[[:Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG]]
I offer this up as an example of some process problems we have in dealing with invalid fair use claims.
I found this image while looking for unsourced images. It is attributed to a "Eddie Bauer Co., ca. 1984 (?)" which is really not a sufficient sourcing of the image. But the fair use discussion is more intresting and so I'm overlooking that. This image is a photo of a model wearing a "safari jacket," and appears in the "safai jacket" article. Since the article isn't about the photograph itself, it's not fair use. I believe that the lack of a fair use rationale is beyond dispute in this case which is why I believe this image makes a good case study for our process.
I added the {{fairusedisputed}} tag on September 19 and notified the uploader, who removed the tag without discussion. The uploader also left a note on my talk page criticizing my involvement.
I waited a while and listed the page on IFD on October 10 again notifying the uploader. The image is fuzzy, and isn't particularly important to the project, and so I thought IFD was a better choice than PUI (possibly unfree images). The instructions on the PUI page don't list fair use problems as a reason to list things on PUI, anyway, though the exact process is unclear.
The admin who closed the IFD discussion added a "fair use" tag and some OCILLA boilerplate to the image description page and delisted it without deletion. In further discussion, that admin suggested that I relist the page in phase II of PUI.
I don't care much about this particular image, but I see this as a bellwether for the broader issue of dealing with the thousands of images we have where there is a doubtful fair use claim being made by the uploader. The process for handling such images is unclear, at least to me, with the IFD, PUI, and CV (copyright violations) pages having overlapping purpose and conflicting processes. Any of these processes are cumbersome, with notification required to the uploader and ongoing monitoring to shepherd the image through the process. And all of these processes are heavily biased towards inclusion. Decisions to keep fair use images are being made by admins who don't understand fair use and don't appreciate the stakes.
The addition of OCILLA boilerplate is probably unhelpful is nothing we've agreed upon, let alone had approved by counsel, but that's relatively unimportant by comparison.
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
[[:Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG]]
I offer this up as an example of some process problems we have in dealing with invalid fair use claims.
And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
--Jimbo
On 10/20/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
[[:Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG]]
I offer this up as an example of some process problems we have in dealing with invalid fair use claims.
And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's really quite simple. If safari jackets are still in existence, it would be easy enough for a Wikipedian to find or make a free image, meaning fair use is unneccesary. Clarify when fair use is permitted on the upload page and urge people to read the instructions carefully. When we're giving clear instructions on what is and isn't allowed we can simply delete images that fail to abide by the rules.
--Mgm
On 10/20/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's really quite simple. If safari jackets are still in existence, it would be easy enough for a Wikipedian to find or make a free image, meaning fair use is unneccesary. Clarify when fair use is permitted on the upload page and urge people to read the instructions carefully. When we're giving clear instructions on what is and isn't allowed we can simply delete images that fail to abide by the rules.
I think this is an important distinction to make. I don't know that I agree that the use of this image isn't fair use. It probably is. But for the purposes of Wikipedia just being fair use isn't enough. We should only be relying on fair use where finding or making our own image is nearly impossible. The term fair use is not very well understood by the vast majority of Wikipedians, and it's important that we make the correct arguments. For instance, I don't think we should be saying that we're removing a "fair use image", there's no such thing as a "fair use image". Rather, we're removing a "non-free image", and the reason we're removing it is that 1) it's not licensed to everyone under a free license, and 2) it can be replaced by a free image with a reasonable amount of work.
--Mgm
Anthony
On 10/20/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
I don't think that reasoning is correct. You'll usually get a fight just trying to remove the image from an article, something which is easily reverted. In fact, I've been blocked for removing a non-free image from the main page. The [[Al Gore]] article used to be filled with them. Completely unnecessary, and yet there was significant opposition to their removal. I have no idea if this situation has yet been corrected, well over a year later. It simply hasn't been made clear that reliance on fair use is only permitted in cases where there is no alternative.
--Jimbo
Anthony
Jimmy Wales wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
[[:Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG]]
I offer this up as an example of some process problems we have in dealing with invalid fair use claims.
And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.
This is the kind of situation where you might want to throw around some of your personal authority; there are a lot of editors not getting the message (or not wishing to accept it), and some in-WP pronouncements on a especially egregious offenders can be usefully quoted by your minions^Wenforcers.
