Fair use images
Locked
123
123
![Chris Sherlock [TAL]](/images/avatar100.png "Chris Sherlock [TAL]"){kind=avatar} 
|
Short and sweet: we have too many of them, most of them aren't being used as
"fair use" images, many don't have sources, almost none have fair use criteria, and more than a few are being used in articles that have no real need for them. May I suggest that we start taking action on this issue? IMO they are a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Not only that, but they are diluting the "freeness" of the project and causing problems for those who want to use our material unaltered. TBSDY _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
Hoi,
Your plea is not well targeted. Commons our principal resource for the storage of media does not allow for "fair use" images. You describe a problem that is different depending what resource you target, many projects have different rules as to "fair use". The rules of new and the existence of "fair use" material differ as well. These rules have changed over time consequently pictures that complied with the rules at that time would not comply anymore. So yes, there is a problem. What is the problem that you want to address. What do you propose to do. Who do you want to do this? It is not as if people are not aware of it. It is not as if people are not actively dealing with it. My point is that we need people to DO things and not to cry wolf. Thanks, GerardM On 3/8/06, ! Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote: > Short and sweet: we have too many of them, most of them aren't being used as > "fair use" images, many don't have sources, almost none have fair use > criteria, and more than a few are being used in articles that have no real > need for them. > > May I suggest that we start taking action on this issue? IMO they are a > ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Not only that, but they are diluting > the "freeness" of the project and causing problems for those who want to use > our material unaltered. > > TBSDY > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [hidden email] > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock [TAL]
On 3/8/06 6:31 AM, "! Chris Sherlock" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Short and sweet: we have too many of them, most of them aren't being used as > "fair use" images, many don't have sources, almost none have fair use > criteria, and more than a few are being used in articles that have no real > need for them. > > May I suggest that we start taking action on this issue? IMO they are a > ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Not only that, but they are diluting > the "freeness" of the project and causing problems for those who want to use > our material unaltered. > > TBSDY I think we need some more speedy delete criteria for images, it is getting out of hand and I completely agree this is a ticking time bomb. I think the first step is that any unlicensed image being uploaded as fair use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied. I bet that's more than half of them right there. The process of tagging them as no source and then waiting a week is just way too long and too susceptible to error. It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go. It shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the perception. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "source" as well, some folks seem to think citing a site that is a repository of unlicensed images qualifies and it does not. I think more precisely defining "source" as it applies to images would be in order and a field to enter source information, just like license information, should be added to the upload page. --Guy (EN User: Wgfinley) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 3/8/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi, > Your plea is not well targeted. Commons our principal resource for the > storage of media does not allow for "fair use" images. You describe a > problem that is different depending what resource you target, many > projects have different rules as to "fair use". The rules of new and > the existence of "fair use" material differ as well. These rules have > changed over time consequently pictures that complied with the rules > at that time would not comply anymore. [snip] Commons may not allow it, but there are many non-free images there which are mistagged (frequently as public domain, for example). At least it's more clear how to handle them there. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
GerardM wrote:
>Hoi, >Your plea is not well targeted. Commons our principal resource for the >storage of media does not allow for "fair use" images. You describe a >problem that is different depending what resource you target, many >projects have different rules as to "fair use". The rules of new and >the existence of "fair use" material differ as well. These rules have >changed over time consequently pictures that complied with the rules >at that time would not comply anymore. > >So yes, there is a problem. What is the problem that you want to >address. What do you propose to do. Who do you want to do this? > >It is not as if people are not aware of it. It is not as if people are >not actively dealing with it. My point is that we need people to DO >things and not to cry wolf. > >Thanks, > GerardM > >On 3/8/06, ! Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>Short and sweet: we have too many of them, most of them aren't being used as >>"fair use" images, many don't have sources, almost none have fair use >>criteria, and more than a few are being used in articles that have no real >>need for them. >> >>May I suggest that we start taking action on this issue? IMO they are a >>ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Not only that, but they are diluting >>the "freeness" of the project and causing problems for those who want to use >>our material unaltered. >> >>TBSDY >> >> having a serious problem? Policies and guidelines within Wikipedia are fairly explicit about what is permitted and what is not, although it does take some digging around to find the policies. For en.wikipedia, you have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFair_use which BTW is just a "guideline" but does cover some of the reasons to have fair-use content on Wikipedia. Another page to look at is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFair_use_criteria which is "policy" but does seem to duplicate much of the previous page. For en.wikibooks, due in part to some recent discussions here on this mailing list, I started the following policy with a solicitation request for comments: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks%3AFair_Use_Policy It is on the fast track to becoming an enforced policy, and by using these guidelines it is proposed that we delete content that may even be legal for us to have from a strict interpretation of fair-use laws but from the standpoint of project policy it would be unacceptable. Noted especially is parody applications of fair-use which is going to be explicitly prohibited from Wikibooks, and a recommendation to use Uncyclopedia if you really care to parody something. The other point is that if the use of the image is not explicitly permitted under the fair-use policy, it is considered a copyright violation (barring content acceptable to Commons). BTW, I want to thank the administrators of the Italian Wikipedia for showing me their policy on this issue, which the Wikibooks policy was adapted from. -- Robert Scott Horning _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by W. Guy Finley
W. Guy Finley wrote:
>I think the first step is that any unlicensed image being uploaded as fair >use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied. I >bet that's more than half of them right there. The process of tagging them >as no source and then waiting a week is just way too long and too >susceptible to error. It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is >meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go. It >shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the >perception. > When you consider that some of these have already been here for a long time without attracting attention, one more week is obviously a very short time to wait. It avoids the error of creating unnecessary confusion. Nobody's challenging the uploader's duty, or passing that duty on to the reviewer; your unique perception does not make it so. There's no reason to panic about this. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
On 3/9/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> W. Guy Finley wrote: > >I think the first step is that any unlicensed image being uploaded as fair > >use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied. I > > When you consider that some of these have already been here for a long > time without attracting attention, one more week is obviously a very > short time to wait. It avoids the error of creating unnecessary > confusion. Nobody's challenging the uploader's duty, or passing that > duty on to the reviewer; your unique perception does not make it so. > There's no reason to panic about this. I agree with Ec entirely. Image deletion is broken precisely because it cannot be undone; please do not use it when deletion can be avoided. It is also the duty of text uploaders to describe the text's source, and justify its applicability to the article; nevertheless, we engage in discussion with editors rather than deleting insufficiently sourced work. This mainly works because you can remove text from a page without deleting it from the edit history. Consider creating a quarantine for images that appear to be improperly tagged, or improperly used; removing images to that quarantine, and leaving them there for a reasonable length of time (a month?) before deleting them. If anyone tries to remove a quarantined image, they must give an explanation or proper tag. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>W. Guy Finley wrote: > > > >>I think the first step is that any unlicensed image being uploaded as fair >>use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied. I >>bet that's more than half of them right there. The process of tagging them >>as no source and then waiting a week is just way too long and too >>susceptible to error. It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is >>meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go. It >>shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the >>perception. >> >> >> >When you consider that some of these have already been here for a long >time without attracting attention, one more week is obviously a very >short time to wait. It avoids the error of creating unnecessary >confusion. Nobody's challenging the uploader's duty, or passing that >duty on to the reviewer; your unique perception does not make it so. >There's no reason to panic about this. > >Ec > > > explicit licensing was required, and a general assumption that the content was uploaded with licensing under the GFDL. That assumption has since been proven to be inaccurate in many cases, and a reason why this is no longer taken at face value. Still, going after older unlicensed images is hardly a good policy, especially when the uploader didn't know they were supposed to provide licensing information. For new images and recent uploads, yeah, you need to meet the licensing requirements. And copyright enforcement is done on most images that are recent uploads. I believe that Commons has been cleaned up of this older content, but en.wikipedia has a huge backlog of content review that may take years to go through before it is completely cleaned out and all of the older images have been verified (as much as reasonable) for copyright violations, and several other Wikimedia projects may have problems in this area as well. -- Robert Scott Horning _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by SJ-5
