Fair use images

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fair use images

Chris Sherlock [TAL]
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gerard Meijssen-3
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

W. Guy Finley
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Robert S. Horning
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
>>    
>>
I think Gerard is dead on with this one.  Is it en.wikipedia that is
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Ray Saintonge
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

SJ-5
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Robert S. Horning
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
>
>  
>
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.

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

SJ-5
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gerard Meijssen-3
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Paweł Dembowski
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
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.
>
Neither is "fair use content", of course.

> 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.
>
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.

> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
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
123