[WikiEN-l] Non-free images, there has to be a better way

[Haukur Þorgeirsson]

>> Wikipedia has passed the stage of being comparable
>> to other encyclopedias you can access at no cost.
>
> It's an encyclopedia. It's always comparable.

I meant "comparable" in the sense "about as good".


> ... and just as is the case for any other encyclopedia, the world
> doesn't end because we can't include some images.

Certainly. Nor will the world of our downstream users
if they can't use every single image Wikipedia itself
can. They can't do that anyway because fair use only
applies in the U.S.


>> This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an
>> [[IBM 360]] in your backyard? Do you have a [[Z machine]]?
>
> Funny you should ask that...
> I don't actually have a IBM360, but I have at various times had a
> number of large vaxen, and a few flavors of PDP.
> I've also had in my garage at various times, an airport style x-ray
> machine, several multiwatt lasers, the complete line of NeXT
> computers, a large optical jukebox, several hundred Sun workstations,
> and many other things.
>
> So, no, I don't have a IBM 360, but people have a lot of equipment
> that you wouldn't expect.. If not at home then at work... I'm willing
> to bet some other Wikipedia user does, but they aren't likely to shoot
> pictures of it if there is already an unfree image on the page.

I'm sorry - this was a typo for [[IBM 1360]] which
is the machine in question if you're following the
thread. It's nice that we have free pictures of the
IBM 360. And it's nice that you have had lots of
stuff in your garage at various times.


> and the Z machine is a
> perfect example of something where we can probably get a grant under
> CC-BY or GFDL.

Have you followed the discussion on the permission
for the Z-machine picture? By all means, go ahead
and ask them to release it under CC-BY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zmachine.jpg

Currently the image information page has a license
which says:

"encyclopedia articles are fine. We only require a
credit in the form, 'Courtesy, Sandia National Laboratories,'"

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia
using that image even if non-encyclopec down-stream
users can't. I'm sure they would allow a Wikibook
too if you ask them. If you can get them to release
it under CC-BY that would of course be great. And
if you can get a PD image of a z-machine which is
as good as this one I salute you.


>> > If Wikipedia isn't getting enough photographs, we should reach out and
>> > encourage more photographers to join our community.  A lack of content
>> > isn't an excuse to break the law.
>>
>> No-one is suggesting we do.
>
> Yes, actually people are... or rather there are some suggesting that
> images they've found on the internet should be acceptable for us to
> use.

No-one in this thread has suggested we break the law.


>> It is a simple matter for downstream users
>> not to include images tagged used-with-permission.
>> Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images
>> in their main text.
>
> Actually, it's a pain in the butt to remove the images because of the
> way we store the tagging.. once you mix in the inconsistency of the
> tagging it becomes impossible.

It's a straightforward technical problem.
It's not "impossible", it's not even really
that difficult.


> The vast majority of the images going up on WP:PUI are images that are
> likely copyvio for even for us to use.. and are not examples of used
> with permission.

And it's good that we're removing those. I'm only
concerned with used-with-permission images here.


>> And I can sympathise with people who don't give a
>> rat's toenail for the current downstream users,
>> much as I believe in the GFDL.
>
> Sympathize as much as you like. Preserving freedom downstream is a
> goal of the project.

Yes. One that I am aware of and agree with.


> Downstrem users doesn't just refer to random
> useless mirror on the internet, but also refers to people publishing
> printed works, and to other sister projects like wikibooks.

Yes. Unfortunately most downstream use up to this
point has been useless mirroring.


> I brought up fair use because it is almost universally the response to
> complaints that images are unfree.

It shouldn't be and we agree on that.


>> And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has
>> increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for
>> fair use on Wikipedia.
>
> I'm am strongly against abuse of fair use.  I haven't noticed WP:PUI
> accepting images as fair use which shouldn't be... can you cite some
> examples?

No. But your comment above indicates that you are aware of
the tendency of people to claim fair use when they're told
that they can't use an image - including a used-with-permission
image.

Regards,
Haukur