A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases. Especially unfortunate are articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever. This is not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely without review.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look, were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to start discussions with the individual editors involved. My intention in sending this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to everyone's attention. In many cases where an article is clearly unsuitable, but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process is a good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more often.
Thanks, SCZenz
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
It is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely without review.
Not really. For some reason fair use deletion are pretty controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them if we relied on straw polls. So we have a speedy for them because, basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make a reasonable decision.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look, were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
Absolutely. What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles. Crappy articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.
On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. For some reason fair use deletion are pretty controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them if we relied on straw polls. So we have a speedy for them because, basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make a reasonable decision.
Not to mention that there's simply a huge number of image uploads per day. "Speedy" deletion is exactly that, speedy, and in the case of images it allows us to make qualified judgment calls within a reasonable timeframe. I would even argue that in the case of images, we could be a bit less conservative about deleting than we are now. For instance, on Commons, images are often flagged to be deleted "7 days from now unless a source is provided". Most of those should be speedy deleted with a brief note to the uploader.
Perhaps we need a middle ground between "speedy" admin actions and full community review, such as a quorum by n admins.
Erik
On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. For some reason fair use deletion are pretty controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them if we relied on straw polls. So we have a speedy for them because, basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make a reasonable decision.
I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different decisions to what you expect.
Absolutely. What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles. Crappy articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.
Is that crappy in how they look, or in their encyclopedic value.
Peter
On 5/21/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different decisions to what you expect.
They're not generally unreasonable, but you cannot vote away law and precedent. Copyright is very complex, and it is unfair to expect the average contributor to make an informed decision about whether or not the use of a particular image meets fair use criteria.
I have no problem with someone like Anthony, who has many informed opinions about copyright law, weighing into a debate or poll. But when someone wants to upload lots of high resolution scans of comic books and justifies this with "'''Keep.''' I did the scans myself. They are useful to the article.", such votes can and should be ignored. This is equally true for users who are deliberately ignoring policy because they don't like it.
Blindly giving a lot of power to everyone is equally dangerous to giving it to only a few. I oppose giving admins arbitrary power to interpret community opinion, but they need to have _some_ flexibility to do so. It's a delicate balance.
Perhaps in the long run, we'll have a "Fair Use" course in Wikiversity and can make participation in that course an ''a priori'' requirement for voting in a fair use related poll.
Erik
On 5/21/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. For some reason fair use deletion are pretty controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them if we relied on straw polls. So we have a speedy for them because, basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make a reasonable decision.
I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different decisions to what you expect.
I do everything I can to keep image copyright-related questions away from anything resembling an open poll, because such polls frequently generate a result that contravenes copyright law, Wikipedia site policy, or both.
On 5/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles. Crappy articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.
To paraphrase Sturgeon, 90% of Wikipedia is crap.
Ted Sturgeon, bless his heart, had a much too charitable opinion of human endeavor.
On 5/30/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles. Crappy articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.
To paraphrase Sturgeon, 90% of Wikipedia is crap. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases. Especially unfortunate are articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever. This is not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely without review.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look, were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to start discussions with the individual editors involved. My intention in sending this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to everyone's attention. In many cases where an article is clearly unsuitable, but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process is a good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more often.
Thanks, SCZenz _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is what I try and do when I do speedy deletions. I try to follow the general principle of if in doubt, don't delete. Generally, there is no reason why they can't be kept around for a few days with the exception of copyvios.
If necessary, I will even rewrite the article as a stub myself if the subject of the article warrants it and I have enough information.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
... and don't forget our old friend the redirect.
k
On 5/20/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases. Especially unfortunate are articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever. This
is
not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason
for
deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely without review.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful
look,
were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g.
through
PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to
take
such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages
patrol
(for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to
start
discussions with the individual editors involved. My intention in
sending
this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to everyone's attention. In many cases where an article is clearly unsuitable, but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process
is
a good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more often.
Thanks, SCZenz _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is what I try and do when I do speedy deletions. I try to follow the general principle of if in doubt, don't delete. Generally, there is no reason why they can't be kept around for a few days with the exception of copyvios.
If necessary, I will even rewrite the article as a stub myself if the subject of the article warrants it and I have enough information.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
... and don't forget our old friend the redirect.
k
On 5/20/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases. Especially unfortunate are articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever. This
is
not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason
for
deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely without review.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful
look,
were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g.
through
PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to
take
such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages
patrol
(for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to
start
discussions with the individual editors involved. My intention in
sending
this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to everyone's attention. In many cases where an article is clearly unsuitable, but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process
is
a good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more often.
Thanks, SCZenz _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is what I try and do when I do speedy deletions. I try to follow the general principle of if in doubt, don't delete. Generally, there is no reason why they can't be kept around for a few days with the exception of copyvios.
If necessary, I will even rewrite the article as a stub myself if the subject of the article warrants it and I have enough information.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Katefan0,
... and don't forget our old friend the redirect.
That's another thing I love: seeing {{db|Misspelling of [[Joe Bloggs]]}} on an article about [[Joe Boggs]]. Why not just merge them and redirect the mispelling?
On May 20, 2006, at 7:37 PM, SCZenz wrote:
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases.
If they weren't, we'd be deluged with crap.
As Jimbo says, "We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it."
We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds to read them and evaluate the claims they make. Isn't that bad?
On 5/20/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 20, 2006, at 7:37 PM, SCZenz wrote:
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases.
If they weren't, we'd be deluged with crap.
As Jimbo says, "We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it."
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds to read them and evaluate the claims they make. Isn't that bad?
There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day. I think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it would be nice if there were no bad calls.
On 5/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds
to
read them and evaluate the claims they make. Isn't that bad?
There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day. I think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it would be nice if there were no bad calls. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An Jimbo has said as well:
"Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging that it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there behind them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
Admin actions are reversable anyway
On 5/24/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
"Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging that it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there behind them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
Admin actions are reversable anyway
To save others the trouble of pointing it out, there is always the risk of losing "deleted" stuff in a server crash (they're apparently not backed up), and apparently at least once in the past "deleted" stuff has been deliberately purged to save space.
No idea of the validiity of these arguments.
Steve
On 5/23/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
Admin actions are reversable anyway
You would think that but people keep wanting to call it wheel waring.
On 5/24/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
Admin actions are reversable anyway
You would think that but people keep wanting to call it wheel waring.
