Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

New image copyright deletion page

Discussion moved from village pump

Wikipedia has a huge number of {{unverified}}, {{unknown}} and non-commercial use only images that need to be dealt with. They can't be dealt with through Wikipedia:Copyright problems and they can't go through Wikipedia:Images for deletion unless they're unused and unwanted.

I propose that we create a new page to list these images. They would be listed for 30 days, giving people plenty of time to look for their source and copyright status, or in the case of NC-only images, to contact the copyright holder. A maximum of five images uploaded before the page's creation could be listed per UTC day, but an indefinite number of images uploaded after that point could be listed immediately regardless of the number of previous listings.

Images on the deletion page would not be orphaned until immediately before their deletion, and a boilerplate notice would be added to their image pages. —Guanaco 01:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support this idea. I've been working on tagging a decent number of images, and there are some problematic images that I don't know what to do with. Since they're quite possibly GFDL, or in many other cases fairuse, I don't want to put them on Wikipedia:Images for deletion, nor Wikipedia:Copyright problems. A page to list such edge cases and gather community input would be a nice way to deal with the problem. It is also very bad that still today some images are uploaded without proper tags. Even GFDL images. In half a year, when they are noticed, the Wikipedian and copyright holder may very well have left the project, so it is better to act fast. — David Remahl 01:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For now they're supposed to be dealt with on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. That was the reason the name was changed from Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. anthony (see warning) 01:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But the new page will have a time limit of 30 days, as in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. As one of the threads on this page shows, the time limit may be part of the reason that Votes for deletion is so popular. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Are there any good ideas for a name for this page? I can't think of anything that isn't either very long or very ambiguous. Guanaco 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images needing attention? anthony (see warning) 01:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could remove the image from the article during the last week or so, to lessen the chance someone isn't going to notice until it's too late. Or maybe a tag can be put on any article which contains one of these images. Maybe both. It seems too likely that a page like this is going to be ignored until it's too late, and my understanding is that undeletion of images is somewhere between really hard and impossible. anthony (see warning) 01:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a really good idea, maybe call it Wikipedia:Possible image copyright violations? Filiocht 07:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support the idea. As one who has carefully GFDLd all the images I have used, I've been offended to see images that have copyright problems often used on featured articles. But I also preach caution. Remember, once an image is deleted, it can't be undeleted. Andrewa 10:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Most of these are definitively not copyright violations (for instance non-commercial images). They're not acceptable because they're not free, and Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. anthony (see warning) 14:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
another "support" vote. Like User:Andrewa I will not use a image that I'm not sure of, and if fact have a couple of articles on hold, waiting to hear from folks who might never get back to me. And surely any image that gets deleted can be uploaded again? Even if it requires a slightly different name? So, if it is a usable image it is not lost forever. Carptrash 16:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It can be uploaded again if you have a copy of it, or it can probably be restored from a backup if you can interest a developer in doing this. However, in the case of the images I'm scanning from old books, I suspect that there are not too many hard copies left in the world, and the others may not be accessible to us. If we delete similar images scanned in good faith by people who weren't aware of the GFDL requirements, we may be losing something useful.
The other thing to be aware of is that Wikimedia commons will hopefully replace all this in time. Perhaps some of this effort would be better spent on that project? Andrewa 16:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Getting a MediaWiki developer to do tar xvf for you seems like an awful waste of resources, you can download the dumps yourself here: http://download.wikimedia.org/archives/en/ -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:01, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
The image dumps there are rarely updated. anthony (see warning) 18:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought of a name: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Guanaco 20:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think time would be better spent tagging the images rather than debating whether to delete them. There are still over 40,000 untagged ones at User:Yann/Untagged Images that can not be distributed in the upcoming Mandrake release. Angela. 02:21, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

since I am new here I'm not sure about just "doing things; ie deleting pictures. I was reading about Cecil Fielder last night and there were two photos, both of which seemed to have been tagged, or at least not properly credited. i thought, "Well I have a couple of shots of Cecil that I could just exchange for the two questionable ones, but is that fair to the person who first uploaded the ones without proper credit, or should I be . . .une belle dame sans merci and just chop them? Carptrash 14:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's always preferable to have images we know for sure we are entitled to use. If your images are better than or of similar quality to the current ones I recommend just replacing them anyway. If they are worse they might still be preferable becuase of their confirmed source, but in this case I would advise asking the uploader of the original images to provide license information first, and if none is forthcoming go ahead and replace. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is this comment in support of this idea or in opposition to it? It's my impression that this page wouldn't be used for deletion debate, but for attempting to find the information needed to tag the image. anthony (see warning) 14:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End moved discussion

