Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images/Archive 2

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

The new CSD rules and PUI

As you may have seen Jimbo has created a new criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators are free to delete on sight any image that has been in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status for more than 7 days. Informing users, adding boilerplate texts and waiting for thirty days goes out the window for a large class of images that were previously put on PUI. I want to provoke some discussion of what this means for this page. Some possiblities:

  1. We ignore it, and keep on with the PUI process as it is.
  2. We shut up shop. PUI has served it's purpose and is now shut down. We speedy those that we can and wave goodbye to this page.
  3. We fight. PUI is a better process than speedy deletion. We ask for some review of the process.
  4. We change. - But how?

above comment by Zeimusu

On Jimbo's talk page, someone asked if these changes mean that PUI is unnecessary. Somebody replied "No, as invalid fair use claims still need to be taken through there". Personally I support speedying unsourced/unlicenced images. It's too easy to upload them, and too tedious to PUI/IFD them. PUI was originally created to deal with them, but the process takes far far too much time and effort to deal with the thousands of images, so the backlog has only continued to grow. Coffee 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The PUI process is unnecessarily cumbersome and should be radically revised. Putting {{unverified}} during phase II is way too time consuming and I'm not sure it serves any legal value since the image itself is tagged. Get rid of phase II. Mark the images PUI for 15 days and if uploader does not respond and fix the issue - delete the image. --Nv8200p (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There is too much stuff here that just falls under the speedy criteria. Now there is a bot helping with nosource and unknown these should go away faster, so I dont see the point of listing them here. If its important to get rid of the image fast, contact an admin; ifd also is much quicker. WP:FU can deal with fair use claims. Not sure I see the point of this page in 99% of cases. Justinc 00:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wireimage and AP images

Does anyone know if use of images from these agencies is fair use? http://www.wireimage.com http://www.ap.org/pages/product/photoservices.html I tagged Image:Zane.jpg as no source, but I tracked it down to an image from wireimages (via imdb) should I remove the tag or leave it? Thanks Arnie587 14:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

They should not be uploaded. WP:FUC: "photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work." The only occasion I could see a WireImage/AP image as a fair use would be if it were a low resolution being used to illustrate the actual photo in question. This isn't the best example, but if one were to write an article about Tara Reid's nipple slip they could make the argument that the image is a fair use.--Fallout boy 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the uploaded images uploaded by mine are for educational purposes only!

Dear everyone,

I would like to tell you that most of the images uploaded by mine are just for educational purposes only and not for commercial reasons. However, I don't know how to tag back the images based on their copyright status, so can anyone tell me how to do it?

From all those images, Campro04.jpg and Campro03.jpg are obtained from Proton's official website, http://www.proton.com but however the copyright owner allows anyone to use it mainly for educational purposes. The rest of the images are from my own collections obtained from somewhere else, used only for educational purposes. Thanks - Hezery99

Unfortunately, Jimbo has said that non-commercial use only images are to be deleted, as they are not appropriate for Wikipedia or its mission. If you are the copyright holder, please consider changing your images to use a free licenses such as the GFDL. If you are not the copyright holder and you would like to see that these images remain on Wikipedia, please get permission from the copyright holder to license it under the GFDL (permission for Wikipedia use only is not adequate).
To tag your images, please select an image copyright tag at WP:ICT and add the template to the bottom of the image description page.
Hope this helps. Wikiacc (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

de Chirico issue

Last year I uploaded the files Image:De Chirico's Love Song.jpg and Image:TheNostalgiaoftheInfinite.jpg. At the time I believed them to be public domain, but recent questions arose and both images were placed on WP:PUI. I was NOT contacted first and the user that contributed them (user Restituta) apparently has no user page on Wikipedia.

I have claimed fair use for De Chirico's Love Song.jpg. As these images were placed in the phase II list 15 days ago I would appreciate it if someone could look into this case as soon as possible. If at all possible, I would also like a stay of exicution for TheNostalgiaoftheInfinite.jpg.

Thank you. Justin Foote 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Instruction creep

Wow, this has become complicated. This whole process needs to be streamlined again. Am I really expected to keep an eye on things that I put in Phase I and move them up periodically? Not going to happen. Suggestions or comments? Fawcett5 23:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like some clarification... is the person listing the images really expected to keep an eye on their nominations and come back here after 15 days? Or is the moving-to-Phase-II simply done by any helpful user that's keeping things moving along at PUI? Coffee 14:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-fair use of fair-use images?

