On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29

If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do not have moral/authorship rights.

Even if you were the author, how does ebay business violate your moral rights?

-- John Vandenberg

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and then pokes at the holes it created.

Note the actual statement: "The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale."

And the rebuttal: "If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do not have moral/authorship rights."

This vendor offers hundreds of items for sale, a substantial number of which are obviously copyrighted: among a group of NASA photographs, a publiciity shot of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura, a portrait of Thurgood Marshall owned by the NAACP, and a potrait of Jane Russell taken by George Hurrell.

The vendor does not credit Hurrell or any other creative contributor. Several of them, such as Carol Highsmith, are still alive and active.  Some of these images may violate Wikimedians' copyleft licenses; featured pictures have been stolen for commercial purposes before.

Have you identified any items for sale which are from Wikimedia projects and not clearly marked as being in the public domain?

Luckily the ebay items have sufficient metadata that we should be able to track them all down. A big job, but worth doing.

In his eagerness to construct a strawman, John Vandenberg ignores all these factors.  This is one reason why the pool of featured picture contributors is small.

You started this thread with "An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust." and "Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit."

Obviously I assumed that you were concerned that you and other restoration volunteers had some moral rights being violated.

My apologies for that assumption. It was a cop-out for me to say that faithful restorers have no moral rights. I wouldn't go as far as to say I was being simpleminded, but I am a bit biased in that regard.

As I am shocked to learn that I am somehow partly responsible for the pool of featured picture contributors being so small ... I'd better pick up my act and help identify the creators of these works and look for cases where moral rights have been violated.

Moral rights are only available in the U.S. for works of visual art, defined here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_... --- A “work of visual art” is— (1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or (2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author. A work of visual art does not include— (A) (i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; (ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container; (iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii); (B) any work made for hire; or (C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title. ----

So I doubt that any visual art is on Wikimedia, and no moral right violations according to that definition.

However non-U.S. creators have moral rights in their own jurisdictions, which can be asserted anywhere, so we should be looking for works by non-U.S. artists among the list of ebay items.

In the example you gave, the photographer is "Unknown Stroop Report photographer", which raises the question of whether unknown creators still have moral rights, given that they cant assert them.

In the next example, ebay item 200380798081 = Mount_Rushmore2.jpg, we identify the photographer as Rise Studio, a U.S. author.

ebay item 200380821338 = Vernon_and_Irene_Castle2.jpg, and we identify it as American photographer [[w:Frances Benjamin Johnston]].

To get the analysis underway, I have compiled a list of the 166 items sold in the last 90 days, removed/merged dups, and put them into a table. Currently there are 140 distinct items, but there may be some dups which I havent picked up.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/source4docs

I've added a comment for ebay item 200370665186, which is one of the items that you have mentioned in your original email.

I can also compile a list of unsold items.

-- John Vandenberg

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the matter certainly would be taken seriously.

Do you think? Based on past experience, the reaction is usually to laugh at the offending party for a) using Wikipedia text rather than writing their own, and b) failing to cite it. Can you think of instances where a high-profile plagiariser was reprimanded by the WMF for not meeting licence conditions?

Perhaps the difference with images is that there is nothing wrong or unusual with Time using a third party photo - no one expects them to produce all their own photos from scratch. So there remains only the question of the licence and giving proper credit.

And lastly, you're in the area of image restoration rather than image creation, which makes your creative work even more subtle and difficult to point to precisely. I guess these various factors combine to subdue the hoped for outrage from your fellow editors.

Is there any policy (or even expectation) for the WMF to contact third parties on editors' behalf? Ultimately, the issue of copyright infringement is between the producer of the work, and the party using it, with Wikipedia just an intermediary, right?

Steve

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:

I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given Durova credit for the restoration. But the "should" I'm using has to do with common decency--something that is becoming rather uncommon.

As that page stands, I'm not sure they *could* have done that, let alone *should*. There is not a single indication anywhere on that page that this image contains much hard work by a Wikipedian, and that that hard work should be acknowledged. There is the brief comment "Restored version of Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06.jpg with artifacts and scratches removed, levels adjusted, and image sharpened..", and there Durova's name is listed as the uploader...but you have to read between the lines to decide that Durova performed the work, and that that work is worth acknowledging.

Steve

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

.. A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a long time.  Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the reactions of text editors that range from apathetic to hostile when media contributors express concerns over exploitation.

Links?

One of our featured picture photographers discovered her work in use in a commercial advertisement, in violation of license and entirely without credit.  Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used uncredited by *Time* magazine.  To date, no one has joined my letter writing campaign to contact the magazine.  The magazine still isn't replying to email.