They're almost all technically reversable, and if the reversal is done with agreement/communication/consensus, it's not wheel warring. Let's avoid the strawman arguments...
Jay.
Wikipedia-EN ListServ Ops....could you possibly change my settings from individual email to digest? I'm about to go out of town for 2 months.
-Swatjester
My issue isn't with mistags by newpages patrollers; it's with misdeletions by admins. I think everyone should know that they can, and should, take the time to review if something is speediable. (Or, more importantly, whether it's got the potential to be a good article or not.)
Although admin actions are reversible, this rarely happens with speedies because they are quite difficult to review after deletion. Is there some way to sort the deletion logs to include only pages that had deletion templates on them when they went?
SCZenz
On 5/23/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds
to
read them and evaluate the claims they make. Isn't that bad?
There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day. I think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it would be nice if there were no bad calls. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An Jimbo has said as well:
"Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging that it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there behind them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
Admin actions are reversable anyway _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day SCZenz,
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely in some cases. Especially unfortunate are articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever. This is not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely without review.
I agree entirely.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look, were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
It's not people mis-tagging articles that bothers me: I can easily remove the tags. What bothers me is when:
a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to disagree?". Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst) unfettered abuse as a result. "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove it?" It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations. I suspect the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any article that finds its way into the CSD category.
I did newpage patrol (well, I clicked on every orange bar that appeared in CDVF and tagged as appropriate) myself before adminship was thrust upon me like so much <ran out of steam; feel free to insert your own simile/>. I understand the pressures our patrollers are under. I don't begrudge them an improperly tagged article or two.
But those of us who come along and delete articles after they've been tagged need to have our brains engaged before we hit that button. And if, instead of deleting an article, we simply remove the tag, the tagger needs to Learn From The Experience instead of proving himself to lack the maturity required for possession of such a button.
<snip/>
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to disagree?". Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
You know about {{hangon}} ?
b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst)
unfettered abuse as a result. "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove it?" It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations. I suspect the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any article that finds its way into the CSD category.
AfD it for them? Third opinion and all that...
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to disagree?". Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
You know about {{hangon}} ?
Why? Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the {{delete}} tag. No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because *the article is not a speedy candidate*.
b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst)
unfettered abuse as a result. "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove it?" It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations. I suspect the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any article that finds its way into the CSD category.
AfD it for them? Third opinion and all that...
To Hell with that. I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to disagree?". Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
You know about {{hangon}} ?
Why? Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the {{delete}} tag. No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because *the article is not a speedy candidate*.
Ok, but at this point, you're saying that two separate people think the article is speedyable - the person who put the tag, and another admin who deleted it even without the tag. And from a pragmatic point of view, you had to edit and save the article to rm the {{delete}} tag, and you had to edit/save to add the new text - you wouldn't be losing a lot using {{hangon}}. But it's your call.
unfettered abuse as a result. "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove it?" It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
To Hell with that. I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.
I can see how "to hell with that" might be taken as a "grave insult", yes.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to disagree?". Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
You know about {{hangon}} ?
Why? Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the {{delete}} tag. No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because *the article is not a speedy candidate*.
Ok, but at this point, you're saying that two separate people think the article is speedyable - the person who put the tag, and another admin who deleted it even without the tag. And from a pragmatic point of view, you had to edit and save the article to rm the {{delete}} tag, and you had to edit/save to add the new text - you wouldn't be losing a lot using {{hangon}}. But it's your call.
Umm ... I'm talking about admins who don't think about it, but just say "it's tagged speedy, not my place to not delete it."
unfettered abuse as a result. "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove it?" It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
To Hell with that. I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.
I can see how "to hell with that" might be taken as a "grave insult", yes.
When you're quite finished tying others' words in knots, let's review ...
a) User A is RC patrolling. He sees a stub about a school, and tags it {{db|Just advertising for an external link}} b) Mark comes across the article while checking the CSD category. He says "that's not a speedy, and what's more, I think I could improve it a little ..."
Now, we have three alternative resolutions:
c0) The article is improved by Mark. User A appears on Mark's talkpage and says "whoops, sorry, that was never a speedy, I'll be more careful". And Alyson Hannigan appears, too, and says "what a good decision, oh, you're so sexy." This is the Preferred Resolution.
c1) Admin C comes along and speedies it. This is *not* the Preferred Resolution, but in at least one case it has led to a discussion on IRC, and I believe the admin involved now has obtained a bit of a Clue as to when to speedy and when not. This is probably a Good Thing.
c2) User A appears on Mark's talkpage saying "if you don't think an article should be speedied, it is NOT APPROPRIATE for you to remove the tag. Only admins can do that, you idiot! What do you think you're playing at?"
At what point did Mark insult anyone?
Now, given that every time I clean up CAT:CSD, I run across roughly half a dozen improperly-tagged articles (and, no, I don't put them to AfD), yet I only get a complaint once every two or three attempts (and abusive complaints are rarer), I guess we can say "c2" is not the norm, fortunately. *Un*fortunately, neither is c0. Wither art thou, Ms Hannigan? :-(
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT2085.JPG) is clearly taken by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.
While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP, I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own, even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.
I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the same category.
In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it should be equally as good for the gander(s).
Pete, keen photographer
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
Is "creator" well defined anywhere? If you have the idea to take a photo of yourself against a particular background, choose the spot, set the camera settings, frame it, then hand it to a passerby saying "can you press this button when I say GO", and later download the photo, photoshop it, crop it, upload it etc - are you really saying that that passer by is the "creator" of the photo?
No idea if that's the case here, but I don't think the button pusher should necessarily get all the credit, or even *any* credit if they've been told exactly what to do.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
Is "creator" well defined anywhere? If you have the idea to take a photo of yourself against a particular background, choose the spot, set the camera settings, frame it, then hand it to a passerby saying "can you press this button when I say GO", and later download the photo, photoshop it, crop it, upload it etc - are you really saying that that passer by is the "creator" of the photo?
I don't know. Given the often high-level debate here about finer points of fair use and terms of free licenses, I was hoping for some definitive answer. My own smiling user picture was removed some months ago on these grounds and there was nothing I could do about it.
I can't ask the subject of the photograph, but I suggest that your scenario above is rather fanciful. The image is tilted, which indicates to me that a tripod wasn't used, and that it wasn't photoshopped and cropped. In any case, manipulating a pre-existing image taken by somebody else doesn't give you copyright over the resulting image, not unless you make some really major changes which clearly has not occurred in this case.