Where should I raise the issue of (extensive) non-fair use of fair use images? Most editors understand and accept this, but one (BGC (talk · contribs) insists on adding fair-use images of album covers to articles on other albums — e.g.:

There are many others. This isn't just one misuse, but multiple misuses of each cover (the infobox style is also against the album Wikiproject, and has been criticised widely on the basis of its misuse of the images and its rather bloated appearance).

If this is the wrong place to raise this (as I suppose it is), where is the right place? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Major incompatibility with WP:CSD

This page is now incompatible with speedy deletion criteria, which clearly say that any image that was marked as unknown, should be deleted after 7 days. This page proposes 30 days procedure, which is much more.

Many people become confused by these incompatibilities - I have wandered around Wikipedia: namespace for few hours before I found out clearly which are the rules for the unknown images and how these images should be marked.

I have proposed this page's templates for deletion; please check WP:TFD#Template:PUI. --Monkbel 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

PUI and nosource/nolicense

I'm a bit confused. I understand that some images can be tagged with nosource/nolicense and get deleted quicker, and that PUI is mainly for whatever falls between (like images were the source is nonsense or license isn't legit). But for the images that I do tag as nosource/nolicense, do I need to also add/keep the PUI tag and still go through the phases and put unverifiedimage in the captions? Also, what about images listed here that can obviously be tagged with nosource/nolicense... do I remove them from the list? Thanks for your help!

P.S. I'd also like to point out the unverifiedimage thing in the caption is a good idea (if time consuming) because it gets article authors involved. Usually they would just go on editing/maintaining the article without actually checking the pics... Foofy 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting images without following procedure?

I am concerned about a trend of deleting images without following policy: The guidelines are very clear:

  1. Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
    • {{PUI}} — If information on the image's copyright status is missing.
    • {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
    • {{nonfreedelete}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
  2. Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link. There may also be contact information on the uploader's user page.

What I have observed:

  1. Uploaders are not always contacted when PUI templates are placed on uploaded images
  2. When uploaders respond to PUI by changing the license from a non-free to free license, images are not removed from PUI and are being deleted
  3. Admins are sometime making value judgements and assuming bad faith about the "right" of the uploader to change licenses and without asking the uploader about their credentials
  4. Admins are using value judgements about the "encyclopedic value" of images. If you have concerns about that, place the image onWP:IFD and not on WP:PUI to seek consensus for deletion.

The policy is there for a reason. If the policy needs to be changed, make proposals to change it. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The policy does need to be changed, I've seen that I'm not the only one who has problems with it. The thing is that a lot of seperate guidelines overlap, and this causes confusion and things end up falling through the cracks.
For instance, PUI is often used when no source or no license could do the trick (though they result in faster deletes). nonfreedelete also conflicts with the entirely seperate imagevio. While the longer waiting period for deletion is good on PUIdisputed, it's a real pain in the butt to move things to Phase II and run around tagging the captions on the articles. There are too many tags and confusing guidelines that conflict, the whole thing needs to be streamlined. I understand the importance of PUI (especially disputed PUI) but some of this is just silly.
For what it's worth, I'd suggest removing PUI and letting no source and no license fill the gap. Keep PUIdisputed but streamline the process, and if possible find a way to eliminate the need to tag all the captions. There's more, but I've wasted enough space here.
I'm a still a lowly newb, I don't know where to propose changes. Even then, I'm not sure I have the standing to suggest anything, especially guideline reform. --Foofy 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If you are a newby, please note that Wikipedia is based on consensus. If you want to change olicy make proposals and arrive at consensus. Until then you are obliged to follow the agreed procedures. In particular with image deletions that are, by nature, irreversible. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I never said I wasn't following procedure or didn't think that others should. I'm just saying that the reason a lot of people don't follow the policy is because it's too complicated and poorly explained. I'd like to help fix that.
And I'm not a total newb, been at it for several months, I just meant I certainly don't know where to begin to help suggest fixing this. --Foofy 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Image deletion is not permanent - they can be reuploaded. The PUI procedure is all very worthy but far too slow to deal with the current situation (ie 10s of thousands of unfree images); it might work in the future when this situation is been dealt with. Almost everything currently being deleted is a speedy deletion as far as I know. Justinc 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was wondering though, after an image is moved to phase II and tagged with a speedy tag, should it be removed from the list? Foofy 21:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree about discontinuing use of {{PUI}}. It's completely unneeded, and conflicts with the CSD procedure. See the proposal below. Coffee 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Do away with {{PUI}}

