User:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive3

Image:Frances pinter.jpg

When seeing many copyvio's I am usually deletionist in this regard. This image however I probably also would keep if I would encounter it when dealing with PUI. Sometimes we can assume good faith and not all has to go through OTRS. It has to be believable though. Garion96 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright law is always applicable but this is about wiki rules not copyright law. Whether we follow the Wikipedia rules can indeed be different depending on the person and circumstances. Regarding this image, I also have uploaded a few photo's not taken by me. So probably have you. The most simple example of course is a picture of yourself taken by a friend. In those cases, and in this particular case, I think we can assume good faith and keep the images. Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You said "...I also have uploaded a few photo's not taken by me. So probably have you" and I have - they are called promo photos and were uploaded under fair use. The other images I uploaded are mine and I was shown no mercy when they were CSD'd by admins who doubted I was the photographer. I was never sent to PUI or IfD nor was I asked to submit an email for OTRS. Not all all...CSD all the way, one even deleted as I was uploading it and before I could explain. I was shown no mercy, so I expect no less from others. Assuming "good faith" is not something I really will do when it comes to copyvios or potential copyvios. I have been on both sides and it is not acceptable.

No, I mean pictures my wife took for instance. Or a good friend. Do I need them to send an e-mail to OTRS?

Now you also said "Copyright law is always applicable but this is about wiki rules not copyright law" and I don't fully agree with that. The suggestion that, as long as any user claims "It is ok, they said so" it is suddenly not a potential copyvio is ludicrous to me as a photographer. The fact that, for example, you could take one of my images and uploaded it here claiming I said it was ok and license it under PD, GDFL or a CCL and not be questioned when, if I do it myself, am treated like shit just...well..it pisses me off. You know what - I am going to retract the whole Jade Kwan noms. Please restore those images. Lets assume good faith. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jade Kwan images I already am dealing with on the OTRS queue. And no, of course it is not always correct to agree with "it is ok, they said so" but of course that all depends on the circumstances. A new editor who suddenly uploads an image of (name your celebrity) or if Jimmy Wales uploads the same image. Both say that they haven't taken the image themselves. On which one do you assume good faith? :) It is kind of ironic btw that here I am defending keeping an image and am here defending to delete an image. :) Also, either post on my talk or here, but try to be consistent. I almost missed this post since you always post your response on my own talk page. Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is clear that neither one of them took the image than the answer to "On which one do you assume good faith?" would be "Neither". However, I would give both of them the chance to provide proof that they have permission to upload the image and claim it under one of the free licenses. That is what {{di-no permission}} is for and I use it often. I don't skip to i9 unless it is very blatant. As I was greeted by the elitist Wikipedia welcoming committee I learned fast that "assume good faith" is not a term to be used with images.

As for the "I mean pictures my wife took for instance" comment. Yes. It takes all of what? Maybe three minutes to send an email off to OTRS? If I take a picture of my neighbor and he becomes a mass murder - hey, I own that photo, wooh who! But if I hand over that photo to him and he uploads it to his MySpace and he becomes a mass murder and the image is suddenly plastered all over do you assume good faith? Or do you just try to prove that you gave him the photo, not every media outlet and website on the planet. And I am not talking about a non-descriptive picture of a tree, although clearly those types of images were used as examples when the decision came down to delete all non-commercial images, so they too may very well be copyvios. Following that train of thought, if Wikipedia gave more flexibility to actual photographers when uploading their own work perhaps there would not be this discussion going on in various places. And this, more times than not, is what leads to the copyvios. It is much easier for someone who does not own an image to upload it as a self published work under a free license than it is for the actual photographer to upload their own work. Why? Because most photographers are very concerned about copyvios and unauthorized use of their work. I am not patrolling the self published images every day because it is fun. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, I really am not doing this because it is fun doing. But regarding "my wife took the picture", sending an e-mail to OTRS about that would be ridiculous and quite pointless. I also checked Image:Aquanettas.gif, which I assume is the image you meant. The (c) notice you put on the image, is (besides ugly) not inconsistent with a cc license. Even under a free content license you still own the copyright. I probably would not have deleted that image at first. Later when you added the non-commercial clause however I would have deleted it on sight. Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are fee to do what you want. I come from a professional background where I.P is taken seriously and I know to be safe rather than sorry. As you only looked at the image you may not have any context, at the time the NC user upload CLL was allowed. Wording has since changed. But that is ok, when I look at images such as the one that kicked off this discussion I don't have any context either, only that the uploader admits to not being the photographer. If this business was overseen by me I would demand to have a release form form the photographer or demand the image be removed. It is not my website, I am not a member of the foundation that runs it. I have no "power" other than to do the nom and advise, which I have done. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Ampallang Piercing.jpg

