I propose we establish a policy that PD confirmation must be sought for all images obtained from US government websites.
Only material actually produced by US federal government employees in the course of their work is automatically PD. Often government websites also contain commercial stock photography and other contract works which we have no right to use. US Federal government websites are among the most responsive on the internet, so obtaining such permission should not be an issue.
There is usually an opportunity to apply common sense: If it looks like stock photography it probably is, and we should ask. Very few government agencies actually produce their own publication grade images. However, there are a number of well meaning wikipedians who have very wishful ideas of what we can use... If we ask them to apply common sense we get Alanis Morrissette's Ironic uploaded.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I think the best course of action would be for use to make a strong statement that we *always* prefer works made by wikimedia project participants. If we must choose between a work with free licensing and one made by a wikipedian we should always replace the free work with the wikipedians work unless the outside work is clearly better. If there is any possible doubt in the copyright the work should be replaced by a work from one of our users. We should avoid making outside works featured images.
The wikimedia projects already have a sizable and growing base of photographers, illustrators, and musicians. It is completely reasonable to believe that we can meet our own media needs, excluding specific historical works that we wish to comment on.
This position, along with some additional point guidelines (like contacting US federal agencies to confirm PD status), should largely address these copyright problems over the long term.
Some example which I have confirmed to be copyvio: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hiker_drinking_water.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Woman_in_Lotus_pose.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Girl_with_braces_in_for_checkup.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hand_holding_a_tablet.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bicycle_rider_with_helmet.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Girl_with_braces_in_for_checkup.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Physical_therapy_exercise.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Family_playing_wiffleball.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Old_man_reading_in_library.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ambulance_in_action.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Old_couple_reading.jpg
Once en is writable again, I can begin pulling these from articles so they can be deleted.
On 6/27/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If we must choose between a work with free licensing and one made by a wikipedian we should always replace the free work with the wikipedians
Why would the work by Wikipedians not also be a free work? People should not be uploading non-free images, so this choice should not have to be made.
Angela.
On 6/27/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
If we must choose between a work with free licensing and one made by a wikipedian we should always replace the free work with the wikipedians
Why would the work by Wikipedians not also be a free work? People should not be uploading non-free images, so this choice should not have to be made.
My language didn't make my intent clear: I meant the choice between work by a wikipedian (obviously free) and work found on the internet that we believed to be free but was not made by a wikipedian. Because work made by wikipedians is always free without any room for doubt and because it's usually better matched for our needs, we should prefer it.
Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:
I propose we establish a policy that PD confirmation must be sought for all images obtained from US government websites.
Only material actually produced by US federal government employees in the course of their work is automatically PD. Often government websites also contain commercial stock photography and other contract works which we have no right to use. US Federal government websites are among the most responsive on the internet, so obtaining such permission should not be an issue.
There is usually an opportunity to apply common sense: If it looks like stock photography it probably is, and we should ask. Very few government agencies actually produce their own publication grade images. However, there are a number of well meaning wikipedians who have very wishful ideas of what we can use... If we ask them to apply common sense we get Alanis Morrissette's Ironic uploaded.
As long as copyright warriors are willing to apply common sense the other way -- it is patently obvious that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear1.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear2.jpg were taken by a Naval officer during the performance of his duty, and I would have little patience if someone were to argue that they ''might'' not be.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I think the best course of action would be for use to make a strong statement that we *always* prefer works made by wikimedia project participants. If we must choose between a work with free licensing and one made by a wikipedian we should always replace the free work with the wikipedians work unless the outside work is clearly better. If there is any possible doubt in the copyright the work should be replaced by a work from one of our users. We should avoid making outside works featured images.
I find the standard "any possible doubt" to be much too paranoid. The standard for convicting someone of premeditated murder is lower than that. If we held ourselves to that standard, we would be an image-free Web site -- ''no'' image's provenance is ''utterly impossible'' for someone to doubt.
The wikimedia projects already have a sizable and growing base of photographers, illustrators, and musicians. It is completely reasonable to believe that we can meet our own media needs, excluding specific historical works that we wish to comment on.