Let's discontinue the use of WP:PUI for images that are missing source of licensing information. It is completely redundant with the new WP:CSD criteria for unsourced/unlicensed images. We can simply add guidelines on the PUI page that instructs people to use the {{nosource}} and {{nolicense}} tags, which are faster and simpler and easier on everyone. Coffee 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If no one objects in a few days I'll just go ahead and modify the procedure. Based on the above comments on this page, Foofy, Justinc, and Monkbel would agree to the change. Coffee 03:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats fine by me. The we can use PUI for better things, like images that appear to have erroneous sources and copyright etc. Justinc 13:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah me too, let CSD deal with the images people haven't bothered tagging properly (or at all). PUI could then be "reserved" to deal with cases where tags and source are in place but disputed or incorect or other "difficult" cases. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've altered the process and added a notice to the top of the page similar to the one at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The images that are currently tagged with {{PUI}} should be allowed to run their course and eventually all the images in Category:Images with unknown source for deletion will be taken care of. Right now there are 204 images in that category. Coffee 07:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
While we're at it, how about renaming {{nonfreedelete}} to {{PUInonfree}}? That way it'll be consistent with {{PUIdisputed}}, and it won't be mistaken for a speedy delete tag. This seems to me like an obvious Good Thing, so I'll go ahead and move it. Coffee 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I expanded a bit on the "speedy notice" to include mentioning the {{no source notified}} and {{no license notified}} templates and recomending that people notify the uploaders as well (in most cases). Hopefully I didn't make it too long winded or complicated. --Sherool (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

PUI and {{fairusedisputed}}

Would it be an idea to incorporate {{fairusedisputed}} (and possebly {{fairusereview}}) "formaly" into this process? I notice Wikipedia:Fair use already states:

If you believe an image that is tagged as Fair Use is definitely not Fair Use, you can add {{fairusedisputed}} to it, and it will be eventually nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

But IMHO it would be better if those tags instructed people to list the image here rater than relying on them "eventualy being nominated", far to few people seem to have images on theyr watchlists so most images with those tags just stagnate in those categories for months with no discussion taking place.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use is trying to come up with a process to verify and review fair use claims (at least it's a stated goal, currently focus seems to be on rewriting tags and clearifying polciy and such). With a few tweaks PUI might be eable to fill that role without the need to invert yet another process for images. Sorry if I've missed a previous discussion on this somewhere. --Sherool (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well there is PUIdisputed, nobody wants to delete that. I was wondering if it's technically possible to add the {{unverifiedimage}} to captions in articles that use {{nolicense}} type tags. That would at least get over the problem of nobody watching the images and seeing the problems. Adding that stuff manually is time consuming, though in my limited experience here, nobody pays attention to it anyway.  :( Foofy 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

{{unverifiedimage}} on TFD

Just a FYI, {{unverifiedimage}} (see it's talk page) has been listed on TFD here. Just figured I'd mention it since it's part of the stage II process here. --Sherool (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The template was also blanked by someone else. I have restored it (and put it on watch) until the TFD is done. I don't think it's necessarily the best solution, but it is better than nothing at all. People simply don't notice the images are going away without it. I wish there was something similar (and automated!) for no source and license tags. Foofy 22:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Shortening the waiting period

What do you guys think about shortening the processing time on PUI? Perhaps down to 20 days (10 days per phase) or even 14 days (one week per phase). I think that would still be enough time for discussion and "image sleuthing". 30 days just seems like an awfully long time to allow a possibly unfree image to remain on Wikipedia. Coffee 13:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I support taking Phase I to 7 days and Phase II to 7 days and getting rid of putting {{unverifiedimage}} in the articles when you move them to phase II. The process now is way to long and cumbersome -Nv8200p talk 21:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds resonable to me, even the most slow paced semi active Wikipedian should have time to react at some point within 14 days of beeing notified. The unverified thing does seem cumbersone, but IMHO we should encourage people to leave a note on the article(s) talk page instead (and no need to wait for phase II). {{unverifiedimage}} could be re-written to serve that purpose. Something ala:

    The image XXX that is used in this article has an unscertain copyright status and is pending deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you have relevant information about the usability of this image please comment at the images entry there.