Do I Delete The Image (The First "Image:Ampallang Piercing.Jpg" Not The "Image:Ampallang Piercing (RDW 2007).Jpg") Or Does Wiki? I Changed The Copyright Info I Wasn't Sure When I Started How To Do It Right So I Think The Later One Is Good Let Me Know If You Know Of A Way To Keep It From Being Deleted. This Pic Is Very Important For The Article. Randywilliams1975 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

The local duplicate image (Image:Ampallang Piercing.jpg) has already been deleted. The other image (Image:Ampallang Piercing (RDW 2007).jpg) is a duplicate of an image that is on Commons. Because it has the same name there is nothing you need to do, once the local copy is deleted it will still show up in the article. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied to you

Hi Soundvisions: I replied to your comment on my talk page. I hope that my reasoning is more clear to you now. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:InfOPI.gif

Okay carryon with the deletion thanks Venky2007 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for your concerns

Just for your concerns, I would like to tell out the whole story of handling and publishing our exclusive photos on Jade Online. I am the person who organizes and releases out the photos done by the participators of the website. They deliver all the original copies directly to me and let for me to organize and release them on the website. And sometimes I do some retouching works of the photos prior to release. Most of time our participators do not release out the photos directly by themselves (except that I am at my very busy moments and they release the photo directly by themselves with my permission).

Explaining the photo that you found on here, I would like to inform that the Jade Kwan album of Dick Studio is an affiliate portion of Jade Online which is directly managed by our participator Dick Ho under his owned Dick Studio. In addition, he is also one of the admins of Jade Online. Our website owns the copyright of the photos on the Jade Kwan album there and I have all their original copies at present. I have updated the notice on our website to include the thumbnails of the original uncropped and unwatermarked copies of the photos previously uploaded in Wikipedia. There should have two watermarked versions of the photos done by Dick Ho; one is for use on Jade Online and another one on Dick Studio. The reason why the photos are double watermarked on Jade Online is that Dick Ho first directly released out the photos on Dick Studio and then linked in Jade Online; by the time starting to deal with the photos and to release out directly on Jade Online, I couldn't contact him to retrieve the original copies so I decided to use the Jade Online version of watermark over the first releasing copies on Dick Studio and then released out them on Jade Online. (Later on I was just too lazy to repack them again from the original copies...)

For myself, I am a photographer also and I do respect the copyright of creations of all the photographers. At present I may not know the copyright rules or policies of Wikipedia in depth but I would like to clarify that I am obviously not a copyvio. I am just hereby in Wikipedia to provide the free licensed photos for the project. Right now I am waiting for Garion dealing with the issue. Vincentkhm (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arrows

 Done thanks for taking the time to do the legwork btw. Another case for it's deletion is I found another, better pic to use. (It qualifies for fair use because one of the members has died.) I've got to hand it to you for all the work you do with image copyright issues as that's something I still don't fully understand even after being here for a year... Keep up the good work. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg

Hi, by restoring the original uploaded image, new problems are introduced. Please take a look again at the PUI for this image. (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 27) Basically, both images (original and later) are suspect in their "free" status. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For Soundvisions1's tireless image tagging! — Athaenara ✉ 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use

Hi. :) I don't routinely hang out at ANI or AN, but I do pop by every few days (more often if bored) to see what's up. I notice this (tagged resolved) issue, and I just wanted to point out Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale. It's handily configured to allow you to explain why the issue is a problem (usage: {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=5 December 2008|concern=concern}}). One thing that does concern me about that, though, is that the image continues to be published in the article. I'm inclined to think we should not be publishing images "in the meantime." This may be another one to take up at WP:CSD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In the slowly brightening lightbulb category, this would be perhaps related to your proposed expansion of i9? Well, at least this tag is usable in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the overall issue it not really "resolved" by a long shot. I think because Stifle gave the asked for second opinion and said it was "black and white" thusly I was wrong, the thread was marked as "resolved". I agree that the image should not be left hanging around, but what I, as one person, feels does not matter much when the overall consensus is that, as long as any image has a fur attached, it does not qualify as a copyvio. So far I have only seen one other admin publicly agree that this is a blatant copyvio and needs to be speedied. I am currently trying to have i9 rewritten based on the "consensus" that any image with a FUR is exempt for being deleted as a copyvio. It may be a knee jerk reaction by me but if images from photo agencies are included, rather than excluded as the current wording implies, in this blanket FUR exemption than I say just remove that wording all together from i9 because it is irrelevant to the criteria. Another case of me not agreeing but if this is the "consensus" than put it in policy so that it is clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could be of more use to you. I've learned quite a lot about images in the last year, but I still gaze in befuddlement at quite a lot of it. :/ FUR is a world of mystery to me. I do grok though based on what you said at AN that such images don't meet NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, there is a fourth place where this is discussed that I missed? ;)
Anyway, thanks for the copyediting. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 13:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not so much as in the other three places. Got a bit crazy for a bit. And you're welcome. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You should have replied on my talk page then. And I've returned the favor ;) --Amalthea 13:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"News Flash": I almost fell over when I saw this. We have have had proof all along sitting right here: Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg. It is a letter from the Associated Press that is giving permission for two images to be used. But the very last paragraph should be extremely clear: "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copy-protected Associated Press photo in which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat...

