"Fair use" images of living people

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend...

Fastfission

15 Nov 2006 15 Nov '06

9:16 p.m.

Our fair use policy states -- correctly, I think -- that we should not use fair use for generic images and should remove any non-licensed images which can be reasonably re-created as free images. The goal behind this was to discourage unnecessary invocations of the fair use clause, as well as to encourage free content to be created whenever possible. That's all well and good. But does this mean that NO images of people who are currently alive can be used under "fair use"? After all, if they are alive, potentially one could take a picture of them and license it as GFDL. It sounds like an absurd interpretation of the intention of our "fair use" policy to me, but this is how people have been insisting on interpreting it at the Wikipedia:Fair Use talk page. I think this is foolish on many levels -- it has absolutely nothing to do with either legal issues or free content, it effectively results in the jettisoning of many perfectly fine "fair use" images which just happen to be of living people, and it focuses people attention on the most immaterial fact-y aspects of "fair use" policy rather than trying to actually understand how to implement it or why it works the way it does. I think it is a policy which will cause more trouble that it will benefits. That particular interpretation of the policy slipped into the main policy without any discussion. I've given up on trying to participate in this discussion, though, as it has, in my opinion, been hijacked by people who really just see this as a way to get rid of "fair use" media on the English Wikipedia. While I can see the ups and downs of "fair use" usage, I think that's a separate issue that should not be what comes into play in discussions of policy implementation. If the explicit desire is to get rid of fair use alltogether, this should be handled in a direct fashion, not in these indirect, five-and-dime approaches. I'm just posting it here so that people who care about either our "fair use" policy or about whether Wikipedia has sensible policies or not can participate either way on the discussion. What disturbs me the most about it is that many of these changes which will have vast effects on the use of "fair use" media on Wikipedia are only being discussed among a very small group of very interested people. In my opinion if one is to make such a draconian rule as "no living people allowed", one must gain a certain amount of legitimacy for it, either by showing it to be in accord with a substantial popular opinion or from our non-popular authority structures (i.e. by fiat of a recognized authority). Just FYI. Discussions taking place at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_of_living_people The criteria in question is FUC #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria You can find a long rant from me about it -- with more eloquence than this little note here, in my opinion -- at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use_criteria#FUC.231_and_p… At this point I don't care either way about it as I've gotten really sick of even trying to participate in en policymaking especially in the "fair use" area, as it has gotten clogged with extremists of all opinions and nobody seems to have much of an interest in creating sensible, rational policy (I'm aware not everyone will share my interpretations or cocerns). I just want to open up the discussion a bit so that people won't be surprised when the day comes that when five people at WP:FU change our policies and start deleting images left and right. I don't think Wikipedia is a waste of time but it certainly caters to those with time to waste. FF

Show replies by date

Jeff Raymond

15 Nov 15 Nov

9:21 p.m.

Fastfission wrote:

...

I actually raised the question of this (the "realistically replaceable" part, to paraphrase) at the talk page, and was surprised to find out that this had nothing to do with possible legal ramifications, but rather just to direct behavior. Obviously, available free > fair use, but I'm not convinced such activity is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Fair use = better than nothing, as long as the rationales are clear and we're not put in legal hot water. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

George Herbert

9:32 p.m.

On 11/15/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

...

Fastfission wrote:

Is there somewhere in the wiki where discussions about Fair Use images' appropriateness can go? I'm having a dispute with someone over fair use of a manufacturers' web PR photo of a relatively rare aircraft, and I don't know how to get more wikipedia-copyright-expert people's review of the question. Thanks. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Gregory Maxwell

9:59 p.m.

On 11/15/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Better than discussion is closure: Since it's a "web PR photo" I assume the manufacturer is still in business. Contact them and ask them to release the image under a free license. Success rate for this isn't fantastic, but a quick email (we have boilerplates) costs you nothing, and if they agree (make sure their reply copies the permissions queue) the argument is closed.

George Herbert

10:01 p.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/15/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm a couple of steps ahead of you on that, but they haven't responded to the email in a week. II'm going to call their PR/Media Relations department and ask about it when I get a chance. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Sherool

10:12 p.m.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:32:05 +0100, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I guess that would be "fair use review" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_review>. All things considered it's a fairly quiet place, but at least it beats using the image talk page if you are looking to get more people involved. -- [[:en:User:Sherool]]

Gregory Maxwell

9:56 p.m.

On 11/15/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip]

...

That's all well and good. But does this mean that NO images of people who are currently alive can be used under "fair use"? After all, if they are alive, potentially one could take a picture of them and license it as GFDL.

[snip] It's not hard (finally) to find examples where our policy has increased the pool of free content. I don't think you're disputing that from that perspective our policy wins. That alone makes a pretty compelling argument, and as you pointed out.. it's that thinking that underlies much of that policy. There are two more angles that are of significance: 1) The legal. 2) The ethical. == The legal == On the legal front, I haven't found any positive parallel examples in US case law for the sort of usage you're discussing. What we're looking for is where X takes a picture of Y, and then Z uses X's picture of Y for no reason involving X but rather because Z simply needs a picture of Y. It's not at all clear that this would be permitted under fair use. The ability of Z to use X's work for the purpose of critical commentary and academic discourse regarding about X and his work is well established while there is an entire industry (http://editorial.gettyimages.com/ms_gins/source/home/home.aspx?pg=1, AP, etc) built around Z playing X to get pictures of Y. There is a lot on money behind groups who profit because fair use doesn't make any editorial use fair game. So I think we can agree that the legal case there is at best unclear, and that if we can avoid legal issues we generally should. == The ethical == I think this angle is the simplest of all... We *completely* and *utterly* depend on the charity of people who create create content. No matter what your position is on the ethics of copyright in general, I suspect that if you think carefully you will agree that acting against the wishes of the producers of content is not the right thing to do. In cases where we use a work to discuss a work, there is a clear case of necessity... and fair use was created specifically to address these cases. Since most works are not self-referential it would be hard to say that using a work to discuss a work is using in a capacity which replaces its commercial value. But imagine where myself and two other photographers take a picture of Mr. Y for the express purpose of selling the work for inclusion in newspapers, encyclopedias, textbooks, etc. Wikipedia then takes my picture because it needed a picture of Mr.Y and mine was the best (of course :) ), places it into the article on Mr. Y, distributes it widely, doesn't compensate me (claiming 'fair use'). The commercial value of my work is reduced, I have to play an endless game of wackamole if I do want to try to put the horse back in the stables.. Meanwhile my competitors with lower quality images profit without difficulty. Lets ignore the legal issues here, ... I don't see how anyone could call this sort of use 'fair' using any sane lay definition of fair. The huge innovation of Wikipedia over just about every other non-wiki based site which claims to be supported by community created content is that we have PROVEN that it is possible to create something of value beyond far beyond fart jokes and soda rockets without 'community created' being a codeword for 'copyright violation'. We've gone so far already in creating our own original quality content, and we find ourselves at the mercy of both the law and of the fickle goodwill of the content authoring public. I simply have not seen evidence that we're anywhere near the limits of what can be done with Free Content, so I see no reason to risk our unique position for a little temporary expedience. and why now? when we're making such tremendous progress at getting Free pictures of famous people? Or put another way, the only clear way to survive as a *large* 'user contributed content' site with a laissez-faire attitude on copyright is a Google buyout and the associated cash injection. Perhaps it's just me, but I haven't heard the community asking us to go in that direction.

Matthew Brown

16 Nov 16 Nov

12:41 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

There are two more angles that are of significance: 1) The legal. 2) The ethical.

