Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Amendment/Consensus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This amendment has achieved a strong consensus, and has thus been added to the parent policy page. It was discussed from between June 22nd, 2006 till July 13, 2006. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compliance

[edit]

Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies to the image (though anyone can provide an explanation) and make every attempt to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policies. In addition, the Special:Upload page is very specific about our image upload conditions.

Exceptions

[edit]

Images which have been uploaded before this policy amendment came into effect must not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given 7 days to comply with this policy. After this date the image will then be deleted without further warning if corrective action is not taken.

Consensus

[edit]

Please add a support or oppose to make it easier to see what your position on this matter is. Please note that this is not a vote, it is an attempt to gather consensus. Originally this section had support and oppose sections, but that was making it too much like a vote so they were later removed.

  • Oppose unless provisions are added to allow the editor (or any other editor) to have the image undeleted if he was away for the weekend or something. We can undelete images now, remember. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case we need an images for undeletion process, something this amendment doesn't (and shouldn't) deal with. The thing is, if you upload an image then you should first be aware of images policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh. I suppose so. I was mainly sort of distressed at the idea that people might speedy a reupload of an image that arguably complies with FUC, on the basis that it's recreation of deleted content, rather than sending it to PUI or renotifying. Also, I agree that the waiting period should be a week even for new images, not two days, and I would extend the waiting period for old images to a month so that we can reduce the possibility of an explosion of images deleted when some effort could have whipped together a good justification. I agree with the general idea, but the implementation is slightly too hard-line for my taste. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you've got the buttons, use them.. nothing in policy would preclude you from undeleting if the uploader came back with a valid argument. In any case, it's fair use content we're talking about so in most cases it whould be easy to reupload should the user be unable to find an admin. --Gmaxwell 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveats: I agree with the general merits of this, but first the time period should be 7 days for newly uploaded content, the same as with images where no license is provided. Secondly, I agree with Jamesday that the language is not good. Each image should be accompanied with an explanation of why it is believed to be fair use, but you can't really "prove" fair use. Also anyone can provide that explanation not just the uploader (e.g. the "onus is on..." language is poor). Basically what we need is to pay more attention to Category:Images with no fair use rationale such that users are encouraged visit them and add justification when possible or allow them to be deleted if no justification is given after a reasonable lapse time. Finally, why do we need any of the compliance stuff when we have WP:CSD#I6? Dragons flight 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, and I have changed the language. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CSD#I6 only applies to images tagged with {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}. feydey 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not simply change that to apply to all fair use images rather than relying on specific tags? As a footnote, my comments should be regarded as an oppose if the current language (and especially the only 48 hour part) are pursued as is. Dragons flight 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should we go the whole 7 days? It's silly really. If editors are really away for several months at a time, then 7 days is not going to help them any as the 7 days would have lapsed, and then about 21 days later they come by and find their image is deleted. Also, if they are uploading images, there is an almighty banner that points people to the conditions under which you may upload files to Wikipedia. I have to admit, however, that I didn't see that CSD criteria, but then again this proposal has been ongoing for at least 4-5 months now. I suspect that this amendment actually procedes the CSD amendment. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because any time you change the de facto operating procedure you have to train people in the new methods. Also, training newbies on fair use has got to be harder than training then to report the source and license on their images. I can see no argument why fair use should be dealt with more harshly than other cases where there is missing source and license information. Dragons flight 18:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, then we note the change somewhere prominent. We don't actually train anyone on this site in the first place, we just document procedures and people stumble across them. That's not an issue that is specific to this amendment, however. Also, we are not changing the standard to any great degree, as it's actually the people doing the uploading who are already breaking fair use and copyright policy! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as compromise. I'd still rather see fair-use images banned from Wikipedia altogether (as is the case on de:, for example), but since I doubt there will ever be consensus for that, this is at least a step in the right direction. User:Angr 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per discussion with Ta bu shi da yu below. Also, it would be nice (read: optional) if users other than the original uploader easily could see if an image has been tagged for missing rationale, (e.g. (talk page of) the article(s) with the image,) since not all uploaders regularly visit Wikipedia, and the regular contributors to articles see images more often and are in a better position to add needed rationale. Then, if no suitable rationale has added after a reasonable time, the image can deleted with the knowledge that all attempts were made to provide proper rationale. --DavidHOzAu 07:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with the same caveats mentioned by User:Dragons flight. 