But the nature of fair use is that we do not need their permission. To quote from our article Fair use, "It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test." I agree that press photos can be used here under fair use relatively rarely. But fair use means no permission is necessary. Fair use is a legal right and courts have often discussed fair use as being necessary to protect first amendment rights. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a side-note: every fair use case that goes to court, the copyright holder did not want the third party to use their work or else they would not have brought the suit. Any time a court says that something is fair use, they are essentially saying, Too bad for you, copyright-holder; the defendant has the right to use the image no matter what you say. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying - you are the Editor who actually made the noms on the A.P images and actually are arguing that these are copyvios. Yet now your response to the A.P letter is saying makes it sound like you are arguing that is is ok to use A.P images? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that what the AP thinks is irrelevant, because fair use has nothing to do with the wishes of the copyright holder. It should be deleted because it is not fair use in the eyes of the law (or acceptable under wikipedia policy), not because the AP doesn't think its images should be used in wikipedia articles as a general matter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case it seems very weird to, on the one hand, argue that an image from A.P cannot be used yet, on the other hand, say, it doesn't matter what A.P thinks. You can't play both sides at the same time. A.P is not a hostile witness in this "case" because their whole "case" is also our "case". There is also a huge difference between using something for an overall reason and using something for a narrow reason. The Wikipedia policy allows things to be used under very narrow reasons. Even if we are not talking about an image from a photo agency I am not 100% sure a picture of the Australian flag in front of a neighboring building should be allowed as a legit NFI for use in an article specifically about a bombing at an embassy, in this case as the featured image in the article. Irregardless of this specific image the basic criteria are always the same - what is the subject and how does this image help in understanding the article. And then of course - the other 9 criteria have to be met. I don't think you and I are in overall disagreement on the issue, it is just that I probably take more weight in what the photographer and copyright holder have to say. I can't help but say this - If someone came into my yard and took my car, then, when arrested for theft, they said "I wasn't stealing it, I know who owns the car and I was only illustrating how easy it was to steal a car from their house" is not going to cause anyone to say "Oh, cool. Ok. Good point" and let the person who stole the car go. The obvious thing is that it was a theft, "black and white" as some would say. But the underlying point I am making is that I paid for that item, and to have someone else take it, use it without my permission, and for free, is also theft. This is where any media outlet that has paid a photo agency for images comes into play as it relates to the "fair use" issue. If a media outlet has paid to use an image it is "theft" for someone to take only that image from them for "free" use elsewhere and say it is "Fair use". Many of the images on Wikipedia are not "sourced" to the agency but to some other media outlet that purchased those images. Simply giving the correct photo credit is not enough to cover the fact it was "stolen" from someone who paid to use it. In these cases, if you removed the FUR, it is a clear cut copyvio and would be sent to i9. If an image is tagged and is under a free use license and it is some sort of image that another editor felt was important (newsworthy) they are allowed to remove the tag and "fix" it by adding a FUR. Overall I feel that is is somewhat meaningless unless the image is somehow being used in an article about the source it was taken from and still meets all of the 10 criteria Wikipedia requires. Copyright law and fair use are complicated and I honestly feel many of the "blanket" criteria Wikipedia uses are too vague. Look at this entire discussion (Not "here" here, "here" as in all the locations) and you see this. Fair use does not mean "Take whatever we want because we can" but that seems to be, at times, the overall feeling. Because a FUR is considered an "ignore everything else" by some, the core polices are tossed out the window in many cases. I have argued that the real world law is the law, on or off, Wikipedia as far as copyright goes. And I have also said that I find it insane that someone who steals/borrows/uploads (in good faith of course) an image has far more options than the real "author" of the image. I had a discussion a month or so ago about a logo that was user created and uploaded with a "I approve this for Wikipedia use only" license. That is a clear violation of Policy, so I out a CSD on it but an admin came along, removed the CSD and added a FUR. I asked the admin who changed it why and was told that Wikipedia can take any image it wants to and, as this was a logo - self made or not, it fell under fair use thusly it did not matter what the creator/author said about any restrictions of use. But than that also goes along with what you say - "fair use has nothing to do with the wishes of the copyright holder" and that kind of comment leads to why I say that, in order to avoid a CSD (i9, i3) all anyone has to do is slap a FUR on an image in order to keep it. Real life does not work that way at all. If it did, the entertainment industry would have been out of business a long time ago. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• I'm not sure where your concern about the other licensors of copyrighted material, e.g. MSN in the flag case. AP is the copyright holder. We are hurting AP by not paying AP for its image. Yes, MSN paid to use the picture, but that's not really relevant (except to the extent it shows that this is how AP commercializes its images). From a legal standpoint, MSN is not in the picture
• Re your car analogy- please remember that actual fair use (not invalid "fair use") is an important legal right that is granted to the public by the copyright statute. The law of intellectual property is simply different than the law of physical property. The owner of physical property generally has an absolute right to exclude others from using his property. The owner of a copyright simply does not. That is, in (physical) property law, a random person has no right to take your car. In intellectual property law, a random person has every right to reuse your image (in certain defined circumstances). The term "intellectual property" is sometimes misleading because it suggests more parallels to property law than actually exist.
• Again, to reiterate, the copyright holder's wishes are irrelevant to whether a use is fair. (I would advise reading our article Fair use.) AP has every incentive to exaggerate the strength of its legal claims. Whether an image is legal and policy-compliant is determined based on law and our policy, not based on anything AP says. I think it is important to recognize this distinction between permission and fair use.
• Finally, I don't think it's worth getting too worked up over whether an image stays up for a few days rather than being deleted speedily. (And often things like this are speedied somewhat out of process and no one minds.) If you see images in articles that you don't think are fair use, one alternative route is just to remove the photo from the article to start. Often it is not missed, and it can just be deleted as an orphan. Obviously that takes a few days but in the meantime it is not widely visible.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no real idea what your point is anymore as you keep restating both sides of this issue. You even do it again above - first you say "We are hurting AP by not paying AP for its image", which is what I backed you up on in the first place. Than you seemingly want to argue the other side by saying "AP has every incentive to exaggerate the strength of its legal claims. Whether an image is legal and policy-compliant is determined based on law and our policy, not based on anything AP says." If your real intent is to further confuse people involved in the discussions who may not have as much of an understanding of these issues as I do that is a sure way to do it. My intent is to explain why the image in question fails by using examples that hopefully a layman can understand. You, and others, are lumping everything together, and seemingly just wanting to debate the finer points of fair use. In your case you also keep implying that I do not understand fair use or the US Copyright law, which has yet to be proven, more so when you keep agreeing with me on the core issues but seemingly arguing about them. Then you, and others, make s general comment such as "the copyright holder's wishes are irrelevant to whether a use is fair" which, on the overall issue is true (I never said it wasn't), but one has to go back and read section 106 of the US Copyright law which reads, in part, "in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly;" This is core, the root. Everything else is layered on top of that. Including the Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107 which says four core issues must be determined: "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