Nor is having the idea for a particular photograph enough to give you copyright over an image taken by somebody else. I don't know about "setting the settings" - you may have some point here - but on examining this image it doesn't seem to have been taken in any particularly challenging lighting or other conditions. Depth of field, the "flat" lighting of an overcast day - it all looks to me like the camera was set on automatic and the autofocus picked out the subject.
It looks to me unremarkable in every way. There must be a million happy snaps out there taken in the same location all looking much the same.
No idea if that's the case here, but I don't think the button pusher should necessarily get all the credit, or even *any* credit if they've been told exactly what to do.
Point and shoot? That's about all that anyone does with a digital camera nowadays.
--Peter in Canberra
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Nor is having the idea for a particular photograph enough to give you copyright over an image taken by somebody else. I don't know about "setting the settings" - you may have some point here - but on examining this image it doesn't seem to have been taken in any particularly challenging lighting or other conditions. Depth of field, the "flat" lighting of an overcast day
- it all looks to me like the camera was set on automatic and the
autofocus picked out the subject.
It looks to me unremarkable in every way. There must be a million happy snaps out there taken in the same location all looking much the same.
If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole question of copyright totally moot? Can you claim copyright over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night? Such a bad photo as that one hardly seems to fulfil any criteria for creativity - the person aimed in roughly the right direction and pressed a button.
Point and shoot? That's about all that anyone does with a digital camera
nowadays.
Most people - but not all.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Nor is having the idea for a particular photograph enough
to give you
copyright over an image taken by somebody else. I don't know about "setting the settings" - you may have some point here - but on examining this image it doesn't seem to have been taken in any particularly challenging lighting or other conditions. Depth of field, the "flat" lighting of
an overcast
day
- it all looks to me like the camera was set on automatic and the
autofocus picked out the subject.
It looks to me unremarkable in every way. There must be a million happy snaps out there taken in the same location all
looking much the
same.
If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole question of copyright totally moot?
Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license status of photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs themselves are good or bad, exciting or boring.
Can you claim copyright over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night?
????
Such a bad photo as that one hardly seems to fulfil any criteria for creativity - the person aimed in roughly the right direction and pressed a button.
I wouldn't call it a bad photograph. It's slightly tilted, but that's easily fixed. There's no sparkle to it, but that's more the fault of the lighting than anything else. From the subject's point of view it is pretty good. It shows him in front of a famous landmark and is admirably suited to the user's page, showing what he is doing.
My problem lies with the fact that he has called himself the creator of the photograph and released it into the public domain when to my mind copyright belongs to the photographer rather than the subject.
Point and shoot? That's about all that anyone does with a digital camera
nowadays.
Most people - but not all.
Sure. But there is no evidence in this photograph that the subject "set the settings", as you surmised earlier. It looks like a straight "point and shoot" image to me.
Pete
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole question of copyright totally moot?
Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license status of photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs themselves are good or bad, exciting or boring.
I think it does matter what the chances of the copyright violatee making a complaint are. I could be wrong on this. But if we are to focus our efforts anywhere, surely they should be areas where there actually is a potential complainant.
Can you claim copyright
over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night?
????
Well, apparently you can copyright pointing a device that takes a photo and pressing a button - with no further creative input. As you pointed out, it's not necessarily a creative process.
I wouldn't call it a bad photograph. It's slightly tilted, but that's easily
fixed. There's no sparkle to it, but that's more the fault of the lighting than anything else. From the subject's point of view it is pretty good. It shows him in front of a famous landmark and is admirably suited to the user's page, showing what he is doing.
It's funny, again, very likely the fact that it's in a front of a landmark and that it has him in it is almost certainly his doing. The fact that it's tilted is the photographer's, but the subject could easily "fix" that - again pointing to the subject as having the greater creative input.
My problem lies with the fact that he has called himself the creator of the
photograph and released it into the public domain when to my mind copyright belongs to the photographer rather than the subject.
I have a collection of several thousand digital photos taken with my camera. I'm sure one of these days I'll inadvertently, or without thinking too much, claim to be the creator of one that I didn't actually take. Hell, there are lots of near-duplicates where I took one and my girlfriend took the other. I don't think this is a case where claiming copyright over the wrong one is really going to cause anybody a great deal of harm.
Sure. But there is no evidence in this photograph that the subject "set the settings", as you surmised earlier. It looks like a straight "point and shoot" image to me.
Yep.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
...
If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the
whole question
of copyright totally moot?
Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license
status of
photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs
themselves are
good or bad, exciting or boring.
I think it does matter what the chances of the copyright violatee making a complaint are. I could be wrong on this. But if we are to focus our efforts anywhere, surely they should be areas where there actually is a potential complainant.
I take your point, but why should we encourage or condone bad license attributions?
Can you claim copyright
over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night?
????
Well, apparently you can copyright pointing a device that takes a photo and pressing a button - with no further creative input. As you pointed out, it's not necessarily a creative process.
Please don't be crass. Possibly the photographer went to immense trouble to take a photograph. It doesn't matter, anyway. We can't just claim copyright over photographs because we think that the photographer didn't have much creative input.
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Please don't be crass. Possibly the photographer went to immense trouble to take a photograph. It doesn't matter, anyway. We can't just claim copyright over photographs because we think that the photographer didn't have much creative input.
Just querying your use of "we". Do you mean "Wikipedia cannot claim copyright"? If so, no problem, Wikipedia does not claim copyright over photos contributed to it. Or do you mean "Wikipedia's editors should not falsely assert copyright"? In that case, true, but it's really their problem, not ours. We're not going to get sued over it.
Steve
Peter Mackay wrote:
Well, apparently you can copyright pointing a device that
takes a photo and pressing a button - with no further creative input. As you pointed out, it's not necessarily a creative process.
Please don't be crass. Possibly the photographer went to immense trouble to take a photograph. It doesn't matter, anyway. We can't just claim copyright over photographs because we think that the photographer didn't have much creative input.
In the good old pre-digital photography days the subject might take the film home and develop it in his own darkroom doing whatever would be needed to improve the picture. He would at least merit joint authorship. Who owned the original negative was influential in determining the outcome.
Ec
On 5/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In the good old pre-digital photography days the subject might take the film home and develop it in his own darkroom doing whatever would be needed to improve the picture. He would at least merit joint authorship. Who owned the original negative was influential in determining the outcome.
Actually, that's a good point. If the person pictured in the photo set up the scene, and it isn't a work for hire, then it might very well be a joint work... In which case either owner is independently able to license the photo under any free license (but permission of both would be needed to release it into the public domain).
