Hi all. The file SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg which is used in article [[Schapelle Corby]] has been flagged for removal. I am surprised at this as it had previously been tagged with "non-free permission to use".
I was the one who obtained permission to use this image (and two others) from Mercedes Corby, Schapelle's sister. I had intended to get the status of the images clarified but I must admit I had not considered it a high priority as I felt we had at least the equivalent of fair use.
Anyway I now reproduce part of the conversation between Mercedes Corby and myself in which she allowed permission for the images to be used:
I said "I'd like to use a picture in the [Wikipedia] article. Would you be able to provide a picture of Schapelle that can be legally used in the Wikipedia article (ie, without copyright concerns)? If such a picture is available just email it back to me".
Mercedes Responded (in part): "Attached is a photo taken at Schapelle's cell. This was taken by our camera.. Also if you are able to find the photo on the web of Schapelle, brother James and 2 freinds Katrina and Ally that was taken by Mums camera at the Brisbane airport so that one is fine to use aswell."
Attached to the email from Mercedes were 2 of the 3 images I uploaded to Wikipedia, the 3rd being the mentioned group image which I did locate.
After reviewing the wording of my request and Mercedes' response it is my contention the pictures are licenced under the GFDL.
Comments?
Rob
Robert Brockway a écrit:
Hi all. The file SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg which is used in article [[Schapelle Corby]] has been flagged for removal. I am surprised at this as it had previously been tagged with "non-free permission to use".
I was the one who obtained permission to use this image (and two others) from Mercedes Corby, Schapelle's sister. I had intended to get the status of the images clarified but I must admit I had not considered it a high priority as I felt we had at least the equivalent of fair use.
Anyway I now reproduce part of the conversation between Mercedes Corby and myself in which she allowed permission for the images to be used:
I said "I'd like to use a picture in the [Wikipedia] article. Would you be able to provide a picture of Schapelle that can be legally used in the Wikipedia article (ie, without copyright concerns)? If such a picture is available just email it back to me".
Mercedes Responded (in part): "Attached is a photo taken at Schapelle's cell. This was taken by our camera.. Also if you are able to find the photo on the web of Schapelle, brother James and 2 freinds Katrina and Ally that was taken by Mums camera at the Brisbane airport so that one is fine to use aswell."
Attached to the email from Mercedes were 2 of the 3 images I uploaded to Wikipedia, the 3rd being the mentioned group image which I did locate.
After reviewing the wording of my request and Mercedes' response it is my contention the pictures are licenced under the GFDL.
Comments?
Rob
Hi
I think you made a mistake. You should post such mails to wikien-l@wikimedia.org
Thanks
Ant
Robert Brockway wrote:
After reviewing the wording of my request and Mercedes' response it is my contention the pictures are licenced under the GFDL.
The GFDL was never mentioned, so it is hard to justify claiming they licensed it to you under the GFDL.
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
Timwi
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
I figured some (even most) people here may have this position. I'm a Sysadmin who has been working almost exclusively with F/OSS for more than 11 years so have a good background in the licencing issues. It is from this basis that I make these comments:
I think it is important to remember that most of the people in the world have not even considered or heard of the issues related to licencing that the people here (and in the OSS community) are familiar with.
If I had asked Mercedes Corby if I could licence the images under the GFDL I'm sure she would not have had the slightest clue what I was talking about. I'm certain her focus, then as now, is on her sister who has now been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to 20 years jail, not licencing issues. I was not about to expect her to absorb alot of information on licencing when she had more important things to worry about. As far as I'm concerned I asked for images that were copyright free and that is what I got.
Here we have images that (as far as I know) no one has objected to and yet they may be deleted. IMHO we need to stop and consider the intent of a grant to use an image, not just the specific wording of the grant because most people in the world will not use the exact wording which seems to be expected. If we do not then Wikipedia will ultimately be the loser.
I spent time and effort getting those image and I'm disappointed that they may be deleted for a subtlety of licencing which is probably of absolutely no concern to the person who took the image or most of the people viewing the images. Although understanding of licencing is growing in the general community most people will never care as much as a typical Wikipedia contributor. We have to learn to live with this.
Also, to Anthere's comment that this should go to Wikien, after considering I think this is the right list as the image could be use on any in articles of any language.
Rob
Hello Robert,
thanks a lot for your efforts in trying to get free content for Wikipedia. Work such as yours is absolutely essential for us, and much underrated (it's easier to count edits than e-mails). I agree that this is a wikipedia-l issue.
I completely understand your frustration that the image you contributed is now considered non-free. However, Timwi is correct. There has to be an informed consent before we can claim that an image is under a particular license. Otherwise we could be sued for damages if someone else, in the belief that the image is free content, uses it in a way that the person giving it does not approve us (e.g. by selling it).