How this relates to your comment, and fair use, by a recent example, in the case of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and J.K. Rowling vs RDR Books and "Does 1- 10" the Defendants claimed "fair use" over the Plaintiffs claims of "copyright infringement". In the final summary it was ruled that "The fair-use factors, weighed together in light of the purposes of copyright law, fail to support the defense of fair use in this case. The first factor does not completely weigh in favor of Defendant because although the Lexicon has a transformative purpose, its actual use of the copyrighted works is not consistently transformative. Without drawing a line at the amount of copyrighted material that is reasonably necessary to create an A-to-Z reference guide, many portions of the Lexicon take more of the copyrighted works than is reasonably necessary in relation to the Lexicon’s purpose. Thus, in balancing the first and third factors, the balance is tipped against a finding of fair use. The creative nature of the copyrighted works and the harm to the market for Rowling’s companion books weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. In striking the balance between the property rights of original authors and the freedom of expression of secondary authors, reference guides to works of literature should generally be encouraged by copyright law as they provide a benefit readers and students; but to borrow from Rowling’s overstated views, they should not be permitted to “plunder” the works of original authors (Tr. (Rowling) at 62:25-63:3), “without paying the customary price” (Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562), lest original authors lose incentive to create new works that will also benefit the public interest (see Tr. (Rowling) at 93:20-94:13)." This, in part, led to the final conclusion of "For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have established copyright infringement of the Harry Potter series, 'Fantastic Beasts' & 'Where to Find Them', and 'Quidditch Through the Ages' by J.K. Rowling. Defendant has failed to establish its affirmative defense of fair use." This is just a very recent example showing that the arguments of "the copyright holder's wishes are irrelevant to whether a use is fair" in blatant disregard of copyright laws will not hold up. (Perhaps they did not read our article on Fair use?) As is the case with this image the Lexicon case raised issues of "copying" ("Vander Ark openly admitted that he created and updated the content of the Lexicon by taking notes while reading the Harry Potter books and, by using without authorization, scanned, electronic copies of the Harry Potter novels and companion books.") as well as Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The latter includes discussions such as: "Most critical to the inquiry under the first fair-use factor is “whether and to what extent the new work is ‘transformative.’” (Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579; see also Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd, 448 F.3d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 2006); Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 2003).) Specifically, the court asks “whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” (Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579.) The fair use doctrine seeks to protect a secondary work if it “adds value to the original— if [copyrightable expression in the original work] is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings,” because such a work contributes to the enrichment of society." and "The fourth statutory factor considers “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(4). Courts must consider harm to “not only the primary market for the copyrighted work, but the current and potential market for derivative works” as well."