[discussion of each snipped] I think that the vast majority of these 'fair use' images are not images in either problem category. Most that I've seen are fundamentally images whose licenses/permission would permit them to be used on Wikipedia - in other words, we won't be sued for using them, nor will their creators have an issue for them to be used here. The issue is that the licenses, while permitting use on Wikipedia, don't count as sufficiently free to be acceptable. In other words, 'fair use' is being used as an end-run around the prohibition of non-free with-permission. The only conflict is with Wikipedia policy, not the law or general ethics. -Matt

Gregory Maxwell

1:20 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think that the vast majority of these 'fair use' images are not images in either problem category. Most that I've seen are fundamentally images whose licenses/permission would permit them to be used on Wikipedia - in other words, we won't be sued for using them, nor will their creators have an issue for them to be used here. The issue is that the licenses, while permitting use on Wikipedia, don't count as sufficiently free to be acceptable. In other words, 'fair use' is being used as an end-run around the prohibition of non-free with-permission. The only conflict is with Wikipedia policy, not the law or general ethics.

I'd be interested to in exploring your view on this further... First, cases where the copyright holder doesn't care about the content being in Wikipedia are primary candidates for obtaining free licenses. I mentioned this in the part above the cutline. A primary objective of our project is increasing the free content of the world. By accepting non-free material from friendly copyright holders we are failing at that important goal. Secondly, I and many others (as well as our policy) have advocated a position that only our uses where we are actually discussing the "copyrighted work" and not something which the copyrighted work simply contains is actually covered by fair use. Careful consideration of the language of 17 U.S.C. § 107 as well as the legal, social, and economic motivations for fair use suggests this interpretation of the law. Furthermore, all the case law affirming fair use that I've seen has been around direct use (i.e. discussing the copyrighted work itself), and the substantial body of caselaw *denying* claims of fair use in parody are built around indirect parody (copy the work to make fun of something almost totally unrelated). I have not found a good example of a court saying you can't copy X's work to critically comment on Y... but I'm tending to think that the reason is because no one but us is foolish enough to try. As I pointed out in my prior post, go to getty image's editorial section ... look at the images available (and their prices :) ) and explain to me an interpretation of copyright law which would allow us to use these pictures in our biographies, but which wouldn't put getty's editorial images department out of business. Because most of the pictures of people (especially living people) are not themselves notable, it can be argued, under the above understanding of fair use, that our use of these pictures is not clearly supported as fair use. (There are examples of picture of people which are notable, such as the classic photograph of Marlyn Monroe... but most pictures on our bio are just pictures, the same as hundreds of other pictures of the famous person). Because of the above point, I'm not sure how you arrive with "most I've seen" being clear cases of fair use under the law. Could you clarify: I think we're either working with a different definition of fair use, or talking about a different set of images. Generally, I prefer that we avoid the legal arguments as they can be heavily jurisdiction specific and without very similar case law they often come down to the whim of the court. I believe that "maximize free content" is a more solid piece of guidance. Not only is it aligned with the project's goals and the foundation's mission, an effort to maximize free content also lands us in the most 'legally safe' zone because an effort to maximize free content would only allow us to use non-free content where we must and where no alternative is possible... which is the sort of circumstances the fair use provisions of our law are intended to protect.

Anthony

1:53 a.m.

The following is a discussion of the law, not of Wikipedia policy. I agree fully with Matthew Brown that these types of images shouldn't be in Wikipedia. However, I believe that many of these types of images would be perfectly legal to use in Wikipedia. On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Secondly, I and many others (as well as our policy) have advocated a position that only our uses where we are actually discussing the "copyrighted work" and not something which the copyrighted work simply contains is actually covered by fair use. Careful consideration of the language of 17 U.S.C. § 107 as well as the legal, social, and economic motivations for fair use suggests this interpretation of the law. Furthermore, all the case law affirming fair use that I've seen has been around direct use (i.e. discussing the copyrighted work itself), and the substantial body of caselaw *denying* claims of fair use in parody are built around indirect parody (copy the work to make fun of something almost totally unrelated). I have not found a good example of a court saying you can't copy X's work to critically comment on Y... but I'm tending to think that the reason is because no one but us is foolish enough to try.

FWIW, I think you've got the law completely wrong here. Fair use is used constantly in US media in ways that aren't "actually discussing a copyrighted work", and it usually doesn't lead to any lawsuits at all. But here's one case for you to look at, and a specific quote from that case, which explicitly contradicts what you're saying: Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited, Dorling Kindersley Publishing, and RR Donnelley & Sons Company "In some instances, it is readily apparent that DK's image display enhances the reader's understanding of the biographical text. In other instances, the link between image and text is less obvious; nevertheless, the images still serve as historical artifacts graphically representing the fact of significant Grateful Dead concert events selected by the Illustrated Trip's author for inclusion in the book's timeline. We conclude that both types of uses fulfill DK's transformative purpose of enhancing the biographical information in Illustrated Trip, a purpose separate and distinct from the original artistic and promotional purpose for which the images were created. See Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622, 628-29 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the use of television clips to be transformative where "the clips play for only a few seconds and are used for reference purposes while a narrator talks over them or interviewees explain their context in Elvis' career," but not to be transformative where the clips "play without much interruption, [and t]he purpose of showing these clips likely goes beyond merely making a reference for a biography, but instead serves the same intrinsic entertainment value that is protected by Plaintiffs' copyrights"); see also Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 442, 446–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (ruling that unauthorized inclusion of copyrighted film clips in actor's biographical film was protected fair use because the biography "was not shown to recreate the creative expression reposing in plaintiff's [copyrighted] film, [but] for the transformative purpose of enabling the viewer to understand the actor's modest beginnings in the film business"). In sum, because DK's use of the disputed images is transformative both when accompanied by referencing commentary and when standing alone, we agree with the district court that DK was not required to discuss the artistic merits of the images to satisfy this first factor of fair use analysis." Repeating that last sentence, "DK was not required to discuss the artistic merits of the images to satisfy this first factor of fair use analysis." I'll leave it up to others to provide more cites.

Sarah

4:01 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

First, cases where the copyright holder doesn't care about the content being in Wikipedia are primary candidates for obtaining free licenses. I mentioned this in the part above the cutline. A primary objective of our project is increasing the free content of the world. By accepting non-free material from friendly copyright holders we are failing at that important goal.

Greg, I'd like to make a point about how difficult it can be to comply with the image policies. I'm also confused as to whose interests we're acting in when we insist on using only freely licensed material. The usual response when I write to a living person to ask for a freely licensed image of them is 'Yes of course you have my permission," followed by how much they love Wikipedia. I have to write again explaining about our policies, our aim of making freely licensed material available, the need not to rule out commercial use etc. Sometimes they get it the second time. Often they reply: "I hereby license the image for anyone to use with no restrictions, for educational purposes." I have to write again and tell them "for educational purposes" is a restriction. I usually have to give them the precise words they need to say in order to release the image entirely. By the time this is done, I feel very exploitative of them. I want their image on WP, they want it on WP, and the article is more informative for having it. So it's win-win. And yet I have to insist that they abandon all rights before that win-win situation can be acted upon. It feels irrational. My question is: who are we doing this for? Any responsible publisher who wants to use our material will check the copyright situation for themselves; they won't rely on us saying we have an e-mail releasing all the rights. The release of images isn't like the release of text, where all Wikipedians release their work by virtue of editing. Images releases are done one-to-one, different editors use different approaches, and the copyright holder only has to say they didn't understand what they were agreeing to for the license to be invalid. As for irresponsible publishers, they won't care whether we have a free license or not; they'll use our stuff regardless. So what kinds of publishers are the potential beneficiaries of our image policies? I'm not asking this in a spirit of opposition, by the way, in case it's taken like that. I'm genuinely confused. Sarah

Gregory Maxwell

5:25 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

We do have nice collaboratively written boilerplate messages ...

...