I found an email on WikiEn-l which is related, however it didn't mention any letter writing campaign there. The thread starts here:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101225.html (Image reuse - Jun 18, 2009)

The image that Durova is referring to this one:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brandeisl.jpg

.. used here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895379_1895421_1...

It is pretty poor form to not credit people however, as other people have mentioned, these images don't mention that attribution is required. {{Attribution|..}} would be the way for a restorer to indicate that they require attribution.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution

The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the matter certainly would be taken seriously.  The Brandeis restoration is also among the items exploted by this eBay vendor.

IMO, restorers are not creating a new work. If they think that they have created a new work, they should add additional copyright/attribution templates.

Translations are legally considered to be a new work that is derived. On Wikisource, contributors can release them into the public domain, or license them under a free license. Here is an example of each.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Balade_to_Rosemounde http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/J%27accuse

However asserting copyright over faithful restorations is considered copyfraud by some people, myself included depending on the circumstances.

An example of why can be seen in one of your own restorations that was mentioned in that same email to WikiEn-l. You were concerned that this image was a unattributed copy.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_MacArthur_lands_Leyte1.jpg http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/images/kamikaze/MacArthur_250.jpg (from http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/kamikaze.html)

You told me privately that the histogram is different, indicating that it cant be proven that it is your image. Two restorations can look nearly identical, because it is skill rather than art. Your restoration is clearly much better because it is a higher resolution, leaving less imperfections, but I can't label you an artist because of this.

Opinions differ on this, and as a result different jurisdictions draw the line at different points. This is essentially the same problem as a photograph of a visual art work, which has caused grief recently.

OTOH, Wikipedia/Wikibook/Wikinews/etc text is clearly a creative work, so it is legally clear that it is a new work.

On the other hand, if Time was "plagiarising" text which was "restored" on Wikisource, I'd be pleased as punch. ;-)

Here is a magazine blog using text from two of the Wikisource featured texts, thankfully with links to Wikisource. We have no idea where they are used if they dont mentioned Wikisource.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21159

In regards to effort, featured texts all take at least as long as featured image restorations, so I feel your pain there.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_specimen_of_the_botany_of_New_Holland http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fatal_fall_of_Wright_airship http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charles_von_H%C3%BCgel http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/The_Late_Mr._Charles_Babbage,_F.R.S. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Early_Settlers_Along_the_Mississippi

We have produced a PDF of the last one, and marked it as CC-0 (public domain).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Early_Settlers_Along_the_Mississippi.pdf

The following work would be at least a man-month of effort to scan and digitise.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_%28House_Report_No._94-...

You can read more about the importance of that digitisation project here:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/06/17/an-open-access-success-story...

These will all be at least man-months to complete.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Index:United_States_Statut...

Further afield, the Gutenberg etexts rarely contain attribution, and the Project Gutenberg license clearly states that redistribution is permitted if either a) the file is unmodified, or b) all trace of Project Gutenberg is removed (section 1.E)

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Header_How-To

Our pool of talented media contributors is not deep.  Wikipedia has exactly one FP photographer from sub-Saharan Africa, who has expressed similar complaints.  Much of our best visual content is location-specific: cityscapes, landmarks, and species can seldom be transmitted via interlibrary loan.

If it doesn't shock you to see even the Holocaust exploited then I'll shake my head and move on.  It isn't easy to expand the volunteer pool under these conditions.  But a new group of high resolution images arrived from the Tropenmuseum today; when one door closes another one opens.

Please don't use the Holocaust in this way. You should know how inappropriate that can be.

-- John Vandenberg

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:

2009/9/17 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com

...

The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input and no share of authorship.

I personally think image restoration is more like painting by numbers than creative work.

It's like "creating" an Ikea bookcase: there is some *skill* involved but no artistic or creative input. And if it's done properly, there's no way of telling who did assembled the bookcase, or indeed restored the image.

There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.

Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve recognition. For example, writing some Wikipedia articles can be formulaic and done "by the numbers". But you don't see people saying this is not creative or skilful.

And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be controversial.

See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation-restoration

In particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation-restoration#Preventive_Conservatio...

And also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_restoration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_conservation

There has long been a debate between conservation and restoration. Is it better to conserve something, or to restore it? In the case of digital photos, you can do digital restoration, while the original has conservation techniques applied to it, as Durova or someone has mentioned before.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:

...

There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.

Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve recognition.

That would be sweat of the brow. US law not care about such things (which is why the NPG is sueing in the UK).