Bottom line is this image can be addressed, and should be addressed, on several levels. First and foremost - it it using a valid FUR? And it is not. So once that is "out of the way" the second issue is the issue of copyright and how the image was obtained. In this case, as I keep saying, it was obtained from MSNBC, who is clear in the fact that they do not own the image. And that, which has been stated by myself many times, brings the issue to use of the i9 CSD criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only read the bottom line of the above, but if it's still about the embassy image then it's never going to be an I9 since the uploader did not claim that the image had a free license. --Amalthea 21:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First thing is you need to read an entire post before replying. Second you need to read the words as written. From your response you it seems as though you only selectively read certian words - "the [...]issue[...]of copyright[...]is clear in the fact that they do not own the image[...]use of the i9 CSD criteria" What I really said was "So once that is "out of the way" the second issue is the issue of copyright and how the image was obtained. In this case, as I keep saying, it was obtained from MSNBC, who is clear in the fact that they do not own the image. And that, which has been stated by myself many times, brings the issue to use of the i9 CSD criteria." A bit of difference wouldn't you say? :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I told you right away that I hadn't :)
However, I did read the whole bottom line, and still insist that the embassy picture is not an I9, and I'm really unsure how we can still disagree on that. The I9 criterion reads, excluding the tag line and the explanatory parts:
"Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case."
In case of the embassy picture, the uploader very clearly did not claim that the image had a free license, so it can't be an I9. Where do you disagree with that? --Amalthea 03:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(See below) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: My question at IfD

Yes, I noticed, thanks. And literally laughed out loud when I saw the length of that reply. :)
Well, that's why it took me a while longer to reply, I was at the time still thinking (and starting to agree with) Calliopejen1 answer. I still find WP:NFC#2 incredibly vague; "a manner that is likely to replace the original market role" could be argued to apply to every CD and single cover as well: it's used by the production company to illustrate the single, and we are using it the same way.
Nonetheless, I think I see now why it can't be used. I found the comment at {{Non-free historic image}} to be quite good: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be in a transformative nature, only used when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."
Again, thank you for that long answer. I'm not quite sure I agree with you on all of it, though, which plays into the next issue with the Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg you found. I concur with what Calliopejen1 said on your talk page about it, by the very nature of fair use it ignores the terms of the copyright holder. They explicitly allow the use of Image:TrangBang.jpg, but I'm very sure that e.g. Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg and Image:Nguyen.jpg can still be clearly used here in a context that is describing the image itself and the reaction to it, and not only the event. In contrast, it would not be possible to give a similar rationale for Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg. I'm unhappy that the line is so blurry though, and will watch WT:NFCC for a while to hopefully get a clearer picture.
Cheers, Amalthea 04:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"...could be argued to apply to every CD and single cover..." Ahhh but there is world of difference there. This is one of the few places where real world and wiki world almost agree. Items such as promo pictures and CD/DVD covers are allowed in articles about the subjects as a form of promotion. Many many many promo images either contain, or are accompanied by, wording such as "For use in all media". Likewise items such as album artwork are also provided by distribution companies and labels for free use in editorial content. There is no question that most of these forms of images/content are freely allowed in certain settings - editorial use. An image from a photo agency is quite different because these images are normally not (almost never) given away for free to be used for free. That is where the whole "original market role" comes into play. What is the "original market role" of a promo image of a band? A freely given out photo that is to be used to promote that artist. What is the "original market role" of an image obtained from a photo agency? Media outlets (Or publishers or production companies) pay for editorial use of an image that illustrates some event or person.