    That might be workable. --Sherool (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if users are actually informed. If a shorter waiting period is used without notifying people it will just make an already bad situation, in which a lot of users are complaining about the deletion behaviour of some people, worse. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, processing time will be shortened from 30 days down to 14 days. But I don't know about doing away with the {{unverifiedimage}} tag in the caption... Since PUI is for dealing with possibly unfree images, the images being listed are not certain to be copyright violations, so the unverified tag could help attract more eyes to look at the discussion to see what should be done. Otherwise, the only person that would know about the listing is the uploader. Here's an idea: How about, instead of the current 2-phase system, we just make adding the unverifiedimage tag part of listing the image at PUI? No need to "move to Phase II" after X days. That would simplify things a bit. Coffee 16:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good - no phases, 14 day waiting period total - still with option to move to "possible keep" if more time is needed, uploader notification required and placement of {{unverifiedimage}} on caption. Make it so! -Nv8200p talk 15:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the changes. There's a "Holding cell" section (a term I got from WP:TFD) for images listed for more than 14 days that are either pending deletion or need more time for discussion. Coffee 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The unverified image tag

The guidelines still say that the third step in considering deleting an image is to place an unverified image tag in the caption field of every instance where the image is used. Well, it appears that those on image copyvio patrol aren't doing that. I don't know whether a policy decision has been made that advising those who have pages on their watchlist don't deserve to know when the images on those pages is being challenged, and that the guidelines just haven't been brought in to synch with the policy change -- or whether some volunteers on image copyvio patrol just are unaware or uncaring about the wikipedia's policy.
I've contributed to a bunch of articles on various Canadian Coast Guard vessels. I uploaded various images from the CCG site, back before {noncommercial} images were proscribed. The relatively recent policy changes that noncommercial images weren't welcome, and older images time was numbered wasn't pleasant. But I believe in respecting policy. So I went looking for alternate images which were free. I went through the several dozen images that volunteers like myself had uploaded, and made two galleries. The larger gallery was of images that had been challenged. The smaller gallery was of the images that had not been challenged. Most of the images that I found were challenged seven weeks ago have been deleted. And, recently, some of the images which hadn't been challenged in early February have been deleted as well. No one put the required warning on any of those images.
I think conducting the wikipedia's operations in an open and transparent fashion is essential. I had a recent dialogue with a volunteer on image copyright patrol, who seemed to be excusing himself for not putting the {unverifiedimage} tag in the caption fields because it was just too much work. He seemed to be telling me that I should regularly check the list of suspect images to see if the images on articles I am interested in have been placed there.
Something I would like the volunteers on image copyright patrol to understand that casual vandals, and vandals who upload copyright images with false liscenses, aren't the only kind of vandals that damage the wikipedia. There are vandals who are partisan, who remove or alter the sourcing information in articles, and then suggest removal because it is sourcing is suspect.
There was an image that I had been looking for, that was found by someone else, a new volunteer. This new volunteer initially didn't put the right liscense on the image. That guy who was following me around almost like a stalker subjected that new contributor to some pretty harsh criticism, in violation of the don't bite the newbies policy. Even though I had nothing to do with uploading the image I came in for some harsh criticism too, in violation of the no personal attacks policty.
I'd asked the uploader if the iamge was a screenshot from a television documentary. A still image of this individual had been used in a television documentary about GIs who abused detainees. Eventually some put a screenshot liscense on the image. I thought the issue was settled. And I trusted that if someone had a concern about the image, they would put the warning tag on the caption field, and the watch I had on the article would give me a heads-up when the caption was modified.
Well, a couple of months later I noticed the image had been deleted. I tried to figure out how it got deleted. A volunteer on image copyright patrol had a concern that it had the wrong tag. So they changed the tag to unverified. Apparently they put a notice on the uploader's page. A worthless gesture since they left the wikipedia shortly after their contributions were treated harshly. But they did not put the {unverifiedimage} tag in the caption fields, so the rest of us who had an interest in the image would get advised.
A few days later an administrator deleted the apparently unverified image. I don't know if they had a responsibility to check to see if {unverifiedimage} tags had been placed in the caption fields of the articles where the image was used. They didn't perform this check.
I urge you, you volunteers who patrol for unfree images, and you administrators who delete unverified images, to make sure you too follow the procedures to the letter. It is very important. -- Geo Swan 03:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Swital.jpg

haie guys, as I'm not to familar with the procedures on en i post it here. this image is under GNUFDL. Just i dont believe this. Poland is a modern sate but that the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland is publishing images under GNUFDL is a bit more then i can imagine ;) ... Sicherlich Post 07:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) PS: on de (de:Bild:Swital.jpg) the same image is sad to be CC-by-sa; i put already an deletion request ...Sicherlich Post 07:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