The Anomebot maps are GFDL, I'm tagging theem that's somthing around 8% of the untagged images. Rich Farmbrough 13:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) All the (3000+) county maps are now tagged (E&OE) Rich Farmbrough 12:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created what this page will look like if/when it's up and running. Guanaco 21:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this action is enough -- there are too many unfree/untagged images in wikipedia, and we have no space, time and manpower to list them all and discuss them. The solution is, according to me: 1) Run a campaign where all image uploaders and wikipedia users are encouraged to tag images with proper information. 2) Delete all unfree images (except fair fair use). We can't list 40k untagged images here. ❝Sverdrup❞ 10:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we list 100 a day, we'll be done in just over a year (worst case, if no one fixes any images not listed here). That's fast enough, but we'll probably have to split the page up to be able to list that many. anthony (see warning) 18:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poll: Use of page

So far there has been no opposition to this page. A poll on whether it should be opened and used will start 0:00, 18 Sep 2004. Guanaco 19:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

The following people support opening and using this page.

  1. Michael Snow 02:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Guanaco 02:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 03:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Whosyourjudas 03:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  7. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 05:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. KaiSeun 06:16, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
  9. Delirium 06:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 07:29, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:01, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
  12. Tarquin 10:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. —Morven 10:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Homer Jay 11:13, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
  15. squash 12:05, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  16. — Matt 14:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. Sempron 17:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. The Anome 17:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. ✏ Sverdrup 21:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. Livajo 23:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Tim Starling 03:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  23. Rich Farmbrough 10:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. Comarde Nick @)--^-- 09:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Goobergunch 23:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  26. Pakaran. 14:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. Danae Fitzgerald 21:00, 21 June 2005

Oppose

The following people oppose using this page:

  • I must resist the cabal. ^_^ ugen64 01:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    TINC, and why do you oppose using this page? Guanaco 01:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Because it's supported by the cabal. (see also: ad hominem) ugen64 02:33, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    In that case, the cabal that does not exist considers this vote invalid. :) Guanaco 20:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Do you have approval from the Council of Eleven to make that statement, Novice? Pakaran. 14:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose VEHEMENTLY. No, no, no, and NO, it has no base at all. Imagine a world in which you are shot in the head by authority because they are unable to find your background information, your name, where do you live, or who are your parents? This is the world that you are proposing. You are deleting information simply because you are unable to know or verify from where this information came or comes from. This is totally unacceptable, this is not how authority handles these cases in the real world. If I'm unable to find your background, and you have not comitted any crime, I have no rights whatsoever to imprison you or to deprive you from your own life. We must stop this madness, this paranoia of copyright infringement. If we don't know the source, LEAVE IT AS IT IS, it has made no harm. If the copyright holder PROVES that it is his work, then obviously delete it. You wanna know why they have no source information? Because people are lazy and because we didn't have an easy way to mark images in the past... and we still really don't. You are punishing us for the way that Wikipedia was in the past, you are punishing contributors for doing what they do: contributing. You are right, they are not the perfect contributors, but still, it is not a malicious contribution. In conclusion, every motherfucking image that has been submitted to Wikipedia that is not a copyright violation and that we don't know its source will be affected by this page. We will be popping everyone we don't know in the head. —Joseph | Talk 05:27, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I oppose because of the current lack of any requirement to ask the uploader or try even a minimal search for details or alternatives before listing here. We should be trying to make the work better, not acting with undue haste and lack of care. Free is excellent, but we do have two audiences and sets of participants: those who want the best encyclopedia on the internet and those who want a GFDL-pure subset. We shouldn't sacrifice the former for the latter when we can do an excellent job of both. Jamesday 10:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe you didn't see Step 2 in the instructions for creating a listing: "Contact the user who uploaded the image"? --Michael Snow 21:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Originally there was also a step 0 which required you to do a basic search before listing here. But apparently that was removed. I'd rather just add it back, though. anthony 警告 12:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Get real, YAHOO, EBAY, and Amazon Etc, don't do this!