48 hours is unnecessarily short (having an image sitting around a few extra days won't kill us). As others have noted, the word "prove" is much too strong; I would say supply sufficient evidence. I also agree with User:DavidHOzAu and suggest the following addition: A notice should also be posted on the talk pages of any articles that use the image. Deco 21:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page shouldn't actually be necessary. Possibly unfree images should be commented out on any pages where they're being used, with an edit summary explaining that the image lacks a source or license tag or whatever. That should be sufficient warning that the image could be deleted soon. User:Angr 05:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why 48 hours is too short a time period. I think your ideas about modifying the language to include providing evidence is good and so have modified the text accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Dragons flight. The simple fact of the matter is that if I upload something on a Friday, there's a very real possibility on a good many weekends that I won't be back to have a look at Wikipedia until Monday. I know some of us are tethered to our computers most of the time, but I think it would be unnecessarily discouraging to a user to have a legitimate fair-use image in place and have to argue to get it retrieved just because he stepped out for a weekend. --Vengeful Cynic 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to oppose to more clearly mark my position in light of the removed subsections. --Vengeful Cynic 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you telling me that it takes more than an hour to provide clear reasons that the image is fair use? Why can't you upload it later? And also, if need be we can now undelete the image. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having to undelete a justifiable image because there was a fair use rationale but it wasn't properly iterated would probably do more harm in discouraging a user than the harm created by leaving a non-fair use picture in play for 5 extra days. I believe that we would display due diligence in attempting to avoid the greater harm of discouraging users and I would further point out that 7 days is not an unreasonable amount of time to wait to dispose of an image that fails fair use. --Vengeful Cynic 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As with all policy on Wikipedia, there is a great deal of leeway for admins. However, policy enforcement should always be done with a great deal of common sense. With the ability to undelete images, admin actions can now be overridden by another admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because almost all image use on Wikipedia will be fair use in the eyes of the law, so it's actually operating exactly in the opposite way to the way the law can be expected to decide. Only a few very narrow cases like "artistic work used solely for artistic value" would really be clearly not fair use. The proposal also sets an impossible standard, since proof requires a court case and the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Effectively, the proposal asks for deletion of every fair use image, since none have yet been subject to such a court decision. An author should, of course, be asked to explain, but that's a very different thing from proving. For those new to fair use, two days is probably inadequate to do the learning and asking - we should be allowing time for them to ask for assistance and for our existing review mechanisms that are open to them to be used. 7 days for previously uploaded images should also be obviously inadequate, since people are often absent for months at a time and the imagees did pass our review standards and fair use tests at the time they were originally uploaded. They haven't suddenly become not fair uses today. Why is the uploader the only person permitted to explain the fair use case? Anyone can analyse fair use and nobody should be suggesting deletion without having done at least a cursor fair use examination first. Jamesday 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see points #1, #5, #9, and #10 as being the most important parts of the fair-use criteria, none of which is affected in the least by copyright case law. --Carnildo 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhat confused: "almost all image use on Wikipedia will be fair use in the eyes of the law". The image I uploaded as GFDL most certainly won't! Perhaps I'm missing something here. However, rewording the amendment to remove the "proof" statement might be a good idea. I would like to reiterate that we have a fair use criteria very clearly laid out, and so people don't have an excuse to not give fair use rationales. For the time frame, 48 hours is to have them make a response, or at least start on one. If they have uploaded an image, they should be reading fair use policy before doing the uploading. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisiting this comment, I see that you also aren't happy about 7 days for existing images. 7 days are our existing criteria, why is that not good enough? If the person is away for monehts, then potentially that means a copyright violation stays on the site for months! I don't think that is very acceptable. I have reworked most of the rest of the language you have objected to. 48 hours is not too short a period of time for new "fair use" images. If someone uploads a file, they have no excuse not to have read the very clear warnings on the upload page!!! That's why I said the onus should be on the uploader, though I can see that might not be 100% correct. Nonetheless, the final responsibility of providing copyright information about an image does rest with the person uploading the image. Others can obviously also provide it, but my point is that they have no excuse that they didn't know about copyright policy on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying we shouldn't have images on Wikipedia because the law does not want to consider any of them possibly "free"?  Denelson83  02:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose Almost everything on wikipedia is fair use. Just because the author didn't give proof doesn't mean it isn't. Most of the pics deleted if this passes will be fair, and will be deleted just because there is not enough info to be certain. That's dumb. A lot of times, uploaders don't know how to make their file fair use. Rather than threatining them with deleting it, show them how to make it fair use. When I first uploaded files, I made a lot of errors and it certainly took more than 2 weeks to get the hang of it. Many of the pics that will be deleted if this passes are widely used, meaning that many beautifuly ilistarted pages will be worsened, and also meaning that someone is going to have to go through and change it everytime there is a link to a deleted photo. This is a horrible idea. Tobyk777 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, it is an inaccurate statement to say that almost everything on Wikipedia is fair use. I'm sure that this man would dispute the statement. Fair use is frowned upon but tolerated on Wikipedia. Since when did we stop emphasising this? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, about 3% of images on Wikipedia are unlicensed and used under fair use. Physchim62 (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't understand what I'm saying. Assuming your number is correct 3 precent of pics have enough backround information to be confirmed to be fair use. The other 97% could be fair use. We just don't have enough information on the source to know whether they meet the requirements. Alot of pics fit the criteria and we just don't know it because no one has ever bothered to insert the information. Way more than 3 precent of our pics are fair use. This proposal will delete tens of thousands of useful, legal, fair use photos, simply because of ignorance. Instead of deleting them, find the uploaders and ask them for the info. Don't fear the unknown. Turn the unknown into the known. Tobyk777 07:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • When Physchim62 says "3% of images on Wikipedia are unlicensed and used under fair use" the implication is that the other 97% are freely licensed (public domain, GFDL, a Creative Commons License allowing commercial use and derivatives, etc.). Freely licensed images are not going to be affected by this proposal. User:Angr 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And they can be undeleted if indeed someone comes with a reason to keep them. Titoxd(?!?) 