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds for them.
Stan
On 10/20/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds for them.
The problem is worst on such generic articles, as you say. If one's writing a specific article on a specific lawnmower, say the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]], then one needs a specific picture of that specific model. It might have been out of production for 20 years and examples are hard to find. In that case, I believe it's quite acceptable to go to the GrassMaster corporate website to see if they have a picture we could use under fair use, or scan an image out of a period GrassMaster catalog. We're using a company's own promotional image to illustrate (and thus, in a sense, promote) their own product - a fairly slam-dunk fair use case, and likely counting as use with permission as well (so zero chance we'll get sued). Of course, should some fellow Wikipedian be a lawnmower collector who has one, it's preferable if we get their free-licensed photos to replace it.
Using such a photo on a more generic page, such as [[lawn mower]], is not a good fair use. Such is a large proportion of the bogus fair use claims we get.
The other category is people who, wanting to illustrate the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]] article, will rummage through their well-thumbed stack of "Lawnmower Monthly" until they find one on the cover, scan that cover, and use the magazine cover to illustrate the article. After all, "aren't magazine covers always fair use"?
-Matt
On 20 Oct 2005, at 21:23, Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/20/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds for them.
The problem is worst on such generic articles, as you say. If one's writing a specific article on a specific lawnmower, say the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]], then one needs a specific picture of that specific model. It might have been out of production for 20 years and examples are hard to find. In that case, I believe it's quite acceptable to go to the GrassMaster corporate website to see if they have a picture we could use under fair use, or scan an image out of a period GrassMaster catalog. We're using a company's own promotional image to illustrate (and thus, in a sense, promote) their own product - a fairly slam-dunk fair use case, and likely counting as use with permission as well (so zero chance we'll get sued). Of course, should some fellow Wikipedian be a lawnmower collector who has one, it's preferable if we get their free-licensed photos to replace it.
No, thats not reasonable. Just because you cant find a picture doesnt make it copyright free. Hardly anything has a justification that we cannot ever find a free one. I have recently been tagging all cars as fairusereplace as there are so few that there is no specimen surviving.
Using such a photo on a more generic page, such as [[lawn mower]], is not a good fair use. Such is a large proportion of the bogus fair use claims we get.
I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.
The other category is people who, wanting to illustrate the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]] article, will rummage through their well-thumbed stack of "Lawnmower Monthly" until they find one on the cover, scan that cover, and use the magazine cover to illustrate the article. After all, "aren't magazine covers always fair use"?
No they arent. The bogus fair use for specific categories should go. There is no fair use without justification.
Justinc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005, at 21:23, Matt Brown wrote:
<snip howto on taking photos of lawnmowers>
The problem is worst on such generic articles, as you say. If one's writing a specific article on a specific lawnmower, say the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]], then one needs a specific picture of that specific model. It might have been out of production for 20 years and examples are hard to find. In that case, I believe it's quite acceptable to go to the GrassMaster corporate website to see if they have a picture we could use under fair use, or scan an image out of a period GrassMaster catalog. We're using a company's own promotional image to illustrate (and thus, in a sense, promote) their own product - a fairly slam-dunk fair use case, and likely counting as use with permission as well (so zero chance we'll get sued). Of course, should some fellow Wikipedian be a lawnmower collector who has one, it's preferable if we get their free-licensed photos to replace it.
No, thats not reasonable. Just because you cant find a picture doesnt make it copyright free. Hardly anything has a justification that we cannot ever find a free one. I have recently been tagging all cars as fairusereplace as there are so few that there is no specimen surviving.
What about prototypes that were never put into production, but there are photos on the corporate website?
Using such a photo on a more generic page, such as [[lawn mower]], is not a good fair use. Such is a large proportion of the bogus fair use claims we get.
I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.
Including comics, TV shows, motion pictures, and computer and video games?
The other category is people who, wanting to illustrate the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]] article, will rummage through their well-thumbed stack of "Lawnmower Monthly" until they find one on the cover, scan that cover, and use the magazine cover to illustrate the article. After all, "aren't magazine covers always fair use"?
No they arent. The bogus fair use for specific categories should go. There is no fair use without justification.