Thank-You Scotty

Comments

We still need a new upload form too, but in the meantime, we're long overdue to start dealing with nonfree images and the longer we wait, the bigger the problem gets. --Michael Snow 02:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence has excellent ideas on that. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that many {{unverified}} may in fact be images uploaded a long time ago, back when we didn't have those image tags (and it was assumed that images HAD to be GFDL if uploaded), and whose creators have forgotten about. I myself recently went back and added the GFDL tag to all the images and diagrams I have uploaded, but it's possible I've missed some out. -- Tarquin 10:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm in the same catagory as Tarquin: I've contributed maybe a dozen images, none of which I intended to encumber by non-free status. Before any image is deleted, I believe an effort should be made to contact the original contributor & ask that the status be updated -- by this I mean either an email or a note on the contributor's Talk page. (If the contributor is an anon or long-departed with no email address, then that fact should be noted when posting.) -- llywrch 19:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I uploaded a number of images and tagged them as GFDL but threw in a non-commercial use restriction as I didn't read the GFDL page carefully back then. Eventually, one of my images got deleted. I only noticed it after the page it was linked to was changed to remove it. If you are going to use this process, I strongly insist the uploader *must* be notified on their talk page about the copyright issue so they are explicitly made aware that the image may get deleted in the near future. RedWolf 16:59, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Does this include fair use images? They are unfree.

Images that would not be fair use when used in a commercial distribution of Wikipedia can and should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For example, low-res album covers are fine, but a scan of an entire newspaper claiming "fair use" is not. Guanaco 17:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Presumably noncommercial-only images uploaded recently (after Jimbo's declaration that they are not permitted) would be handled the same way. anthony (see warning) 18:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo's declaration, alas, was made way too privately and publicised too little. As of today, the upload form STILL does not explicitly say that noncommercial-only images are not prohibited. In fact, it's more encouraging of them than it once was when it implied that anything being uploaded had to be GFDL. For these reasons, these images should be handled here too. —Morven 05:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think we should reserve this page for possibly unfree images, not definitely unfree images. anthony (see warning) 22:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

¿What is the big deal?

WikiMedia.Org is not for profit. This is compliant with a not-for-profit-license. As for CDs DVDs, et cetera and other things we might wish to sell for making money for supporting WikiMedia.Org, we can strip out the images not licensed under GNU-FDL. I see no reason we should deillustrate the WikiMediaProjects. Only the text need be GNU-FDL-compliant. Images could have other licenses stated on their image-pages. Ŭalabio 03:06, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree. I feel that all of our content should be usable by the project for any project that might be untertaken. It's not acceptable to strip out encumbered images -- it makes the project impossible to cleanly use for such purposes, and at the same time makes it invisible to users that they should contribute "missing" content. --Improv 13:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll: Number of listings

How many images uploaded before Sept. 20 should be listed per day?

Create a new header like '''5000''' to vote for a number that currently has no votes.

5

  1. Jamesday the original proposal did allow a reasonable amount of time to work through all of the older images.

50

  1. Karada 22:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Acegikmo1 23:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 01:31, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

100

Guanaco 21:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. ✏ Sverdrup 21:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. anthony (see warning) 23:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) try it with 100 first.
  3. 100's a nice number, methinks. ugen64 02:40, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

200

  1. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No hard limit

  1. Guanaco 01:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Why should there be a limit?
    1. Because the idea is to research their status and find replacements and listing more than a few (particularly listing many by the same uploader) doesn't allow sufficient time or resources to do that. A wiki is supposed to get better over time and mass removals of images will not have that effect, while taking sufficient time to research status and find replacements when necessary will. Jamesday 09:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Be bold! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Whosyourjudas 03:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. I don't see the point of having a poll on this...If the overwhelming amount of images listed ever becomes a problem, we could set a limit. — David Remahl 08:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Rich Farmbrough 10:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Suggest that a smallish number should be loaded, even if it means splitting the page into several chunks. THis would stop things whizzing down out of sight. Also think a lot of attention (i.e. wikipedians) would be needed for there to be a good chance of someone recognising an image.
  7. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) why vote on a limit before you have usage data?
  8. What others have said Goobergunch 23:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Can't see what a "hard" limit will achieve, but I would hope we wouldn't try to handle more than a couple of dozen a day, at least to start with. —Stormie 23:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  10. List them all at once. Artificial pacing will just get in the way. --Improv 13:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