Yeah, I know. But you are missing the point. Re-read the thread.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

A depressing number of people trying to argue their way around the creativity requirement in US copyright.

Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done. It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws and other ethical and moral concerns beside US copyright laws. If you look at everything only through the lens of US copyright law, you will get a distorted picture of the world.

And yes, I know for most purposes related to Wikipedia, US copyright laws are all that usually need to be considered. But not all.

Carcharoth

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

Carcharoth wrote:

...

Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done. It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws and other ethical and moral concerns beside US copyright laws. If you look at everything only through the lens of US copyright law, you will get a distorted picture of the world.

Some European jurisdictions have ruled that colorizing a black-and-white copyright American film violates the owner's moral rights.

You are... agreeing with me?

Carcharoth

2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:

...

I personally think image restoration is more like painting by numbers

than

...

creative work.

It's like "creating" an Ikea bookcase: there is some *skill* involved but

no

...

artistic or creative input. And if it's done properly, there's no way of telling who did assembled the bookcase, or indeed restored the image.

There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.

Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve recognition.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it deserves recognition, and that it takes time. But as you say: it's not strictly creative. Assembling a thousand identical Ikea bookcases also takes time. :)

I had my first FP on Labour Day and that was a restored image. When I submitted the restoration I knew full well that I was submitting it to a site that allowsall content to be reused commercially, and that no attribution was necessary. And I'm fine with that.

And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be controversial.

Matter of interpretation. Take this portrait I restored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin2.jpg Can you tell what I filled in? This is the original image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin.jpg

Skill involved, sure. But no artistry.

Adding a hand was an order of magnitude easier than adding the missing parts of his pants, by the way. :)

Michel

2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:

...

2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com

<snip>

...

...

And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be controversial.

Matter of interpretation. Take this portrait I restored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin2.jpg Can you tell what I filled in? This is the original image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin.jpg

Skill involved, sure. But no artistry.

Adding a hand was an order of magnitude easier than adding the missing

parts

...

of his pants, by the way. :)

Thanks for those examples. An excellent restoration. I'd love to discuss the missing hand in more detail some time, as that is a good example of something I think can be controversial. You absolutely have to make clear when that sort of thing is done, and how and why.

Ah: "Restored version of File:Andrew Curtin.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Curtin.jpg. Dust, scratches and tears removed. Parts reconstructed by using other half of stereophotograph[1] http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpbh.01289 Histogram adjusted and cropped."

Examples of when the line is crossed between adding things and

creating something new, would be good. I know of quite a few examples, but will have to come back to this later. Mainly digital composites and colouring ins of old photos.

Agree 100%.

Michel

2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:

Really, there should be a section for restoration notes. Shoehorning them into the "Other versions" field doesn't really work for the cases where you want to make clear what the work done was. Either it is routine enough not to need crediting, or it is involved enough and sufficiently different to require detailed notes.

Yes. Even though a restoration may not create a new copyright, it is absolutely relevant to have full details on the restoration, and to suggest reusers note the restoration (e.g. "Sir James Foo, 1875, photographed by Fred Bar, 2009 restoration by Fred Quux") so as to correctly inform their readers (as well as motivating the restorers).

The eBay reseller named at the top of this thread may (or may not) have done something morally questionable, but I think it's a major stretch to claim they've actually done something illegal, or would lose if sued.

- d.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

The eBay reseller named at the top of this thread may (or may not) have done something morally questionable, but I think it's a major

I'm not seeing it. They're printing public domain images sourced from an open source image repository and selling them to the public. This is exactly one of the purposes the Wikipedia family is supposed to serve. Now, this thread has been a bit unclear about whether we're supposedly outraged simply over the lack of attribution (as pointed out, no attribution was requested, or even facilitated), or about the idea of selling photos of the holocaust, or about the idea of selling public domain content, or the idea of selling CC content. If the outrage is over any of the last three things, well we're all a little bit confused and should remind ourselves why we contribute to Wikipedia.

Steve

2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com

If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire. Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free culture movement. Look at the "paint by numbers" analogies within this list thread:

many people cannot distinguish between careful hand restoration and simple

crop/filter/auto-levels editing. My featured picture restorations take about ten hours' labor on average and one of my greatest fears is that fellow Wikimedians will mistake that for five minutes of running plug-ins. Imagine how simple it would be for an institution to protect its income stream by exploiting that confusion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. I know firsthand that hand restoration takes time. I also know that some people can't distinguish hand restoration from dust&scratches + auto levels.