[snip]

...

educational purposes" is a restriction. I usually have to give them the precise words they need to say in order to release the image entirely.

If you used the boilerplate you wouldn't have this problem.

...

My question is: who are we doing this for?

If we simply wanted to have a good article without regard for Free Content, we'd simply direct people to the excellent articles in Britannica or Encarta for many subjects...

...

Any responsible publisher who wants to use our material will check the copyright situation for themselves; they won't rely on us saying we have an e-mail releasing all the rights.

Like we, as a responsible publisher, always check the copyright status ourselves rather than depending on someone elses word?

...

The release of images isn't like the release of text, where all Wikipedians release their work by virtue of editing. Images releases are done one-to-one, different editors use different approaches, and the copyright holder only has to say they didn't understand what they were agreeing to for the license to be invalid.

Text imported from outside is exactly the same as images imported from outside in this regard. [snip]

...

I'm not asking this in a spirit of opposition, by the way, in case it's taken like that. I'm genuinely confused.

Can you forward me the OTRS ticket numbers for permissions engagements where you've run into problems so I can look at them in detail and see if I can get some folks to help improve the process? Or perhaps someone with OTRS access would like to search on Sarah's email address to find them to save us the step?

Matthew Brown

6:57 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

We do have nice collaboratively written boilerplate messages ...

'Nice', I feel, only compared to the positively evil nature of average legalese. They may have improved since I last looked at them, but they're still necessarily rather hefty blobs of text. Not sure if we can do anything about that and still cover everything we need to cover, however. I generally ask for CC-By-SA, myself (figuring it's easier to explain than GFDL), point them towards the creative commons website, and mention that they can't be noncommercial-only or education-only or no-modifications because the license has to be compatible with Wikipedia's license - I leave out the philosophical goals of such, just 'it has to be this way'. -Matt

Sarah

6:58 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Can you forward me the OTRS ticket numbers for permissions engagements where you've run into problems so I can look at them in detail and see if I can get some folks to help improve the process?

I don't follow what this has to do with OTRS. My question was: who are the potential beneficiaries of the free-licence images that increasingly we insist on having? We're insisting on free licences even in situations where we know the copyright holder doesn't mind, and where there's therefore no legal problem with claiming fair use. Who is our audience, in other words; what is our market? As I said, responsible publishers who want to use our material won't trust what we say regarding free licenses: they'll make their own licensing enquiries. And irresponsible publishers won't care. So who are we doing it for? Sarah

geni

4:34 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

My question was: who are the potential beneficiaries of the free-licence images that increasingly we insist on having?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download -- geni

Sarah

17 Nov 17 Nov

3:26 a.m.

On 11/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/16/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

My question was: who are the potential beneficiaries of the free-licence images that increasingly we insist on having?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download

Thank you. :-)

Gregory Maxwell

16 Nov 16 Nov

10:32 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I don't follow what this has to do with OTRS.

Because I thought you were complaining about actual attempts to get license releases from folks, which should have ultimately resulted in OTRS permissions emails which I could look and get input on how to make our requests easier for rights holders to understand.

...

My question was: who are the potential beneficiaries of the free-licence images that increasingly we insist on having?

I missed that you were only asking that, I thought you were trying to complain about how challenging it can be to get appropriate permissions... Who benefits? The world.

...

We're insisting on free licences even in situations where we know the copyright holder doesn't mind,

Doesn't mind what? Doesn't mind using making modified versions? Doesn't mind us selling the images? If they honestly don't mind, then getting them to make a clear statement shouldn't be a problem.

...

and where there's therefore no legal problem with claiming fair use.

Legal ability to claim fair use is completely orthogonal with the copyright holders willingness. The point of fair use is that under fair use you can use the material when the rights holder says no. Did you miss my point about the importance of avoiding being liked by the rights holders in maintaining neutrality? Or perhaps you'd rather we were driven by copyright concerns to uphold PETAs views even when they are at odds with a neutral coverage because our our usage of so many of their images?

...

Who is our audience, in other words; what is our market?

We endeavor to create an encyclopedia of Free Content for the world. It is not sufficient to merely place knowledge behind a glass wall of intellectual property, so that the people of the world may look but not touch. The world already has fine examples of that in commercial encyclopedias. To go beyond that we must produce a resource which will be owned, equally, and in perpetuity by all the people of the world so that they may use it, share it, and benefit from it, in any way that they see fit. In a few short years we have created so much free work. It would seem foolish to not take every effort to ensure that the greatest amount of the total can be easily used as freely as the majority so that it may be enjoyed by as many people for as many purposes as possible. Wikipedia will be around 100 years from now, and hopefully still going strong. I see no cause to walk away from free content because in a few cases it will allow us to speed things up a little. Certainly not now, .. not after we've proven that competent photographers would want to contribute.. not after we've proven that we can get excellent photographs of famous people..

...

As I said, responsible publishers who want to use our material won't trust what we say regarding free licenses: they'll make their own licensing enquiries. And irresponsible publishers won't care. So who are we doing it for?

Are they to make these enquiries years after the source has died? Do we expect a publisher to contact dozens of rights holders just to republish a *single* Wikipedia article.. people whom we already should have contacted for our own usage? That would seem to be very inefficient. Considering that my contributions are available on many websites who have mirrored and excerpted from Wikipedia and the only rights requests I've ever had were from people who wanted the ability to use my works commercially without attribution, I think you're assuming publishers are able and willing to do more work than they actually are.

Sarah

17 Nov 17 Nov

3:47 a.m.

On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

We're insisting on free licences even in situations where we know the copyright holder doesn't mind,

Doesn't mind what? Doesn't mind using making modified versions? Doesn't mind us selling the images? If they honestly don't mind, then getting them to make a clear statement shouldn't be a problem.

In theory yes, but you're missing out the human factor. We had a case recently of an 80-year-old philosopher being approached. He was happy to send his image and he gave permission for us to use it. The editor had to write back and say "No, we can't use it with your permission" and gave him the right words. There was so much back and forth that the original editor gave up from nervous exhaustion and a second editor had to step up to take his place. We got the free licence in the end (I believe) but at the cost of several years taken off everyone's life. :-)

...

Did you miss my point about the importance of avoiding being liked by the rights holders in maintaining neutrality?

No, I saw that, and I think it's a good point, but I've felt similar pressure when I've been given free-licence images, especially when the person has gone to a lot of trouble to get them for us. I worked on a story recently where the widow of the subject sent us images from their wedding, of the subject in his schooldays, and so on. I definitely felt pressure after that not to add critical material about the husband. I resisted it, but it was there.

...

Who is our audience, in other words; what is our market?

Yes, I take these points, and thank you for explaining.

...

I don't know how a publisher would handle it in every case, but if we have a free-license image of Madonna, any good publisher would contact her agent before using it just to make sure. They probably wouldn't contact Professor John Smith whose image was taken from his unversity homepage, because they'd know he wouldn't mind. That was all I was trying to get at: that when we *know* people don't mind, we still insist that editors go to very great lengths to obtain a free licence, to a degree that no other publisher would. But I take your point about absolutely free knowledge for the world. You made the case very eloquently.

...

Considering that my contributions are available on many websites who have mirrored and excerpted from Wikipedia and the only rights requests I've ever had were from people who wanted the ability to use my works commercially without attribution, I think you're assuming publishers are able and willing to do more work than they actually are.

Yes, you're probably right. Anyway, thank you again for explaining it so clearly. Sarah

Matthew Brown

16 Nov 16 Nov

7:02 a.m.

On the topic of OTRS, I had previously been in the habit of forwarding the text of permission emails, letters and so forth to the permissions queue. Recently I've received several replies from people processing that queue ( which never seemed to happen before ) insisting that such permissions are invalid and it only counts if the OTRS person can email the person directly and confirm it. This isn't the way it used to work, and it's annoying if I've received the permission in a way other than email. -Matt

Andrew Gray

10:51 a.m.