On 3/9/06, SJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree with Ec entirely. Image deletion is broken precisely because > it cannot be undone; please do not use it when deletion can be > avoided. > > It is also the duty of text uploaders to describe the text's source, > and justify its applicability to the article; nevertheless, we engage > in discussion with editors rather than deleting insufficiently sourced > work. This mainly works because you can remove text from a page > without deleting it from the edit history. > > Consider creating a quarantine for images that appear to be improperly > tagged, or improperly used; removing images to that quarantine, and > leaving them there for a reasonable length of time (a month?) before > deleting them. If anyone tries to remove a quarantined image, they > must give an explanation or proper tag. This is misleading and outright untrue in the case of older content. I maintain a temporary archive of media I tag for deletion, some other users do as well.. it's fairly easy to make your tagging bot go grab the actual image. In the case of older content, it would have made its way into one or more image dumps (which are available for a limited time on download.wikimedia.org, and which I and several others maintain copies of forever). It is true that undeletion is a little less convenient for images, but it is untrue that it is irreversible. It is also true that we've had images tagged with things like "non commercial use only" and included in featured articles for over a year.... some of these with tags saying they would be deleted right away... and they remain completely ignored until someone deletes them. Generally images split into two groups, the most common case are images no one cares about.. they are often already orphaned.. Tag them, delete them, whatever... no one cares. Long deletion death-row spans for these do not cause harm, but they also do no good. The other class is images that are favored.. they are used in high visibility places like featured articles.. There are editors who like them because they improve these articles and some of the editors don't give a hoot about free content. In these cases, a long death-row span can do some good: someone might provide a source, but usually they don't.. in the more common case, a long wait is harmful. The people working on cleaning up our copyright status must be diligent to prevent the warning tags from simply being removed and the article being reinserted by people who don't care about copyright, they just want a pretty picture. When it comes down to it, an image was either sourced from someplace else or created by a Wikipedian. If really was made by a Wikipedia, but have no reason to know that (uncommented upload) then we have the same problem as an image that came from a commercial source (after all, the creator could later come after one of our users.. and they user would have nothing to say except "I'll settle"). If the user is still on Wikipedia then a week is long enough to get them to confirm the source, if they are not then it is unlikely that they ever will. For images that have come from an outside source, if we obtained the image once, we can usually obtain it again, and it is generally easier to find a completely *new* image then to track down the source/copyright info for an existing image which was uploaded without any information. When I have found source information for untagged images, it's often been by doing a google image search on the subject and scanning through the results, so it actually takes less time to delete an image and replace it, then to find source information for an existing image. For what it's worth, in the over 20,000 media objects I've caused the deletion of, I've only had to restore one, and I've restored 4 others for other people. Thats it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert S. Horning
On 3/9/06, Robert Scott Horning <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Keep in mind that many of the oldest images were uploaded before > explicit licensing was required, and a general assumption that the > content was uploaded with licensing under the GFDL. That assumption has > since been proven to be inaccurate in many cases, and a reason why this > is no longer taken at face value. Still, going after older unlicensed > images is hardly a good policy, especially when the uploader didn't know > they were supposed to provide licensing information. For new images and > recent uploads, yeah, you need to meet the licensing requirements. And > copyright enforcement is done on most images that are recent uploads. Most images on EN have some kind of license attached... but it's often wrong. It's very depressing to go through and correct the tagging because of two factors: 1) A lot of them (45,846 on enwiki at the moment) are fully orphaned, it feels like such a pointless activity to retag these. 2) Sometimes other users treat you like crap because you've found out that their favorite picture is a copyvio or otherwise unacceptable for inclusion on our site. Worse, perhaps, is that fact that images which fall under (1) sometimes even caues you problems under (2). :( _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock [TAL]