Anthony
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole question of copyright totally moot?
Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license status of photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs themselves are good or bad, exciting or boring.
I think it does matter what the chances of the copyright violatee making a complaint are. I could be wrong on this. But if we are to focus our efforts anywhere, surely they should be areas where there actually is a potential complainant.
This is a more important question. You cannot legally make a formal complaint without standing.
Copyright is an economic right and a property right. If no-one exists who has standing to claim a copyright that copyright may have become a nullity. This is the crux of the problem with orphan copyrights. This also explains the absence of legal precedent on this point; nobody is available to be plaintiff.
Ec
G'day Pete,
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
Okay, you have a point, but given your history I find it hard to believe you found these particular images during harmless "research". I suspect your points would be better received if you didn't use Dr Carr to help illustrate them.
<snip rest/>
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Gallagher
G'day Pete,
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
I refer to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
Okay, you have a point, but given your history I find it hard to believe you found these particular images during harmless "research".
Research is what I was doing, Mark. I'm not asleep until October. Like you, I keep an eye on what people are saying about me and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AXtra&diff=53458305... did=52631183] came up during a search on my name. I also noticed reference on the same page to the same person being blocked for making personal attacks. And swiftly unblocked. Working out what was going on was research, and I think you can understand why I'd take an interest.
As you know, the thrust of my ArbCom case was that this particular user was singling me out for abuse. I got a month in the cooler and he got a slap on the wrist - an admonition from the ArbCom to be more civil in future. Yet he's still making savage personal attacks against other editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elections_in_Cuba&diff=pr... ldid=51652019 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aidan_Work&diff=prev... id=31166859 are subjects for recent discussion on WP:ANI. He's always done it and given that he ignores ArbCom rulings, he always will.
Do you understand how outrageous this is? Do you understand why I have limited respect for the internal "justice system"? I'll take my hat off to this user for a lot of the edit work he does, but his behaviour is dead against wikipolicy. He is a revert warrior, he pursues vendettas, he abuses other editors, and when he gets in a jam, he whistles up some friendly admins. No wonder people talk about cliques and cabals.
My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken by someone else as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many photographs on user pages. How I got to this particular is really immaterial, and I mentioned research in case someone like you wondered why I chose this user as an example.
--Peter (Skyring)
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken by someone else as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many photographs on user pages. How I got to this particular is really immaterial, and I mentioned research in case someone like you wondered why I chose this user as an example.
With respect, it's really not important, and was probably a tag slapped on in haste, knowing that no one is going to dispute the copyright of that image, and that no one is ever going to attempt to reuse it for anything. Our system isn't really geared to handle these types of images - what tag would *you* have put on it? All I can think of is getting the creator (yes, that random passerby) to write an email certifying that they release it under GFDL, and we could *still* dispute whether it was actually them or not.
We don't really have a way of dealing with images whose copyright value is so low as to actually be negligible. Copyright is not like other laws - if it's inconceivable that anyone could actually sue us over it, or even complain about it, there is not, afaik, any problem with us violating it.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken
by someone
else as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many photographs on user pages. How I got to this particular is really immaterial, and I mentioned research in case someone like
you wondered
why I chose this user as an example.
With respect, it's really not important, and was probably a tag slapped on in haste, knowing that no one is going to dispute the copyright of that image,
I dispute it, and I raise the point for other user photographs on WP. Here are a few I've pulled in from all over the place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Early_photgraph_of_CambridgeBayWeather.jp g A professional studio portrait purporting to be released into Public Domain by the subject claiming to be the creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Musical_linguist.jpeg is shown as GFDL, albeit with a bit of honesty: "was taken by my niece, with my camera". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedian_Admrboltz.jpg GFDL CC-BY-SA-All http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alkivar-002-TWEAKED.jpg PD (with permission from a website).
and that no one is ever going to attempt to reuse it for anything. Our system isn't really geared to handle these types of images - what tag would *you* have put on it? All I can think of is getting the creator (yes, that random passerby) to write an email certifying that they release it under GFDL, and we could *still* dispute whether it was actually them or not.
I'd put a fair use tag on it.
But I note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimmy_Wales.jpg is uploaded by the photographer and released into the PD.
We don't really have a way of dealing with images whose copyright value is so low as to actually be negligible. Copyright is not like other laws - if it's inconceivable that anyone could actually sue us over it, or even complain about it, there is not, afaik, any problem with us violating it.
So why not put fair use on it? Sure, it's a copyvio, but not one that is going to concern too many courts, given its nature.
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so it's a work for hire.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
Anthony
I agree with Anthony, maybe the person who actually photographed the concerned user was in a technical sense "working" for the latter.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Prasad J
I agree with Anthony, maybe the person who actually photographed the concerned user was in a technical sense "working" for the latter.
Maybe. We don't know. Can anybody steer me to a good reference on this point?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I refer to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so it's a work for hire.
We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP. In any case, the license used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is the creator, and to my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is that I can't.
--Peter (Skyring)
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I refer to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so it's a work for hire.
We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.
No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.
In any case, the license used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is the creator, and to my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
I'd say the template should be changed, then. I was going to say it should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but if it's public domain then the person no longer is a copyright holder. If you've got a suggestion how to better phrase the template so that it encompasses the situation of a work made for hire, let us know.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
I now understand the accusation Jimbo was trying to make when he pointed out that I was taking a similar position to you on another issue. Not that it was any more than a petty jab, but at least it now makes sense.
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 6:00 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I refer to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod
or other
support such as a wall.
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so it's a work for hire.
We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.
No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.
See below.
In any case, the license used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is
the creator,
and to my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
I'd say the template should be changed, then. I was going to say it should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but if it's public domain then the person no longer is a copyright holder. If you've got a suggestion how to better phrase the template so that it encompasses the situation of a work made for hire, let us know.
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough that it needs clarifying.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were saying about AGF?
The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is setting a good example.
Peter
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
I don't know, and frankly I don't care. You seem to care, but yet you don't want to ask the only person who knows.
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough that it needs clarifying.
I agree that it'd be useful to clarify it, but I can't think of a better phrasing.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were saying about AGF?
He's an admin, you're a banned user. AGF applies differently to each situation :). Seriously, though, if you "wonder about how people [handle] uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator", just ask. I'd say they should be handled like any other photo.
Anyway, if you can't get a straight answer, I'm sorry. But any comment by any of the rest of us would be a guess.