German Government Images

There seems to be a mess and an unhealthy dispute about images tagged with Template:GermanGov and shown in Category:German_government_images. The template was changed after an extremely short debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:GermanGov and so they are (or would be if updating worked) also in Category:Images_with_unknown_source_for_deletion. In most cases the source is in fact clear: the pre-1945 Third Reich. It does not seem that the uploaders have been notified that their images are liable to deletion. My interest is in Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg which I know (a) that it is not (as originally claimed when published) a photograph of a bombing raid in September 1940 (it shows buildings removed by 1938) and (b) impossible to get German government representatives to comment on the copyright status. --Henrygb 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

People considering deleting these images might look at [1] or [2] - I am not a German lawyer, but it is unclear to me that the need for deletion is clear. --Henrygb 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Log pages

I would like to propose that we handle these by splitting the pages into daily log pages, à la WP:IFD. The reasoning behind this is that currently the only way to find what happened to an old listing is to search for it in the page history, which is really cumbersome. The only drawback to this is that we would need a bot to handle the daily chores. I was thinking of asking Cryptic but he seems to have left. Any thoughts? howcheng {chat} 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If editors were to stop bringing images that are unquestionably unfree here, that would help considerably. Many images here can be speedied as lacking source information, copyright information, or obviously failing WP:FUC. Jkelly 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A New Proposal

I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Copyright review, based off Wikipedia:Copyright problems, to merge the copyright verification processes together. Please discuss the proposal on its talk page, not here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


King of hearts?

..Or should that be spelled with a capital "H"? The image is so universal, appearing in decks of cards all over the world — Are these all licensed from the U.S. Playing Card Company? And why is the King of Hearts the only playing card image up for deletion? – Morganfitzp 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the image in question? User:Angr 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I assume this is in reference to Image:King of hearts.jpg. The card box says, "The public is hereby notified that exclusive rights are claimed to the various names, numbers, back designs, case designs, ace of spades, jokers and other distinguishing characteristics of our brands of cards." As far as I can tell this king of hearts is uniquely drawn and thus copyrightable. -SCEhardT 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the rumor that playing card images weren't copyrightable until the 1970s? I can't find any info on this. [3] --Deathpie 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nasrallah and khamenei.jpg

What's to be done here? I feel it fits {{del}} or {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nld}}, User:Angr objects. --tickle me 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify for {{nsd}} because a source is given, nor for {{nld}} because a license is given. If you think the source isn't adequate, tag it with {{PUIdisputed}} and list it here on PUI under today's date, giving your full reasons. User:Angr 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As I won't edit war about it, I'll have to comply. However, I feel my reasoning is sound. Neither source nor license is verifiable, thus they don't qualify. The MEHR NEWS permission in alleged, no link to the imprint page or other page proving the claim is given. The burden of proof is on the uploader - afaik in dubio pro reo is not the policy here, for good reasons. --tickle me 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the burden of proof is on the uploader, but the uploader is given two weeks to provide that proof, not the 5 days granted by nsd/nld, nor the zero time granted by {{del}}. If the necessary proofs haven't been supplied in 2 weeks, the image will be deleted then. User:Angr 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hussite_Infantry.jpg

The image is tagged that all rights have been released. Who questions this on what reason? Wandalstouring 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#September 16. —Bkell (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Impossible to discuss any problem there. I just asked the creator of this article to clarify his source and the legal trouble we have. You could have done this yourself. Wandalstouring 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FAQ

This page often sounds like a broken record, with various editors going to a fair amount of trouble to explain the same issues again and again. Thus, I suggest we work on good answers to a set of common questions that we can then refer people to. This should hopefully cut way down on the work in the long run as well as help to ensure consistency. I've made an (empty) prototype: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/FAQ. Thoughts? -SCEhardT 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably better to link to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and extend it as needed instead. --Sherool (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Having a seperate page here is probably helpful as the kind of users we are trying to reach are the kind of users who don't have the patience to read anything as long as Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, although it's probably worth linking to individual sections in the main copyright FAQ. Megapixie 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use

There's a new tag in town: {{subst:Replaceable fair use}}. Details and discussion are here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog

Why is the backlog so huge, and what can be done about it? Valrith 00:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The backlog seems to be only one day, at the moment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This debate (and whatever the obsessive compulsive law says) is ridiculous

Copyrighted photographs? Gimme a break. Why bicker over something so insignificant? People are dying in Iraq, and we're wasting our time talking about whether we can show a photography of Carson Daly on Wikipedia. Oh my god.... It't tragically amazing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.55.125 (talk • contribs) (09:27, October 28, 2006

The potential legal fees/fines are not at all insignificant. Less important than some other subjects? Sure. But we can't afford to ignore it, either. Valrith 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia strives to be a free encyclopedia. That's its whole mission. Staying free is rather important to us. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting theory. So as long as we're at war in Iraq, all laws should be ignored? We should live in a state of complete anarchy until the troops come home?
Inasmuch as the copyright laws in the United States are ridiculously overbroad, I agree with you. But if Wikipedia gets sued for using a copyrighted photo, you or I aren't going to have to pay the lawyers; the Wikimedia Foundation is. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that money go to, say, a better database server. —Chowbok 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the government does not have time to "proofread" laws before passing them... and also they don't have time to "proofread" old outdated laws. We are too busy fighting wars to have time to reevaluate the crap that has passed through onto the books (or laws which have become dusty and irrelevant in our internet age). Many of the insignificant laws on the books, if put to a national poll, I bet would not hold up to majority approval. There are probably only a few people on this earth with some deep pockets who really only care about copyrighting their photos so they can't be shared... and I bet Carson Daly is not one of them! On the other hand, I believe anyone has a right to request their photo be taken off a site... so if Carson didn't want his photo on Wikipedia, I feel he has a right to request you deny any photo uploads to his page. If Carson doesn't have time to contact you about the photo, I guess it's not too important to him in the grand scheme of his life.... Life is short... people don't have time for this crap... but, yes, I agree, sometimes you can be amazed how petty/shallow can be... so Wikipedia is wise to cover it's ass under the large stack of ridiculously petty laws on the books. Sometimes I think our law books were written by a bunch of anal retentive, obsessive compulsive children. Most of those small claims court cases on TV are just a bunch of children bickering about how life is somehow supposed to be "fair." "Grow the hell up," I say. If I was a small claims court judge, I would just hang a big sign at the front of the courtroom: "Live & Learn" ...and then go down the street to the supreme court and sit in on the latest murder/rape trial. As long as people are still out there murdering and raping people, I would be embarrassed to be seen in a courtroom with a bunch of kids bickering about the small stuff.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.55.125 (talk • contribs)
Most judges would strongly disagree with this account of the relationship between law and society. See Fixing Broken Windows. Chick Bowen 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if your understanding of the judicial system comes from watching those 'court' shows on TV, I don't wonder that you hold such a jaundiced view. It's sort of like learning about the physics of time by watching Doctor Who. -- Donald Albury 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess the great of idea of copyrighted photos displayed on the net has to do with telling people you DO NOT WANT TO SHARE. This sounds like a great concept for America to get behind, no? It's somewhat understandable to copyright a photo to prevent the sale of that individual photo, but what would be the sense of scanning that photo and uploading it to your website if you don't want to share it? If you don't want to share the photo, you can simply upload a smaller copy of it or a copy with watermark writing across their face. If there's no watermark writing across their face, it should be fair use if you upload it to your website. The courts don't have time for copyrighted photo bickering. Let the stingy photo uploader be responsible for protecting their own images by printing watermark text across the face. Dave925 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And similarly if you don't want your car stolen used for joyriding then put it in a garage, if you leave it on the street outside you're house then we can assume that you want to share it. /Lokal_Profil 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if I steal your car, you won't be able to use it. If I copy a photo off of your website, you can still use that photo. There's a SLIGHT difference there I'd say. It's more like if you build a nice display of christmas lights across your house, and I come by and take pictures of it and upload it my site to show everyone the pretty display. No harm, no foul. Comparing a copied photo to a stolen car is like comparing a clap of thunder to a major earthquake. They're not even in the same ball park. Dave925 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Very true, but I compared it to joyriding the car. Say that you top it up with gas afterwards and leave it where you found it and suddenly the difference isn't as big. /Lokal_Profil 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting debate but wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. Our copyright policies are based on two factors: US law (since we are on US servers) and our own status as the Free Encyclopedia and commitment to open source. The motivations of individual copyright holders are none of our concern; we must set our own policies based on what we think is right. The fact is that we prefer freely released pictures whatever the ethics or economics of putting a picture on the web in the first place might be. Chick Bowen 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Granted. Ok then. There's a note on Carson Daly's wikipage that asks for a comment about the status of his photo, so I assume the comment goes here. My comment is you should email Carson and ask him what (if any) photo he wants on his page. In my opinion, he should have final say over what photos of him are shown. Aside from that, I would assume a photo is free unless it has watermarking across the face. If that's not what the law says, it needs to be rewritten. If anyone doesn't think this is a reasonable ammendment to the law, I'd like to hear why. Dave925 10:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that it isn't uncommon that small arguments can get out of hand and result in things like murder when unsatisfactorarily involved. Also, when you ignore the "small arguments" people start to think the law doesn't matter and so are more likely to commit crimes like rape and murder Nil Einne 07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy slower than IFD