On 16/11/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Eh? This is new. I've always understood that permissions@ was for "filing" such claims, as well as being a way to deal with people who contact us directly. Assuming we're getting copies of the correspondence, with headers etc, this shouldn't be a problem. Who's been telling you this, can you recall? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Matthew Brown

11:36 a.m.

On 11/16/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Assuming we're getting copies of the correspondence, with headers etc, this shouldn't be a problem. Who's been telling you this, can you recall?

The issue with one was that it was not an email conversation so there were no headers - I asked and was replied to via Flickr's internal email system. I imagine the same issue would present if permissions were given via postal mail or fax. I did include the full text of the conversation on both sides including all from and to information. I can't remember the reason for the other issue I encountered. -Matt

Gregory Maxwell

8:06 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

It's long been strongly preferred (or rather required with lax enforcement) that the rights granter reply to or at least CC permissions. We've certantly had cases of people outright lying about permissions requests, so that has to be balenced against our desire to trust and make things as simple as possible. Great ideas towards this end are always welcome.

Matthew Brown

11:15 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

It's long been strongly preferred (or rather required with lax enforcement) that the rights granter reply to or at least CC permissions.

Required by whom? Six wikipedians in a room does not make consensus.

...

We've certantly had cases of people outright lying about permissions requests, so that has to be balenced against our desire to trust and make things as simple as possible.

If I was willing to lie, I could easily pass this test. Putting extra obstacles in the way of people trying to do the right thing does not encourage the right thing to be done. New rules and more complicated procedure do not enhance the chances of the correct outcome. -Matt

Gregory Maxwell

11:50 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

If I was willing to lie, I could easily pass this test.

And with enough firepower I could rob Fort Knox... So?

...

Putting extra obstacles in the way of people trying to do the right thing does not encourage the right thing to be done. New rules and more complicated procedure do not enhance the chances of the correct outcome.

The permissions process is specifically targeted to accomplish two things: 1) Make it more difficult to succeed at being dishonest at a large scale. Eventually someone will notice that the emails are coming from a domain which probably isn't the copyright holder. 2) Put an honest, human to human interaction in the critical path because our experience has shown over and over again that most people don't feel like they are lying when they pick an incorrect option from a drop down.. but they do feel more compelled to tell the truth to a person. In no way is it intended to make things harder for honest folks, and if you have real constructive suggestions on how to improve it I'm sure we'd all love to hear them.

Matthew Brown

17 Nov 17 Nov

2:47 a.m.

On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/16/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

If I was willing to lie, I could easily pass this test.

And with enough firepower I could rob Fort Knox... So?

My point was that someone willing to forge permission emails has already shown that they are willing to work at the lying process. In many categories of image, this effort isn't even required, since nobody will doubt the claim of permission on Wikipedia in any event. For these categories of image, this process is creating work for the honest contributor for no benefit against the dishonest. I suspect, though, that this procedure has been created because of incredible claims of permission? In those cases, a simple claim on Wikipedia will not be believed. How many of these kind of claim do we actually get?

...

In no way is it intended to make things harder for honest folks, and if you have real constructive suggestions on how to improve it I'm sure we'd all love to hear them.

Consequences do not change based on intention. For the honest contributor, it does make things harder. Where was this policy decided upon? By whom? Is it actually documented anywhere at all? (note: I'm not accusing anyone of NOT documenting it - simply that I haven't seen it). I'd like to know what the intentions are regarding permissions not received in email, since that's an issue for me. Also, for information: how often are people lying when they email the permissions queue? About what proportion of tickets? I ask because the policy described by you sounds inspired by a constant flood of bogus 'permission'. -Matt

Stan Shebs

16 Nov 16 Nov

4:14 p.m.

Sarah wrote:

...

So what kinds of publishers are the potential beneficiaries of our image policies?

The "future us", I'd say. All kinds of things could happen - Wikimedia Foundation becomes a giant publishing conglomerate, record companies get fair use outlawed, etc. Even images that got permission "for Wikipedia" several years ago are now in a sticky position for use by Wikibooks, Wikinews, and other projects that have come into existence since then. Only with the free images can we be confident of being able to use them in whatever new undertaking that we dream up. Stan

Jimmy Wales

11 Dec 11 Dec

4:11 p.m.

Sarah wrote:

...

The usual response when I write to a living person to ask for a freely licensed image of them is 'Yes of course you have my permission," followed by how much they love Wikipedia. I have to write again explaining about our policies, our aim of making freely licensed material available, the need not to rule out commercial use etc. Sometimes they get it the second time. Often they reply: "I hereby license the image for anyone to use with no restrictions, for educational purposes." I have to write again and tell them "for educational purposes" is a restriction. I usually have to give them the precise words they need to say in order to release the image entirely. By the time this is done, I feel very exploitative of them. I want their image on WP, they want it on WP, and the article is more informative for having it. So it's win-win. And yet I have to insist that they abandon all rights before that win-win situation can be acted upon. It feels irrational.

It seems like a partial practical resolution to this difficulty would involve something only slightly technical... a special page to which we could direct people where they could grant permissions. A simple wizard. For example, Sarah uploads the image, along with the email address of the person who says "yes of course you have my permission". This triggers an email to them giving them a link to visit to finalize the process. The link is some kind of hash of the email address. They visit the link. They see the image in question. They click a box that says "Yes, I own the copyright to this image, and I release it under CC BY-SA." (And that's a link to the CC page about BY-SA.) This gets recorded in the image history. It's reasonably secure, if done well, and generates a paper trail of how Sarah got the permission. And it is a lot less frightening to people than a long conversation in email. --Jimbo

Matt R

5:25 p.m.

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

...

I've negotiated free images from a number of different sources, and I can also testify that it is very awkward when you end up having to press people on the issue of a free license. So much so that I don't really like to do it any more. A wizard would be a great help. -- Matt Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com ___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Gregory Maxwell

6:42 p.m.

On 12/11/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

...

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

<AOL/> Actually, I think the hardest part isn't explaining the free license.. but rather getting the people to reply-to or cc the permissions queue in their response. This solves *that* issue completely. Of course, it's a great idea. What I don't think it would handle well as proposed is multiple images. Whomever implements this should make it cover those some way. :)

Matthew Brown

16 Nov 16 Nov

6:52 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Because of the above point, I'm not sure how you arrive with "most I've seen" being clear cases of fair use under the law. Could you clarify: I think we're either working with a different definition of fair use, or talking about a different set of images.

I think you slightly misunderstood the point I was making, which is that vast proportions of the images on en: which are claimed as fair use are actually cases of making up fair use justifications for images which are free-to-use but have been made available under licenses which have been deemed unacceptable for use on Wikipedia because they are free to us but not necessarily free to all who could re-use our text under the GFDL. I'm not necessarily claiming that the fair use justifications hold water - some do, some don't - but in a vast majority of cases in my experience (which, granted, may not be typical) are not cases where we would actually have to rely on a fair-use defense in court. We already have permission, generally through license terms which permit an non-profit educational organisation/project like Wikipedia to use the image. This is definitely the case in e.g. most of the 'promotional image' fair-use categories. Legally speaking, we are taking very little risk using those images, because they have generally been released free to the media to use. They probably do NOT have an explicit license on them that is compatible with the GFDL, however, even though they are de facto free for most uses. There are other categories of claimed fair use on Wikipedia where the fair use claim is actually one we'd have to use: e.g. historic photographs, artworks still protected by copyright, etc etc. I guess what I'm saying is that because the only non-free category permitted on en: is fair use, if someone wants to use an image that they don't have under a free license (under our definition of such) they will attempt to justify it as fair use. In that case, what the fair use claim actually means is 'even though Wikipedia can use this image for free anyway, commercial re-users may be able to use it under fair use'. I've done this myself in the past - coming up with fair use justifications even though Wikipedia already has permission - granted this was a couple of years ago and Wikipedia's image use policies have changed quite a lot since then. In most of these cases, Wikipedia is not in itself in any legal risk - the free-content goals of the project may be at more risk, of course. -Matt

Gregory Maxwell

7:32 a.m.

On 11/16/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

[snip] Ah, well the categories the geni mentioned contain many tens of thousands of images most of which would not meet your criteria. When you say 'vast', I'd generally take that to be something at least approaching a majority.. and I'm pretty confident that that would be incorrect. [snip]

...

In most of these cases, Wikipedia is not in itself in any legal risk - the free-content goals of the project may be at more risk, of course.

I think that outside of some disagreement over how many images we're talking about, which I'm not sure how to settle since the tagging won't always tell us, I think we agree. Can you come up with somethings I could scan for in the text of the description pages to identify fair use + unacceptable permission which won't horribly under-report? Another point: not only is failing the Free Content goals of Wikipedia a risk that comes from accepting non-free works, but when we accept non-free works which don't have rock solid fair use claims we risk our neutrality: After all, if we're only getting away with a usage because we're in the owners good graces ... it creates a pressure (perhaps more often subtle than overt) to avoid saying things they dislike to avoid getting demands and legal threats over the images. It swings both ways, "give us an image you like under a free license so we can stop using this ugly one" has gotten us some freely licensed images. :)

Matthew Brown

10:33 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

When you say 'vast', I'd generally take that to be something at least approaching a majority.. and I'm pretty confident that that would be incorrect.

It's a majority of the fair use images I encounter. Since I don't do any kind of image patrol or whatnot, this represents the images I find in the articles I tend to edit. I don't deal much with popular culture articles, which probably explains why I see the proportions I do. -Matt

geni

1:35 a.m.

On 11/15/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Gregory Maxwell

1:52 a.m.

On 11/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Do you wish to rethink your position or do you have counter evidence?

:) Thanks Geni, although I'm not sure categories are the best way to demonstrate this... I believe (and hope) that in every category of 'fair use images' there are some images which are being used correctly. That is, the image is an excerpt of a copyrighted work which is being used in an article which is providing critical commentary of that work, and the excerpt is a necessary part of our ability to educate on the subject. It's my experience that there are even quite a fair use images which are used in one place where there is a solid argument, as well as a number of additional places where there is virtually no claim for fair use. Some categories are worse than others... Historically I found the magazine covers to be pretty bad... often our use of the cover images has been not to discuss the magazine but instead to compete with the magazine more successfully by using their images for our coverage of a common subject. As an aside I find myself in an interesting position these days. I've been more active in the commons community where I find myself *defending* the concept of fair use images in Wikipedia, and then I walk into En and find myself lamenting enwiki's current fair use image status. :) An interesting aspect of this is that the in Dewiki the articles which I argue need to have fair use images have prominent external links to someone elses copyvio.. while the enwiki articles which I argue use fair use images unnecessarily tend to have free illustrations and sometimes no illustration, but never external links in Dewiki. This gives me confidence in the correctness of my position ... since although I strongly support Dewikis view of maximizing free content even at a substantial short term cost, I fail to see how we're maximizing free content by externally linking to unfree content. :)

geni

2:15 a.m.

On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Do you wish to rethink your position or do you have counter evidence?

Then I would advise you not to look at the Album_covers category.

...

Some categories are worse than others... Historically I found the magazine covers to be pretty bad... often our use of the cover images has been not to discuss the magazine but instead to compete with the magazine more successfully by using their images for our coverage of a common subject.

Magazine covers has largely been cleaned up these days.

...

As an aside I find myself in an interesting position these days. I've been more active in the commons community where I find myself *defending* the concept of fair use images in Wikipedia, and then I walk into En and find myself lamenting enwiki's current fair use image status. :)

I generaly get round this by pointing out all the things that are technicaly fair use even in free images. -- geni

Gregory Maxwell

2:56 a.m.

On 11/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I generaly get round this by pointing out all the things that are technicaly fair use even in free images.

"Incidental inclusion" .. not quite the same. The germans have "right of panorama". "Look at all the unavoidable copyrighted work in this free image" attractive argument at the surface but most people find holes.. either they point out that an incidental inclusion is something else entirely, or they decide that you're arguing that true infringement is unavoidable thus we shouldn't worry about it. :)

Matthew Brown

6:33 a.m.

On 11/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Then I would advise you not to look at the Album_covers category.

Actually, I suspect the album covers have a better claim to fair use than most others, since one cannot illustrate an article on an album of recorded music by identifying the album's appearance in any other way. Furthermore, the use of the album art to identify it is generally permitted without compensation by the record labels, and thus they cannot claim that our screen-sized images of album covers detract from their commercial uses of their copyrighted material. Large-sized reproductions of album art DO have commercial value (e.g. posters), so it is important that we only reproduce small versions of them. Furthermore, photos of album art are accurate reproductions of 2D artwork and thus do not create a new copyright under Bridgeman vs. Corel, thus there is no additional photography copyright to consider. -Matt

Fastfission

8:01 p.m.

On 11/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/15/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

All of those categories are probably the "safest" fair use images we have. They are all transformative, they are usually used to illustrate the media itself, and they don't compete with known markets (there is no market that I know of for thumbnailed covers of books, anyways). I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to illustrate or not, but if that is meant to be a "scary" amount of fair use it is not very scary, not in comparison with media which is not the cover of something to be sold. FF

Fastfission

8:16 p.m.

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

It's not hard (finally) to find examples where our policy has increased the pool of free content. I don't think you're disputing that from that perspective our policy wins.

I think the net reuslt of culling all images of people who are living would be a decrease in overall article quality and the isolated creation of a minimal number of replacements. I'm all for encouraging people to replace images -- especially those which can be fairly easily replaced with free ones -- but I think having ridiculous requirements for what "reasonable" means doesn't help anybody. There is, somewhere, a point where draconian policies arranged towards a good end just end up wasting time which could also be spent towards that good end (that is, the inefficiency and frustration of the system impedes its functioning).

...

== The legal ==

None of your legal examples have any relevance to the question of whether or not we should ban all images of living people. They are generally good things to keep in mind but they don't result in making a draconian policy being sensible. There is no legal difference between a unlicensed photo of a dead person and the unlicensed photo of a living person -- the differences which might arise have nothing to do with the photos replaceability or not.

...

== The ethical == No matter what your position is on the ethics of copyright in general, I suspect that if you think carefully you will agree that acting against the wishes of the producers of content is not the right thing to do.

Again, you are making general statements that do not justify this approach to policy at all. In both cases you are making general arguments against using "fair use" media at all, which has nothign to do with this policy. This is exactly the sort of "drift" of conversation that I was referring to before. One cannot reasonably discuss whether or not we should use "fair use" at all and how to specifically implement "fair use" criteria at the same time. They are different discussions, and using one to try and slip in a new policy about the other is both complicating and misleading. In the end, in any case, if this were, in reality, what FUC#1 was trying to do, then that should be discussed and ARTICULATED. As it is, this interpretation of FUC#1 is simply added on as a throwaway line, was not discussed in any detail, and is now being used to delete all sorts of things as if it were gospel. That's a bad policy model, in my opinion, but not too many people around here seem to care about what it might mean to have a good policy model, in my opinion.

...

and why now? when we're making such tremendous progress at getting Free pictures of famous people?