Personally I really don't care who took the photo, as long as it stays out of the article namespace (which I expect).
The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is setting a good example.
Peter
There doesn't seem to be a tag for an image which was released into the public domain by a non-Wikipedian (such as a spouse or friend). That would probably be a good addition to the current tags.
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
I don't know, and frankly I don't care. You seem to care, but yet you don't want to ask the only person who knows.
Well, aren't you the one who raised the "made for hire" point originally? If you don't care, then why bother?
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation
is common
enough that it needs clarifying.
I agree that it'd be useful to clarify it, but I can't think of a better phrasing.
I'm hoping that those on the list who actually know about this stuff can give an opinion.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second
reason that you
don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is
it you were
saying about AGF?
He's an admin, you're a banned user.
Well, that's not true. You should check your facts.
Seriously, though, if you "wonder about how people [handle] uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator", just ask. I'd say they should be handled like any other photo.
Well, I agree. My point is that claiming to be the creator of a photograph you didn't take is a bit rich when you are assigning a free license to it. Claiming fair use seems to be a better way of going about it. We use fair use images non-controversially to illustrate biographical articles, why not do the same thing for user pages, which are similar in nature?
Pete, wondering if common sense might apply here
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
[snip conversation that wasn't going anywhere]
He's an admin, you're a banned user.
Well, that's not true. You should check your facts.
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
My point is that claiming to be the creator of a photograph you didn't take is a bit rich when you are assigning a free license to it.
Depends on the circumstances.
Claiming fair use seems to be a better way of going about it.
Only if the photo was not released under a free license.
We use fair use images non-controversially to illustrate biographical articles, why not do the same thing for user pages, which are similar in nature?
There's a stupid rule saying it's not allowed.
Pete, wondering if common sense might apply here
Anthony
In message 068f01c67d18$3667b090$6400a8c0@Tiny, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org writes
From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 6:00 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
I refer to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod
or other
support such as a wall.
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so it's a work for hire.
We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.
No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.
See below.
In any case, the license used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is
the creator,
and to my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
I'd say the template should be changed, then. I was going to say it should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but if it's public domain then the person no longer is a copyright holder. If you've got a suggestion how to better phrase the template so that it encompasses the situation of a work made for hire, let us know.
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough that it needs clarifying.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were saying about AGF?
The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is setting a good example.
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as: - I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago, - my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a shilling or two), - it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of the portrait survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files, - the photographer is unlikely to still be in business, - I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use of the photo (except on grounds of artistic taste!)
Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in Wikipedia under any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the theoretical copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of tracing effort?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Arwel Parry
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
- it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of
the portrait survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
- the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
- I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use
of the photo (except on grounds of artistic taste!)
Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in Wikipedia under any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the theoretical copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of tracing effort?
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with it. But fair use to illustrate a user page seems reasonable to me.
Pete, stealing the moral high ground
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with it.
This whole conversation is getting a bit silly. But I don't agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that violating it is actually wrong.
Obviously this only applies to trivial cases, like the one we're discussing.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
sin and you
will get away with it.
This whole conversation is getting a bit silly.
If so, why keep on participating. Personally, I'm grateful for the discussion steering me towards a possible solution.
But I don't agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that violating it is actually wrong.
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime as stealing a million.
Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different question.
Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if nobody gives a rat's bum.
Which is pretty much how I feel about this end of the conversation.
Peter
In message 06a001c67d24$f193d590$6400a8c0@Tiny, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org writes
From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
sin and you
will get away with it.
This whole conversation is getting a bit silly.
If so, why keep on participating. Personally, I'm grateful for the discussion steering me towards a possible solution.
But I don't agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that violating it is actually wrong.
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime as stealing a million.
Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different question.
Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if nobody gives a rat's bum.
Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option which states something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this is intended only to be used in the case of private images which have not been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).
On 5/21/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option which states something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this is intended only to be used in the case of private images which have not been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).
I think that's a bad idea. People will start labeling everything that they can't find the author on as "technically copyrighted".
When a user labels something as their own creation and that they have licensed it under X-and-Y license, and we have no real reason to really suspect otherwise (and no, I don't think "but they didn't necessarily take the picture of themself" is enough to really suspect otherwise), then I think the risk is legally theirs. I'm also reasonably sure it falls under the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, as I understand them.
FF
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
On 5/21/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option
which states
something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this is intended only to be used in the case of private
images which
have not been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).
I think that's a bad idea. People will start labeling everything that they can't find the author on as "technically copyrighted".
Can anyone explain why fair use would not apply? The uploader doesn't hold the copyright, but the use of an image of themselves to illustrate what is essentially a WP-maintained profile isn't going to be controversial.
When a user labels something as their own creation and that they have licensed it under X-and-Y license, and we have no real reason to really suspect otherwise (and no, I don't think "but they didn't necessarily take the picture of themself" is enough to really suspect otherwise)
I can't see how you can come to this conclusion. If they didn't take the photograph themselves they don't own the copyright. Not without some additional assignment of rights, and making the assumption that this has somehow happened by assuming good faith on the part of the uploader is going too far.
I suggest that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, no such explicit assignment of rights has occurred, but the uploader is quite confident that the photographer is not going to make any fuss.
then I think the risk is legally theirs. I'm also reasonably sure it falls under the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, as I understand them.
Could you please explain them?
I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is non-controversial and used with permission.
Peter
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is non-controversial and used with permission.
Peter
[[Image:Leeinvelo1.JPG]], which is also on Jimbo's user page, was apparently uploaded by the same person who claims to have released it into the public domain.
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is non-controversial and used with permission.
Peter
[[Image:Leeinvelo1.JPG]], which is also on Jimbo's user page, was apparently uploaded by the same person who claims to have released it into the public domain.
Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these images are non-controversial and the problem is finding the best way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
--Peter in Canberra
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these images are non-controversial and the problem is finding the best way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
Seems to me the best solution is to tag it as {{GFDL}} or {{PD}} or whatever, and add a note of "Taken at my request".
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wagner
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these images are non-controversial and the problem is
finding the best
way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
Seems to me the best solution is to tag it as {{GFDL}} or {{PD}} or whatever, and add a note of "Taken at my request".
Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without explicit assignment.
--Peter
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without explicit assignment.
The suggestion was {{GFDL}} not {{GFDL-self}}. No worries.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph
actually give
you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it
does, without
explicit assignment.
The suggestion was {{GFDL}} not {{GFDL-self}}. No worries.
So you can release a photograph as GFDL if you do not hold the copyright to it? Is this fair dinkum?