It appears that an Image going through WP:IFD can be deleted after 5 days, but under this speedy policy it can be deleted after 7 days. How is that speedy? Isn't WP:CSD supposed to be faster than xFD items? I believe 24 hours is plenty of notification and time. A user should not upload an image unless they immediately intend to put the image in an article and are prepared to provide the source and copyright. They may be guess the copyright wrong, and then we can help, but if they don't provide a source or copyright, 24 hours is more than plenty. WP:NOT an image hosting service. --MECU≈talk 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow you're right. So much for "speedy deletion". {{db-i4}} and {{db-i5}} can only be used after 7 days have passed. --WikiSlasher 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC) {{db-i6}} as well --WikiSlasher 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest 48 hours. But yes, as it is, it is inconsistent. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the huge problem. The point of "speedy deletion" is IMHO not nessesarily that stuff need to be deelted fast-fast-fast (well except attack pages and such), just that the process is streamlined. Just tag & forget, no consensus to interpret or multi stage listing process, just a (usualy) binary solution, either it fits the deletion criterea or it doesn't. As such I think it works pretty well, the long-ish "lag time" helps reduce the complaints that stuff get deleted without warning (keep in mind that a fair number of users don't edit every day). Besides we are frequently backloged half a week or more as it is, so there is a limit to how much practical effect a drastic cut in "lag time" would have anyway. --Sherool (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If we're still in a renaming frenzy (as with VFD, CFD, etc), perhaps CSD should be "Candidates for straightforward/simple/streamlined deletion". I've heard that question about delay-activated CSD's more than once in recent weeks and months. -- nae'blis 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily so speedy. I have to wait a week before I can even apply {{Db-unfree}}. I think I might change the tags to make them easier to use. --WikiSlasher 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind we have {{orfud}} (requires substing). --WikiSlasher 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does/how does this page fit into the copyright problems process?

I came across this page through a link on a user's talk page. It isn't mentioned in WP:CP or in other pages of the series; does it still have a place in the process? Should images with disputed licensing information be dealt with here? What about {{Wrong-license}}? Should images tagged as such be directed here or to WP:CP? -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This page was originally for untagged images, but once those were made speedy deletion candidates, it evolved into a place to list images that are claimed to be free but appear not to be. Thus, it isn't really formally part of the copyright problems process at all, but remains because it still serves a useful purpose. The main difference between these images and those tagged with {{Wrong-license}}, as far as I'm concerned, is that most of the ones sent here are assumed to be deliberate deception, not an honest mistake. As you can see if you look through the page history, probably 90% or more of the images sent here are deleted, not retagged. Chick Bowen 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's ridiculous to have copyrighted photographs....

What's the difference? I could go out and just as easily take the same photo, or anyone with the right equipment could. If it's of a person, or their pet, or inside their home, or something personal that is not visibly in public, then maybe those photos should be protected from distribution. But of a public place that everyone has access to???? Give me a break. If you choose to take a picture of a public place, then it's your problem if you wanted that picture to make a profit off of if you put it online for everyone to download and see. If you don't want it copied and used for other purposes, then don't put it online. Make it into postcards and sell it, but don't put it online.

Again, a public place? What's stopping me from taking the exact same picture and giving it to Wikipedia or anyone else just because I want to? Are you going to come at me and say I took a picture of a location you copyrighted? I don't think so. Public place, no right to privacy, or copyright if you ask me....

Anisa Rodriguez

  • You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Try reading up on copyright law and ethics so that you can speak intelligently on the subject. Valrith 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)