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain where that comes from? I have difficulty believing it is that low given that this is the encyclopedia with features on Spoo, Bulbasaur, and TARDIS, to say nothing of fair use magnets like List of Final Fantasy VI characters. Dragons flight 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose or Reword Deleting because something doesn't have a separate rationale section is largely redundant, as referred to by (10). For example, consider {{Game-screenshot}}. If this strict enforcement gets passed, expect to have templates like this appearing three times for license, rationale, and source, which IMHO is just a waste of resources on image pages. Furthermore, if an image page already says what articles use it and the license contains enough rationale as it is, I fail to see the logic behind this requirement. I suggest that (10) be reworded to allow source, license, and rationale in the same section instead of passing policy that absolutely requires redundant information in all cases. Wikipedia policy should not be blindly enforced without considering context. --DavidHOzAu 08:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate those boilerplate templates!!!! There was a TIME one that caused us a lot of grief. You can't just state that something is fair use in general and then expect it to actually be fair use! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If all boilerplate templates are bad then let's accept this amendment and watch the majority of images get deleted. (Unless you've forgotten, even GFDL images made by the submitter use a boilerplate template.) Besides, when something is obviously a screenshot from a game and is used to illustrate a point in absence of other material, especially if the screenshot actually *is* the incident being documented, this bit of criteria makes no sense. Note also that while I am not disagreeing with the spirit of the amendment, I strongly oppose the proposed manner of enforcement. Thus, I will iterate it again: Wikipedia policy should not be blindly enforced without considering context. --DavidHOzAu 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misread me. I didn't say that all boilerplate templates were bad, just the fair use ones. I totally agree that policy shouldn't be blindly enforced, and in much the same way I don't believe that fair use templates should be used in a manner that may or may not be correct in the context of how an image is used. Please note that a GFDL template merely notes the license and does not have to give a justification for it. It's basically a pretty way of writing "This image is released under the GFDL". Fair use images require explanations as to why they are fair use. Images marked with {{gfdl}} either are or are not licensed under the GFDL: there is no grey area on this license. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I see. My concern was that a lot of free-to-use promotional art from press kits would be slated for removal, and the odd screenshot or two used to demonstrate points thrown in too. If however there are ways around this with proper rationale, I'll list a support vote in the list above, along with a little suggestion about making identified images that do not have rationale visible to other editors too. ;-) --DavidHOzAu 07:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What a lot of editors don't understand is that just because there is a fair use boilerplate (for stamps, magazine covers and screenshots in particular) doesn't make the use of the image fair use. Fair use is a property of the particular usage of the image in the article and not an inherent property of the image. So a GFDL tag declaring the image is GFDL is great - the image is GFDL anywhere! Just saying an image is a magazine cover doesn't make it fair use everywhere and in any usage - the usage needs a rationale. Worse still are stamps - they are misused horribly, maybe even worse than the Time covers were. They definitely need a rationale since the boilerplate makes clear that the status of stamp images is a little dodgy! TheGrappler 07:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The current criteria make sense, protect us legally, and the reasons given to change the status quo are, I believe, purely cosmetic. --Improv 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that I haven't changed any of the fair use criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ta bu is right.. as it stands today in order to delete something which breaks our fair use criteria we either must ignore policy (which is commonly done) or we must orphan the images (which converts them into orphaned fair use tagged works which is a criteria for speedy deletion). This change will not impact behavior substantially and it will make our written policy (The written tao is not the tao) more clear and consistent with reality. --Gmaxwell 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per Carnildo and Jkelly – Gurch 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This just complicates the submission process. Also "explain and provide evidence"? Not everybody trying to help here is an expert in fair use or legalese, and even that, the explanation could give way to discussions. Perhaps if we were provided with with some easy to choose explanations like the pull-down menu to choose the disclaimer it would be easier. But like this? Too complicated and redundant. And I'm sorry, but I don't understand this paranoia against fair use. --Andromeda 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't "paranoia"; Wikipedia is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia, and using unfree images under a claim of "fair use" is diametrically opposed to that goal. Fair-use images are simply anti-Wikipedian. User:Angr 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an uploader can't explain why an image is being used under fair use, then how can they say it is a fair use image? If the uploader finds fair use that complicated, then they should refrain from uploading fair use images. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pulldowns cause license roulette which is far worse than no explanation at all.. this is why our license pulldown is boobytraped. When we first put the drop down in we started getting hundreds of uploads, most of which were just found-on-the-web images, taged as GPLed images. We need competent people to audit these things, and presumably thats what the deleting admin is in these cases. If some admin is making mistakes, be sure to bring it to his attention.--Gmaxwell 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) Some articles, for its own nature, can't be illustrated without fair-use images. In the wikipedias were fair-use images had been banned, these articles look very sorry indeed. If it's legal, I'm sorry but I don't see the problem.