On 3/8/06, ! Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Short and sweet: we have too many of them, most of them aren't being used as > "fair use" images, many don't have sources, almost none have fair use > criteria, and more than a few are being used in articles that have no real > need for them. > > May I suggest that we start taking action on this issue? IMO they are a > ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Not only that, but they are diluting > the "freeness" of the project and causing problems for those who want to use > our material unaltered. > > TBSDY Absolutely. Fair use should be abandoned in favor of allowing CC-BY-ND. I just found out that CC-BY-ND allows "the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats", so use of such a license is much better than relying on fair use. The main advantages are 1) no more gray-areas; either the image is CC-BY-ND, or it isn't; 2) full use by commercial entities, in print versions, etc.; 3) use by anyone in the world, not just in the United States. Of course the major disadvantage is that people have to be convinced to release their image under the license. But right now it's not even an option. Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 3/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/9/06, SJ <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I agree with Ec entirely. Image deletion is broken precisely because > > it cannot be undone; please do not use it when deletion can be > > avoided. > > > > It is also the duty of text uploaders to describe the text's source, > > and justify its applicability to the article; nevertheless, we engage > > in discussion with editors rather than deleting insufficiently sourced > > work. This mainly works because you can remove text from a page > > without deleting it from the edit history. > > > > Consider creating a quarantine for images that appear to be improperly > > tagged, or improperly used; removing images to that quarantine, and > > leaving them there for a reasonable length of time (a month?) before > > deleting them. If anyone tries to remove a quarantined image, they > > must give an explanation or proper tag. > > This is misleading and outright untrue in the case of older content. I > maintain a temporary archive of media I tag for deletion, some other > users do as well.. it's fairly easy to make your tagging bot go grab > the actual image. In the case of older content, it would have made > its way into one or more image dumps (which are available for a > limited time on download.wikimedia.org, and which I and several others > maintain copies of forever). How do you expect any user whose images have been removed to know this? Can I send all users who are looking for old lost images to you? Is a list of users who keep copies of old image dumps? See also the deletion discussion for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Lost_images which was a page designed to allow users to recover unnecessarily deleted images. > It is true that undeletion is a little less convenient for images, but > it is untrue that it is irreversible. >From a wiki standpoint, where 'reversion' is normally as a <30-second process, it's pretty irreversible. One admin's moment of passion can lead to days or weeks of searching for an old file. > It is also true that we've had images tagged with things like "non commercial use > only" and included in featured articles for over a year.... some of these with tags > saying they would be deleted right away... and they remain completely > ignored until someone deletes them. Why don't we fix these extreme, unacceptable cases first? No need to fix a different problem using this as a reason. Rather than having people fret about "waiting for people to comment on the deletion tag" -- everyone, admins or not, should be free to remove an infringing image IMMEDIATELY to quarantine. We should be firm in protecting the freeness of the project, while being polite to contributors and assuming the best of them. > Worse, perhaps, is that fact that images which [are fully orphaned] > sometimes even caues you problems [where users treat you like > crap because you're removing their favorite picture] If someone notices when you remove the picture, it's not "orphaned" in the sense that noone cares for it. Someone certainly does care; though s/he may not visit the site more than once a month. I don't know how you're checking for orphans, but I sometimes find images used in someone's user space, however productively, called orphans and listed for deletion... > If the user is still on Wikipedia then a week > is long enough to get them to confirm the source, This is not true for the majority of Wikipedians, who do not visit the site every week; and doesn't even apply for the myriad image deletions which wait a week... but never notify the original uploader. > For what it's worth, in the over 20,000 media objects I've caused the > deletion of, I've only had to restore one, and I've restored 4 others > for other people. Thats it. Most contributors have no idea how to track down a deleted image; are upset and offended by its removal, and simply come to the project less often, or complain to one or two friends on-wiki. For what it's worth, of the few dozen media objects I have uploaded, three that were pretty clearly images taken by me were put up for deletion and could easily have slipped by a less active editor. Two images that did not merit