Last night something stuck me, in light of these discussions, as highly contradictory. This should probably be brought up at CSD because the wording needs to be changed. The standard i9 notice clearly says "please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s)." As Stifle would say "There it is, black and white". No where does this notice make any claim that the uploader, or anyone else, can add a FUR to it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Coi on Rusty Eye page

Hello there, I did my best to clean up the article posted as Rusty Eye. I referenced reliable sources such as the L.A. Times, Blabbermouth, AllMusic, Metal Edge Magazine, and deleted unnecessary ones. Let me know what you think. Best, Dellamortedellamore (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo credits in captions

Please read the guideline Wikipedia:Captions#Credits. Captions in article pages should not include a credit for the photographer. Please do not re-add this again to the We've Got a Fuzzbox and We're Gonna Use It article.--Michig (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this image should not be in Wikipedia at all, as the embedded photo credit is in contravention of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images, which states "Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page".--Michig (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page with a helpful list to get you started on attribution patrol. In regards to this specific image: As "you", the end user, acting on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, has refused to honor the license terms by repeatedly removing the required attribution I have removed the image per section 7, Termination, subsection a, of my chosen license, which states, in part, "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." You have breached section 4, subsection c, which states, in part: "You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;".

As you feel attribution is against Wikipedia Policy you may want to also suggest deletion of the {{Attribution}} tag as well as make a nom to disallow usage of the CCL by-sa 3 license as you strongly feel it is not allowed as it is a violation of Wikipedia policy on attribution. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of what I feel is policy, it's what the policies and guidelines say that counts. I would have no objection to the guideline being changed to allow credits in photo captions if consensus supported that. In the meantime, I don't seek out cases like this, but when I remove credits from within articles in line with these policies and guidelines, if an editor re-adds them that is unacceptable. I have not refused to honor any licence terms, the accreditation required was where it belonged on the image page. Please cease these groundless accusations, and also cease from edit summaries such as [this], which is unacceptable.--Michig (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image CSD taggings

Hi
While I greatly appreciate that you're working through and cleaning up the images where the uploader claims to hold copyright, I think you are tagging a number of them incorrectly. For example:

1. Image:Bblogo2.jpg – tagged with I5 {{orfud}}, should be an I9 or go to WP:PUI (since the uploader is most likely affiliated with the company behind that logo. Not that it matters much, since it's unused)
2. Image:Panayiotis.KOKORAS.jpg – tagged with I4 {{nsd}}, while the uploading user account has the same name as the person depicted, and says to have created the work. I see no reason to doubt this.
3. Image:PHTO0021.jpg – tagged with I4 {{nsd}}, while the uploader claims to have created it, and I don't see a reason to doubt that, considering the picture
4. Image:Pantoja.JPG – tagged with I4 {{nsd}}, while the uploader claims to have created it, even says when and where, and the uploader is from Venezuela while the picture was taken in Caracas. Again, I see no reason to doubt it.

I agree that many many pictures where the uploader claims to hold copyright are indeed copyright violations, and must be deleted. However, using "No source given" when the uploader explicitly claims to hold copyright or have authored the picture seems wrong to me.
I'd appreciate your (concise ;)) opinion on this.
Oh, and since User:Marine 69-71 reaffirmed that he holds copyright on two pictures you tagged I notified him since it's quite doubtful that he also created the images he used for the collages.
Cheers, Amalthea 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I look at the users history to see what else, if anything, they have done image wise. If it says something like "my dog boo in my garden" I can kind of figure it was taken by the uploader. If it is a headshot of a person and it says "Person headshot - 2005" and that is it than I could tag it {{di-no permission}} but that doesn't really work at all work because whoever uploaded it has given permission. So the most obvious tag to me is {{di-no source}}. No other way to look at that. But as you wanted "concise" (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more squire, say no more):

1. Image:Bblogo2.jpg - see discussions at CSD talk about this sort of image. You even commented in the thread. :) But not to make you go back and read the discussion, this is an image left over from an orphaned article. On top of that is is a logo uploaded as "self made." When I asked about logos in the "Self-published work" category the response from lifebaka was "If they're not free content, they can be deleted under I5 (after the time limit is up)." When I again asked for clarification's - self made image that was a logo that was orphaned or unused - I was told, again, by lifebaka that "I5 applies to all orphaned non-free files, including those where permission is given for use only on Wikipedia." So, rather than try to use a G6/G8 I used i5 as I was told I could. :) And when it came up again with orphaned CD covers in the Self-published work catergory it is where Skier Dude said "...but many times these images touch on the 'fringe' of other categories - such as I5 (as the two mentioned above (which you'll see below could have been G6/G8) - if they're "legit" album covers, the owner should be the record company or other entity & not the uploader); a good number are I3 & I4 & I11. What I'd like to see for this very specific type of image that's being discussed is that the G6 (as part of "non-controversial maintenance") can be "expanded" to include this." But as G6 is sort of floating right now I went with lifebaka's i5.
2. Image:Panayiotis.KOKORAS.jpg - image has no information at all. No source is very clear because there is not source listed. Likewise if the subject of the image is the user as you imply it is doubtful they are their own source. If it was a myspace image (you know the ones - hand held - camera looking down, subject looking up) it would be different. Once we establish the source of the image we can go from there.
3. Image:PHTO0021.jpg - Again, not much information. All it says is "Jaisingh Rathore". Is that is subject? If so, again, doubtful it is self created so we need the source. Other images are of landscapes and are all tagged the same - "Jaisingh Rathore" or the variation "jai singh rathore". Yes, we can certainly assume that the user is the photographer, except in this one image. I did not see a "subject" tag otherwise I would have used that. Seriously I would have.
4. Image:Pantoja.JPG - I see nothing other than "Isabel Pantoja, in Caracas, August 2007". Again, no source information at all.