Instead of using the GFDL, which is a complicated mess even for a license geek, I suggest pointing people to the CC-BY-SA 2.0, which is acceptable on Wikipedia for images. You could use a wording like this:
Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia, built by thousands of individuals in every language and written from a neutral point of view. All our content is available to anyone for any purpose, free of charge and free of advertising.
Would you be willing to donate an image to the general public for royalty-free use, so it can be used on Wikipedia? The photo would always have to be attributed to you, and modifications could only be made if they are made available under the same conditions -- see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ for details.
I would much appreciate it if you could contribute to this effort.
This, I think, is about the minimal level of complexity we can safely use.
Best,
Erik
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Erik Moeller wrote:
Hello Robert,
Hi Erik. Thanks for your reply.
Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia, built by thousands of individuals in every language and written from a neutral point of view. All our content is available to anyone for any purpose, free of charge and free of advertising.
Would you be willing to donate an image to the general public for royalty-free use, so it can be used on Wikipedia? The photo would always have to be attributed to you, and modifications could only be made if they are made available under the same conditions -- see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ for details.
I would much appreciate it if you could contribute to this effort.
In future I'll certainly use an approach like this.
Cheers, Rob
Robert Brockway wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
If I had asked Mercedes Corby if I could licence the images under the GFDL I'm sure she would not have had the slightest clue what I was talking about. I'm certain her focus, then as now, is on her sister who has now been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to 20 years jail, not licencing issues. I was not about to expect her to absorb alot of information on licencing when she had more important things to worry about. As far as I'm concerned I asked for images that were copyright free and that is what I got.
Just because she has "more important things to worry about", doesn't really make it okay for us to ignore her copyrights and exploit her work.
Instead, maybe you should just ask a simpler question. "Do you forgo your copyright?" If the answer is yes, the image (or other work) is public-domain and can be used on Wikipedia.
Timwi
Robert Brockway wrote:
If I had asked Mercedes Corby if I could licence the images under the GFDL I'm sure she would not have had the slightest clue what I was talking about.
It is not difficult to explain. You can just tell her the basic conditions of the license and ask. Give her a URL with the license and warn her that it is complicated. Explain the basics clearly, and document everything.
If we do not then Wikipedia will ultimately be the loser.
But if we do not get proper licensing, then Wikipedia will *really* ultimately be the loser.
--Jimbo
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d7ajq0$887$1@sea.gmane.org... [snip]
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
Am I the only person stunned by the complete lack of logical progression here?
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia B) Therefore it can't be.
Surely we can sort out our licensing system better than this self-contradictory nonsense?
Phil Boswell schrieb:
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d7ajq0$887$1@sea.gmane.org... [snip]
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
Am I the only person stunned by the complete lack of logical progression here?
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia B) Therefore it can't be.
The point is that we want others to be able to use Wikipedia material under a free license (GFDL). If the permission is only for Wikipedia, it excludes that use and, thus, shouldn't be used.
Surely we can sort out our licensing system better than this self-contradictory nonsense?
Sure we could, but the rest of the copyright-DRM-IP-crazy world wouldn't go for it :-(
Magnus
Well,
after getting their agreement, it should be important to send them the GNU FDL in order to ask them if they also agree with the terms of this license.
When they answer yes, it's done.
Le 1 juin 05 à 14:42, Phil Boswell a écrit :
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d7ajq0$887$1@sea.gmane.org... [snip]
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
Am I the only person stunned by the complete lack of logical progression here?
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia B) Therefore it can't be.
Surely we can sort out our licensing system better than this self-contradictory nonsense? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Phil Boswell wrote:
Am I the only person stunned by the complete lack of logical progression here?
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia B) Therefore it can't be.
I think that's a perfectly logical progression, but it is missing a few steps.
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia, but _only_ on Wikipedia."
B) Wikipedia is a _freely licensed_ encyclopedia, meaning that things on Wikipedia may be used by lots and lots of people without them having to ask permission
C) Therefore, even though something may be licensed to "Wikipedia only", Wikipedia can not use it unless it is licensed under a free license.
--Jimbo
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:d7ajq0$887$1@sea.gmane.org...
Quite to the contrary, you only asked if the image could be used on Wikipedia, not whether they would license it under the GFDL or anything else. Therefore, they only agreed to using it on Wikipedia, and therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia because it isn't free.
Am I the only person stunned by the complete lack of logical progression here?
A) The owners of the image agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia B) Therefore it can't be.
Suppose I write an article and then allow you to "use it" on Wikipedia under the restriction that you may not make any modifications to it. It is hopefully clear to you now that the text cannot be used in Wikipedia, even though I gave permission to "use it".
It is only your summarisation that reduces it to the point where it seems contradictory (but isn't actually). Just because someone agreed for something to be used on Wikipedia, does not necessarily mean that it can be (or should be) used on Wikipedia. In a way, by saying that it is contradictory, you're only stating that you don't understand it.
