I would like to propose the following:
That any new image uploads should be required to give a source for the image (be it a URL, book or photographers name). Failure to provide a source should make an image a candidate for speedy deletion.
The motivation behind this is that there are far too many images where we have absolutely no information about where they came from. This makes doing copyright research into them a lot harder. Even in cases where it is stated that an image is PD, without a source there is no way to verify if this is indeed the case (or to find out if PD status only exists in certain juristictions).
Imran
Imran-
That any new image uploads should be required to give a source for the image (be it a URL, book or photographers name). Failure to provide a source should make an image a candidate for speedy deletion.
NO. Images are a far too sensitive issue to allow speedy deletion. There must be due process to prevent legitimate fair use cases or unrecognized PD works from getting deleted.
Regards,
Erik
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Erik Moeller wrote:
Imran-
That any new image uploads should be required to give a source for the image (be it a URL, book or photographers name). Failure to provide a source should make an image a candidate for speedy deletion.
NO. Images are a far too sensitive issue to allow speedy deletion. There must be due process to prevent legitimate fair use cases or unrecognized PD works from getting deleted.
Please re-read my original statement. I said nothing about licencing issues. I simply said that all uploads have to give a source to show where they came from.
If it's fair use, the Berne convention and ethics would requires us to give a source. If it's PD we should give a source so others can verify it is PD.
Is there any legitimate reason why anyone wouldn't be able to give a source for an image ?
Imran
Giving a source is easy. Giving a useful source, on the other hand... What if you just took it from some random geocities page?
Anthony
Please re-read my original statement. I said nothing about licencing issues. I simply said that all uploads have to give a source to show where they came from.
If it's fair use, the Berne convention and ethics would requires us to give a source. If it's PD we should give a source so others can verify it is PD.
Is there any legitimate reason why anyone wouldn't be able to give a source for an image ?
Imran
The source is the URL of that page (not Geocities).
Fred
From: Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:53:06 -0500 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Requiring image sources
Giving a source is easy. Giving a useful source, on the other hand... What if you just took it from some random geocities page?
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Giving a source is easy. Giving a useful source, on the other hand... What if you just took it from some random geocities page?
Well, that'd be useful information. We'd know at least that much, instead of nothing at all, so we'd have a starting point for further investigation.
--Jimbo
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:30:25AM +0000, Imran Ghory wrote:
Please re-read my original statement. I said nothing about licencing issues. I simply said that all uploads have to give a source to show where they came from.
If it's fair use, the Berne convention and ethics would requires us to give a source. If it's PD we should give a source so others can verify it is PD.
Is there any legitimate reason why anyone wouldn't be able to give a source for an image ?
None at all. This is a very good idea. I would suggest we have a "Image source" textbox in the upload form.
Arvind
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org