While I'm not sure if a limit is desirable, people listing the older images should use some judgment in not overwhelming the page all at once with every image that needs to be removed. Those images have often been here for quite some time, and the amount of harm done by having some stay an extra day, week, or even month is minimal. --Michael Snow 04:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People are seriously voting for 100-200 per day? I don't think we're up to going through this process for that great a number of images. Remember, the proposal has them staying here for 30 days. 30×200=6000 entries on this page.

Yep, which also means those of us on ADSL will have a ROYAL pain editing the page. Much less those unfortunates who lack even ADSL! Pakaran. 14:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My understanding is that there are tens of thousands of untagged images. When the page grows too big, it should be split up. I suspect this is going to be necessary. anthony (see warning) 22:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I echo Michael Snow's concern for overwhelming the process, and his emphasis that going through this is NOT needed to be done overnight. These images by and large are legally present on Wikipedia with no copyright problems for us. The purpose here is to convert as many as we possibly can to verified GFDL / PD / other-acceptable-free-license, not to delete as many as we can as quick as we can. —Morven 05:01, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Is this page now in use?

I've noticed a few people are now adding images and the warning against using the page has gone. Is it now open for use?

according to the Recent Changes masthead, it is - at least for newly uploaded images. But the restriction against old images was removed from the page itself. Whosyourjudas 20:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's prefer high risk images on this page

Image:Eugene Debs.jpg and Image:AntonPannekoek.jpg were listed on September 20, but they look awfully low-risk to me. They look like 100 year old photos that have passed into the public domain by now. I think that on this page, we should encourage people to post higher-risk images, like Image:Pm SH-BS114.jpg, that are at least probably copyrighted. Yeah, I know the other two images might be from 1992 and have been contrived to look old, or they might have been touched up and hence copyrighted, but the probability seems low and I'd prefer to not sweep all the old-looking photos off Wikipedia when 90% of them would pass muster if the poster were still available to verify their origins. Tempshill 01:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • The goal of this page isn't just to get non-free images deleted, it's also to get free images properly tagged. I think we should include both "medium risk" and "low risk" images, in order to best reach that goal. "High risk" images should be listed on Wikipedia:Possible copyright problems. anthony (see warning) 13:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. All images, whether 'high-risk' or not, need to be proved/assured to have free licenses. Any non-free picture has to be removed from Wikipedia, regardless of risk. That's the point of this page, isn't it? Whosyourjudas 20:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Plenty of oldish-looking black-and-white photos may still be under copyright; you have to go back before 1923 to be reasonably sure that they're public domain. Both Debs and Pannekoek died later than that. Part of the point is that we need to require source information, so that we can more easily assess whether there are any potential issues. Ideally that would include the date a photograph was taken and/or published. When images are missing source information, the whole point is that we have no evidence to indicate whether these are free images or not. --Michael Snow 17:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
remember, thanks to Mickey Mouse, copyright in the USA is now lifetime + quite a lot. In fact the copyright, can vest in a spouse on the authors death, almost as if the spouse were a co-author. (Don't know how this applies to Hollywood style "chain" marriages.) So if you assume an old author who commewnced work young, marries a much younger spouse who is in turn long lived, copyright could be c. 200yrs. Also there are about five pieces of work that are perpetual copyright in the UK, and Peter Pan has had anomolous copyright extensions. Rich Farmbrough 10:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

UN Photos

According to a comment on the PUI list about Image:Albert_of_Monaco.jpg, UN images are only allowed with proper photo credit. I created two templates for such images, {{UN}} (view) and {{UNcredit|credit=photographer}} (view). Both include the necessary UN photo credit line, as per the UN web site [1]. The first is for images without a credited photographer; the second includes the photographer's name. I hope these are acceptable. Whosyourjudas 02:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is acceptable:
Prints are available to journalists, magazines, book publishers, film and TV producers. Prints of photo images displayed on the Internet may also be ordered directly from the Photo Library. When requesting photographic prints, please indicate the UN Photo number listed on the caption.
UN photographs can be reproduced for editorial purposes only. They may not be used in advertising. All photos used must show the UN Photo credit line.
Guanaco 20:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The way I read this the photos can be used on a site which advertises, they just can't be used in the advertisement itself. Seems free enough to me. anthony (see warning) 11:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Editorial is what we and reusers do. GFDL images are already entirely unsuitable for ad use because no advertiser is going to include a copy of the GFDL in their ad. Credit, of course, is required by the GFDL (the authors requirement), so that's entirely compatible with both licensing and our desire to give proper attribution to things. Jamesday 09:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New Listings (proposed)