deletion and which I had uploaded into my own user space, for working with later, were deleted without any comment to me (presumably under a draconian "orphaned" criterion). ++SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 3/9/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Absolutely. Fair use should be abandoned in favor of allowing > CC-BY-ND. I just found out that CC-BY-ND allows "the right to make > such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights > in other media and formats", so use of such a license is much better > than relying on fair use. I don't agree at all. Our goal is to make a free content encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost. ND content is not free. We can broadly split media we would like to include in Wikipedia into two classes: Illustrations and other media and used to explain or decorate our articles, and excerpts of works which we have included in order to discuss the works. In the first case, barring certain silly corner cases, it is always possible to have a free version because a Wikipedia contributor could create one. In the second case, a replacement is simply not possible because the replacement wouldn't be the work we were discussing. So, our ability to obtain a free copy is entirely at the whim of the copyright holder, and in some cases it may even be very difficult for us to contact the copyright holder. Fair use law (and similar constructs in some other countries) exists specifically for the second case. The goal of fair use is to prevent copyright from completely stifling criticism and intellectual discussion. It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the decision to include fair use is almost always a choice between the fair use image and no image at all. Our choice with fair use content is to allow it, where it is easy for downstream users to remove, or have nothing at all. A downstream user who can't accept unfree content is in the same position either way. Nothing is lost by allowing clear and legitimate fair use, and our goal of being an encyclopedia is enhanced in a way which is pretty much not possible without fair use. By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision. > Of course the major disadvantage is that people have to be convinced > to release their image under the license. But right now it's not even > an option. Who are you expecting to convince? The impact on the real commercial value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution. The lack of ND images has, no doubt, cost us some images on the short term... but we could equally say that our failure to illegally copy current edition Britannica articles has also cost us some level of coverage. Fundamentally if someone isn't interested in creating a *free* encyclopedia then they aren't interested in helping us. Yes, we'll sometimes include the copyrighted works of others... but with fair use we can do that whether they like it or not. It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content. The loss of natural freedom in the embodiment of ideas has been a huge burden on our civilization, at least since computing put publication in the hands of almost every person. This burden will continue until we unify to remove it; It will continue until we create enough free content that the artificial social and economic imposition created by copyright is longer an impediment to the flow of knowledge to the people who want and need it most. This isn't going to happen quickly, but it can't happen at all if we compromise unnecessarily. We can afford to wait: Wikipedia is forever. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by SJ-5
On 3/9/06, SJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How do you expect any user whose images have been removed to know this? > Can I send all users who are looking for old lost images to you? Is a > list of users who keep copies of old image dumps? They should start by talking to the person who deleted it. Obviously an obligation to help correct mistakes rests on the person who took an action. Why do we need a list? *We* provide access to the dumps. It's on our servers. Anyone can access it. > >From a wiki standpoint, where 'reversion' is normally as a <30-second > process, it's pretty irreversible. One admin's moment of passion can > lead to days or weeks of searching for an old file. Days or weeks? Due to a "moment of passion"? Cite? To me this sounds like hyperbole. If the images source was correctly stated it is generally trivial to replace the image (unless it was clearly stated that the work was created by the uploader, but if thats the case we should be talking about deadminship not deletion policy). > > It is also true that we've had images tagged with things like "non commercial use > > only" and included in featured articles for over a year.... some of these with tags > > saying they would be deleted right away... and they remain completely > > ignored until someone deletes them. > > Why don't we fix these extreme, unacceptable cases first? No need to > fix a different problem using this as a reason. I don't see where anyone is arguing that we change our behavior except due to these cases. They might not be extreme but they aren't rare at all. > Rather than having people fret about "waiting for people to comment on > the deletion tag" -- everyone, admins or not, should be free to remove > an infringing image IMMEDIATELY to quarantine. We should be firm in > protecting the freeness of the project, while being polite to > contributors and assuming the best of them. And how do you propose we do this? > > Worse, perhaps, is that fact that images which [are fully orphaned] > > sometimes