"in a nutshell" anytime there is no source information I am not CSD'ing the image, I am only using the tags as they are for obtaining the missing information. It is not about trying to CSD everything, it is about making it easy for the legal dept to sift through all this when, and if, they ever decide to release a book or such. As I mentioned in the past - an image without a valid "release form" is not much good. Images with no source information or where a source is listed as "me" or "My friend, who said it was ok" are not going to cut it. The more I do the more, the more I am finding that many of the existing tags don't fully work. By you asking me about these images I see that I am not the only one. What I want to try to do is create a new tag that is, perhaps, more user friendly. One that suggests following the "Mini How-To" in a non "We are going to delete this image" way. Also I do customize my message when things could be CSD'd as an i9. For example this: Image permission problem with Image:Bella with harry belefonte watermarked copy.jpg Or this: Speedy deletion of Image:AsphyxBand.jpg where it was clear the uploader was the photographer and copyright holder but rather than just do a blind i3 I actually asked the user to change the licensing as the source. Which they did. So the concept it not to delete, delete, delete. It is to get the needed information. It is not that hard to do when someone wants to do it. And if there is a better tag that already exists for "no source" please send me that way.

(And by the way - in the above thread you keep missing this line: "So once that is "out of the way"" - as in "forget about the FUR" or "Pretend the FUR was never added" or "If there was no FUR involved". In other words - "if" (there was no fur) "than" (it is a copyvio) "because" (it was taken form the MSNBC website without permission). And as we both know "Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s).")

Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Re 1: I remember the thread, yes. I also remember staying out of it once I realized that I didn't really know enough about images & CSD. However, when I read it now, the full quote from lifebaka was:
  "If they're not free content, they can be deleted under I5 (after the time limit is up). If they are listed as free content, and you think they aren't, use the {{npd}} tag. If they're free, we oughta' keep 'em around and move 'em to commons."
  In this particular instance, it's marked as free content, so it's not an I5. I'm fairly certain that when he said "are free content" he actually meant "are listed as free content", similar to the second sentence. --Amalthea 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Re 2, 3, 4: All images are tagged as self-created ("I, the creator", "I, the copyright holder" or "I, the author"). The source is, quite explicitly, the uploader, and all are labeled as free content. If you doubt the claim (and I would be interested to know why you do) then they should be brought to WP:PUI. In my opinion if there is no reason to doubt the claim then it shouldn't be tagged at all, even if all we know about the source is that it says "I made this", we don't really need to know a source for a free image then.
  Lifebaka and WP:PUI suggests tagging them with {{npd}}, which I don't think is appropriate here if there is no, well, "reasonable doubt". But maybe we should go to WT:IUP or WT:PUI to get more input. --Amalthea 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Concerning the thread above: Hypothetically, if there never was a FUR on that image page, then yes, it's an I9. In the actual case at hand however, a FUR *was* given, and even if it turns or turned out to be invalid it's enough to not make it an I9. It's not that I'm splitting hairs here either; it's going to be deleted either way, but the question is how speedily it should be deleted. If someone made a fair use claim for an image, it should be offered to a forum through WP:IfD or one of the delayed SD criteria. Failing to do so is an assumption of bad faith, and can hurt the project far more than letting it stick around for a couple of days where no user is going to find it anyway (since you can very well remove it from the articles, and I have done that too whenever I have a strong suspicion that an image is non-free).
  An exception can be made in blatantly bad faith cases of course, but I have yet to see such a bad faith FUR. --Amalthea 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to RE the "Re 1" - Yes, that was his first response, in full, and that is why I asked for clarification the second time around and he said the same thing. i5. :) I agree with the i9 use, but that brought me into that suggestion in the first place. That if it is not marked as Fair use i5 does not seem logical, but, as that is what was suggested, I have been using it. Rather the discuss it here please post this questions and comments in the actual proposal thread and it might help to get the g6/g8 wording down do we don't need ot have these sorts of discussions.