I stand by my painting by numbers analogy for most digital restorations. But even if it weren't the case, and digital restoration was as incomparibly hard an frought with judgement calls as, say, the [[Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes]]... do the restorers assert any rights? Should they be able to?

Michel

A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork. Creative copyright also attaches when the same tourist heads over to the Mona Lisa and takes another snapshot, since the frame around the Mona Lisa is three dimensional (there's also the creative joy of capturing dozens of tourist ballcaps in the periphery).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works

Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes. This was the man who said, "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!" Working on his portrait at 700% resolution, I was fascinated by that quote.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdmFarragut.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adm2.jpg

At the time of that work I was thinking if it came out right, a viewer might imagine for an instant that Admiral Farragut was capable of turning and ordering another assault on New Orleans. Of course with eyes a few pixels moved and the expression could have turned out entirely different.

-Durova

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:

2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com

...

If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire. Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free culture movement. Look at the "paint by numbers" analogies within this list thread:

many people cannot distinguish between careful hand restoration and simple

...

crop/filter/auto-levels editing. My featured picture restorations take about ten hours' labor on average and one of my greatest fears is that fellow Wikimedians will mistake that for five minutes of running

plug-ins.

...

Imagine how simple it would be for an institution to protect its income stream by exploiting that confusion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. I know firsthand that hand restoration takes time. I also know that some people can't distinguish hand restoration from dust&scratches + auto levels.

I stand by my painting by numbers analogy for most digital restorations. But even if it weren't the case, and digital restoration was as incomparibly hard an frought with judgement calls as, say, the [[Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes]]... do the restorers assert any rights? Should they be able to?

Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:

If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you truly restored it? Or have you created something new?

For that matter, what about the restoration of the Dresdner Frauenkirche? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Frauenkirche

2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com

Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to compare them.

I could not disagree more. But I get the impression this is a discussion that would be a lot easier to have in person rather than by e-mail, so I'll graciously bow out. :)

Michel

You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive concepts.

-Durova

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

...

Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes.

Some would say that any attempt to recreate the eyes and present it as a "restored" photograph is misleading. It crosses the line into a a new creation, rather than a restoration. Intuitive, maybe, creative, yes, but accurate? Who can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes#Eyes

If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you truly restored it? Or have you created something new?

Carcharoth

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

David Gerard wrote:

I suspect (as you've noted) that copyright may not be the right tool for the job. (It would undoubtedly encourage restorations, but the cultural price may not be appropriate. But that's getting more to the philosophical.)

Copyright law is already pretty screwed up; piling a bigger load on that horse doesn't help.

I think what we need to do - a practical action that we can do at present - is more encourage a culture of crediting restorers. This means naming the restorers, details of the restoration, etc. on the image pages.

To a point. But how much restoration deserves mention. Some may only be noticeable at high resolution; for someone whose needs are fulfilled by a low resolution image the restoration may be of no value.

Noting the restorer is of course best practice, to be accurate about image provenance if nothing else. Encouraging third parties to actually do so is going to be a long and gentle process. It's hard enough to get media reusers to credit an image with more than "Wikipedia" when it's under an attribution licence, let alone list any detail they're not absolutely forced to by law.

Credit to "Wikipedia" is about as much as you can realistically expect. For the many who don't even realize that they can edit themselves Wikipedia is only one monolithic entity. The thought process that distinguishes individual Wikipedia contributors from the monolith only begins when they become aware of their own ability to edit.

With the spread of free culture, I suspect credit will become more common as a social expectation, which is why getting into crediting restorers is a good thing to start now.

Optimist!!!

Ec

Durova wrote:

You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive concepts.

I would frame it somewhat differently by saying that restoration and *original* input are mutually exclusive. In printed matter it brings up questions about correcting spelling errors or typos in the original of a text, or altering the spelling of a British text for publication in the US. The further we drift from the original, the mor3e important it is to have the changes documented.

Ec

2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com

A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork. Creative copyright also attaches when the same tourist heads over to the Mona Lisa and takes another snapshot, since the frame around the Mona Lisa is three dimensional (there's also the creative joy of capturing dozens of tourist ballcaps in the periphery).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works

Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes. This was the man who said, "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!" Working on his portrait at 700% resolution, I was fascinated by that quote.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdmFarragut.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adm2.jpg

At the time of that work I was thinking if it came out right, a viewer might imagine for an instant that Admiral Farragut was capable of turning and ordering another assault on New Orleans. Of course with eyes a few pixels moved and the expression could have turned out entirely different.

Er... yes, *and*?