In light of the concerns raised above about making sure we retain the focus on documenting and getting free images as efficiently as possible, following is a proposed new listing procedure, designed to cut the work of dealing with the images, so more images can be worked on with the same amount of effort, and to give ample time to contact those most likely to know about an image. Jamesday 12:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  1. For images uploaded before June 2004, do a Google image search to see if you can find the information on the copyright status of an image. If you can, add it and know that you've saved everyone else lots of time by quickly dealing with an image from before there was much interst in tagging. If you found a copyright holder, document it on the image description page.
  2. If that fails, contact the uploader and ask for information. Wait two weeks for a reply or modified image information which can make a listing unnecessary.
  3. If still no sufficient response:
    1. Add {{unverifieddelete}} or {{nonfreedelete}} to the description page.
    2. Make a non-minor edit to each article which uses the image and say in the edit comment that the image will be listed here in two weeks. Those interested in the subject of the article are likely to know more about the image or may find a replacement image. Remember that the list of articles which use an image is incomplete and you must use a search in all namespaces to see where an image is really used.
  4. If still no response: Does a Google image search find a suitable alternative image? If it does, replace the original image.
  5. Does it appear to be a possible fair use image? Images will almost always be fair use in an article about the subject of the image, its creator or its impact. If you are fairly sure that it is not fair use, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Otherwise, you've already tried to replace it with something better, so this is the best we can do for now. Hopefully we'll find a more free alternative eventually. Note the date of your attempts so we can revisit this one next year.
  6. If it's not in the encyclopedia, stop here. While as free as possible is good, the encyclopedia is the objective and that's where we should spend our time.
  7. If you found a copyright holder, ask for a license. Wait two weeks or until you get a reply and document the reply or lack of reply on the image description page. If the reply is not strongly negative but has possible hope for the future, consider postponing the listing here until we are even more popular and the incentive to get exposure by licensing a few images to the encyclopedia to get noticed has increased. Note the date so we can revisit these cases next year.
  8. If still no response and it's not a fair use image, we need to move on to processes which takes more time of more people, time which could be better spent dealing with other images if at all possible.
  9. Create a new listing in today's section.
  10. If and only if, after 15 days, the situation has not been resolved, replace all instances of the image with {{nonfreeimage|OLDIMAGE.XXX|OLDCAPTION|ALIGNMENT|WIDTH}} or {{unverifiedimage|OLDIMAGE.XXX|OLDCAPTION|ALIGNMENT|WIDTH}} Simply use the filename of the image without the Image: formatting. For the alignment, use "right", "left", "center" or "none". For the width, use a valid table width value such as "200px" or "10em".
  11. Move the sections that are older than 15 days to the #Older than 15 days section.
  12. If at any time after listing a copyright holder is identified, refer the original listing person to the copyright holder details and remove the listing until they have the result of the request for a license.

Any suggestions to improve this so it further helps to get everything as free as possible, as efficiently as possible? Jamesday 12:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you say Instruction creep? This piles on all kinds of requirements, and unnecessarily splits up existing ones, such as requiring you to contact the uploader two weeks before listing the image instead of at the time of listing. The uploader is already given a full thirty days before deletion. --Michael Snow 21:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What if fair use can be claimed?

I noticed that Image:Img1608.jpg was tagged as a possibly unfree image because no information existed about its source. The image may or may not be subject to copyright, but even if it is, I would argue that the inclusion of the image on the article 1998 U.S. embassy bombings is a fair use of the image (since it's a rare photo of a historical event). Is it okay for me to tag the photo as fair use, and remove it from here?

I ask because Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images says:

Listings which were made due to missing information can be removed immediately if the missing information is added and the images are public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc -- see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these).