You are quite right.
Such images where people could try and claim "fair use" in more than one article should probably be avoided. In that particular case, a more generic "Lawnmower Monthly" cover should be scanned and put into [[Lawnmower monthly]].
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 21 Oct 2005, at 11:26, Alphax wrote:
No, thats not reasonable. Just because you cant find a picture doesnt make it copyright free. Hardly anything has a justification that we cannot ever find a free one. I have recently been tagging all cars as fairusereplace as there are so few that there is no specimen surviving.
What about prototypes that were never put into production, but there are photos on the corporate website?
There are a few of these.
Using such a photo on a more generic page, such as [[lawn mower]], is not a good fair use. Such is a large proportion of the bogus fair use claims we get.
I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.
Including comics, TV shows, motion pictures, and computer and video games?
I think the position with respect to these is legally dubious. In all the fair use case law in cases where it is customary to license material from the copyright holder fair use has not been granted. Encyclopaedias and other books always license this sort of content (not sure what the fees are; they might be free in some or all cases; people pay IMDB to show some photos); if we choose not to license it but to just copy it without asking we are in a dubious position.
The other issue is that while a newspaper printing a thumbnail of an album next to a review would probably be fair use, that newspaper will be binned the next day, and using it to collect thumbnails of album covers would be stupidly difficult. Wikipedia will soon have thumbnails of every album cover ever released, in a nice searchable database. When Amazon first started doing this they were forced by the record companies to stop bots trawling over their sites to fill in the pictures on peoples iTunes collections. Having a comprehensive collection suddenly is no longer fair use, even if one individual case might be. Especially as illustrating an album is not essential for critical commentary on the music, its just an identification use, and we dont link to somewhere where you can buy it (the fair use search engine illustration thumbnails case was linking to sites you could buy the item in question).
Justinc
On 10/20/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
No, thats not reasonable. Just because you cant find a picture doesnt make it copyright free. Hardly anything has a justification that we cannot ever find a free one. I have recently been tagging all cars as fairusereplace as there are so few that there is no specimen surviving.
The legal doctrine of Fair Use does not require that we are unable to find a replacement under any circumstances. It is the general policy of Wikipedia - not the law - that we should attempt to replace Fair Use images with a wholly free one whenever we can, which I agree with.
I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are
fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.
It sounds to me that you simply are working on a different definition of legal Fair Use than everyone else ...
The other category is people who, wanting to illustrate the
[[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]] article, will rummage through their
well-thumbed
stack of "Lawnmower Monthly" until they find one on the cover, scan that cover, and use the magazine cover to illustrate the article. After all,
"aren't
magazine covers always fair use"?
No they arent. The bogus fair use for specific categories should go. There is no fair use without justification.
You missed the sarcasm indicated by the quotes.
-Matt
On 21 Oct 2005, at 12:24, Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/20/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
No, thats not reasonable. Just because you cant find a picture doesnt make it copyright free. Hardly anything has a justification that we cannot ever find a free one. I have recently been tagging all cars as fairusereplace as there are so few that there is no specimen surviving.
The legal doctrine of Fair Use does not require that we are unable to find a replacement under any circumstances. It is the general policy of Wikipedia - not the law - that we should attempt to replace Fair Use images with a wholly free one whenever we can, which I agree with.
The argument used is the converse - as we dont have a free picture we can tag anything fair use. Which is of course completely bogus.
I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are
fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.
It sounds to me that you simply are working on a different definition of legal Fair Use than everyone else ...
I dont know. These are the ones I would pay a lawyer to defend. I wouldnt bother to defend it if Sony or Fox came and asked us to remove all their copyrighted images for example - would you? I dont think we have a watertight case. This is a somewhat different definition than some other people its true, but then some people arent that bothered about wikipedia being a free encyclopaedia apparently either.
The ones are those in [[Photo manipulation]] BTW.
Justinc
On 10/21/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005, at 12:24, Matt Brown wrote: The argument used is the converse - as we dont have a free picture we can tag anything fair use. Which is of course completely bogus.