Yes, restoration can be a lot of work (Farragut's eyes don't strike me as particularly hard to tackle or controversial, but that's perhaps just me -- I did a much trickier one the other month that arguably crossed the line of OR, where I corrected a double exposure, brr).

Sure, photography can be very easy to do. And sometimes it's very hard to do. Sometimes there's no creativity involved, and sometimes there is.

And?

I'm terribly sorry, but still don't get your point. Are you begrudging photographers their rights?

I get that you're frustrated that many people don't realise hand restoration can be a lot of work in terms of man-hours and that there's some skill involved a the occasional judgement call, but what would be your ideal outcome?

An additional field in photo credits (if and when they ever show up in articles) for the restorer(s)? A different type of license?

Michel

Thanks for the kind words, David.

With digital restoration, often one encounters elements about the original that are unknowable. A couple of examples follow.

Segregated drinking fountain, North Carolina, 1938: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938b.jpg

The child is pushing away from the fountain and rotating on his hip with one foot raised, turning to get away from the photographer. Which suggests that the shot was taken very quickly: not much time to get an ideal composition.

What was the photographer's intention? Many Americans of the 1930s had a view of the subject that would be intolerable today. Farm Security Administration photographers were discouraged from photographing racial issues so the fact that this image exists raises intriguing possibilities.

That's a courthouse at upper left. It stayed in frame while the crop took out the curb, outbuilding, and power lines. There are several ways to explain the reasons for this crop in terms of overexposure and compositional principles, one of which is the dynamic effect of diagonal lines. There's a diagonal from the courthouse to the segregated fountain sign to the child: cropping kept that diagonal but moved the center off the child to a midpoint between the sign and the child, enhancing tension between the two.

I don't know what John Vachon thought when he took this, but to my eye this is about the difference between law and justice. It's possible that I changed the entire POV of the photograph.

---- Early this year when I worked on the Wounded Knee Massacre restoration (which discovered four human remains and became a minor news story), it was a pattern of five dark spots which seemed to follow the contours of the snow that led to the discovery.

http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/01/discoveries-and-tough-decisions.html

These finds don't quite happen accidentally. I browse through thousands of files looking for ones that might have something interesting in them. That original had an unusual composition: why were there several large bundles in the foreground? The bibliographic record is often underdocumented, so subtle cues within the image itself may be all one ever has to go by.

Old photographs often have thousands of dust and dirt specks. So how does one tell random degradation from meaningful information? Dust from blood?

Genuine photographic elements often look slightly different from print damage, but software plugins aren't trustworthy at telling the difference. Intelligent decisions often require a knowledge of historic context.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching.jpg

Yes, it's a lynching. His feet are only a few inches above the forest floor; his shadow nearly meets his foot. Beneath him there's also a discoloration. Is that a stain on the negative or real part of the scene? Well, it seems to be directly beneath something dripping from his left shoe.

There appears to be a pattern of drip stains on the left leg of his overalls from the ankle to the knee. Then a similar discoloration in a circular pattern at his crotch. Could the elements be related?

People who were being hanged have been known to lose bladder control. Yet I suspect something worse. Look at the stains on his shoe again. That's unusually dark for a urine stain, and it shines in the sunlight. Possibly dried blood. This man may have been castrated.

High resolution digitized photos of lynching are hard to find. This one happened to have the right technical specifications for restoration; it is--within its gruesome subject--comparatively understated. Others show more obvious mutilation, often with a crowd of smiling vigilantes next to the corpse. The perpetrators were hardly ever prosecuted.

I can't mention this speculation onsite because the circumstances are unconfirmed. The man's name and the location are unknown. The photograph was taken in 1925.

---- It helps to speak from experience when discussing digital restoration.

-Durova

I agree from this, and your previous post, that restoring historical images can be a difficult process, particularly when the images themselves may have originally been pure factual journalism rather than having a polemical purpose, although in my experience, that is more allied to the commentary attached than the image itself. In the case you cite, processing an image may well involve some interpretation of the depiction, and you rightly point out some of the pitfalls involved. Absent the intention of the photographer, who may not even have considered how his image may have been used (as long as he was paid), making assumptions I believe to be unhelpful, and even Original Research. All this convinces me that image restoration should be limited to correcting obvious physical defects in the source, and not going beyond that. I am not in any way criticising those who do this (after all, I've done it with my own images, although I do know what I intended when I created the image), bur I do believe that restoration should not blur into interpretation.</ramble>

Durova wrote:

...

Here's the "after" link for the second example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching2.jpg

After all the work was done it was startling to pull back and view at thumbnail. It's possible to look at the unrestored file and seek visual reminders of "this was long ago"; restoration takes away that comfortable little refuge.

I wonder whether it's still possible to identify him.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks for the kind words, David.

With digital restoration, often one encounters elements about the original that are unknowable. A couple of examples follow.

Segregated drinking fountain, North Carolina, 1938: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938b.jpg

The child is pushing away from the fountain and rotating on his hip with one foot raised, turning to get away from the photographer. Which suggests that the shot was taken very quickly: not much time to get an ideal composition.

What was the photographer's intention? Many Americans of the 1930s had a view of the subject that would be intolerable today. Farm Security Administration photographers were discouraged from photographing racial issues so the fact that this image exists raises intriguing possibilities.

That's a courthouse at upper left. It stayed in frame while the crop took out the curb, outbuilding, and power lines. There are several ways to explain the reasons for this crop in terms of overexposure and compositional principles, one of which is the dynamic effect of diagonal lines. There's a diagonal from the courthouse to the segregated fountain sign to the child: cropping kept that diagonal but moved the center off the child to a midpoint between the sign and the child, enhancing tension between the two.

I don't know what John Vachon thought when he took this, but to my eye this is about the difference between law and justice. It's possible that I changed the entire POV of the photograph.

---

Early this year when I worked on the Wounded Knee Massacre restoration (which discovered four human remains and became a minor news story), it was a pattern of five dark spots which seemed to follow the contours of the snow that led to the discovery.

http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/01/discoveries-and-tough-decisions.html

These finds don't quite happen accidentally. I browse through thousands of files looking for ones that might have something interesting in them. That original had an unusual composition: why were there several large bundles in the foreground? The bibliographic record is often underdocumented, so subtle cues within the image itself may be all one ever has to go by.

Old photographs often have thousands of dust and dirt specks. So how does one tell random degradation from meaningful information? Dust from blood?

Genuine photographic elements often look slightly different from print damage, but software plugins aren't trustworthy at telling the difference. Intelligent decisions often require a knowledge of historic context.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching.jpg

Yes, it's a lynching. His feet are only a few inches above the forest floor; his shadow nearly meets his foot. Beneath him there's also a discoloration. Is that a stain on the negative or real part of the scene? Well, it seems to be directly beneath something dripping from his left shoe.

There appears to be a pattern of drip stains on the left leg of his overalls from the ankle to the knee. Then a similar discoloration in a circular pattern at his crotch. Could the elements be related?

People who were being hanged have been known to lose bladder control. Yet I suspect something worse. Look at the stains on his shoe again. That's unusually dark for a urine stain, and it shines in the sunlight. Possibly dried blood. This man may have been castrated.

High resolution digitized photos of lynching are hard to find. This one happened to have the right technical specifications for restoration; it is--within its gruesome subject--comparatively understated. Others show more obvious mutilation, often with a crowd of smiling vigilantes next to the corpse. The perpetrators were hardly ever prosecuted.

I can't mention this speculation onsite because the circumstances are unconfirmed. The man's name and the location are unknown. The photograph was taken in 1925.

---

It helps to speak from experience when discussing digital restoration.

-Durova

http://durova.blogspot.com/

-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.106/2381 - Release Date: 09/18/09 18:14:00

Durova wrote:

Restoration is inherently interpretive. Consider something simple: a newspaper cartoon in black and white. There are many possible whites; which do you select?

The reasonable assumption is that the background white is an unprinted area; the white is a function of the paper rather than of the printing.. Otherwise we need to distinguish between a printing on fresh paper and an old printing on paper that has since yellowed with age.

Ec

2009/9/17 Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu:

On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:

...

Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay seller did. It even says "The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." Your name only appears once on the page, and it doesn't say "attribution required" or "copyright" or anything like that...

This is what I said last time this issue came up, these pages are confusing in what some think are the appropriate way in which they should be used, and perhaps this could be clarified.

Yes, I'd agree here - the key is to figure out what we think the best practice for reusing these images would be, perhaps come up with a worked example or three, and then start looking at how to structure the image-description pages so as to encourage and help reusers to do this.

I wonder if we can persuade the usability people to look at image description pages next...

That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the question discourages further attempt.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." - Louis Armstrong

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

...

Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit. Other featured picture contributors may

want

...

to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being exploited. I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation. Made relevant phone calls this afternoon.

I still wish you would answer the original question: why are you angry, what do you think they have done wrong, and how do you think they were supposed to know that wanted to be credited, based on the information on the relevant image pages?

Or did you really just want to start an open discussion about the creativity involved in image restoration?