But it doesn't include fair use. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:54, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Tagging the image as fair use does not add the missing information - namely, the source. We shouldn't have images tagged as fair use if there is no source information anyway. anthony (see warning) 16:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so if the source information is included and the image is tagged as fair use, is it kosher to remove the image from here? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:36, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I would think so, since currently fair use images are allowed if no free alternatives are available. I suggest that if someone manages to locate source information for a previously unsourced fair use image listed here, it should be moved to Wikipedia:Fair use for consideration of the issues there. --Michael Snow 17:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We don't seem to currently list pictures at Wikipedia:Fair use. —Morven 19:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize it had shut down completely. When the page was first created, it was contemplated as a place to review possible fair use arguments. If there's enough demand coming from this page, perhaps we might restart it, but anyway I don't think this page should focus on fair use images unless they lack source information. --Michael Snow 21:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UN Images

One of the images listed here falls under the UN license [2]. "UN photographs can be reproduced for editorial purposes only. They may not be used in advertising. All photos used must show the UN Photo credit line." There is a question as to whether or not this is a free license, due to the restriction of being used in advertising. Since this covers approximately 300,000 photos, I've moved the discussion here. I've started a request for comments on the question here, and propose the following poll to begin October 11:

Should photos from the United Nations Photo Library be permitted on Wikipedia?

The proposed poll will run through October 24. The only permitted answers will be "yes" and "no". If at least 80% of votes are for "yes", then UN photos should not be listed here and one is free to use them in any article. If at least 80% of votes are for "no", then UN photos may be listed here or on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and deleted. If no consensus is reached, then any of these images should be tagged and this discussion should be moved to a separate page. Any new listings on this page or copyright problems should be moved to that page, which should remain open for discussion until consensus is reached.

anthony (see warning) 16:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't even need a discussion, we are using the UN photos for editorial purposes. —Joseph | Talk 01:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Note that NATO copyright has similar issues. (Used e.g. in Image:B031007bc.jpg, from [3].) Lupo 07:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That license says "No material is to be used in parodies, theatrical productions or any programmes and products that defame NATO or its member countries." "Material is provided, free of charge, for use only in objective and balanced documentaries/articles, even though at times the end products may be critical of NATO." IMO it is much less free ("objective and balanced articles" just leaves too much room for attack), to the point where I don't think NATO licensed material should be in Wikipedia. anthony (see warning) 14:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree -- we should not use NATO, and probably should not use UN images on WP. Their license is unacceptable. --Improv 13:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Imagereplaced

Some time ago I created a template to be tagged on (non-free) images for which a suitable and free replacement was available. The text as of this writing reads:

This image should be deleted because a better or free replacement for it has been found ({{{1}}}). Administrators should check the newly-replaced image before deleting.

Parameters: {{imagereplaced|[[:Image:XXX.jpg]]}}

I have no idea how the deletion process should go about, whether by speedy deletion or otherwise.

Discuss. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone uses that particular template. If an image is rendered obsolete because a new and better image has been uploaded, add the {{ifd}} tag and list it on Wikipedia:Images for deletion. This works regardless of the obsolete image's license status. The process does need to be followed, however, and being obsolete does not warrant speedy deletion. --Michael Snow 20:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Userpage materials

I had my user talk page picture (picture of me) listed here. I wasn't notified on my talk page, among other things.

Questions/points:

  1. The Wikipedia User pages are not intented to be reused and republicised; the issue of non-free or restrictive images is nowhere large here. We could keep cool about it, and users could have anything on their userpages (no copyvios or other stolen content, of course).
  2. Why troll the user space for images; this project is about our concern for non-free images in our content, right? Shouldn't we just leave other namespaces out of this?

✏ Sverdrup 22:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you, but things may not always be quite so simple. I agree that images in user pages should generally be given wider latitude than in articles. (I tend to agree with the "no copyvios or other stolen content", and if we placed no restrictions, as I'm sure someone could figure some way to abuse it.) However images might be come upon by random search, and as we still have a bug as to image pages displaying what pages they are used on, I can't say if whoever listed your image here was doing anything inappropriate or not without knowning more. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Letters?

Do we have any sample letters for writing to people asking for images / permission to use images? I seem to remember something similar on wikipedia but can't remember where. Ojw 22:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Found it Ojw 22:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to contact uploaders first.

