Wikipedia has passed the stage of being comparable to other encyclopedias you can access at no cost.
It's an encyclopedia. It's always comparable.
I meant "comparable" in the sense "about as good".
... and just as is the case for any other encyclopedia, the world doesn't end because we can't include some images.
Certainly. Nor will the world of our downstream users if they can't use every single image Wikipedia itself can. They can't do that anyway because fair use only applies in the U.S.
This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an [[IBM 360]] in your backyard? Do you have a [[Z machine]]?
Funny you should ask that... I don't actually have a IBM360, but I have at various times had a number of large vaxen, and a few flavors of PDP. I've also had in my garage at various times, an airport style x-ray machine, several multiwatt lasers, the complete line of NeXT computers, a large optical jukebox, several hundred Sun workstations, and many other things.
So, no, I don't have a IBM 360, but people have a lot of equipment that you wouldn't expect.. If not at home then at work... I'm willing to bet some other Wikipedia user does, but they aren't likely to shoot pictures of it if there is already an unfree image on the page.
I'm sorry - this was a typo for [[IBM 1360]] which is the machine in question if you're following the thread. It's nice that we have free pictures of the IBM 360. And it's nice that you have had lots of stuff in your garage at various times.
and the Z machine is a perfect example of something where we can probably get a grant under CC-BY or GFDL.
Have you followed the discussion on the permission for the Z-machine picture? By all means, go ahead and ask them to release it under CC-BY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zmachine.jpg
Currently the image information page has a license which says:
"encyclopedia articles are fine. We only require a credit in the form, 'Courtesy, Sandia National Laboratories,'"
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia using that image even if non-encyclopec down-stream users can't. I'm sure they would allow a Wikibook too if you ask them. If you can get them to release it under CC-BY that would of course be great. And if you can get a PD image of a z-machine which is as good as this one I salute you.
If Wikipedia isn't getting enough photographs, we should reach out and encourage more photographers to join our community. A lack of content isn't an excuse to break the law.
No-one is suggesting we do.
Yes, actually people are... or rather there are some suggesting that images they've found on the internet should be acceptable for us to use.
No-one in this thread has suggested we break the law.
It is a simple matter for downstream users not to include images tagged used-with-permission. Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images in their main text.
Actually, it's a pain in the butt to remove the images because of the way we store the tagging.. once you mix in the inconsistency of the tagging it becomes impossible.
It's a straightforward technical problem. It's not "impossible", it's not even really that difficult.
The vast majority of the images going up on WP:PUI are images that are likely copyvio for even for us to use.. and are not examples of used with permission.
And it's good that we're removing those. I'm only concerned with used-with-permission images here.
And I can sympathise with people who don't give a rat's toenail for the current downstream users, much as I believe in the GFDL.
Sympathize as much as you like. Preserving freedom downstream is a goal of the project.
Yes. One that I am aware of and agree with.
Downstrem users doesn't just refer to random useless mirror on the internet, but also refers to people publishing printed works, and to other sister projects like wikibooks.
Yes. Unfortunately most downstream use up to this point has been useless mirroring.
I brought up fair use because it is almost universally the response to complaints that images are unfree.
It shouldn't be and we agree on that.
And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for fair use on Wikipedia.
I'm am strongly against abuse of fair use. I haven't noticed WP:PUI accepting images as fair use which shouldn't be... can you cite some examples?
No. But your comment above indicates that you are aware of the tendency of people to claim fair use when they're told that they can't use an image - including a used-with-permission image.
Regards, Haukur
On 7/4/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Certainly. Nor will the world of our downstream users if they can't use every single image Wikipedia itself can. They can't do that anyway because fair use only applies in the U.S.
The goal of the project is not to produce an encyclopedia with content that is free for some people for some uses.
It is our intention to provide an encyclopedia of completely free content which is free in perpetuity without descrimination of field of endeavor.
I'm sorry - this was a typo for [[IBM 1360]] which is the machine in question if you're following the thread. It's nice that we have free pictures of the IBM 360. And it's nice that you have had lots of stuff in your garage at various times.
My point was just because some piece of equipment is exotic, big, or expensive that doesn't mean that there are not people with the ability to photograph them.
and the Z machine is a perfect example of something where we can probably get a grant under CC-BY or GFDL.
Have you followed the discussion on the permission for the Z-machine picture? By all means, go ahead and ask them to release it under CC-BY.
Sorry, I've been busy with other images. The responsiblity to get permission ultimately rests on those who wish the content to be included.
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia using that image even if non-encyclopec down-stream users can't. I'm sure they would allow a Wikibook too if you ask them. If you can get them to release it under CC-BY that would of course be great. And if you can get a PD image of a z-machine which is as good as this one I salute you.
Well, the policy of Wikipedia disagrees with you, and has for a fairly long time.
No-one in this thread has suggested we break the law.
Fair enough. Pardon my tunnel vision, because the vast majority of images being canned right now are not cases where we have been given permission and in those cases people are suggesting we break the law.
Actually, it's a pain in the butt to remove the images because of the way we store the tagging.. once you mix in the inconsistency of the tagging it becomes impossible.
It's a straightforward technical problem. It's not "impossible", it's not even really that difficult.
As I said, if the images are not tagged it is impossible short of having someone read all of the image texts and removing a lot of images that are free but left untagged.
And it's good that we're removing those. I'm only concerned with used-with-permission images here.
A fair concern, I'm sorry for mixing other aspects of the unfree image issue into it.
And I can sympathise with people who don't give a rat's toenail for the current downstream users, much as I believe in the GFDL.
Sympathize as much as you like. Preserving freedom downstream is a goal of the project.
Yes. One that I am aware of and agree with.
Downstrem users doesn't just refer to random useless mirror on the internet, but also refers to people publishing printed works, and to other sister projects like wikibooks.
Yes. Unfortunately most downstream use up to this point has been useless mirroring.
Downstream work which is visable to you, there is a lot of substanital downstream work which isn't useless and in any case we are not providing freedom if we exclude even the stupid mirrors.
I'm am strongly against abuse of fair use. I haven't noticed WP:PUI accepting images as fair use which shouldn't be... can you cite some examples?
No. But your comment above indicates that you are aware of the tendency of people to claim fair use when they're told that they can't use an image - including a used-with-permission image.
Right... I am well aware. But isn't a reason to change our enforcement... if it's right to remove an image, it's right to remove it no matter what lame excuses people will use to defend it.
With permission isn't a lame excuse, it's a good one.. but it's still not one we can always accept.
Have you followed the discussion on the permission for the Z-machine picture? By all means, go ahead and ask them to release it under CC-BY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zmachine.jpg
Currently the image information page has a license which says:
"encyclopedia articles are fine. We only require a credit in the form, 'Courtesy, Sandia National Laboratories,'"
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia using that image even if non-encyclopec down-stream users can't. I'm sure they would allow a Wikibook too if you ask them. If you can get them to release it under CC-BY that would of course be great. And if you can get a PD image of a z-machine which is as good as this one I salute you.
Why don't you just ask them then? Since they said they only require that credit, you could ask if they mean that for ANYONE using that image. If they say anyone can use that image as long as they give that credit, then that's their "open content" license and should be allowed on Wikipedia. Since the image is of a very specific thing only existing at their labs, people would have to credit anyway.
Also, I'm a bit confused as to why it's not public domain since SNL is a government agency. Since it appears that SNL itself has control over the copyright (as opposed to the photographer who took the picture), shouldn't it be that way? I was under the impression that any works created by U.S. government employees were PD and I'd guess that if the "contractor"/photographer transfered rights over that it would be effectively the same.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------