Steve

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

2009/9/22 wjhonson@aol.com:

The group itself should be able to have a voice in what is and what is not policy for the group.

Absolutely. The WMF hosts the lists, so has a veto, but generally policy should be entirely determined by the users. Mods interpreting that policy can result in what is essentially new policy, though. (The same happens in law - judges often create new law when judging a specific case.)

As well the group should be able to know what *policy-based* actions are being taken and why.

Shining light on moderator actions, ensures that moderators take action that is fair, impartial, and applied evenly across the entire group.

For the most part, I agree. I can imagine situations where it is best to keep things quiet, but they would be very rare.

2009/9/22 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:

Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

...

Absolutely. The WMF hosts the lists, so has a veto, but generally policy should be entirely determined by the users. Mods interpreting that policy can result in what is essentially new policy, though. (The same happens in law - judges often create new law when judging a specific case.)

Very accurate.

I myself just thought up a new idea that could sort of solve some of the crosstalk, OTOT, and noise issues people have been complaining about (as if foundation-l was ever supposed to be as sanitized as a PR/announce list).

Essentially we can just create a new mailing list for well..  mailing list issues. Not exactly a coffee-table book about coffee-tables, just a place for people deal with all things mail, until mail itself is replaced with some kind of Slashclone/mailmanager hybrid.

I had exactly the same idea a few weeks ago and discussed it here briefly. In fact, you know that - you proposed it on bugzilla afterwards:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20209

There was no real support for it. If people here are interested, then we can reopen the idea.

Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

I had exactly the same idea a few weeks ago and discussed it here briefly. In fact, you know that - you proposed it on bugzilla afterwards: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20209 There was no real support for it. If people here are interested, then we can reopen the idea.

I'm not interested if I can't take credit for thinking up your idea.

-Stevertigo

A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually gets derailed.

Not derailed in a malicious sense; derailed because there isn't enough shared agreement to communicate. It's as if two groups came together to discuss geometry and didn't realize they meant different geometries. Your previous post was like asking whether I had come here to discuss the parallel lines postulate. That's an "aha" moment which shows the Euclideans were scratching their heads while I was discussing spherical planes.

It is eye-opening to see the assumptions that get put forward. Possibly the best thing that can come out of our discussion is to step back and examine what this tells about the audience. Your points are numbered and articulate, but I hesitate to answer them as framed. It's like asking about "flatness" when you're certain parallel lines never meet and I'm specifically discussing a situation where they do.

The *Signpost* has an open request for editorials. I'll be drafting something for them. It won't answer your questions directly, but it will explain the underlying importance of *access*. That's absolutely essential for historic media discussions. Think of *provenance* as a proof that derives from *access*.

-Durova

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

...

That question has already been answered several times, in several ways.

I

...

am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside

the

...

question discourages further attempt.

Ok, I've read through all your posts on this thread again, and here's are the points I see you making:

1. You do restorations of images and they take a lot of time and effort.
2. People have advised you to claim copyright/left over those

restorations, but you resist doing so because it may harm the copyleft movement in general. 3) People are selling some of your images on eBay without crediting you, which you feel breaches your "moral rights". 4) Physical restoration and digital restoration are very different, and it is difficult to define exactly how much effort should be put into a digital restoration for it to count as a creative work in its own right. 5) Some discussion about how best to carry out certain restorations, which isn't relevant here.

I have made the following point:

1. The two images in question that I looked at were both clearly

marked "public domain", with the clear assertion that anyone could reuse these images for any purpose whatsoever. Further, the images neither clearly asserted you as the creator, nor requested (let alone, demanded) that people attribute you (or anyone) as an author.

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse or dense here, but I don't see how you've addressed my question, which is, in its simplest form: why do you think the eBay vendor in question is at fault? They took an image clearly marked "public domain", with no authorship information or request for attribution, printed it and sold it, well within their rights.

To state my position even more clearly:

1. I'm on your side. I think you're doing a great job restoring

valuable images for Wikipedia and the wider community. 2) It seems ethical to me that a person should acknowledge the hard work someone has put into producing the work that they are now profiting from, but I have no idea of the legalities. 3) I think your position would be a lot stronger if the image pages in question identified you more clearly or asserted your request for acknowledgement.

Is the issue that you want acknowledgement but don't want to assert authorship? How do you expect end reusers of your content to figure it out?

I hope this isn't a flamewar, I really want to figure out where you're coming from so perhaps we can offer some useful advice or help in some way.