even caues you problems [where users treat you like > > crap because you're removing their favorite picture] > > If someone notices when you remove the picture, it's not "orphaned" in > the sense that noone cares for it. Someone certainly does care; > though s/he may not visit the site more than once a month. I don't > know how you're checking for orphans, but I sometimes find images used > in someone's user space, however productively, called orphans and > listed for deletion... When I say fully orphaned I mean images which are not used inline, and not called via any obvious external link in all the Wikitext. I don't know how much more orphaned than you can get. We also tag fair use images as "orphaned from the main namespace" (the template is quite clear about it) because we do not permit, and usually can not justify 'fair use' illustrations outside of our articles. This is the only case that I'm aware of where an image used on a userpage would be tagged as any kind of orphan. Can you cite an example otherwise? > > If the user is still on Wikipedia then a week > > is long enough to get them to confirm the source, > > This is not true for the majority of Wikipedians, who do not visit the > site every week; and doesn't even apply for the myriad image deletions > which wait a week... but never notify the original uploader. The vast majority of users who upload but don't edit weekly never edit again. > > For what it's worth, in the over 20,000 media objects I've caused the > > deletion of, I've only had to restore one, and I've restored 4 others > > for other people. Thats it. > > Most contributors have no idea how to track down a deleted image; are > upset and offended by its removal, and simply come to the project less > often, or complain to one or two friends on-wiki. Most uploaders never notice when their upload is removed. Some notice, but most of them are complete assholes about it. > For what it's worth, of the few dozen media objects I have uploaded, > three that were pretty clearly images taken by me were put up for > deletion and could easily have slipped by a less active editor. Two > images that did not merit deletion and which I had uploaded into my > own user space, for working with later, were deleted without any > comment to me (presumably under a draconian "orphaned" criterion). Sj, "Three that were pretty clearly images taken by me were put up for deletion". I don't intend to claim you to be dishonest, but I just looked at the histories of all the images you've uploaded to enwiki with your account, both currently existing and deleted.... and no such images exist. You've did have one orphaned fair use image which also lacked source information deleted, it wasn't in use in any articles for at least two months at the time I tagged it, two weeks later it was deleted by Petaholmes. I don't see that you ever contact him about it, so I guess you didn't have an issue with it. Of the two other images of yours which have been deleted, one was deleted by you.. The other deleted by Angela when she moved it to the commons. None of the images (other than the fair use one I mentioned) have been tagged for deletion. Can you explain? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Hoi,
I understand the need that ordinary pictures need to be "free". What I fail to understand is the dogmatic view that ALL pictures cannot be ND or no deriviates. There are whole categories of pictures that are extremely relevant, where we cannot and will not get these images when we insist on this mantra of "everything must be Free .. everything must be Free .. everyone who thinks otherwise does not understand". It is dogmatic, and it is my POV that it is utterly wrong. When we make an exception for the logos in Commons for our projects we do this with a reason. The reason is obvious. The use of the logo is explicitly limited. Logos of other companies, organisations are not available in Commons because they are not "Free". Organisations CANNOT make them available to us for the same reason why our logos CANNOT be Free. It is a disservice to our users not to have logos in Commons. People often know the logos of companies or products better then they do the name. An article like IBM, Shell, Greenpeace should have the company logo to illustrate the article. The English Wikipedia does have these logos. They are there as they are considered "fair use". Many people are satisfied with this solution as it is considered a "neat" solution. Well, it is not. There are MANY more projects that have the same requirement, and I fail to see why we are not servicing this need. I fail to see why the pragmatic exception for the WMF logos cannot be extended to other logos. I fail to see why categories similar to logos cannot be served from Commons. The only reason I see is dogma. It is a dogma I fail to recognise as valid. It is a dogma that does us a disservice. Thanks, GerardM On 3/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 3/9/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Absolutely. Fair use should be abandoned in favor of allowing > > CC-BY-ND. I just found out that CC-BY-ND allows "the right to make > > such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights > > in other media and formats", so use of such a license is much better > > than relying on fair use. > > I don't agree at all. Our goal is to make a free content > encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost. ND > content is not free. > > We can broadly split media we would like to include in Wikipedia into > two classes: Illustrations and other media and used to explain or > decorate our articles, and excerpts of works which