--Peter
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you can release a photograph as GFDL if you do not hold the copyright to it? Is this fair dinkum?
No. Check the {{GFDL}} template. It's not a release, it's an assertion. If you stamp the photo {{GFDL}}, you're simply saying that the person who took it has previously released it - a different kind of sin, that may or not let you sleep better at night.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you can release a photograph as GFDL if you do not hold the copyright to it? Is this fair dinkum?
No. Check the {{GFDL}} template. It's not a release, it's an assertion. If you stamp the photo {{GFDL}}, you're simply saying that the person who took it has previously released it - a different kind of sin, that may or not let you sleep better at night.
For instance, if my wife takes a picture of me, I ask her to release it under GFDL so it can be on WP and she agrees, I can legitimately do the uploading and GFDL-tagging myself, crediting her as photographer. We do take it on a certain amount of faith that I'm representing the situation truthfully, but given that the GFDL requires that the creator of the work be identified, a skeptic would in theory have enough info to contact her directly and confirm the license.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
For instance, if my wife takes a picture of me, I ask her to release it under GFDL so it can be on WP and she agrees, I can legitimately do the uploading and GFDL-tagging myself, crediting her as photographer. We do take it on a certain amount of faith that I'm representing the situation truthfully, but given that the GFDL requires that the creator of the work be identified, a skeptic would in theory have enough info to contact her directly and confirm the license.
California being a community-property state, my wife and I own each other's copyrights and freely use (and license) each other's work.
- -- Sean Barrett | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot sean@epoptic.com | like women. You just have to read the manual | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Stan Shebs
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you can release a photograph as GFDL if you do not hold the copyright to it? Is this fair dinkum?
No. Check the {{GFDL}} template. It's not a release, it's an assertion. If you stamp the photo {{GFDL}}, you're simply
saying that
the person who took it has previously released it - a
different kind
of sin, that may or not let you sleep better at night.
For instance, if my wife takes a picture of me, I ask her to release it under GFDL so it can be on WP and she agrees, I can legitimately do the uploading and GFDL-tagging myself, crediting her as photographer. We do take it on a certain amount of faith that I'm representing the situation truthfully, but given that the GFDL requires that the creator of the work be identified, a skeptic would in theory have enough info to contact her directly and confirm the license.
If they wanted to. Actually, I don't have much of a problem with this for non-controversial user photographs. I don't know if it would stand up in court, but you'd have to say that if someone asks a random person on the street to take their photograph, then it was implicit that the photographer would have no ownership or control over the resultant image. Afer all, you wouldn't ask someone you didn't know to take your photograph with your own camera if you thought you wouldn't end up with rights to it. It's a little different to going into a studio and asking a professional photographer to shoot you. You end up with copies, he keeps the rights.
My problem is where uploaders identify themselves as the creators of the image when clearly they are not. I'd like to see some explicit WP-agreed way of doing this.
And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the exact same quibble with ownership.
Here's the photograph I want to upload. http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in Hiroshima with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
Pete, back home again
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the exact same quibble with ownership.
Here's the photograph I want to upload. http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in Hiroshima with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
Do you still speak to Cari? If so, just get Cari to agree to release the photo under a free license. But please don't pick {{GFDL}}.
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the exact same quibble with ownership.
Here's the photograph I want to upload. http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in
Hiroshima
with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
Do you still speak to Cari? If so, just get Cari to agree to release the photo under a free license. But please don't pick {{GFDL}}.
She's an angel. She'll happily release the photograph if I ask. My problem is that I can't upload it.
--Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the exact same quibble with ownership.
Here's the photograph I want to upload. http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in
Hiroshima
with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
Do you still speak to Cari? If so, just get Cari to agree to release the photo under a free license. But please don't pick {{GFDL}}.
She's an angel. She'll happily release the photograph if I ask. My problem is that I can't upload it.
If you tag it with a relevant CC license on Flickr, the FlickrLickr (sic) project will catch it.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of
Anthony DiPierro
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is
that when I'm
eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to
upload a
picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the exact same quibble with ownership.
Here's the photograph I want to upload. http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in
Hiroshima
with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
Do you still speak to Cari? If so, just get Cari to agree to release the photo under a free license. But please don't pick {{GFDL}}.
She's an angel. She'll happily release the photograph if I ask. My problem is that I can't upload it.
If you tag it with a relevant CC license on Flickr, the FlickrLickr (sic) project will catch it.
Mmmm, yes, but it isn't particularly notable - judging by the guidelines it would be seen as just another happy snap and not uploaded by whoever was screening the images.
Pete, grateful for the suggestion
G'day Peter,
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wagner
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these images are non-controversial and the problem is
finding the best
way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
Seems to me the best solution is to tag it as {{GFDL}} or {{PD}} or whatever, and add a note of "Taken at my request".
Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without explicit assignment.
When I take a photo for someone else, using his camera, so that he can appear in the photograph as well, the *last* thing on my mind is "who gets copyright?" I'm just pressing a button as a favour to a tourist or something (latest example, an immigrant who wanted to send a photo of himself frolicking in < 1cm of snow home, to say to his parents "look, it's really cold in Canberra!").
Unless my views are totally out of touch with those of the average passer-by (who knows, they could be), I think most would, if they consider copyright at all, be happy to let the subject have it.
Peter Mackay wrote:
Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without explicit assignment.
If you were on holiday and asked a passing random person to use your camera to take a picture of you, I suspect that you would be quite surprised were they to attempt to assert copyright over the picture.
Many people are in the habit of acquiring pictures in this manner : I don't suppose there can be more than a handful who would ever even contemplate this scenario as more than a mental exercise, and if there is a single one who would consider forcing said passer-by to sign something forfeiting copyright, they would rightly be judged a lunatic.
HTH HAND
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Phil Boswell
Peter Mackay wrote:
Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph
actually give
you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it
does, without
explicit assignment.
If you were on holiday and asked a passing random person to use your camera to take a picture of you, I suspect that you would be quite surprised were they to attempt to assert copyright over the picture.
That's quite true, as I've already noted. But even if they fade away and never claim copyright over the photograph they have just created, how can this give YOU the copyright? There has to be some explicit assignment of rights for the copyright to be transferred to a new owner.
--Peter
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is non-controversial and used with permission.
Peter
[[Image:Leeinvelo1.JPG]], which is also on Jimbo's user page, was apparently uploaded by the same person who claims to have released it into the public domain.
Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these images are non-controversial and the problem is finding the best way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
If the person owns the copyright why shouldn't he claim that ownership?
Ec
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime as stealing a million.
Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different question.
Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if nobody gives a rat's bum.
Assuming that 1. we all agree that something like claiming that you have IP ownership over a snapshot of yourself, even if it is not legally clear cut, is "morally wrong" and 2. that Wikipedia image policy should be directed around "moral" concerns (I think that's a barn door of problems that we really don't need to open), the "moral" problem here lies in the person who took the picture and is claiming they have the ability to license it.
FF
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Peter Mackay wrote:
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent
is the same
crime as stealing a million.
I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make that claim.
Most criminal codes will identify the crime of theft (or larceny) without discrimination as to amount: Theft is "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Theft_in_English_law
There is no "flagfall" amount to constitute the offence. However, it would be difficult to imagine being prosecuted for stealing a cent. Perhaps if you stole the pennies from a dead man's eyes, that might be deemed outrageous enough to prosecute?
Peter, firm but fare
Delirium wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime as stealing a million.
I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make that claim.
In some cases the people stealing the million are the ones who write the laws; they are in a position to ensure that stealing a cent is punished more severely. :-)
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
In some cases the people stealing the million are the ones who write the laws; they are in a position to ensure that stealing a cent is punished more severely. :-)
Heh. Spot on. Steal a shilling, get sent to Australia for life. Steal a million pounds, get a knighthood.
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
In some cases the people stealing the million are the ones who write the laws; they are in a position to ensure that stealing a cent is punished more severely. :-)
Heh. Spot on. Steal a shilling, get sent to Australia for life. Steal a million pounds, get a knighthood.
Kill a few people, they call you a murderer. Kill a million and you're a conqueror.
On 5/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
This whole conversation is getting a bit silly. But I don't agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it?
I think the more important question is whether or not she'd care if *someone else* did [whatever] with the photo. If there's a moral problem with marking something as PD which isn't, it's that someone else might use the image and then get in trouble with the actual copyright holder.
I think it'd be much better to tag the image with truthful information.
IOW, *if* the uploader of that picture was never the copyright holder of that image and *if* he didn't at least get permission from the copyright holder to release the image into the public domain, then I think he added the tag inappropriately. But as he did in fact tag the image as public domain, I'm going to assume in good faith that he has some reason to believe the image is indeed public domain.
Anthony
In message 069f01c67d22$3a1802d0$6400a8c0@Tiny, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org writes
From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Arwel Parry
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
- it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of
the portrait survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
- the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
- I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use
of the photo (except on grounds of artistic taste!)
Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in Wikipedia under any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the theoretical copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of tracing effort?
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with it. But fair use to illustrate a user page seems reasonable to me.
But the problem with that is that we have no remotely appropriate fair use entry in the licensing field on the upload page! I wonder how long an image tagged "Found the image somewhere" would survive...!
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Arwel Parry
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
sin and you
will get away with it. But fair use to illustrate a user page seems reasonable to me.
But the problem with that is that we have no remotely appropriate fair use entry in the licensing field on the upload page! I wonder how long an image tagged "Found the image somewhere" would survive...!
That is precisely the point. Uploading an image of yourself to a user page isn't a big deal if it was taken in circumstances under your control, say by a friend or family member using your camera. You don't specifically hold the copyright, but it's unlikely anybody is going to complain.
The situation is common enough that we *should* have a template, or at least a policy somewhere. Otherwise we have what happens now, which is that users claim a copyright they do not possess.
Peter
Peter Mackay wrote:
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with it. But fair use to illustrate a user page seems reasonable to me.
Pete, stealing the moral high ground
Sometimes the moral high ground is on an innacessible ledge on the side of a cliff. You're welcome to say there.
Ec
Arwel Parry wrote:
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
This could make it a work for hire. A licence from your parents may be required. :-)
Ec
On 5/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Arwel Parry wrote:
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
This could make it a work for hire. A licence from your parents may be required. :-)
Depends. When did they implement the "everything is copyrighted" law in Wales? If it was after 1966, then your parents were paying for the *service* of having the photo taken, and the image itself was never copyrighted. (Of course, now we'd get into the mess of "unpublished works" and "date and place of first publication"...)
In message 4472196E.6080405@telus.net, Ray Saintonge saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org writes
Arwel Parry wrote:
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
This could make it a work for hire. A licence from your parents may be required. :-)
Err, no, if I recall correctly it was a speculative job - all the kids in school had their photos taken, then some days later a strip of three photos each about 6x4" turned up and the kids took them home. If the parents liked them (or were sufficiently nagged...) then they'd cut off as many copies as they wanted and sent the rest back to school with the money. In any case, it's a bit difficult to get a licence from beyond the grave, so I suppose I inherited half the copyrights anyway in that case (and I'm not bugging my brother for the other half!). :)
Arwel Parry wrote:
In message 4472196E.6080405@telus.net, Ray Saintonge
Arwel Parry wrote:
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
This could make it a work for hire. A licence from your parents may be required. :-)
Err, no, if I recall correctly it was a speculative job - all the kids in school had their photos taken, then some days later a strip of three photos each about 6x4" turned up and the kids took them home. If the parents liked them (or were sufficiently nagged...) then they'd cut off as many copies as they wanted and sent the rest back to school with the money. In any case, it's a bit difficult to get a licence from beyond the grave, so I suppose I inherited half the copyrights anyway in that case (and I'm not bugging my brother for the other half!). :)
The practice is still alive and well in the schools. As a father I can resist the sales pitch better than my wife. I have no compunctions about scaning the sample photo before sending it back without payment. ;-)
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote: <snip>
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too.
For that matter, why are you (Skyring) still on this mailing list?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
<snip> > I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe > you're banned from that too.
For that matter, why are you (Skyring) still on this mailing list?
Because I enjoy discussing Wikipedia issues in a friendly and civil manner.
Pete
The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us. In a situation like this, I think we can, for once, assume good faith in terms of copyright -- that the person who is providing the picture of themselves has the ability to make some claims as to its copyrightable status. I see no reason to doubt it in this instance, or in most instances where users are using pictures of themselves.
FF
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT2085.JPG) is clearly taken by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.
While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP, I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own, even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.
I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the same category.
In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it should be equally as good for the gander(s).
Pete, keen photographer
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.
In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?
In a situation like this, I think we can, for once, assume good faith in terms of copyright -- that the person who is providing the picture of themselves has the ability to make some claims as to its copyrightable status. I see no reason to doubt it in this instance, or in most instances where users are using pictures of themselves.