As for the "The source is, quite explicitly, the uploader, and all are labeled as free content" comment, that is not the issue at all. Ok, it is the issue because every single image in the "self published" category is labeled as "free content" and it is the uploader who has uploaded the images. If the only criteria used to determine if images in the self-published work were cleared for use was to see if "The source" was, "quite explicitly", the uploader via their claim and were "labeled as free content" than there is zero need to use any of the current image related CSD's. As for "If you doubt the claim (and I would be interested to know why you do) then they should be brought to WP:PUI." Yes, but also when there is no source listed, or no author listed, than we use the existing tags for such. It is almost like you are one side of a wall and I am on the other and I don't get that at all. If you can not look at, for example, Image:Patrick Stump January 2007 Orlando.jpg and Image:Invecenopausini.jpg and see how the first one clearly says where the image came from, what the source is and the name of the photographer while the other says none of that, but, instead you only see that both use a license that says "I, the copyright holder...", than we have to work to break down this wall. But before a comment such as "The second one is clearly mis-licensed" is typed out, look at comments you made already and think about the bigger picture. One lists a source, the other does not. While the second one seems to be an album cover the uploader has, in your words, "clearly asserted" that they are the copyright holder there is no solid proof that they are not actually the creator or copyright holder. So if any editor felt it was mis-licensed isn't also they who would be assuming bad faith? It really does go both ways. I call it being safe, not having bad faith, when asking for either proof of copyright or asking for the source. In this case I would ask the exact same quesiton of the second images uploader - what is the source? If it really is the uploader who is the copyright holder than they can submit an OTRS on it or provide a link to the source website with a valid free license. Lets be more specific and cover both the i5, i9 and permission issues: Compare Image:Rumors - CD Cover.jpg which says "A self-made cover of my own CD" and Image:Albert-hall-cd-cover.jpg which is from Rhino Records but is sourced to Christina Lynn Johnson, MagnetLoft - Vistadeck ID 4507523 because that user took the cover photo. Do we send them both to Pui? Or do we say they second one is a blatant copyvio and send the first one to PUI? Or do you "assume good faith" that the uploader asked the photographer for permission? Or are the uploader and the photographer the same person using two different accounts? Do we ask for a source from both? Neither? Do we ask Rhino records in the case of the second? Or can an editor just claim the images on behalf of "fair use" and slap a FUR on both? If an editor does any of these things does another editor accuse the editor of acting on "bad faith" because of it?

If I may get personal for a moment. On one project I worked on, when it sold to HBO, I was on the phone daily with our lawyer who was on the phone with HBO's lawyers daily making sure all the paperwork was in line. This included contracts, release forms, sync license - all the normal I.P related materials. One of the biggest roadblocks was that the executive producer never obtained a signed contract or agreement for the screenplay. I would get off the phone with the lawyer and call the screenplay author who would refuse to sign anything because they had a "good faith" agreement with the executive producer. (i.e - "verbal agreement") This went back and forth for weeks until they simply decided to agree that copyright was owned by the production company as the author was a "work for hire". That is real world - currently Wikipedia does not allow "work for hire" to be claimed to establish copyright but we seemingly allow "good faith" to override logic that allows asking "Can you tell me who took this picture? If not you, than who did?" because asking that would be in "bad faith." Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:P121957a.jpg

The image does explain authorship. I have further expanded on it.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed the tag asking for source information, but there is no other information that has been provided. The sole description of "Picture taken during a general audience in St. Peter Basilica" is not much information, does not provide the authors name or the source, and was the reason I had asked for a source. I suggest reading the Mini How-To guide and using the template provided. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image on Pandit Jasraj

Hi, you've tagged the image on Pandit Jasraj for deletion for lack of source. I've taken the picture with my Mobile phone. Can you pls tell me how do i authenticate it. Thanks Randhir 07:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take a moment and read the Mini How-To guide and use the template provided. It is not so much to "authenticate" it, it is to provide information on the image, the source and the photographer. If the foundation ever releases a book this information assures proper attribution as well as as accurate details on the image's subject. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A belated apology; and to let you know, I'm around

Hey Soundvisions: I wanted to let you know that I took my "vacation time" from Wikipedia a bit ago. That is, therefore, why I did not reply to your messages on my talk. I wanted to let you know. I feel slightly rude. I will check out the page you mentioned on my talk. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I checked out Alec2011's userpage. Prima facie, I saw no reason for alarm. I did, however, notice that one of our colleagues (Moonriddengrl) had warned him earlier for copyvio issues in his userspace. This would be my concern. I take copyvios (as I know you do, as well) extremely seriously. Likely, I would notify the user of the violation, keep an eye on the situation, see if he fixed it himself, etc. If the trouble continued to manifest, I would even issue a "template" warning (although, this would be after other avenues had been exhausted). If that didn't work, and he continued to reproduce copyvio material on his page: I would post to a board for another admin to take a look at it (I don't like to do adminny-things with those whom I've had conversations with). What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)