Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump. |
Wikipedia receives many images from users aiming to help build the encyclopedia. Most of these are fairly conventional and it is either easy to establish whether they are properly licensed or reasonable to assume good faith and trust that the uploader has obtained the rights that he claims to have (for example, because he took the image himself).
However, some images are sufficiently unusual that when uploaded to Wikipedia they deserve extra scrutiny. This policy deals with what images should be given extra scrutiny and the level of proof is generally considered acceptable to warrant their inclusion in Wikipedia.
Contents |
[edit] When verification is appropriate
The primary goal of this policy is to cover situations where mistakenly accepting a fraudulent licensing claim could result is significant harm to a third party. This could happen either commercially, by infringing on the rights of a professional artist/photographer to profit from their work, or personally, by invading the privacy of a private individual. As a result, attempts should be made to verify the permissions associated with any image where any of the following is true:
- The image is from a known source (e.g. National Geographic) but claims to have been released under an unexpected copyright license, such as commercial artwork that is claimed to be under the GFDL or in the public domain.
- The image includes a visible watermark or copyright statement, and not used under a claim of fair use.
- The image shows an identifiable person in an apparently private situation where a reasonable person is likely to be embarrased if the image is published without permission (e.g. sex photos).
- The image shows an identifiable child in an apparently private situation.
- Any image where there is specific evidence to suggest that the licensing claim is fraudulent.
[edit] Methods of verification
Verification can mean one of two things. Either verifying that the claims being made about the image are likely to be objectively true, or verifying that the uploader is a known person who might be trusted even in the face of unusual claims. The first form of verification is generally preferred, but may be impractical in situations where there are no readily available sources of information about the image except for the uploader.
[edit] Verifying the claims
[edit] Known image source
When an image comes from a known source with an established identity (such as a commercial distributor), a user may attempt to verify the copyright claims by contacting that source directly off-wiki. The user should verify that the source knows that the images were uploaded, agrees to all relevant terms and conditions, and has the necessary permission of any identifiable persons shown in private situations. If at all possible, an email confirming those terms and identifying the images in question should be sent to permissions (at) wikimedia.org from an established online identity publicly associated with the source.
An uploader who works for a professional site who feels their works may appear controversial is also encouraged to preemptively send an email to permissions (at) wikimedia.org to stave off any concern. Such a source may also designate one or more user identities on Wikipedia to be their official representatives in the future so that any additional claims related to future uploads can be accepted without further challenge.
[edit] Unknown image source
When an image comes from a source without an established presence in the real world, it is much more difficult to verify specific image claims. However, if the dispute arises solely over the privacy rights of the individuals involved, it may be possible to sufficiently satisfy those concerns by uploading or emailing a new image of those persons in a context that clearly references Wikipedia (e.g. with the person holding an "I am user username on wikipedia" sign or sitting next to a computer showing the image on Wikipedia).
If creating such an image is not possible or not appropriate, then one should use the uploader verification process described below.
[edit] Verifying the uploader
When licensing claims are potentially controversial, one solution is for Wikipedia to establish that there is an identifiable real life person willing to take responsibility for the accuracy of those claims. This can be done if the uploader is willing to submit personally identifiable information to Wikipedia. In the absence of any external dispute regarding the legitimacy of the image, this information can be kept confidential.
The information that the uploader is expected to submit include:
- Real name
- Address
- Phone Number
An email address may also be used if linked to a company/university that restricts accounts to employees/students. An associated company email address is required if the image is claimed to belong to a company.
Someone from Wikipedia will attempt to contact the phone number/email address given and verify that the person reachable at that address at that point in time accepts responsibility for the claims made about the image.
If the uploader is under 18, the above information must also be provided for at least one parent or guardian.
To be kept confidential, this information should be sent to permissions (at) wikimedia.org (along with a note identifying the image(s) in question).
[edit] Procedure for carrying out verification requests
Any editor may request verification of unusual licensing claims, meeting the criteria set out above, by adding {{verification-needed}} to the disputed images and attempting to contact the uploader by leaving a message at their user talk page. If there is a dispute over whether or not verification is appropriate it should be discussed with other editors and/or administrators.
A user of whom verification is requested should be directed here and given any assistance they might need in understanding this policy.
An uploader who recognizes their content is likely to be controversial may follow the procedures for verification even without a request being made.
If it is accepted that an image meets the criteria for verification, but the uploader is unable or unwilling to follow one of the procedures outlined above, then any administrator may delete the image after it has been tagged with {{verification-needed}} for seven days. It may also be deleted immediately if the uploader makes clear that their refusal is final, or if an admin feels that the continued use of the image (even for a few days) poses an unusually severe risk of harm to a third party. Please note that image may be undeleted if it is subsequently established that the image is acceptable.
After sending materials to permissions (at) wikimedia.org, and following any confirming contact that may be required, a confirmation message will be added to the image(s) involved that provides the OTRS reference number of the email exchange. The emails themselves are kept confidential unless needed to resolve a future dispute.
[edit] Preventative nature
The measures described here are aimed at providing reasonable assurances that the disputed images are not causing harm. In this way, they are preventative and should be followed even in the absence of specific claims that the images have infringed the copyrights of others or violated someone's personal privacy.
In the event of an actual dispute involving external parties who claim to have been harmed by the images (through copyright infringment or invasion of privacy, etc.), it may be necessary that stronger measures be taken and/or more legally binding proof be presented to resolve such situations.
If you are an external party, and feel your rights have been violated by the inclusion of some image in Wikipedia, feel free to contact Wikimedia's designated agent for assistance.