Personally, if I cannot obtain a free picture, I do not consider "anything" usable as Fair Use, although I know that puts me in the minority! I do consider promotional pictures freely distributed to be usable under that doctrine, though, when used to illustrate the thing or person the promotional picture shows. Plus, in practice, we can consider promotional images to be used with permission - the Fair Use claim is only required by Wikipedia's policies.
-Matt
On 21 Oct 2005, at 13:49, Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/21/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005, at 12:24, Matt Brown wrote: The argument used is the converse - as we dont have a free picture we can tag anything fair use. Which is of course completely bogus.
Personally, if I cannot obtain a free picture, I do not consider "anything" usable as Fair Use, although I know that puts me in the minority! I do consider promotional pictures freely distributed to be usable under that doctrine, though, when used to illustrate the thing or person the promotional picture shows. Plus, in practice, we can consider promotional images to be used with permission - the Fair Use claim is only required by Wikipedia's policies.
Ah the can of worms that is promo photos. Almost none of them are promo photos at all. Its just another way that people can put non free pictures into wikipedia, as it is a blanket "fair use" category. As we no longer accept images with permission the whole category is very dubious. I listed one for ifd today, as the site it came from did forbid reproduction on the front page, and some will go when the other 8000 images with no source get deleted next week, but the category as a whole is very grim.
Justinc
On 10/21/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005, at 13:49, Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/21/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005, at 12:24, Matt Brown wrote: The argument used is the converse - as we dont have a free picture we can tag anything fair use. Which is of course completely bogus.
Personally, if I cannot obtain a free picture, I do not consider "anything" usable as Fair Use, although I know that puts me in the minority! I do consider promotional pictures freely distributed to be usable under that doctrine, though, when used to illustrate the thing or person the promotional picture shows. Plus, in practice, we can consider promotional images to be used with permission - the Fair Use claim is only required by Wikipedia's policies.
Ah the can of worms that is promo photos. Almost none of them are promo photos at all. Its just another way that people can put non free pictures into wikipedia, as it is a blanket "fair use" category. As we no longer accept images with permission the whole category is very dubious. I listed one for ifd today, as the site it came from did forbid reproduction on the front page, and some will go when the other 8000 images with no source get deleted next week, but the category as a whole is very grim.
Justinc
Personally I think we should prefer images which are free to use without modification (such as CC-ND) over fair use. Yes, the ability to modify the image can be useful, but resolving the dubious nature of fair use is more useful, in my opinion. Both should only be used in situations where there is no other reasonable alternative, of course. I think we could convince a lot of people to release promotional photos under CC-ND. That'd be better than use with permission only for Wikipedia, and obviously better than using the same photo without any permission at all. Anthony
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds for them.
This indicates to me a suprrising lack of imagination on Wikipedia. We currently have countless content disputes, where people are attempting to find a way to frame the topic so to present their own POV as the "normal" one & all others as variants (& thus less credible), yet none of them has considered that were they to submit their own free images of their favorite subjects that they would succeed promoting their POVs that way.
In other words, because it is a free image, available for anyone to use for whatever reason, Stan's lawn mower has now become the de facto standard image of what a normal lawn mower looks like. And if your lawn mower doesn't look identical to his, then it could be assumed that yours is somehow wrong.
I assume that there are many people with sufficient self confidence in themselves (if not in their lawn mowers) to find this line of thought silly -- which it is in one way. But in another way, this becomes a powerful selling tool in getting more free images, one that I have been attempting to impliment, but haen't quite gotten to.
One's public image is important to many groups, for example incorporated communities like towns or cities; & if trends on Wikipedia continue, eventually every town or community will have a free image of it available for reuse. Now these towns can either allow someone else to create this image& hope that it presents them in a positive manner, or they can take from their own publicity campaigns one or more images & make them available to all free. I would assume that if these images were offered under either a freeCC or a GFD license, Wikimedia would be more than happy to host them at no cost. Everybody wins: there are more free images available for reuse, & these communities are able to advocate a more positive appearance than they might otherwise have. (As a counterexample , does anyone really think that Slough wants to be associated with "The Office" for the rest of recorded history?)
As for worries that this might encourage a slanted view of some cities, in the longer picture I doubt this would be a serious problem since volunteers will always be contributing material, perhaps encouraged by the lack of an alternative to the "official appearance". (As another example, if someone was able to produce pictures of East St. Louis that made the city look nice enough to make you want to live there, how long do you expect it would take for someone to provide alternative images?)