        2) Yes, but there are two different things. One thing is asking the people to write a rationale and the other auditing it. A lot of people find legalese very difficult and asking them to write a rationale might be more difficult than you think. Of course there are people who abuse the system. There always is. But this doesn't mean this had to be more difficult for the people who are sincerely trying their best. Can't we find an equilibrium between the two points? Perhaps an upload limit per day? I don't know. The point I was trying to make is that writing a rationale, for many well-meaning people, is not as easy as it sounds. --Andromeda 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please look at the upload log. In no way would an upload limit help unless the limit was zero. A lot of the people supporting this have been spending a lot of time on this subject area, at some point you need to either trust the experts or dig in and research for yourself. Saying "because this article is about a modern band we can't illustrate it other than by fair use images" is the sort of additional explanation I'd expect from joe average. We have instructions on writing rationale, but you just produced a basic one without assistance. I don't see the problem. --Gmaxwell 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was just a random idea. I know from experience that it's hard to run a site and dealing with users, I'm not downplaying the experts efforts here. They do have my respect. About the rationale, you say "because this article is about a modern band we can't illustrate it other than by fair use images" is a valid explanation, but looking at the explanation page, it makes you feel like more is expected. Sorry, I just remember being intimidated (and sometimes frustrated) with all the documentation at the beginning, afraid I was going to make some big faux-pas. --Andromeda 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand that :-) But the thing is, do take the time to acquaint yourself with fair use. We have a great article at fair use that explains it quite clearly. You can always store the image locally and upload it later! - Ta bu shi da yu 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are arguing a seperate case. We are not saying "don't use fair use images at all". We are saying: "provide us evidence that it being utilised as a fair use image". Again I say: if you don't know what fair use is, and you can't provide a rationale, then don't upload the image and say it is fair use. It may very well not be being used correctly under fair use doctrine. As the original amendment stated: the onus is on the one doing the uploading to explain why the image is a fair use image. If the contributor doesn't know enough to explain, then they don't understand fair use and shoudl therefore not be uploading images and tagging them as fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Now that image undeletion has been enabled we can be more agressive in deleting images. Haukur 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support anything that gives us more power to constrain the fair use fifth column. - FrancisTyers · 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Forty-eight hours is more than enough time for an editor to provide evidence for FU; ideally, one would have that information in hand before uploading an image and could enter it during the upload process. Another point to consider is that images labelled as "Fair Use" when they in fact are not seem to be increasingly used to vandalize articles. -- Polaris999 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Definitely not everything, nor even close to everything, would be considered fair use by the courts. Why did Jimbo yell at me when I was a relative Wiki-newbie if that weren't true? Because it is simply not guaranteed to be true, so we need to take a more aggressive stance that safeguards the project from a legal perspective as much as possible. If there's no fair use rationale, or an invalid one, give the user a chance to defend himself, but delete it quickly if he doesn't. A week is too long in most cases, and in the case that a good argument is made later, send it through the existing undeletion process, Deletion review, which should be able to handle the extra "load". Titoxd(?!?) 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neither workable nor achievable right now. The wording is bad. The time limits not thought through. It has the balance all wrong. All that is likely to happen is that we will spend our time deleting and undeleting images, with big lists of each, and images jumping between them over and over, with rows over "that qualifies. No it doesn't. Yes it does. That explanation is satisfactory. No it isn't. That is being deleted, undeleted, no deleted, etc replicating our correct AfD at its worst. In the last few weeks I've been told over and over that I had unloaded images without justifications when the explanations were in black and white on the file, that I had uploaded images without sources (when the sources were explicitly there) and other clangers by bots making mistakes. Until you get some professionalism into the system all this will achieve is more hamfisted amateurism making more bureaucracy. Get the systems and the law right first, then the application. This is doing it the wrong way around and will simply add to the mistakes, the bureaucracy and the mess, and cause more rows with little legal benefit. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must disagree, I doubt that we will be deleting and undeleting images. What in particular is wrong with the wording? Also, the time limit is quite fair because those doing uploads and claiming that the image is fair use should reading what fair use is firstly, then reading what is required when using the fair use license, and then providing such evidence on the image description page. All these things hould be doine within the first few hours of uploading the image! If you don't have time for this, then don't upload a fair use image. As for supplying images without sources on the image: use some commonsence, please! It's not hard to provide the source on the image upload page. However, this is not an issue that is dealt with in this policy amendment. Fair use images require fair use rationales, if they can't be provided again I say don't upload the image! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: 7 days is a better time, It gives people time to think/cool off/new users work out what "delete" means. Brian | (Talk) 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it a better time frame? Please don't give me the excuse that newbies won't know what delete means! That is extremely obvious. Also, Special:Upload is prominently displayed when uploading an image and clearly explains what is required. Like I say above, people should be explaining why an image is fair use within the first few hours of uploading an image, not within a week! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although cautiously. I worry that some of the comments above are fairly militant in tone. For example, referring to a "fifth column" of fair-use supporters, with all the pejorative connotations of being a traitor such a term implies. Is a person who uploads a scan of a book cover to illustrate an article about a book and tags it as "fair use" a traitor to Wikipedia? I think most Wikipedians would answer no, but if there are a few who feel so strongly that no fair use images should ever be used under any circumstances, adopting the proposal may provide a cover for speedy deleting legitimate images that one person or another happens to dislike. Who will make the final determination whether a fair use rationale is "good enough?" Does this come down to each individual administrator's judgment? Most Wikipedians (and of course admins) are of good will, and the mere possibility that a good policy like this one could be abused should not prevent it from being enacted. Non-tagged / no-rationale images should clearly be deleted, and quickly; 48 hours seems perfectly reasonable. But the "Exception" clause above is critical, and there needs to be a process for dealing with images where some people believe the image qualifies under fair use and others disagree. Fairsing 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good comments :-) A few things though: 1. admins can now reverse image deletion decisions, and 2. admins should not be using this amendment to delete images where the editor has given a good faith attempt at explaining why it is fair use. After that Wikipedia:Fair use review should be used if someone disputes this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, they "should not" behave this way, but the level of emotion / passion indicated in some of the comments above makes me worry that some admins will adopt an unnecessarily unilateral approach to the issue. For example, an admin who posted to this discussion above flatly states "Fair-use images are simply anti-Wikipedian." Another admin above refers to the fair-use policy as the "Copyvio's charter." These are pretty black & white views, and don't exactly make a (non-admin) editor like myself think that my poor little fair use image (tagged appropriately and all) is going to survive the wave of deletions that some are apparently just waiting to unleash. But I've made my point, and am going to assume good faith here, and hope that admins behave as you note they "should." So, again cautiously, I remain supportive of the ammendment. Fairsing 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This remark really hits home for me, because I just uploaded a number of scans of book covers to articles that discuss those books, mostly but not exclusively Henry James novels. (See The Ambassadors for an example.) I don’t want to think of myself as a Wikipedia fifth columnist, or as doing anything that could possibly get the encyclopedia in trouble. That’s because I can’t see how I’m violating the rights of either author or publisher. Quite the contrary, in fact. Penguin, one of the leading publishers of James’ works, will only be too happy for the free publicity on one of the web’s most trafficked sites. And James himself, if he were still around, would probably get a small smile out of the whole rumpus. I can see him jotting down the idea in his Notebooks for a brief satire on Internet conniptions.
I’ve included a fair use rationale for the image, but as Fairsing says, who knows if an admin will find it persuasive? Not to sound like I’m poor-mouthing myself or begging for sympathy, but I’m just a run-of-the-mill editor. If I get into a dispute with a justly respected and well-supported admin like Ta bu shi da yu, I sure wouldn’t bet on me. In fact, I’d probably be more willing to support an outright ban on fair-use images rather than the current proposal. I think such a ban would be way too strong and unnecessary, but at least it would be a clear policy and would save everybody a lot of wikistress. It seems to be what many admins want, anyway.