I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the subject, the question of copyright becomes non-trivial.
My reading is that people are uploading pictures of themselves onto their user pages, knowing quite well that they are non-controversial, but that they don't have a suitable template to choose from.
I think that claim to be the creator of the work not because they know that they hold copyright, but because they can't find a better template. I suggest that most people uploading images of themselves would have doubt about the status.
Peter
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.
In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?
Nope! Just the legal aspect is enough, thanks. That's enough, without worrying about ethics. Let the person uploading the photo worry about the ethics.
I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the subject, the question of copyright becomes non-trivial.
Sorry, it's pretty trivial in this case. If the picture in question was being used to make big bucks somewhere, or was at least the work of a professional, sure, it might be worth worrying about. But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
If it were an exceptionally "artistic" photograph -- perhaps it would be worth checking in with the user to make sure they have permission from the photographer. But if it's just a "here I am, there is a statue" sort of thing, it seems pretty unnecessary to get up in arms about it.
FF
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.
In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?
Nope! Just the legal aspect is enough, thanks. That's enough, without worrying about ethics. Let the person uploading the photo worry about the ethics.
I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the subject, the question of copyright becomes non-trivial.
Sorry, it's pretty trivial in this case. If the picture in question was being used to make big bucks somewhere, or was at least the work of a professional, sure, it might be worth worrying about. But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with *zero* risk of being sued?
Jimbo seems to have gone about it by obeying the rules. Perhaps we should emulate his example?
Peter
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
I'm not saying that at all. Whether or not something actually breaks the law in copyright issues is never clear cut. What I'm saying we do is go with the good-faith assumption that in these cases the users have the ability to set the license of the photo, and are willing to take the legal flack if it turns out they gave us false information about it. I'm also saying that the risk of this being a problem is so low as to be basically nonexistant.
I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with *zero* risk of being sued?
There is no way to have zero risk of being sued. But I think in cases like this, the chances of being sued are so low as to not warrant a separate policy.
If we have real concerns about individual pictures being mis-licensed, we can contact the user who uploaded it as usual. When it is clearly a picture which originates from the user his- or herself, and is not something which appears to be high-risk (I consider a snapshot of a non-famous person in a not-interesting context to be pretty low risk), and there is no way to know whether or not the user "truly" has the legalities of it spelled out in hard ink, I say we assume that it is unlikely to be a problem. Certainly not something worth splitting legal hairs over, in my opinion.
Jimbo seems to have gone about it by obeying the rules. Perhaps we should emulate his example?
Sure, emulate him, go ahead, it can't hurt. But we don't need a new policy about it.
FF
Peter Mackay wrote:
But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
Your misconception of law is phenomenal. In some situations the breach of the law does not happen until there has been a complaint by someone with standing.
I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with *zero* risk of being sued?
Zero risk is a figment of your imagination.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can
get away with
it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
Your misconception of law is phenomenal. In some situations the breach of the law does not happen until there has been a complaint by someone with standing.
So it's legal to breach copyright until someone complains? If you steal from an outlaw it's not theft?
I agree that these photographs are (mostly)
non-controversial. But what
is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can
use them with
*zero* risk of being sued?
Zero risk is a figment of your imagination.
Fair enough.
I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with minimal risk of being sued?
--Peter, playing the game
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with
it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
Your misconception of law is phenomenal. In some situations the breach of the law does not happen until there has been a complaint by someone with standing.
So it's legal to breach copyright until someone complains? If you steal from an outlaw it's not theft?
One needs to make a distinction between civil and criminal law. The element of wilfullness is key to the finding of criminal infringement. "Breaking the law" can result in punitive penalties. The statutory damages in civil infringement are really there to avoid the complexities of determining actual damages; the plaintiff cannot have both actual and statutory damages in a case.
A person who in good faith publishes material where a reasonable fair use argument can be made is not breaking the law. Other defenses which would exculpate him also exzist.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
A person who in good faith publishes material where a reasonable fair use argument can be made is not breaking the law. Other defenses which would exculpate him also exzist.
Mmmm, I don't think anybody's going to be sued for uploading a user photograph onto Wikipedia where they know the photographer and the photographer doesn't mind. It's not worth arguing over.
My point in all this is that I uploaded a photograph of myself a while back and some mean-minded admin had it deleted because the license was inadequate. He gloated over the fact that I couldn't do anything about it. What I want to know for when I'm able to upload it again, is what licence to use so that I can keep my happy snap on my user page.
Pete, seeking information
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
My point in all this is that I uploaded a photograph of myself a while back and some mean-minded admin had it deleted because the license was inadequate. He gloated over the fact that I couldn't do anything about it. What I want to know for when I'm able to upload it again, is what licence to use so that I can keep my happy snap on my user page.
So you're angry and want to take it out on another user. I'm glad we've come to the real basis of this conversation.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
My point in all this is that I uploaded a photograph of
myself a while
back and some mean-minded admin had it deleted because the
license was
inadequate. He gloated over the fact that I couldn't do
anything about it.
What I want to know for when I'm able to upload it again,
is what licence
to use so that I can keep my happy snap on my user page.
So you're angry and want to take it out on another user.
No.
I'm glad we've come to the real basis of this conversation.
The real basis of this conversation is that I want some solid practical advice that will prevent the same thing happening again. Not just to me, but to other editors.
While it's been an interesting conversation, the best advice has been from Jimbo via [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimmy_Wales.jpg]]
1. Get someone else to take a photograph of you. 2. Have that person upload the image and release it into the public domain.
Now I can do that, but if the person who took the photograph is unknown then the situation becomes problematical. I think we are all agreed that it is no great sin and unlikely to result in a lawsuit, but it still seems to be a grey area depending on AGF, and as we know, there are users who do not AGF.
--Peter in Canberra
Peter Mackay wrote: <snip>
--Peter, playing the game
You are trolling.
On 21/05/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
How do we know he didn't turn his camera's timer on, put it down on a wall or bollard and go and stand in front of the camera? This seems to be jumping the gun a bit. Also, note the copyright release says "I, the creator", not "I, the photographer". I don't see any basis for attacking this image.
It would be handy to have some more image copyright tags available for use, as the current ones don't cover all legitimate situations.
~Mark Ryan
You have GOT to be kidding me.
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support such as a wall.
In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT2085.JPG) is clearly taken by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.
While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP, I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own, even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.
I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the same category.
In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it should be equally as good for the gander(s).
Pete, keen photographer
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l