I've been running into image recreation requests where little, or even no, effort was made to contact the uploader. For that reason, I've rearranged the instructions on this page to put contacting first on the list of things to do. It can prevent a lot of wasted effort. Thanks. iMeowbot~Mw 01:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's good advice. I've created a new template that may help called {{idw-pui}} ("Image deletion warning for possibly unfree images"). Whenever an image is listed here on PUI, this template can be placed on the uploader's user talk page. It's eye-catching and easy to use. If the name of the image is 123.gif, then you can write it as {{idw-pui|123.gif}}. Remember not to include the "Image:" before the image name. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for making that template. -- Infrogmation 19:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

Over at IFD there's a request for comments going on about what to do with unverified orphans (images that aren't used, and have no copyright or source information). If you have an opinion on the matter, perhaps you can help us build consensus on the matter. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Phase I and Phase II

I reformatted the page to break things down into two phases: Phase I and Phase II. Here's my reasoning.

There were some images - many, actually - that had been listed for over 30 days, but had not been replaced by boilerplate text in the articles that included them. I didn't want to delete these without giving people a chance to see that the image was being considered for deletion. I could have replaced them with boilerplate text, but someone else could, tomorrow, delete them. (They'd been listed for 30 days afterall.) I think we need a way to make sure they are replaced by boilerplate text for at least 15 days. So I broke the PUI process into 2 phases.

Images are initially listed in Phase I. After 15 days, they can be moved into Phase II. Whoever moves them into Phase II must also replace the image with boilerplate text in any articles contained in it, and link to those articles so someone else can remove the boilerplate text later. Even if an image was listed on Phase I for over 30 days, it's still not eligible for deletion unless it's been listed on Phase II for 15 days.

I have a feeling this will work out much better, and cause fewer surprises when images get deleted. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Are people using this scheme? why are there Phase II enteries for today? how does an item get into Phase II in less than 15 days? DES 22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
When images are moved into phase II, they are put under the heading for the date when they were moved into phase II, not the date they were originally posted on phase I. kmccoy (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thanks. DES 22:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Images of possibly unfree 3D objects..

When is an image of a museum display copyright? See Image:Grand Canyon geologic column.jpeg this doesn't claim to be a product of the US Govt, and it seems to me to include most of the features of the display which is taken. Does the fact that it is only a 2D copy exclude it from copyright problems? Is it fair use? Feel free to move this question somewhere else if you think it would be more appropriate there. Mozzerati 20:33, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Generally, the photographer gets the copyright, because of the artistic input (lighting, positioning). (Various European countries make difficulties about photos taken in non-public spaces, but this was taken in the US.) See Image:Pooh.jpg for another example. dbenbenn | talk 16:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Admission of Unfree licence

After contacting User:MattSal over the status of some images, (See April 30), they have admitted that the pics are probably not PD, and that all other images they have uploaded are similarly not PD. Should we begin cleaning the images out immediately, or should the normal 15 day waiting periods remain? Peregrine981 04:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

German wartime images

User:Physchim62/German images lists about 80 wartime photos which have been tagged with the disputed {{PD-Germany}}. What do you want me to do with them? Tag them as {{PUIdisputed}} and list them here? Physchim62 12:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should PUI get a bot?

Editing the caption of every image listed here, and checking that caption for PD notices and such, takes a lot of time, and effort. Shouldn't we just get a bot to do this mindnumbing stuff?

Surely a bot could put 'PD' images in a specific subsection, easily, and allow editors to check its work. -- Ec5618 15:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes, agreed, much of this process should be automated. I have to admit I've been fairly lazy about tagging PUIs because I'd rather make contributions than fill out TPS reports. jdb ❋ (talk) 6 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

Phase 1 or Phase I?

I have noticed that following June 2, the name of the sections of each day has changed from Phase I to Phase 1. I am not sure if this is a mistake, but seems so. The fact is that the link on the beggining of the page to the current date does not work anymore, as it is linked to "Phase I".

-Poli 03:40, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Don't delete the image mrs. banks.jpg!

Don't delete the image mrs. banks.jpg. It was made by the Whitman playing card company the same year that Walt Disney died. (previous unsigned comment left by User:Angie Y.