we have included in > order to discuss the works. > > In the first case, barring certain silly corner cases, it is always > possible to have a free version because a Wikipedia contributor could > create one. > > In the second case, a replacement is simply not possible because the > replacement wouldn't be the work we were discussing. So, our ability > to obtain a free copy is entirely at the whim of the copyright holder, > and in some cases it may even be very difficult for us to contact the > copyright holder. > > Fair use law (and similar constructs in some other countries) exists > specifically for the second case. The goal of fair use is to prevent > copyright from completely stifling criticism and intellectual > discussion. > > It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain > fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on > Wikipedia. Furthermore, the decision to include fair use is almost > always a choice between the fair use image and no image at all. Our > choice with fair use content is to allow it, where it is easy for > downstream users to remove, or have nothing at all. A downstream user > who can't accept unfree content is in the same position either way. > Nothing is lost by allowing clear and legitimate fair use, and our > goal of being an encyclopedia is enhanced in a way which is pretty > much not possible without fair use. > > By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three > possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free > enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free > content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense > of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content > will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision. > > > Of course the major disadvantage is that people have to be convinced > > to release their image under the license. But right now it's not even > > an option. > > Who are you expecting to convince? The impact on the real commercial > value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND > licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not > sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution. > > The lack of ND images has, no doubt, cost us some images on the short > term... but we could equally say that our failure to illegally copy > current edition Britannica articles has also cost us some level of > coverage. Fundamentally if someone isn't interested in creating a > *free* encyclopedia then they aren't interested in helping us. Yes, > we'll sometimes include the copyrighted works of others... but with > fair use we can do that whether they like it or not. > > It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content. > > The loss of natural freedom in the embodiment of ideas has been a huge > burden on our civilization, at least since computing put publication > in the hands of almost every person. This burden will continue until > we unify to remove it; It will continue until we create enough free > content that the artificial social and economic imposition created by > copyright is longer an impediment to the flow of knowledge to the > people who want and need it most. > > This isn't going to happen quickly, but it can't happen at all if we > compromise unnecessarily. > > We can afford to wait: > Wikipedia is forever. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [hidden email] > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain > fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on > Wikipedia. Actually, most of the content is "fair use" only to United States users. -- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 3/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/9/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Absolutely. Fair use should be abandoned in favor of allowing > > CC-BY-ND. I just found out that CC-BY-ND allows "the right to make > > such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights > > in other media and formats", so use of such a license is much better > > than relying on fair use. > > I don't agree at all. Our goal is to make a free content > encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost. ND > content is not free. > > By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three > possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free > enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free > content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense > of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content > will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision. > No, you misunderstand. ND images would only be allowed in situations where fair use images are currently allowed. > > Of course the major disadvantage is that people have to be convinced > > to release their image under the license. But right now it's not even > > an option. > > Who are you expecting to convince? The impact on the real commercial > value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND > licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not > sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution. > Well, we disagree here. I think there's a huge difference between ND and GFDL. There's only one way to find out for sure, though, and that's to give it a try. Allow ND in places where fair use is already allowed, and see if you get any takers. > The lack of ND images has, no doubt, cost us some images on the short > term... but we could equally say that our failure to illegally copy > current edition Britannica articles has also cost us some level of > coverage. Fundamentally if someone isn't interested in creating a > *free* encyclopedia then they aren't interested in helping us. Yes, > we'll sometimes include the copyrighted works of others... but with > fair use we can do that whether they like it or not. > > It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content. > licensed under CC-ND is more free than an image which is not. > The loss of natural freedom in the embodiment of ideas has been a huge > burden on our civilization, at least since computing put publication > in the hands of almost every person. This burden will continue until > we unify to remove it; It will continue until we create enough free > content that the artificial social and economic imposition created by > copyright is longer an impediment to the flow of knowledge to the > people who want and need it most. > > This isn't going to happen quickly, but it can't happen at all if we > compromise unnecessarily. > > We can afford to wait: > Wikipedia is forever. Hey, if your answer is to remove all non-free images completely from Wikipedia, you have no objection from me. My suggestion was merely to replace one set of non-free images with another set of non-free images which were more free. Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paweł Dembowski
On 3/10/06, Paweł Dembowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain > > fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on > > Wikipedia. > > Actually, most of the content is "fair use" only to United States > users. > It's worse than that, it's only "fair use" for use within the United States. Which means if an American wants to distribute a copy of Wikipedia to someone in Africa, they have to break the law. And I'd dispute that fair use by Wikipedia means fair use by a large majority of the downstream users. Wikipedia can and will get away with a lot of things that others can't and won't. Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 3/10/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is a disservice to our users not to have logos in Commons. People > often know the logos of companies or products better then they do the > name. An article like IBM, Shell, Greenpeace should have the company > logo to illustrate the article. > I really don't see how one necessitates the other. Commons doesn't have articles, after all. If you put logos into Commons, then you make it much harder for anyone who wants to legally distribute dumps of Commons. Of course, by that rationale, the WMF logo shouldn't be on Commons either. Either that, or it should be released under a free license. Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip] > > I don't agree at all. Our goal is to make a free content > > encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost. ND > > content is not free. > > > Neither is "fair use content", of course. And I went into an extensive explination of why fair use is a reasonable exception, but you ignored it. > > By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three > > possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free > > enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free > > content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense > > of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content > > will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision. > > > No, you misunderstand. ND images would only be allowed in situations > where fair use images are currently allowed. Explain how this would work? So would we only allow images while, while being ND, we could also claim fair use? Guess what: We already permit that on enwiki. If that isn't what you mean, how can you claim that they would only be allowed where where fair use images are allowed? [snip] > > Who are you expecting to convince? The impact on the real commercial > > value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND > > licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not > > sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution. > > > Well, we disagree here. I think there's a huge difference between ND > and GFDL. There's only one way to find out for sure, though, and > that's to give it a try. Allow ND in places where fair use is already > allowed, and see if you get any takers. I never argued that there isn't a huge difference, in fact I argued that ND is intolerable. There is a difference, and it's not a good difference. We already allow ND content to be used as fair use. > > It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content. > > > I just don't see what freedom is being given up. An image which *is* > licensed under CC-ND is more free than an image which is not. Of all the outragious bullshit... Sure, an image under CC-ND is more free than a random unlicensed work. It would not be more free than the free images they would replace if we permitted them. The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to wikipedia. By being only willing to release their work under an unfree license it is clear that they are not interested in helping us. > Hey, if your answer is to remove all non-free images completely from > Wikipedia, you have no objection from me. My suggestion was merely to > replace one set of non-free images with another set of non-free images > which were more free. You are either misrepresenting your position (that it really is to only perform a 1:1 replacement), or your argument is pointless because we already permit it (If a work is fair use we don't care about its license terms, you can upload BY-NC-ND stuff all day as fair use on enwiki). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
«
Return to WikiMedia Foundation
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |