, but got no response.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On 5/20/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Thing is, if someone says "contact me for permission", and gives a possibly years unused email address, what can you do? People who give Yahoo, Hotmail or other free webmail addresses are virtually unreachable, because
a) the account could be dead b) the account could get so much spam that messages never get through c) the account might be alive but not used anymore
I can think of at least one image where this is the case. I tried emailing the author, but got no response.
Right, in those cases we just don't use the image. In the case of image on stock.xchng with "no usage restrictions", it's simple enough to send an email informing them that we like their work, and would like to make use of it... This doesn't preclude us going ahead and using it (although I think this is not wise), but it does potentially cut complaints early on, and could likely encourage some more direct contributors.
On 5/20/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
No, this is not clear at all. In fact, the upload form contains no link to the terms of service; it links to http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=license which says nothing at all about any further restrictions. When I upload a file, I get a dropdown:
When I follow that link I get to a page with some generic instructions, there is a 'terms' button on the top which has the ruls for both uploaders and downloaders.
usage rights [no restrictions ] contact me contact me and credit me written permission neededThis is the only grant that takes place. For the purposes of Wikimedia, we have always considered {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} to allow for distribution.
When you sign up an account it presents you with a little box with the terms as well.
Even if you disagree that usage and redistribution are distinct, the terms on the stock.xchng website make it quite clear that the licensesor of the works considers them distinct for the purpose of establishing your rights to redistribute his works.
Not at all. For example, the TOS also state
"You are not allowed to use these images to promote adult oriented and dating services."This is clearly a restriction on *use*, even if the uploader specifies no usage restrictions.
My point related to that was that use restrictions in absence of a written contract may or may not be legally binding. It was more of an aside than anything else, Just because one rule disagrees with the users dropdown doesn't invalidate the whole thing.
The TOS contradict the copyright holder's own explicit assignment. They are irrelevant. (It is also quite likely that they were written before sxc.hu had a usage rights dropdown, as this was only added in version 4 of their software.)
The terms on the site refer to the specific terms set per image by the holder over and over again.
Wikipedia has grown past the point where we need to rely on grey legality images,
I do not consider this grey at all, and nor does the vast majority of the Wikimedia Commons community, including Villy, who is a judge and also provides legal advice to Wikimedia. However, if an sxc.hu uploader feels that one of their images is improperly used, then we will of course take that into account.
I notice that you didn't reply to my comment on contacting the copyright holder.. with as many places as that's advised on the site, you'd think that the submitters at wikipedia wouldn't be so averse to it. If you're so sure that the stock.xchng contributors will not mind, then why not have a policy of sending the request? It should bring us more direct contributors.
Gregory Maxwell:
When you sign up an account it presents you with a little box with the terms as well.
As http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stock.xchng_images/vote explains, the TOS distinguish between terms for *uploaders* and terms for *downloaders*. The terms for uploaders do not require them to delegate any rights to SXC, nor do they place any additional restrictions on the photos. SXC has no legal standing to dictate terms for downloaders beyond those the copyright holders agree to (by specifying the usage restrictions and following the terms for uploaders).
The terms on the site refer to the specific terms set per image by the holder over and over again.
This is exactly what we are referring to as well.
I notice that you didn't reply to my comment on contacting the copyright holder..
There's nothing wrong with it. We simply don't require it.
Erik
On 5/20/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
There's nothing wrong with it. We simply don't require it.
So after this email I went ahead and attempted to contact about 9 copyright holders whos works were from stock.xchng, it would have been 10 but one of them already had all his work taken off stock.xchng for it being copyright violating (trying to get clarification on that from stock.xchng).
My emails basically said "I noticed your picture is being used in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia article on [link]" gush gush how wonderful and how it improves the article then "I noticed that it is labeled public domain, I know stock.xchng only gives you a few licensing options, and I wanted to know if this was an accurate description of how you intended to license your work?"
I've received three replies back so far, one indicating that her work was indeed "free for any use" but two who complained that stock.xchng isn't clear in their licensing and that their work isn't PD. One of them said his work is cc-by-nc-sa, and I've updated one of his images accordingly (but since most of the images have no attribution, it's difficult to go find all of his photos).
I find it really amusing that we went through the trouble of having a vote on this when we could have just asked the copyright holders.
Gregory:
I've received three replies back so far, one indicating that her work was indeed "free for any use" but two who complained that stock.xchng isn't clear in their licensing and that their work isn't PD. One of them said his work is cc-by-nc-sa,
That directly contradicts the terms they uploaded them under, which allow for commercial use. To say we have to contact every individual SXC user is like saying we have to contact people uploading their work as CC-BY-SA and make sure that they really "meant it." I disagree with that notion. If people explicitly upload images with "no usage restrictions", then that's what I think we should refer to, unless these people then contact us and complain about the usage.
Erik
On 5/20/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
That directly contradicts the terms they uploaded them under, which allow for commercial use. To say we have to contact every individual SXC user is like saying we have to contact people uploading their work as CC-BY-SA and make sure that they really "meant it." I disagree with that notion. If people explicitly upload images with "no usage restrictions", then that's what I think we should refer to, unless these people then contact us and complain about the usage.
As you pointed out, nothing on that site is clear and reliable enough to be binding. The users aren't given an option that represents cc-by-sa-nc. Sometimes they make statements like that on their user pages, I'd say I have evidence that shows we tend to ignore such things, but I can't tell what was on the userpage when we took the image. :)
If someone were to give us legal advice that they'd stand by, I highly doubt it would be anything except "don't touch those images with a 10 foot pole".
The vast majority of the images we have taken from stock exchange are mediocre images of everyday objects that almost any wikipedia with a camera could reproduce with little effort. Of the images I've looked at so far I could replace the majority with simllar images before sundown. It's silly to add risk and complexity for a bunch of images we could easily replace (door knobs, gumballs, etc). It shows a lack of forsight for us to make our collection less useful by clouding the waters by mixing in potentially questionable copyright status material.
Gregory Maxwell:
The vast majority of the images we have taken from stock exchange are mediocre images of everyday objects
Have you performed a survey? SXC is a community project just like Wikimedia. Besides everyday objects, it includes photos from all around the world, e.g.:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Orthodox_monk_in_curch%2C_Romania.jp... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Conquistador%27s_monument_in_Lisbon.... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alhambra_Grenade_mlkfj.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Autumn_on_lake%2C_Cottonwood%2C_Ariz... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ataturk%27s_Mausoleum_in_Ankara_%28t... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taj_Mahal_1_by_alexfurr.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Medina_tower_in_Sousse%2C_Tunisia.jp... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Andes_Mountain_by_Apile.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mekong_by_skawimp.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Truli_houses_in_Alberobello%2C_Italy... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Temple_of_Komombo_in_the_late_aftern...
If you can manage to take equivalent photos of all these locations in one afternoon, I'll be seriously impressed.
In its terms and marketing, SXC is clearly intended as a free (as in speech) content repository. As a community, we have decided that the most sensible policy is to follow the *usage terms stated on the image description pages*.
I agree with you that, if a photographer states contradictory terms in their profile, we should generally get in touch with them and clarify the situation. But photos which are unambiguously flagged as "no usage restrictions" are perfectly fine. There's no grey area here. It's not our job to proactively make sure that users have not mistakenly made their material available as free content.
However, SXC photos should *not* be labeled public domain. If you see them tagged as such, please change it to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
[...]
If you can manage to take equivalent photos of all these locations in one afternoon, I'll be seriously impressed.
This suggests an interesting contest for wikipedian photographers; who can illustrate the most previously-unillustrated articles, using only new photographs taken on a designated day? The articles should already exist at the time of the contest's announcement - no fair creating road intersection articles for the purpose! :-) Optionally, there should be no existing useful pictures on commons or in any language's article (though that's hard to check).
Stan
On 5/20/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
This suggests an interesting contest for wikipedian photographers; who can illustrate the most previously-unillustrated articles, using only new photographs taken on a designated day? The articles should already exist at the time of the contest's announcement - no fair creating road intersection articles for the purpose! :-) Optionally, there should be no existing useful pictures on commons or in any language's article (though that's hard to check).
Lets include replacing fair-use, status unknown, NC, and other various non-free images with images that are substantially similar but free. :)
The problem is that participants would cheat by saving up photos. :) and even if they didn't we'd end up with lots of duplicate photographs of the same easy-subjects. :)
I could go to a mall and get photographs of dozens of makes of cars I bet most cars are covered but lots of easy targets remain. :)
You also run into questions of quality, some snapshot of the thing in question is better than nothing, but it's better if the picture also teaches you something (i.e. not just some random product photo), and even better if it is ascetically pleasing at the same time. :)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The problem is that participants would cheat by saving up photos. :) and even if they didn't we'd end up with lots of duplicate photographs of the same easy-subjects. :)
All the better! Then we can choose the best one for the article. The other ones can remain on Commons, but needn't be used in Wikipedia articles.
Also, I think such an effort would be a great idea. While it is true that there are currently many "easy targets", it's all the better, because then they will be filled with images quickly. The contest will gather more meaning later when all the "easy targets" are exhausted!
0
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
[...]
If you can manage to take equivalent photos of all these locations in one afternoon, I'll be seriously impressed.
This suggests an interesting contest for wikipedian photographers; who can illustrate the most previously-unillustrated articles, using only new photographs taken on a designated day? The articles should already exist at the time of the contest's announcement - no fair creating road intersection articles for the purpose! :-) Optionally, there should be no existing useful pictures on commons or in any language's article (though that's hard to check).
Stan
.....either that, or a team effort, or "One to beam around the world, Scotty!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gregory Maxwell wrote: [snip]
The vast majority of the images we have taken from stock exchange are mediocre images of everyday objects that almost any wikipedia with a camera could reproduce with little effort. Of the images I've looked at so far I could replace the majority with simllar images before sundown. It's silly to add risk and complexity for a bunch of images we could easily replace (door knobs, gumballs, etc). It shows a lack of forsight for us to make our collection less useful by clouding the waters by mixing in potentially questionable copyright status material.
Does anyone have a *free* photo of doughnuts?
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
As I've asserted before, stock.xchng has no legal standing to make these conditions. They are not the copyright holder, nor have they been assigned any control over it.
Their terms and conditions are nothing to do with copyright permission at all. They are a (legally dubious) contract between stock.xchng and the individual downloader ONLY, even if the terms are valid. The downloader is, notably, NOT made to apply these conditions to anyone THEY give the image to.
The stock.xchng terms and conditions do not attach themselves to the downloaded image. They attach themselves to the person who does the downloading.
Furthermore, when you upload an image to stock.xchng and make it freely redistributable, you do not state that any conditions apply. You click on a checkbox that says 'no restrictions'.
The terms of the download page form the entirety of the license between copyright holder and downloader.
Given this, I would strongly suggest that removing stock.xchng images becuase of a legally dubious "contract" that only binds the original downloader and not subsequent reusers is premature.
Having said this, it wouldn't hurt to clarify with image owners and remove all doubt.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged.
What about images from STOCK.XCHNG? It's normal for the image authors on the site to label their images as "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." but the cite pretty clearly states that all downloaded images are subject to a list of rules, including: "# Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here. # You are not allowed to use any of the images found herein for the purpose of spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures. # You are not allowed to use these images to promote adult oriented and dating services. The same goes for drug retailers!"
If we're trying to harmonize the media in wikipedia under GFDL compatible licensing, then these may need to go, or at least have permission cleared with their authors.
I believe that the rule in law is that the specific overrides the general. In other words if the owner of the particular image wants to allow a broader use than the site itself, that's fine. Similarly, if one of our contributors wants to give users a broader right than what would be allowed by GFDL that's permissible. Some have already done that by invoking CC licensing.
Eccentric rules are often not enforceable. The fact that the intent may be commendable is not relevant.
Ec
On Friday, May 20, 2005 4:27 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged.
What about images from STOCK.XCHNG?
[Snip]
As has been discussed at length on Commons amongst other places, we have taken the (informed) decision to laughingly reject the parts of Stock.XChng's terms and conditions which seek to place upon viewers of images on their site things that only the copyright owners have the power to do, namly restrict their future use. If the owner says "no restrictions", then their images are indeed not under any restrictions, and, effectively, it's Stock.XChng's problem that their users are saying things that Stock.XChng doesn't want them to.
Yours,