Timwi
Exactly,
the good way to do would be to ask the permission to use the content in wikipédia AND to provide a link to the GFDL.
Le 4 juin 05 à 17:08, Timwi a écrit :
Suppose I write an article and then allow you to "use it" on Wikipedia under the restriction that you may not make any modifications to it. It is hopefully clear to you now that the text cannot be used in Wikipedia, even though I gave permission to "use it".
It is only your summarisation that reduces it to the point where it seems contradictory (but isn't actually). Just because someone agreed for something to be used on Wikipedia, does not necessarily mean that it can be (or should be) used on Wikipedia. In a way, by saying that it is contradictory, you're only stating that you don't understand it.
Timwi
Robert Brockway wrote:
I said "I'd like to use a picture in the [Wikipedia] article. Would you be able to provide a picture of Schapelle that can be legally used in the Wikipedia article (ie, without copyright concerns)? If such a picture is available just email it back to me".
Mercedes Responded (in part): "Attached is a photo taken at Schapelle's cell. This was taken by our camera.. Also if you are able to find the photo on the web of Schapelle, brother James and 2 freinds Katrina and Ally that was taken by Mums camera at the Brisbane airport so that one is fine to use aswell."
Attached to the email from Mercedes were 2 of the 3 images I uploaded to Wikipedia, the 3rd being the mentioned group image which I did locate.
After reviewing the wording of my request and Mercedes' response it is my contention the pictures are licenced under the GFDL.
I think this is not sufficient. We need a clear statement, preserved by you, and posted along with the image, that the photos are released _by the copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL.
"It's fine to use this" is not enough.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We need a clear statement [...] that the photos are released _by the copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL. "It's fine to use this" is not enough.
Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images. How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document?
The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)
On 6/4/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We need a clear statement [...] that the photos are released _by the copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL. "It's fine to use this" is not enough.
Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images. How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document?
The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)
In many countries an author can not just abandon their copyright and place works directly into the public domain. Even in the US, using a work after being given a statement the someone has abandoned their copyright can place you in a somewhat risky position. We are better off with licensed works. There are licenses which are very nearly as liberal as PD, for example, BSD without the advertising clause.
We should discourage the use of {{PD}} entirely, and in it's favor replace it with more clear tags which prevent confusion and to clarify matters because of differing handling of PD around the world. Classes we should isolate should include,
* PD due to copyright lapse: * works older than the 1920s * works newer but not renewed * PD due to statement by author (non-uploader, should include email and we should avoid these) * PD due to wishes of uploader who holds copyright (again discourage in favor of a very liberal BSD, CC or the more restrictive GFDL). * PD due to US government
and abandon {{PD}} for the wishful-thinking copyvios that it is currently used so often on..
The creative commons licences are imho much easier to explain to ppl :)
Finne
On 6/5/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We need a clear statement [...] that the photos are released _by the copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL. "It's fine to use this" is not enough.
Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images. How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document?
The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)
In many countries an author can not just abandon their copyright and place works directly into the public domain. Even in the US, using a work after being given a statement the someone has abandoned their copyright can place you in a somewhat risky position. We are better off with licensed works. There are licenses which are very nearly as liberal as PD, for example, BSD without the advertising clause.
We should discourage the use of {{PD}} entirely, and in it's favor replace it with more clear tags which prevent confusion and to clarify matters because of differing handling of PD around the world. Classes we should isolate should include,
- PD due to copyright lapse:
- works older than the 1920s
- works newer but not renewed
- PD due to statement by author (non-uploader, should include email
and we should avoid these)
- PD due to wishes of uploader who holds copyright (again discourage
in favor of a very liberal BSD, CC or the more restrictive GFDL).
- PD due to US government
and abandon {{PD}} for the wishful-thinking copyvios that it is currently used so often on.. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yup but that's not possible under french legislation (for example).
Le 5 juin 05 à 00:48, Timwi a écrit :
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We need a clear statement [...] that the photos are released _by the copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL. "It's fine to use this" is not enough.
Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images. How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document?
The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
Yup but that's not possible under french legislation (for example).
While I'm not an expert in French legislation, I highly doubt that it prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose whatsoever. They might consider it a licence as opposed to public domain, but that doesn't make a difference in practice.
Timwi
While I'm not an expert in French legislation, I highly doubt that it prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose whatsoever. They might consider it a licence as opposed to public domain, but that doesn't make a difference in practice.
Well, I can tell you : it prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose whatsoever... (which is not the case with the gfdl license for example).
We had such a discussion a few weeks ago.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
While I'm not an expert in French legislation, I highly doubt that it prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose whatsoever. They might consider it a licence as opposed to public domain, but that doesn't make a difference in practice.
Well, I can tell you : it prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose whatsoever... (which is not the case with the gfdl license for example).
So what *are* you allowed to allow?
(The mere phrasing of that question gives me an uneasy feeling that French legislation is even worse than German. ;-) )
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org