Back in March of 2006, I did a check of image uploading. The results were, to put it bluntly, appalling.
I've re-done the check with a new batch of 1,945 images. This covers a little over two days' uploading, where the original set was 1,866 images uploaded in a little over 24 hours.
For 1,945 images uploaded and not later deleted, 1,960 license tags were applied.
858 images, or 44%, were tagged with a non-free content tag, up from 40% in 2006. with album covers and logos making up slightly more than half. The vast numbers of promotional photos that were uploaded in 2006 are nowhere to be seen: only 20 images were so tagged.
At least 917 images (47%) were tagged with a free-content license tag, up from 41% in 2006. The most popular tags are PD-Self (334 images), GFDL (250 images), and Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike (221 images)
Only 176 images (9%) did not have a license tag, a vast improvement over 2006, when 26% were untagged.
500 of the images were checked for tag correctness. Things are looking *much* better than they were in March 2006: of the 494 tags applied, 35 (7%) were clearly incorrect, and 34 invalid fair-use claims were made. In 2006, the error rates were 22% incorrect and 16% invalid fair-use claims.
The most-misused tag by count is the self-creation tag (at least 21 images were not self-created), with the GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0 dual-license tag especially problematic. By proportion, it's CC-BY-3.0 (5 out of 12 incorrect).
On the non-free content side of things, the problematic tags are {{non-free television screenshot}} (6 out of 10 used to illustrate a person's biography), {{non-free audio sample}} (3 out of 4 samples were over-long), and {{non-free promotional}} (2 out of 3 images were clearly replaceable). As before, album covers and logos tended to be used correctly (74 out of 84 and 46 out of 57, respectively).
28 out of 254 free-content tags were incorrect, compared to 7 out of 205 non-free-content tags. Breaking non-free content down by type of media and getting rid of the generic "fair use" tags ("promotional", "fair use", etc.) seems to have worked wonderfully.
We still need to do something about people uploading images with incorrect information, but it's far less of a problem than it used to be.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
We still need to do something about people uploading images with incorrect information, but it's far less of a problem than it used to be.
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
Is "I am the sole author" more clear?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
Is "I am the sole author" more clear?
Not to a younger editor, I think; I see many uploads of images lifted from websites of pop singers in which they claim to be the creator. Perhaps "I made this image myself" would be clearer to them, but even so, they do not seem to care that much about copyright issues. It causes admins a lot of work.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
Is "I am the sole author" more clear?
Not really, some folks think simply scanning an image makes them the "sole author". (of course the scanned image is a derivative of the original...)
2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
Is "I am the sole author" more clear?
Not really, some folks think simply scanning an image makes them the "sole author". (of course the scanned image is a derivative of the original...)
Despite much effort by media companies, people still don't think copying is inherently wrong. The internet folk cultures tend to settle on something sort of like CC by-nc-sa, where you count as "creator" of something even if the base image wasn't originally yours.
I wonder what wording would work:
"I created this from scratch" "I am the creator and copyright owner of the original base image"
something else?
"I own" is too often taken to mean "I own the book I scanned it from"
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
Is "I am the sole author" more clear?
Not really, some folks think simply scanning an image makes them the "sole author". (of course the scanned image is a derivative of the original...)
Despite much effort by media companies, people still don't think copying is inherently wrong. The internet folk cultures tend to settle on something sort of like CC by-nc-sa, where you count as "creator" of something even if the base image wasn't originally yours.
I wonder what wording would work:
"I created this from scratch" "I am the creator and copyright owner of the original base image"
something else?
"I own" is too often taken to mean "I own the book I scanned it from"
As I pointed out many hours ago, but I'm still waiting for that post to be moderated.
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com (...)
I wonder what wording would work:
"I created this from scratch"
(...)
My best work, done with about three lines of code from me includes about fifteen thousand lines of code from various contributors mentioned on the fractint.exe front page (Jason Osuch writing code, last time I checked). All I did was fill out a palette, mechanically, in the case of what is on [[chaos theory]]. (The one that resembles a side view of a mushroom, because it's only an iterations view, is not my best. {I didn't state the whole method in complex numbers mapped to the screen}). By best, I mean stuff that's easy to appreciate, like grayscales.
The best definition of fractal is "Simple rules with complex graphic and auditory results." Had I done it from scratch, then we might now be going beyond Command Line Interfaces and the internet would still be largely government-sponsored facilities (late 80s).
Worms out of the can expand, so you will need a bigger can. Cans always have an expiry date. _______ [http://www.playscreen.com/SherLok Money does not grow on trees unless you sell the fruit for substitute.]
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better term for it really. "creation" is such a nebulous concept for many people.
Is "I am the sole author" more clear?
There is a common view that they are going to upload the image, but they have to find the "right" tag. The idea that some images shouldn't be uploaded is a foreign idea to many people. This makes sense, as that situation isn't seen in many other websites or communities.
I think for a lot of people they might even know that self-created isn't right, but it's the *most* right, and the idea that if none of them are right they should give up and delete the image is very strange.