Are you actually saying that it is "completely reasonable" for a Wikipedian to photograph the wreck of USS ''Thresher''? For a Wikipedian to take a clear picture of a B-2 Spirit in flight? For a Wikipedian to take snapshots of the construction of the International Space Station? There are several myriad subjects beyond "specific historical works that we wish to comment on" for which the public domain is the only source of images.
-- Sean Barrett | When I become evil overlord, if I'm sean@epoptic.com | looking all around for my elusive enemy, | I will occasionally look up as well.
On 6/27/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
As long as copyright warriors are willing to apply common sense the other way -- it is patently obvious that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear1.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear2.jpg were taken by a Naval officer during the performance of his duty, and I would have little patience if someone were to argue that they ''might'' not be.
Notice I said that if there is doubt we should contact. It's not always obvious, just sometimes. For government sourced images we should always be able to make a contact... Perhaps for your example we couldn't get that specific image confirmed but I'd bet if we asked we could get some other useful ones.
I find the standard "any possible doubt" to be much too paranoid. The standard for convicting someone of premeditated murder is lower than that. If we held ourselves to that standard, we would be an image-free Web site -- ''no'' image's provenance is ''utterly impossible'' for someone to doubt.
It's a reasonable target, if we can choose between an image with substantial doubt and one with little doubt (by a wikipedian) we should choose the wikipedian image. If there is doubt we should also make an attempt to contact the source.
The wikimedia projects already have a sizable and growing base of photographers, illustrators, and musicians. It is completely reasonable to believe that we can meet our own media needs, excluding specific historical works that we wish to comment on.
Are you actually saying that it is "completely reasonable" for a Wikipedian to photograph the wreck of USS ''Thresher''? For a Wikipedian to take a clear picture of a B-2 Spirit in flight? For a Wikipedian to take snapshots of the construction of the International Space Station? There are several myriad subjects beyond "specific historical works that we wish to comment on" for which the public domain is the only source of images.
There are cases, but there are a minority. View images at random, ... we have a great many number of images that anyone can take. The majority of the exceptions are ones which are clearly free, fair use, or could be easily settled with an email.
I did not advocate forbidding external images entirely but rather making a strong position that images made by wikipedians are preferred where we have a choice, and setting some better guidelines for confirming content that isn't cut and dry.
Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:
On 6/27/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
As long as copyright warriors are willing to apply common sense the other way -- it is patently obvious that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear1.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear2.jpg were taken by a Naval officer during the performance of his duty, and I would have little patience if someone were to argue that they ''might'' not be.
Notice I said that if there is doubt we should contact. It's not always obvious, just sometimes. For government sourced images we should always be able to make a contact... Perhaps for your example we couldn't get that specific image confirmed but I'd bet if we asked we could get some other useful ones.
Very good.
I find the standard "any possible doubt" to be much too paranoid. The standard for convicting someone of premeditated murder is lower than that. If we held ourselves to that standard, we would be an image-free Web site -- ''no'' image's provenance is ''utterly impossible'' for someone to doubt.
It's a reasonable target, if we can choose between an image with substantial doubt and one with little doubt (by a wikipedian) we should choose the wikipedian image. If there is doubt we should also make an attempt to contact the source.
I'm undoubtedly being overly literal, but that's exactly what the trolls and other vandals will be.
The wikimedia projects already have a sizable and growing base of photographers, illustrators, and musicians. It is completely reasonable to believe that we can meet our own media needs, excluding specific historical works that we wish to comment on.
Are you actually saying that it is "completely reasonable" for a Wikipedian to photograph the wreck of USS ''Thresher''? For a Wikipedian to take a clear picture of a B-2 Spirit in flight? For a Wikipedian to take snapshots of the construction of the International Space Station? There are several myriad subjects beyond "specific historical works that we wish to comment on" for which the public domain is the only source of images.
There are cases, but there are a minority. View images at random, ... we have a great many number of images that anyone can take. The majority of the exceptions are ones which are clearly free, fair use, or could be easily settled with an email.
I did not advocate forbidding external images entirely but rather making a strong position that images made by wikipedians are preferred where we have a choice, and setting some better guidelines for confirming content that isn't cut and dry.
As long as we avoid copyright paranoia and absolute prohibitions, I concur. I work around the military and do my best to take advantage of my opportunities to photograph things most of the public never sees.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org