Just an idea or two for someone to run with.
Geoff
Geoff,
On a related issue, there may well be publicists who will be prepared to give us images of the actors, musicians etc given that Wikipedia has become so popular.
It might simply be a case of writing or e-mailing them and asking nicely.
Regards
Keith
Keith User:Capitalistroadster
On 10/22/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds for them.
This indicates to me a suprrising lack of imagination on Wikipedia. We currently have countless content disputes, where people are attempting to find a way to frame the topic so to present their own POV as the "normal" one & all others as variants (& thus less credible), yet none of them has considered that were they to submit their own free images of their favorite subjects that they would succeed promoting their POVs that way.
In other words, because it is a free image, available for anyone to use for whatever reason, Stan's lawn mower has now become the de facto standard image of what a normal lawn mower looks like. And if your lawn mower doesn't look identical to his, then it could be assumed that yours is somehow wrong.
I assume that there are many people with sufficient self confidence in themselves (if not in their lawn mowers) to find this line of thought silly -- which it is in one way. But in another way, this becomes a powerful selling tool in getting more free images, one that I have been attempting to impliment, but haen't quite gotten to.
One's public image is important to many groups, for example incorporated communities like towns or cities; & if trends on Wikipedia continue, eventually every town or community will have a free image of it available for reuse. Now these towns can either allow someone else to create this image& hope that it presents them in a positive manner, or they can take from their own publicity campaigns one or more images & make them available to all free. I would assume that if these images were offered under either a freeCC or a GFD license, Wikimedia would be more than happy to host them at no cost. Everybody wins: there are more free images available for reuse, & these communities are able to advocate a more positive appearance than they might otherwise have. (As a counterexample , does anyone really think that Slough wants to be associated with "The Office" for the rest of recorded history?)
As for worries that this might encourage a slanted view of some cities, in the longer picture I doubt this would be a serious problem since volunteers will always be contributing material, perhaps encouraged by the lack of an alternative to the "official appearance". (As another example, if someone was able to produce pictures of East St. Louis that made the city look nice enough to make you want to live there, how long do you expect it would take for someone to provide alternative images?)
Just an idea or two for someone to run with.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith Old wrote:
Geoff,
On a related issue, there may well be publicists who will be prepared to give us images of the actors, musicians etc given that Wikipedia has become so popular.
It might simply be a case of writing or e-mailing them and asking nicely.
I think that's right. But a lot of education may be needed.
I have a neat idea: a text, a brochure, in pdf format, that we could print and mail to publicists of famous people, asking them to submit a photo, and explaining what this is all about.
We can recommend a CC license so that they have a clue what it is for.
I was recently approached by a publicist for Bon Jovi about providing photos for Wikipedia. When I explained about the free licensing, the publicist had to go back the band's management to find out about it. (The publicist doesn't own the copyrights to the photo, of course.)
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.
As always, this is a question of who's authority and who enforces it, and what checks can be in place to remedy such. And because MW lacks any ability to do revert an image deletion, there seems to be no degrees of enforcement here. A template message could explain the situation after the fact:
On the authority vested in me by Jimbo, I hereby deem this [probably copyrighted] image of [a woman in a safari coat] as *vandalism dangerous to Wikipedia* and do hereby remedy the situation by deleting it with extreme prejudice and hence without any unnecessary and time-wasting debate about fair-use etc.
I would caution against empowering over 400 sysops with any ability to enforce unenforceable prejudiciality. I think its hard to find a meaningful difference between "strange culture" and a operative respect for Wikipedia:Civility.
SV
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
[[:Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG]]
I offer this up as an example of some process
problems we have in
dealing with invalid fair use claims.
And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
steve v wrote: <snip>
I would caution against empowering over 400 sysops with any ability to enforce unenforceable prejudiciality.
It's now over 600. Curiously, the sysop-user ratio is roughly constant (about 0.12%) across en:, fr:, de: and it: - I haven't checked many others.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/20/05, uninvited@nerstrand.net uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
I don't care much about this particular image, but I see this as a bellwether for the broader issue of dealing with the thousands of images we have where there is a doubtful fair use claim being made by the uploader. The process for handling such images is unclear, at least to me, with the IFD, PUI, and CV (copyright violations) pages having overlapping purpose and conflicting processes. Any of these processes are cumbersome, with notification required to the uploader and ongoing monitoring to shepherd the image through the process. And all of these processes are heavily biased towards inclusion. Decisions to keep fair use images are being made by admins who don't understand fair use and don't appreciate the stakes.
I believe CV is for copyright violations, PUI is for unfree (or possibly unfree) images which aren't necessarily copyright violations, and IFD is for the rest. In this case, I'd say the image was clearly unfree, and probably not a copyright violation, so PUI is probably the right place for it.
But none of this should be necessary simply to remove the image from the article(s), and in my opinion that's much more important than deleting the image from the site, especially for cases which might not be a copyright violation and for which the copyright holder isn't yelling at us to remove the image. That's just my opinion, though. Anthony
On 10/20/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
But none of this should be necessary simply to remove the image from the article(s), and in my opinion that's much more important than deleting the image from the site, especially for cases which might not be a copyright violation and for which the copyright holder isn't yelling at us to remove the image. That's just my opinion, though. Anthony
But that makes any fair use claim even weaker (ok that is exactly the reason why I remove them from acticles but that is a secondary point).
-- geni
On 10/20/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
But none of this should be necessary simply to remove the image from the article(s), and in my opinion that's much more important than deleting
the
image from the site, especially for cases which might not be a copyright violation and for which the copyright holder isn't yelling at us to
remove
the image. That's just my opinion, though. Anthony
But that makes any fair use claim even weaker (ok that is exactly the reason why I remove them from acticles but that is a secondary point).
Not really. The single most important factor for a fair use analysis is the impact of the use on the market for the original, and taking the image out of the article lessens that impact. The other factors aren't really hurt either, because the fact is the reason the image is being kept is in consideration for being used in an article, and that reason is just as good as actually using it in the article. I think it's also important to realize that there isn't really a serious legal threat to keeping these images around. OCILLA would protect Wikimedia in this case, and even moreso as the image is merely being kept around temporarily while its fate is decided. It's important that we remember why we're removing these images in the first place - it's because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia - not because there's a serious legal threat involved. In my opinion even images on user pages should be given a little bit of leeway for this reason. An image which isn't included in any of the articles isn't really in the encyclopedia itself, it's in a temporary workspace which we use to create an encyclopedia.
--
geni
Anthony
On 20 Oct 2005, at 17:34, uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
I don't care much about this particular image, but I see this as a bellwether for the broader issue of dealing with the thousands of images we have where there is a doubtful fair use claim being made by the uploader. The process for handling such images is unclear, at least to me, with the IFD, PUI, and CV (copyright violations) pages having overlapping purpose and conflicting processes. Any of these processes are cumbersome, with notification required to the uploader and ongoing monitoring to shepherd the image through the process. And all of these processes are heavily biased towards inclusion. Decisions to keep fair use images are being made by admins who don't understand fair use and don't appreciate the stakes.
It appears that the admin (who is closing most of ifd at the moment) has decided that PUI is where all images should end up. It is therefore now almost impossible to get anything deleted. I listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haley-Paige.jpg on ifd after it had already been tagged as fair use disputed. It has a big copyright notice on the bottom of the image from http://www.newsensations.com/, a porn image link reseller, and its labelled as "promo". And it didnt get deleted; its now on PUI. "Possibly unfree" whats the point of this. It is unfree, no question, so why is it here. Whats the point of this process?
I havent been closing ifd as I often list images there, and it seems bad form to list and delete, but I might have to change this policy.
Justinc
On 10/22/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
It appears that the admin (who is closing most of ifd at the moment) has decided that PUI is where all images should end up. It is therefore now almost impossible to get anything deleted. I listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haley-Paige.jpg on ifd after it had already been tagged as fair use disputed. It has a big copyright notice on the bottom of the image from http://www.newsensations.com/, a porn image link reseller, and its labelled as "promo". And it didnt get deleted; its now on PUI. "Possibly unfree" whats the point of this. It is unfree, no question, so why is it here. Whats the point of this process?
It has been deleted.
-- geni