We should keep getting them and reward those who get them heavily through our other mechanisms. We should not use the desire of free images as an excuse to destroy all images which are non-free, unless we are deciding to get rid of "fair use" alltogether. Which would be a fine discussion to have but is not the one I am trying to have at the moment. I am of course fine with keeping our "ultimate intentions" in mind when making policy. But when it comes to the protocols for implementation, we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia runs on more than just ideals -- it runs on users, and users are going to want policy that makes sense, and they are going to want policy that does not appear arbitrary. If we lose sight of that then Wikipedia will only be a place for the sorts of people who like to endlessly haggle over the internet and don't mind rules that don't make sense. I think that is a stupid restriction to have. FF

Jeff Raymond

8:45 p.m.

Fastfission wrote:

...

In the end, in any case, if this were, in reality, what FUC#1 was trying to do, then that should be discussed and ARTICULATED. As it is, this interpretation of FUC#1 is simply added on as a throwaway line, was not discussed in any detail, and is now being used to delete all sorts of things as if it were gospel. That's a bad policy model, in my opinion, but not too many people around here seem to care about what it might mean to have a good policy model, in my opinion.

I've tried to get some movement on this at the fair use talk page. It appears a large amount of people are seeing FUC#1 as a means to an end - we want more free material, and the only way to get it is to delete the fair use stuff whenever possible. Realism doesn't come into play (I know I can't get a free picture of the indie rock chick who's dove out of the public eye to become a mother, but she's alive and I ''could'' get a picture), but rather directing the desires of those who do the image stuff. I dunno, it seems awfully counterproductive. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

geni

9:58 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

...

Yes it does. Screenshots for example.

...

(I know I can't get a free picture of the indie rock chick who's dove out of the public eye to become a mother, but she's alive and I ''could'' get a picture),

Since she likely appeared on stage at some point it is likely that fan made pics exists which the fans may well be prepared to release under a free lisence. It then becomes a problem of finding them but that is a seperate issue.

...

but rather directing the desires of those who do the image stuff.

Am failing to see where beer, faster CPUs and pizzia are involved. -- geni

Guy Chapman aka JzG

11:29 p.m.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:45:49 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

...

Jeff, I have to say I am surprised to see you of all people making this argument. You seem to me to be thoroughly committed to the ideal of free-as-in-speech content, which is precisely what fair use images are *not*. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Jeff Raymond

11:34 p.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

You'll notice I'm not advocating ignoring the rule. d;-) I guess I'm in a minority (surprise surprise) regarding how to get to the free content. As fair use has minimal chance for harm, and no one's told me that I'm way off base in terms of possible legal ramifications, I see no need to make our free-as-in-speech content less useful because we're quibbling over whether it's possible to get a picture of the still-living J. D. Salinger. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

Guy Chapman aka JzG

17 Nov 17 Nov

12:18 a.m.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:34:15 -0500, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

...

I guess I'm in a minority (surprise surprise) regarding how to get to the free content. As fair use has minimal chance for harm, and no one's told me that I'm way off base in terms of possible legal ramifications

Ah, but there *are* possible legal ramifications, aren't there, and there are risks to our ability to redistribute content if the fair use rationale is challenged legally. Giving the process of replacement of unfree images a kick in the pants seems prudent to me. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

geni

12:23 a.m.

On 11/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

Unlikely change much since judging by the limited stats I have on hand there are a little over 300K images on en.wikipedia claiming fair use. -- geni

George Herbert

12:41 a.m.

Rancom vaguely related topic question - What is the right thing to do about some obvious copyvios which I haven't figured out where the copying was from yet? [[Ship construction]] has a bunch of images which claim to have been done as original Autocad work for Wikipedia, and yet are clearly scans out of ship design textbooks, some of which I recognize, but I haven't figured out which books yet. The same person contributed them all, and some other suspicious stuff. Thanks. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

geni

1:46 a.m.

On 11/16/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

list them along with your reasons at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]] -- geni

Gregory Maxwell

1:51 a.m.

On 11/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

list them along with your reasons at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]]

I'd also point out that an effort should be made to contact the uploader (vague chance he wrote the books you seem to be remembering :) ) But with no email set, no edits in almost two months,... good luck!

Ray Saintonge

25 Nov 25 Nov

1:43 a.m.

George Herbert wrote:

...

There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its source. You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that does not establish the fact. I don't know what the standards are for drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be some aspects that will be constant. Are these even copyrightable? (resent) Ec

George Herbert

2 a.m.

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

George Herbert wrote:

Rancom vaguely related topic question - What is the right thing to do

about

some obvious copyvios which I haven't figured out where the copying was

from

yet? [[Ship construction]] has a bunch of images which claim to have

been

done as original Autocad work for Wikipedia, and yet are clearly scans

out

of ship design textbooks, some of which I recognize, but I haven't

figured

out which books yet. The same person contributed them all, and some

other

suspicious stuff.

Well, we know for a fact that the credit (Autocad-self) is wrong, since you can see the book's spine in the scans in several of the images, and the page number in some as well. These drawings, as engineering drawings, are as copyrightable as any other technical document or drawing... completely, in the US. In terms of the information within them, that's generally not copyrightable or patentable or trademarkable - it might be a trade secret, but not after being put in a published book. If he *had* gone and redrawn them in Autocad or something, it would be fine. I've redrawn a number of illustrations in other technical articles to do that. But these particular images clearly are scans, and not redrawn. It's remotely possible that they're scanned with permission, but they aren't listed properly. Given that you can clearly and obviously see the book in the scans, and the claimed source clearly isn't, I was assuming that the obvious conclusion was reasonably and necessarily that they're copyvios. If WP policy is that I have to produce what they're violating for anyone to take action, that's fine, but anyone who looks at them should be able to tell that the claimed origin isn't, and that they came out of a bound book via a scanner. I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually looks at the images could think they were autocad drawings. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Ray Saintonge

5:44 a.m.

George Herbert wrote:

...

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

George Herbert wrote:

Well, we know for a fact that the credit (Autocad-self) is wrong, since you can see the book's spine in the scans in several of the images, and the page number in some as well.

That certainly works against him. Even if it's a valid picture it's sloppy editing and use of Autocad to leave artifacts like the book's spine.

...

These drawings, as engineering drawings, are as copyrightable as any other technical document or drawing... completely, in the US.

I was thinking in terms of age. Perhaps that's because I recently acquired a copy of Basil Lubbock's 1914 book "The China Clippers" which includes some interesting drawings of the construction of these ships.

...

In terms of the information within them, that's generally not copyrightable or patentable or trademarkable - it might be a trade secret, but not after being put in a published book.

Are there no generic drawings for this kind of thing? I don't even want to touch the trade secrets issue, which we really can't address unless we have inside knowledge.

...

If he *had* gone and redrawn them in Autocad or something, it would be fine. I've redrawn a number of illustrations in other technical articles to do that. But these particular images clearly are scans, and not redrawn.

So it would seem, with no bonus credits for being truthful.

...

It's remotely possible that they're scanned with permission, but they aren't listed properly. Given that you can clearly and obviously see the book in the scans, and the claimed source clearly isn't, I was assuming that the obvious conclusion was reasonably and necessarily that they're copyvios.

I think it's a reasonable but not necessary conclusion. A reasonable suspicion can certainly strenghthen the need for him to justify his claim. Giving him a week to respond should be enough. All but his first two edits to anything were done within a period of one hour two months ago, so he's unlikely to respond to questions. Once you have provided someone a generous opportunity to respond to a genuine concern, I see nothing wrong with getting rid of this material.

...

If WP policy is that I have to produce what they're violating for anyone to take action, that's fine, but anyone who looks at them should be able to tell that the claimed origin isn't, and that they came out of a bound book via a scanner. I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually looks at the images could think they were autocad drawings.

George Herbert

27 Nov 27 Nov

2:36 a.m.