Steve

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

David, please reread the entire thread and view the eBay store of this vendor. It's quite obvious that this vendor does violate copyrights: in the middle of a section of mostly public domain NASA shots, a publicity portrait of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura. And a 1930s portrait of Walt Disney with Mickey Mouse, offered at exactly the same price as the public domain material? Disney Inc. charges a premium when it licenses its properties; check the price tags at any Disney store. Various examples like that are littered throughout its eBay store.

Part of the reason I started this thread was because I confirmed that this vendor uses our featured pictures and am uncertain how far that overlap extends. This vendor jumbles historic material with recent photography, much of which is public domain but a significant minority of which isn't. Some of that public domain material is quite recent such as Carol Highsmith's photography. We have Highsmith featured pictures, but I don't trust myself recognize every Highsmith from our own volunteer-created copyleft photographic FPs--not with regard to a collection this large that credits none of the authors.

When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers over license violation problems. It doesn't come as too much of a surprise to see confusion emerge instead. But David, to construct a cherry picked insult is beneath you. With your long commitment to free culture, I really expected better.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:

...

A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can

hold

...

focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually gets derailed.

Y'know, if you're going to claim something is a violation of copyright or moral rights, it helps if you could actually answer the questions Steve asked. I've been waiting all thread for the answers too.

If you can only say "ah, but I'm actually talking in restorer language" when you're using terms with precise and specific meanings, then it's not us making communication difficult.

If you think you can only communicate by redefining English words to mean what you need them to to make your point, that's unlikely to help either.

Even if you think you answered Steve's questions, please accept my assurance that you really, really haven't. Could you please go through the list of questions he posted and actually answer them? This will definitely help those of us (almost everyone here, from the looks of it) who don't speak restorer like a native.

• d.

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:

...

When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers over license violation problems.

That's a large statement, and it needs substantiation to convince. Please list the examples you are thinking of.

No David, I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is

step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread nonproductive. My previous attempts to clarify matters with specific examples led to accusations that I had taken the thread off topic. I will not go down that path again in this discussion. Particularly not when the audience is as hostile as you have been. That way lieth the flame war.

-Durova

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:

...I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread nonproductive.

On that note, you stated in the second post of the thread that "The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale." This confused me and is probably one of those differing assumptions that derailed the thread. As I understand it based on the moral rights Wikipedia article you linked, moral rights only exist for copyrighted works (and are not part of U.S. copyright law). That, at least, is the technical legal scope of moral rights as I understand it. So as I understand it, moral rights would not apply to either public domain works or restorations that do not generate a new copyright.

You seem to mean something different by moral rights, perhaps a broader philosophical concept. The Wikipedia article lists a number of different moral rights (including "the right to the integrity of the work", which in some formulations is in conflict with the concept of free culture). Explaining what you meant by moral rights (which moral rights, and whose--creator and/or restorationist?) might help clear up the differing assumptions issue.

-Sage

2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:

Am wrapping up a Google Document on another topic and planning a draft outline right now.  We all have our strengths and our weaknesses; multitasking isn't one of mine.  David's posts really looked like a bizarre attempt to bait me into a flame war just as the thread had reached its natural end.  As in: 'No no, you can't walk away.  You started this thread and I don't like what I think I understand and I'm angry at you about that.'  Yes, David: I can walk away.  It's the right decision because this has proven itself to be the wrong venue.

No, I wanted to understand your claims as in any way sensible and without your personal attack on people asking what on earth you meant. Of course, this led to personal attacks on me. I suppose I should have seen that coming, but I lived in hope.

As I said: if you're attempting to convince people who don't already agree with you, you're not going to manage it with the approach you took here. Worst case, you'll convince them your case is dead wrong even in the bits it isn't. Though I no longer think merely saying this will change the behaviour in question.

- d.

Durova wrote:

...But David, to construct a cherry picked insult is beneath you. With your long commitment to free culture, I really expected better.

Alright, enough.

Durova, your complaints about lack of literacy or comprehension appear somewhat disingenuous, given that you very well know that announcements about incidents of free culture being exploited by sleazy capitalists will get reactionary and even Pavlovian responses here. For future reference, any subtle distinctions like "[I] am uncertain how far that overlap extends" need to be clearly stated in bold print - maybe CAPS.

David wrote:

WTF. Remember that I'm one of the few here loudly agreeing with you about crediting restorers.

Ah. The all-importance of being 'loudly agreeable.' This might be less underproductive if you actually read Durova first - it took me well under a nansecond to understand that her post was at best pointless, if not altogether trolling for signs of transatlantic consciousness or, if not that, literacy.

-Stevertigo

;-|