And if it means that the pretty picture of The Ambassadors cover has to go, well, I'll live with it. Casey Abell 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... interesting article about The Ambassadors... I think I'll go read that novel now. Anyway, back to the point. Your fair use rationale is pretty sound, IMO, and if I was concerned with it I would take it to fair use review. I wouldn't delete it summarily, and if an admin did I would suggest that it be taken to an images for undeletion page (is there one?). - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, but I really would prefer an outright ban on fair use rather than the current finger-waving, you-might-get-in-trouble-with-some-admin-somewhere-down-the-line approach. As I say on my user page, I really am an exopedian. I just want to work on the articles and attract as little attention as possible from any admin for any reason. I debated long and hard about posting anything here, and when I see shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later comments, I have to wonder if the whole thing is worth the trouble. Why don't we just get it over with and ban fair use images? I think that's way too drastic, but it's better than the current sword of Damocles dangling over anybody who uploads a scan of a book cover. Casey Abell 10:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too think that Fairsing has some very good points, namely that Administrators may (and will) tag fair-use images unfairly. In fact, this occurred two days ago to an image I uploaded. It took me two days for me to see the message Orphanbot added to my talk page, (I had semester exams to do,) and I immediately went about adding a very extensive text about the section with extensive legalese. What concerns me is that editors who did not opt for a university degree would not be able to argue rationale for fair-use like this. I can clearly see the day when all fair-use images will simply not be good enough even for uploaders with the best of intentions; it's just the way things are. In this respect, we should be very very careful about giving deletionists more powers and excuses to delete. (I use the term 'deletionist' in the strictly technical sense.) --DavidHOzAu 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think I may have stated it before, but my support vote (far) above is conditional that a loose (in the unfair sense) interpretation of the fair use criteria is not verbatimly cited as reason for deletion when in reality they simply do not personally like the image. --DavidHOzAu 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that is just a given. Any admin deleting images because they don't like them and who do not take the image to IFD should be taken aside and firstly very sternly talked to then, if they persist, desysopped. I've never seen this happen in normal practice, however, because no admin has ever been that silly. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the tagging of that image was unfair? It didn't have a source and was tagged as not having a source. User:Angr 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It had a source in the sense that it said it came from a presskit and that the source was Sega... there is, after all, only one Sega website out there with presskits. --DavidHOzAu 05:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the image deletions can now be reversed, there is less reason to have to be cautious, particularly in clear violations of policy. Harro5 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fair use is going to be what biographies has been for Wikipedia so far: the stick which the anti-Wikipedians use to beat us with in the popular press. It is vital we are able to counter their criticisms, and this is just one way (although a very important one) in which we can do that. Batmanand | Talk 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Metric buttload as per Carnildo. Shoot first, ask questions later, and you'll be correct about 95% of the time. — Jun. 27, '06 [10:17] <freak|talk>
  • Comment: If the uploading editor is on a declared vacation or 'wikibreak' (via user page or talk page comments, as I'm about to do next week), will the deletion deadline be extended until that person has returned? Will attempts be made to contact that person via e-mail? I only bring this up because I have uploaded any number of book covers and such. I've not put fair use rationale onto every such image I've uploaded, I'm not sure I'll be able to before I have to leave town for a while.
    • Depends on the admin I suppose, but it would be very much encouraged that this be done. Incidently, please place fair use rationales on your images, whoever you are :-) Regardless of this policy amendment, existing policy states that you must do so anyway. Ta bu shi da yu 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Carnildo and Jkelly. -- Get_It 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fair use itself is problematical, but it will probably always be expanded beyond its proper bounds by well-meaning editors who don't understand the ins and outs, therefore quick deletion of improper fair-use images is appropriate. Herostratus 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AlethiophileEvil Kitten wants you to TALK TO ME 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per, inter al., JamesDay. Carnildo is altogether correct that our current fair use policies with respect to images are more restrictive than United States copyright law, for one, would require; the solution, though, is not to comport our deletion criteria with our use criteria but rather to amend our use criteria such that we don't inordinately confide ourselves. I absolutely do not understand the impulse, ostensibly borne out either of moral concerns (viz., that the fact of an action's non-proscription is not a per se justification for our undertaking it) or practical concerns (to-wit, that we ought to avoid gray areas in order that admins shouldn't expend exorbitant effort attempting to ascertain whether a given use is permissible); the former are wholly unencyclopedic and the latter, IMHO, dramatically overestimate the prospective problems. In any case, this amendment is likely, as Hero, inter al., notes, appropriate if we are to maintain our present policies; whether we should retain those policies, though, is a wholly different question, and one that ought not to be ignored. Joe 06:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree. Our fair use policies are not overly more restrictive that U.S. copyright law holds. The law states in 17 U.S.C. § 107 that:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
  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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
We want our work to be freely redistributable, and so we have made it clear that fair use images should only be used in articles where they are absolutely necessary. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, our policy on fair use, details all these things. It is perfectly fair and reasonable.