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

George Herbert wrote:

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

George Herbert wrote:

Well, we know for a fact that the credit (Autocad-self) is wrong, since you can see the book's spine in the scans in several of the images, and the page number in some as well.

That certainly works against him. Even if it's a valid picture it's sloppy editing and use of Autocad to leave artifacts like the book's spine.

These drawings, as engineering drawings, are as copyrightable as any other technical document or drawing... completely, in the US.

In terms of the information within them, that's generally not copyrightable or patentable or trademarkable - it might be a trade secret, but not after being put in a published book.

Are there no generic drawings for this kind of thing? I don't even want to touch the trade secrets issue, which we really can't address unless we have inside knowledge.

So it would seem, with no bonus credits for being truthful.

I feel more concerned about people who jump to conclusions on this sort of thing. I think that identifying the source should be needed for immediate deletion. For most other situations that lack urgency, having the patience to wait for answers doesn't really hurt anything. ... and it keeps the temperature of events down. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I did post a comment to his talk page about a week ago stating that the images were obviously scanned copyright violations and that I had started reviewing the situation. I think that the niceties have been observed... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Ray Saintonge

11:01 p.m.

George Herbert wrote:

...

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

I agree. Thanks for being polite about it, and understanding that the niceties are important. Some have raised the issue of banning such people, but that's really pointless when we are dealing with someone who hasn't been seen for two months. Ec

Matthew Brown

25 Nov 25 Nov

3:52 a.m.

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

The very fact that someone is claiming scans from a book were self-produced CAD drawings says they should be deleted. No matter what, the claim of self-authorship is bogus. -Matt

Stephen Bain

2:55 p.m.

On 11/25/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The very fact that someone is claiming scans from a book were self-produced CAD drawings says they should be deleted. No matter what, the claim of self-authorship is bogus.

We have CSD I7, the first part of which is for images tagged with what is clearly an incorrect fair use tag. Really there should be something like this that applies to obviously copyrighted images which the uploader claims are PD or some copyleft licence. And unless it can be shown that the person did not realise that they were passing off copyrighted work as their own and purportedly licencing it as such, I would think that this would be grounds for an immediate ban. Policing the stuff that people claim as fair use and tag as such is a large enough task on its own without this sort of problem. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

George Herbert

27 Nov 27 Nov

2:46 a.m.

On 11/25/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/25/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The very fact that someone is claiming scans from a book were self-produced CAD drawings says they should be deleted. No matter what, the claim of self-authorship is bogus.

Does someone with the appropriate admin bit set want to deal with this, then? I can't do deletions... Danke. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Gregory Maxwell

25 Nov 25 Nov

4:42 a.m.

On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

I can not agree with your position. We are only able to discover the source of so many violations because the people who have submitted them have put so little work into finding the material themselves. This does not imply that all or even most of our violating images can be identified this way. If we want our contributors behave with responsibility we need to treat them like people who have responsibility and allow them to execute professional judgement. When people put in effort to clean up violations they do it because they care about making an improvement. No one is paying them to spend their time making sure our Free Encyclopedia is actually free. So they actually care if something they know to be bad is kept... their work is not just hours on a timeclock. Our users know that uploaders make mistakes, they know that some are confused, they know that some lie... so if you ask them to take an unsupported and unbelievable claim at face value you are demeaning them, disrespecting them, and worst of all: discouraging them. Of course, it is equally critical that we respect the involved uploader. But part of that respect is treating the uploader like an adult. If we behave rationally and fairly, they should understand. At least we can completely undo our deletion if we later find it to be mistaken... which is a lot better than most situations in life. When there is an obviously problem, such as an which has an obvious halftone pattern yet the uploader comment claims that the 'made the image himself', it's possible that the uploaders claim is correct, that there is some complicated explanation which didn't fit into the edit summary.... But it is unlikely. So we ask the uploader, .. to the extent we can... and we delete the image in due course because our experience and careful consideration allow us to reach a conclusion, free of unreasonable biases, that it is most likely the case that the image is not acceptable. The material, if it's worth while, will be recreated in time... perhaps sooner if we'd quit obsessing about the 1.5 millionth article and focus on quality... perhaps sooner if we could delete all the copyright violations.... to make room for real contributors who want to sit down with the community and produce the new and free works that we need, completely with the right justification that would ensure the material stays free. Requirements mean nothing if we cant enforce them... and a commitment to free content is worth nothing if it is all words and show without substance.

Gregory Maxwell

16 Nov 16 Nov

9:08 p.m.

On 11/16/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think the net reuslt of culling all images of people who are living would be a decrease in overall article quality and the isolated creation of a minimal number of replacements.

Um. We are far from having "all images of people who are living" being unfree.

...

None of your legal examples have any relevance to the question of whether or not we should ban all images of living people.

[snip] Any argument against all images with a weak argument for fair use is an argument against some images which have a weak argument for fair use.

...

Perhaps I didn't yell it loudly enough: I believe that "replaceable" is not only directly related to our primary focus of providing free content, but is ALSO a useful proxy metric for both the legal and ethical considerations. That is, images which tend to be irreplaceable also tend to have much more clear legal positions as fair use (without fair use being permitted our ability to provide critical commentary would be disrupted), and it is generally much easier to make a solid ethical argument (we couldn't provide a fair treatment of this work without excerpts).

...

One cannot reasonably discuss whether or not we should use "fair use" at all and how to specifically implement "fair use" criteria at the same time. They are different discussions, and using one to try and slip in a new policy about the other is both complicating and misleading.

You have completely misunderstood me. I have never advocated that we avoid using fair use entirely. I have always argued that we should gladly use fair use where we must, for those are the cases which fair use was specifically designed. I made an effort of pointing out how I advocate fair use to parts of our community that reject it. I do not know how to make it more clear.

...

The intention of FUC#1 is clearly embodied in its words. That you do not agree with its intentions does not imply that it is incorrectly worded. Nor has its application changed in any qualitative way.

...

Following your reasoning, why do we not copy all the "Groves encyclopedia of music" and "McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Engineering" articles for which we do not yet have coverage into Wikipedia?

...

I am of course fine with keeping our "ultimate intentions" in mind when making policy. But when it comes to the protocols for implementation, we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia runs on more than just ideals -- it runs on users, and users are going to want policy that makes sense, and they are going to want policy that does not appear arbitrary.

[snip] There have been plenty of people who have been angered by our "arbitrary" refusal to allow them to copy text from commercial sources the Internet. Is this really what you are advocating?

Jimmy Wales

11 Dec 11 Dec

4:04 p.m.

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

On 11/15/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip]

I dug up this old thread as a platform to talk about something I just noticed the other day. I think Greg is exactly right... even in its current "weak" state, the policy of preferring not to have fair use photos when free is possible is generating wonderful incentives for the creation of free content. Here is my new example, one I just noticed. It may be instructive for us to take a snapshot of the current state of affairs as an anecdotal benchmark of where we are a year from now or two years from now. Elvis. If you look in Wikimedia Commons right now, you will see some US government photos (public domain, no problem) and a couple of others that, in my opinion, are there on some very shaky grounds and probably should be deleted. If you look in English Wikipedia, you will see several "fair use" photos which are quite unremarkable and which almost certainly should be replaced. But how can one get a freely licensed photo of Elvis now? He's quite dead or anyhow, if you remember the tabloid craze of a few years back, quite in hiding. ;-) But we CAN. There must be literally hundreds of thousands of photos of Elvis, some of them quite good, which were taken by Elvis fans throughout the years. Surely we can find a handful that the photographers would love to have in Wikipedia. Why isn't this happening already on a massive scale? I can tell you why... because from the point of view of "free as in beer" the photos we have (via fair use) in the article are just "good enough" to kill free alternatives. What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template {{fair use wanted}}. The template says "Help! We need a freely licensed image!" Clicking takes you to a page with some simple instructions... 1. You must have taken the photo YOURSELF, no uploads of anything else. 2. You agree to release the photo under GFDL and/or CC BY-SA at a minimum. 3. You must have taken the photo YOURSELF. (Yes, we said that already, but we want you to know how important it is.) I suspect if we did this for tons of famous people, the photos would come pouring in... preserving a bit of history that is currently rotting in people's photo albums... and making Wikipedia not just a place where people can rehash tired publicity photos under fair use arguments, but a place where new culture is formed and born and distributed. Right now, our reliance on fair use (which I support only in some narrow historically unique cases!) is killing the birth of a culture of free photography in wikipedia. --Jimbo

geni

6:43 p.m.

