| Revision as of 04:16, 5 May 2007 editStephen (talk | contribs)Administrators49,418 edits France Winddance Twine← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:41, 5 May 2007 edit undoImprobabilityDrive (talk | contribs)718 edits HelloNext edit → | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| Your further comments ] would be appreciated, if you have time. Thanks --]] 04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | Your further comments ] would be appreciated, if you have time. Thanks --]] 04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Hello == | |||
| Do you have advice on how I can handle this situation? Thanks. ] ] 04:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:41, 5 May 2007
My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Misplaced Pages. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption.
|
| Quick links: Main page • My Contributions • Talk to me • Jun 06 • Jul 06 • Aug 06 • Sep - Dec 06 • Jan 07 a • Jan 07 b • Feb 07 • Mar 07 • Apr 07 |
|
Please read if you are here to discuss an image: |
|
Note about a recent image deletion
Heh, you deleted Image:Wy license plate.jpg while I was in the middle of editing it (quite confused for a second). I know it's a major pain to try to "redeem" every image in a backlog, but in some cases, it can be done fairly easily, and improves the encyclopedia so much more than merely clearing it out of a backlog. In this case, I had to create a new image licensing template ({{WYGov}}), but still, I think it was worth the extra effort.
Though I do certainly thank you for clearing out the rest of the I4 backlog for me. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- That template, while very nice, doesn't tell anything about the licensing of the image. Works of state governments, with rare exception, are not in the public domain. Wyoming's website, for example, has this to say: "The State of Wyoming and its agencies are and shall remain the sole and exclusive owner of all rights, title and interest in and to all lists, libraries, databases, maps, graphics, compilations, files and other data created and posted for inclusion in this system, including ownership of any trade secrets or copyright pertaining thereto, except as specifically noted." So we can't use a work of the state government of Wyoming except under a claim of fair use. What's more is that the article using that image - List of U.S. state license plates - contains nothing but blatant copyvios. Just about all of those images are merely cropped versions of license plates found at . Even if they weren't copyvios, they would be derivative works of copyrighted license plate designs and thus not acceptable for free use. I know this kinda puts a damper on your efforts, but that template, license plate, and every license plate in the article all need to be deleted. --BigDT 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well... .
- Still, I'm gonna give myself a pat on the back for at least having my heart in the right place, even though you're totally right about the copyvio bit. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
State license plate IFD
Okay, so every time I argue about copyright rules, I loose or get told to shut up and go away, but.... how is a photograph of a license plate different than a image of album cover, movie poster or book that is being used to demonstrate the work in question? Can I not take a photo of my laptop, or car, cell phone or coffee cup, as they too are copyrighted works? Where is this legal line? Please help me understand this. Cornell Rockey 11:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The question is whether the thing you photographed constitutes a "creative work" or is its design one of utility or function. Dolls, toys, CD covers, etc, are all primarilly creative in nature. On the other hand, unless you have one of those cell phones with flowers on the cover, the purpose of your cell phone design is one of utility - they are trying to make a cell phone that performs a function, rather than a work of art. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?. In the case of a license plate, if there is artwork on the plate, it is a copyrightable work. Only the copyright owner can authorize a derivative work and so we cannot create a free version of a license plate (at least not one with artwork). If the use of the license plate substantially contributes to the article, we can use it under a claim of fair use, but in the case of the article I went through, it was just a gallery and that isn't a fair use. --BigDT 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay but that fails to answer my question about movie posters, CD covers or book jacket images. They are creative works, & are very artistic in nature, yet we have them on the encyclopedia. Why not a rush to delete them? How are they different than a license plate? Cornell Rockey 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Movie posters, CD covers, and book covers are all creative and all should be tagged with an appropriate non-free image tag, like {{albumcover}}. They are actually in a further special case that is outside the scope of your question, but important to understand. When you scan, photocopy, or photograph a 2-D object, your act of copying is NOT transformative and no additional copyright is created. That's why we can use CD covers from amazon.com without amazon's permission - they don't own the copyright to them, even if they personally scanned the image. The difference between CD covers and license plates is that we use CD covers in the context of a larger article as a method of identifying the CD that the article is about. That is considered a fair use of the image. The same is true for movie posters, DVD covers, and the like. It's the same reason that amazon.com has a photo of the CD cover - it shows you what CD you are going to buy. If we were writing an article about the license plate itself, it would be find to include a photo of it. As an example, there have been court cases about pro-life license plates. If someone were writing an article about the court case or the plate itself, it would be fine to include a copy of it. Further, in a discussion of novelty plates, it's fine to show photos of such plates. What isn't fine is the List of U.S. state license plates article where all of the plates are merely used in a gallery. That is not a "fair use" of a copyrighted work because we aren't adding anything to the work. Does that help? --BigDT 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, this is starting to make sense. I think I get why the gallery of plates needs to be deleted, but does Arizona#Highways count as fair use? If the NYS plate image was added to the state article would that stop it from being deleted? 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not as it is. WP:FAIR#Policy #5 says that the image needs to add significantly to the article, not be purely decorative. But the article doesn't talk about the plate at all - so this image violates that criterion. If there were some important controversy surrounding the image or it were otherwise significant to the article in some way, it would be fine, but as of now, it isn't. --BigDT 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- That helps, I appreciate it. Its very nice to have an admin actually answer questions for other users; I guess I'm jaded from being yelled at too many time. Thank you. Cornell Rockey 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not as it is. WP:FAIR#Policy #5 says that the image needs to add significantly to the article, not be purely decorative. But the article doesn't talk about the plate at all - so this image violates that criterion. If there were some important controversy surrounding the image or it were otherwise significant to the article in some way, it would be fine, but as of now, it isn't. --BigDT 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, this is starting to make sense. I think I get why the gallery of plates needs to be deleted, but does Arizona#Highways count as fair use? If the NYS plate image was added to the state article would that stop it from being deleted? 