Angie, how does that make it free for our use? kmccoy (talk) 8 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Unverified use

A long while back I listed an image Image:Gavage.jpg as being unverified. The original poster of the image went back and added appropriate information to the image. So far, so good! Recently someone else removed it from wp:PUI. I went back to try and verify the source of the image and it's "freeness" for us to use. While the page it is supposedly from (Image use rights are on the bottom of this page) does say it is acceptable to use their pictures, this picture isn't listed as one of theirs. I've looked and tried to find it. How should such a situation be dealt with? I think we still have an image that is potentially unfree. SchmuckyTheCat 21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look at the page and couldn't find the image either. I suppose our best option was to upload a new version with an image actually from that site (which I've done). I believe it's now safe to remove all indications and suggestions that the image is not free. Craigy (talk) 05:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Help appreciated

I would appreciate if you could help me in this. User:Zereshk has been uploading lots of images with copyright problems since long ago, sometime claiming that he has taken them himself (which was not so for at least one image, Image:Sialk.jpg), sometimes claiming that they came from Iranian websites and hence are not copyrighted in the United States where the Wikimedia Foundation is located, etc. He is almost never providing exact sources, usually simply marks the image as either {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}, but also once in a while names the website he has copied the image from, but not the exact URL.

I have found a few of sources of his older images infringing copyrights, a partial list given here. I have not gone through all of them with Google, and I assume I won't find some copyright violating images anyway using Google.

I have tried talking with him on different matters, including copyright status of his contributions, which has resulted in him calling me names. I am going over his images and adding tags to images he has uploaded, but I guess any approach from my side to him trying to explain the issue in the PUI framework would not be well appreciated by him. I wanted to ask for someone to contact him on his talk page and tell him about the status of his images. roozbeh 04:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

PS: Please note that when the user has said something like "photo provided by Zershk" or "photo supplied by Zereshk", he doesn't mean that he has taken it himself. He has meant that he has provided it to the Wikipedia (uploaded it). In cases he claims has taken the photo himself, he clearly mentions so (using form of the verb "take"), sometimes even mentioning the camera brand. roozbeh 04:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  1. User Roozbeh has a history of deleting all my edits, and pictures. As an example that his statements are not truthful, see the following image which he erased my GFDL tag that I had put on, and slapped on a copyvio tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wheel_Iran.jpg Note under file history where I give specific info on how I took the picture.
  2. I have a large amount of edits. I daresay, a very large chunck of all English language Iranian pages were either initiated by me, or fully edited by me. I am a busy person trying to improve and add material constantly. My contributions to WP are far more numerous than Roozbeh. But as a result, I am often careless about what tags to use. User: Roozbeh however flatly deletes anything questionable instead of correcting the tags. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg He slapped a copyvio tag on the map, instead of correcting the tag to {PD-PCL}, which is what it should be.
  3. I have brought this to the attention of many admins before: other websites have been downloading stuff I have put up, and then putting copyright tags on them. I can even give you examples of articles I wrote on WP, that has appeared on another website with even another name as author under it!! Then User:Roozbeh comes along and accuses me of copyright infringement. How can anyone make any edits, if their edits will end up on someone else's website, followed by a copyvio tag on their own original work?????! What if I take a picture of myself holding the actual picture of this building, which I took the picture of? Will that convince you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emamzadeh-ebrahim.jpg
  4. There are other users that also can verify that User:Roozbeh is very confrontational, and has great disregard for all other editors. I'm not the only one angry at him.--Zereshk 10:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to answer some of your claims:
    • I made a mistake for the first photo you mention. I missed the note that you had mentioned you had taken the photo yourself. The second still needs the URL from University of Texas where you have downloaded the photo from. How can Wikipedia prove that it has actually acquired the photo from some website if it gives no URL to the source?
    • I have no history of deleting all your edits. Please provide examples.
    • Please be careful in using image tags. You are uploading photos to the Wikipedia and use the GFDL tag from sources that have only mentioned their pictures (say, a desktop background) is "free", while they actually meant "gratis". Free doesn't mean you GFDL-compatible.
    • I am still accusing some of your photos of copyright infringements.
    • About confrontation with other users, yes, I have had such cases, but all such previous cases were finally acted upon by Jimbo Wales, usually resulting in a ban for the other user. In other words, no, it wasn't me who was acting against the interests of the Wikipedia, but the other user. roozbeh 11:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)