On 12/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

...

Elvis.

...

The template says "Help! We need a freely licensed image!" Clicking takes you to a page with some simple instructions... 1. You must have taken the photo YOURSELF, no uploads of anything else. 2. You agree to release the photo under GFDL and/or CC BY-SA at a minimum. 3. You must have taken the photo YOURSELF. (Yes, we said that already, but we want you to know how important it is.)

People currently submit images selecting options that are listed as invalid. I doubt people would follow these instructions either.

...

I suspect if we did this for tons of famous people, the photos would come pouring in... preserving a bit of history that is currently rotting in people's photo albums... and making Wikipedia not just a place where people can rehash tired publicity photos under fair use arguments, but a place where new culture is formed and born and distributed.

3 problems: First getting outsiders involved in wikipedia is always tricky. Perhaps this can be delt with through some form of marketing. Secondly we would be looking towards some of the smaller subsets of internet users. For a lot of the internet users elvis has been dead longer than they have been alive. This could to a degree be delt with by going looking for material rather than expecting it to come to us Thirdly a lot of people don't have scanners. -- geni

cohesion

7:52 p.m.

On 12/11/06, geni wrote:

...

First getting outsiders involved in wikipedia is always tricky. Perhaps this can be delt with through some form of marketing. Secondly we would be looking towards some of the smaller subsets of internet users. For a lot of the internet users elvis has been dead longer than they have been alive. This could to a degree be delt with by going looking for material rather than expecting it to come to us

That's true, but I think for most of the internet users all we have really been asking them to do (from their perspective) is correct typos. If all you ever did on wikipedia was read occasional articles that were google search results you wouldn't know of any other way to help out. This is evidenced by all our experience I think. When we tell people we spend a lot of time on wikipedia, I think we have all had the experience of people not even understanding what that means, or what, other than reading we could possibly be doing. If these image requests are actually on the articles, this could become a major change in how average readers perceive helping wikipedia. It would become not only correcting typos, but supplying content. Not everyone is willing to write an article, but I bet some people are willing to upload a photo, especially if they have an interesting one they are proud of. Make the fact that they will get attribution clear, and that they are helping a non-profit, I think that will be beneficial. This could turn out really well. Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]

Steve Block

12 Dec 12 Dec

6:29 p.m.

Jimmy Wales wrote:

...

What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template {{fair use wanted}}.

Sounds brilliant. Jimmy, any chance you could talk this issue up in any press you do or the foundation release, or would this draw attention to our fair use images and lead to possible legal problems? Also, Jimmy, do you have any thoughts on the legality of using caricatures in articles? Some people have concerns they may constitute defamation. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 11/12/06

Gregory Maxwell

6:36 p.m.

On 12/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

...

Jimmy Wales wrote:

What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template {{fair use wanted}}.

I didn't comment on it before but I'm pretty sure we've already tried a replace this fair use image notice.. and I think we found that it was ineffective while simply removing the images was more effective. I'm sure someone else can chime in with more data. As far as PR goes... The fair use issue is mostly "sausage making" which is intersting to us but not interesting or even confusing to outsiders. I think it would be better to instead say "We need photographers and other people with the skills required to make quality illustrations."

theProject

7:26 p.m.

On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 12/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:

Jimmy Wales wrote:

What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template {{fair use wanted}}.

If I understood Jimmy correctly, this is the kind of template that would in *after* the fair use image was removed, trying to get a replacement, not a template that goes under a fair use image saying we need a replacement. -- theProject

Gregory Maxwell

9:02 p.m.

On 12/12/06, theProject <wp.theproject(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Oh! I'm all in favor of that. Maybe I got it when I first read it. ;)

Steve Block

13 Dec 13 Dec

2:32 p.m.

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

As far as PR goes... The fair use issue is mostly "sausage making" which is intersting to us but not interesting or even confusing to outsiders. I think it would be better to instead say "We need photographers and other people with the skills required to make quality illustrations."

That was kind of my point, that Jimmy bang the drum for the fact that it's just not text that is used in Wikipedia, but all those old family photographs which would enhance the commons and wikipedia no end. I mean, there is a real possibility to create an open source image library/photographic archive, and that would help Wikipedia and could well be something that would generate press attention. It doesn't have to cover the fair use issue at all, just a simple hey, you know that picture your mum took of Elvis in 1960? How would your mum feel to see that illustrate an encyclopedic article on Elvis? Why not pop along to Wikipedia and ask how we can make that possible. Something like that. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/584 - Release Date: 12/12/06

Anthony

15 Nov 15 Nov

11:19 p.m.

On 11/15/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Seems reasonable to me. Certainly most images of living people can reasonably be re-created as free images. And you say you support that policy, right?

...

It sounds like an absurd interpretation of the intention of our "fair use" policy to me, but this is how people have been insisting on interpreting it at the Wikipedia:Fair Use talk page. I think this is foolish on many levels -- it has absolutely nothing to do with either legal issues or free content,

It has a lot to do with free content. "Fair use images" aren't free content, and allowing them in Wikipedia reduces the incentive to create free content.

...

it effectively results in the jettisoning of many perfectly fine "fair use" images which just happen to be of living people,

I wouldn't ever consider a non-free image to be "perfectly fine". "Occassionally acceptable" would be more my description.

...

and it focuses people attention on the most immaterial fact-y aspects of "fair use" policy rather than trying to actually understand how to implement it or why it works the way it does.

Whether or not an image is of a living person is not very material to the issue of whether or not the use is fair use. But the fact that an image is legal for Wikipedia to use is only one factor in whether or not it should be used. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient, for the use of an image to be fair use.

...

I think it is a policy which will cause more trouble that it will benefits. That particular interpretation of the policy slipped into the main policy without any discussion.

I believe there was a thread about publicity photos not being good candidates for fair use (started by a quite famous Wikipedian), but I can't find the thread at the moment (so I won't even name the famous Wikipedian). If someone can find the thread, please speak up.

...

I've given up on trying to participate in this discussion, though, as it has, in my opinion, been hijacked by people who really just see this as a way to get rid of "fair use" media on the English Wikipedia. While I can see the ups and downs of "fair use" usage, I think that's a separate issue that should not be what comes into play in discussions of policy implementation. If the explicit desire is to get rid of fair use alltogether, this should be handled in a direct fashion, not in these indirect, five-and-dime approaches.

I think there is a desire among many of us to get rid of fair use altogether. However, that doesn't mean that it needs to be done here and now. I think a gradual approach toward eliminating at least the vast majority of fair use on Wikipedia is the best approach. Anthony

6337

days inactive

6365

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

66 comments

19 participants

tags (0)

participants (19)

Andrew Gray
Anthony
cohesion
Fastfission
geni
George Herbert
Gregory Maxwell
Guy Chapman aka JzG
Jeff Raymond
Jimmy Wales
Matt R
Matthew Brown
Ray Saintonge
Sarah
Sherool
Stan Shebs
Stephen Bain
Steve Block
theProject