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Movie posters, CD covers, and book covers are all creative and all should be tagged with an appropriate non-free image tag, like {{albumcover}}. They are actually in a further special case that is outside the scope of your question, but important to understand. When you scan, photocopy, or photograph a 2-D object, your act of copying is NOT transformative and no additional copyright is created. That's why we can use CD covers from amazon.com without amazon's permission - they don't own the copyright to them, even if they personally scanned the image. The difference between CD covers and license plates is that we use CD covers in the context of a larger article as a method of identifying the CD that the article is about. That is considered a fair use of the image. The same is true for movie posters, DVD covers, and the like. It's the same reason that amazon.com has a photo of the CD cover - it shows you what CD you are going to buy. If we were writing an article about the license plate itself, it would be find to include a photo of it. As an example, there have been court cases about pro-life license plates. If someone were writing an article about the court case or the plate itself, it would be fine to include a copy of it. Further, in a discussion of novelty plates, it's fine to show photos of such plates. What isn't fine is the List of U.S. state license plates article where all of the plates are merely used in a gallery. That is not a "fair use" of a copyrighted work because we aren't adding anything to the work. Does that help? --BigDT 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay but that fails to answer my question about movie posters, CD covers or book jacket images. They are creative works, & are very artistic in nature, yet we have them on the encyclopedia. Why not a rush to delete them? How are they different than a license plate? Cornell Rockey 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, BigDT, I came across your discussion of license plates IFD, and I'm confused as to why plates should be tagged for deletion. Aren't they official government documents, and therefore in the public domain? I realize that they have artwork on them, but so do state flags and they are public domain. It seems that by your rule, wikipedia could not post images of state flags, drivers' licenses, or any official document with a government seal (artwork). If there is a discussion of this issue elsewhere or some consensus could you please point me to it? Thanks. --Cjs56 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are two questions that need to be kept separate - (1) can the image be used freely, meaning, without significant copyright restrictions and (2) if it cannot be used freely, can we use it under a claim of fair use.
- In looking at the first question, works of the United States national government are public domain. Works of state governments are subject to whatever laws the state has. Some states may, for example, specifically exclude their flags, seals, etc, from copyright. Also, if the flag or seal was created before 1923, it is public domain anyway. In the case of an official document that contains the seal, but the document is otherwise public domain, I would say that is ok to use. It's the same thing if you take a photo of 20 of your friends and one of them happens to be wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt. Commons:Commons:Derivative works puts it best - what is your intention - are you using the photo to try and get around Mickey's copyright or are you really wanting to show a picture of your friends? In the case of the former, no, but in the case of the latter, it's fine to use. The same would be true of the document. If the document was a court ruling and you are using it in an article about that court ruling (assuming that court rulings are public domain), that's fine.
- As for the question of whether or not it can be used under a claim of fair use, it is perfectly 100% a-ok to use a non-free image in its proper context. The problem is the GALLERY of non-free images. We can use copyrighted seals, flags, cd covers, movie screenshots, etc. We just can't have galleries of them.
- As for discussions, there is one right now on the talk page of WP:FAIR and there are a number of them in the archives of that talk page. There's also a long ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes, though it's focused on the manner of enforcing the policy, there's no real question on what the policy is. The most important thing to see, which trumps anything else is the foundation's resolution on images. I hope this long-winded reply helps. --BigDT 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Me Me Me
Woops sorry, The name was so conspicuous it did not occur to me it could me something else than a new article by this vandal. My bad! -- lucasbfr 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It happens ... even admins sometimes forget to check history and wind up deleting something we shouldn't. Fortunately, the screen that comes up after a deletion tells how many edits you just deleted, so if it's more than 2-3, you quickly realize your error. --BigDT 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I have no barnstars to give, nor am I near any barns from which to steal them...
Thank you for your kind words. --BigDT 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your upload of cuneiform signs
I exchanged the restricted signs wherever a free version exists. I really hope, that the upload of the missing 500 signs under {{subst:Cc-by-nd-nc}} and {{Non-free fair use in|List of cuneiform signs}} will meet no further difficulties. Otherwise I regret, but I would be forced to stop uploading the missing cuneiform signs and the List of cuneiform signs would remain a torso. Mstudt 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/media criterion 3. Images licensed for non-commercial use are not permitted and any that were uploaded after May 2005 are deleted on sight. gives some of the reasons behind it. Any image where we could reasonably expect to have a free alternative created does not qualify for fair use. (Please see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Policy #1). Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#User-created images specifies that user-created images must be licensed under a freee license - in other words, fair use images need to come from an external source. I'm sorry that you spent all of this time uploading them, but this has all been the policy for two years.
- Misplaced Pages has mirror sites like ask.com and about.com that mirror our content and run ads. The content is copied electronically and these sites have no way of knowing or understanding that you don't find their reuse of your images acceptable.
- Would you be willing to release them under something more restrictive than a CC license like the GFDL? The GFDL does permit commercial reuse, but it requires that a copy of the GFDL be included and requires that copyright notices be included, essentially making it impractical to use these images on anything other than a Wiki. If not, then they need to be removed and there is really no way around it. --BigDT 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:Spike_TV.jpg)
Please put Image:Spike_TV.jpg in your Deletion log immediately. I would see the image I described deleted sooner rather than later. AdamDeanHall 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
France Winddance Twine
Your further comments here would be appreciated, if you have time. Thanks --Steve (Stephen) 04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Do you have advice on how I can handle this situation? Thanks. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_quick_de-escalation Infinite Improbability Drive 04:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)