However, this is all getting beside the point. If you are unhappy with existing policy, may I suggest that you try to get it changed? As for it being a moral issue, that has never been my point. That this is an issue where we want our work to be redistributable without the constraints of fair use is. We obviously must allow fair use in certain cases, almost nobody is disputing this. However, if an editor wants to use a fair use image in Wikipedia, then they must be able to clearly show that they understand fair use and how to apply it. This is why fair use rationales are so important. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if the above law had been a bit more specific as to how to interpret the above four factors, rather than simply saying "they are to be considered". For example, the reason Wikipedia can't use images licensed for noncommercial use only is that the content has to be free for re-use, including commercial re-use. Yet point (1) above suggests that perhaps commercial use might not be considered fair use -- but doesn't come out and say that, just says it's a factor to be considered. It would be great if some lawyerly type here could report on whether there's a precedent in U.S. law on whether or not fair use can be claimed in the case of commercial use. User:Angr 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at Ta bu's talk, mainly to the effect that, whilst this amendment properly follows from our current fair use policies, certain of those policies ought to be reexamined.
  • Supporting
  • Better enforcement
  • Process is harmless
  • Backlogs can be cleared
  • "Foul use" can be more easily curbed
  • Undeletion considered if uploader objects
  • Image undeletion feature does nothing to the usual 7-day grace period
  • "Free images" are preferred anyway on Wikipedia
  • Administrators' reasons for image deletions can now be reviewed and possibly invalidated (Added by  Denelson83  at 05:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Opposing
  • "Free image" concept has been interpreted as illegal
  • Process contributes to bureaucratic creep
Anything I missed? --  Denelson83  02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Fairsing's comment above. --DavidHOzAu 05:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support wholly. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Do we currently have a template for image tagging, if this becomes an addition? Iolakana|T 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Travb (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would only encourage mechanical deletions as a substitute of actual work with image resources. Novices who upload images would get discouraged and won't try any more (and being notified by a bot is very clear telling to fuck off, btw). The void may get filled by people who properly tag license but whose images are of low value. The effort should concentrate on quality of images, their number, quality and appropriteness. There should be a way to label article as well covered with images. There should be clear and visible way to request image for article. (This vote is IMHO symptom of low ability to concentrate on real problems (how to improve and keep quality of articles), diverting the time and attention to much less important bureaucratic procedures.) Pavel Vozenilek 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who constantly upload unfree images to make articles prettier should be discouraged and not try anymore. And this discussion is about a very real problem which needs much time and attention: the proliferation of unfree images on Wikipedia. Using unfree images, however pretty, does not improve the quality of articles. There is in fact a clear and visible way to request images for articles: Wikipedia:Requested images, as well as the templates {{Image requested}} and {{Photo requested}} which can be put on article talk pages. User:Angr 11:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. This policy is actually quite the reverse of what you say, if anything it will encourage people, novice or not, to a) find only appropriate fair use images where there is clear reasoning behind why fair use is to be used, and b) encourage them to use freely usable and unconstrained images (preferrably licensed under the GFDL). This policy does not tell people to be rude when informing the uploader that fair use is not being applied properly. I would think that this would be frowned upon as a matter of course — it is possible to gently educate someone as to fair use policy. As for being notified by a bot: that has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment doesn't talk about the mechanics of how to list the images, and says nothing about fair use criteria itself except that if it is not followed then new images will be deleted within 48 hours. Currently we have to focus on the problem of how to stop those who are trying to say an image is a fair use image inappropriately. You would not believe the amount of time I've wasted on such people! I'd also like to point out that just because a fair use image is added to an article, this does not mean that the article becomes of higher quality. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While undeletion technically works, the purpose of a full weeks warning is to make it clear that the uploader had fair time to resource or tag the image. 2 days just isn't enough time (hell, I've uploaded images, forgetting a rationale, and not gotten on WP again for 2 days. I'd had to have to go through undeletion, as a new user, for a simple mistake or bit of missing data). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, that is not how things usually work out. I reiterate that new users should be reading fair use policy and must explain why the image is of fair use. Saying they didn't remember really isn't good enough, and 48 hours notice is more than sufficient time for them to fix the issue. If they are smart enough to know how to upload an image, they should be able to use DRV. If we get a boilerplate on this issue, we'll make a note about the option to go through DRV. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes. Time to clean up. (And really, even before undeletion of images was enabled -- fair use images originated somewhere other than the uploader; it is possible to find and reupload anything removed mistakenly.) There is too much improperly-placed content that gets uploaded and forgotten. We should do everything we can to encourage and keep truly free content, but keeping unfree content we should do only where necessary and only where we can strongly justify it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; we need to reduce our exposure; claiming fair use can not be done casually, and it often is. Antandrus (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely, though merely one step along what will be a terribly long road. James F. (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per all the arguments above. --bainer (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is unwarranted copyright paranoia. Has Wikipedia ever been legally threatened for using a copyrighted image? And two days? Come on. Joelito (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly. This is an encyclopedia of freely distributable content. We should be using fair use images with the utmost reluctance, and those who do think we need to use them should be providing us with an explanation of why they believe that the image is being used under fair use doctrine. Too many people are uploading copyright violations and labelling them "fair use", so we are asking them to provide an explanation that shows they understand fair use. Most people haven't been. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand fair use? It seems to me (having read some comments) that you (and other people in this encyclopedia) are creating new interpretaions of fair use. Joelito (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? That's a big call. In what way have I misinterpreted fair use legal doctrine? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Misinterpreted? No. Overinterpreted. Yes Where are the legal casses on which our fair use policy is based on? Joelito (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be demonstrating quite aptly that you fail to understand Wikipedia's stance on image copyrights - we do not have policy merely to prevent us from being "legally threatened for using a copyrighted image" (and obviously you don't contribute at the level where we all see such things rather often). As such, to be blunt, why should we listen to your opinion? James F. (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. In what way have I create a new interpretation of fair use? I can explain fair use by quoting 17 U.S.C. § 107. Then I can quote Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons and Grand Upright v. Warner for where a court has gone against the one claiming fair use. Then we have Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which ultimately found that you need to prove each of the 4 criteria of 17 U.S.C. § 107 if you want to prove fair use. Now, back to what you are saying: how have I overinterpreted this law? So now it's my turn: how have you demonstrated that you understand fair use? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I not demonstrated that I understand fair use? Are any of the pictures I have uploaded a violation of Wikipedia Fair use policy? Good cases you present. Sadly, both defendants were profitable organizations unlike Wikipedia. Even more, our fair use criteria are more rigid than those of the U.S. legal system. Sadly, my question has not been answered. Has Wikipedia ever been legally threatened for having a copyrighted image more than 2 days on its servers? As a side note, why don't we have images of the pictures in the Rogers vs. Koons case? Not valid as fair use? Joelito (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is not to prevent law suits, but rather to enforse our exsisting policies, also wikipedia is designed so that it can be used by profitable organizations so we can not relay on using the non-comercial reasoning for anything --T-rex 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    T-rex, James, and Ta bu are altogether correct; the proposed amendment follows quite well and properly from our current fair use policies. Whether those policies are wholly faultless, though, is a different question, one on the disposition of which the question of the continued necessity of the amendment turns. Even as a forum such as this is not the best place at which to discuss the propriety of minor tweaks (to say nothing of categorical changes) of our policies with respect to fair use, it is a forum in which such questions can be raised, if only because one rarely finds pages at which those who quarrel with our current fair use policies do so other than (a) tendentiously, with an eye toward wholly improper uses (e.g., in userspace) without encyclopedic purpose and/or (b) ignorantly, being poorly versed in copyright law. On the issue of whether our stance on image copyrights, viz., that our policies do not exist solely to immunize us against civil suit, is the correct one, I've replied on Ta bu's talk (in furtherance of a discussion of my oppose supra, and lest this page should become even longer); in sum, I'm not at all convinced that we ought always to prefer free to nonfree content (some, I readily recognize, view our preferring free content as inextricable to our nature as a free encyclopedia, but I don't find their contentions to be persuasive). Joe 04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak whatever. The intentions are good, and this will take care of most of the "bad" fair use, but the "pushing for a rationale" part has been, in my opinion, always half-baked. There are many blanket fair uses for fair use images, mostly movie posters, album covers, book covers, etc. in the article about the movie, album, book in question, where one fair use rationale basically fits all, fill in the publisher here. Many of them aren't used anywhere else. So we have a lot of rewriting of the same text, and you know what? We have mechanisms for that. There will be a lot of copying and pasting going on, and noone will do anything about it, and in these cases it's basically just a harrassment for being an evil fair user, taking up time that could've been spent more productively than writing lines for no reason. But if this needs to be done to stop the tide of crap, so be it. Neither support nor oppose from me. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just because something like fair use "can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images" is not a reason to make it easier to delete these images. If editors are not using fair use correctly, then we should work to educate them better. Heck, if we started going after anything on Wikipedia that "can be, or has been" used incorrectly we'd have to shut the whole site down. In addition, this seems like a first step toward banning the use of any fair-use images on Wikipedia. Like it or not, fair use is a valuable part of the United States copyright system. I am also troubled by the short time span given for editors to respond to a possible deletion. Not every editor logs into Wikipedia every day or two.--Alabamaboy 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more troubled that there are people out there who are not taking the time to understand fair use and provide an explanation as to why the image is being used under fair use doctrine. Exactly how long do you think it takes to add this? Also, you should not be concerned about the length of time as images are now undeletable. As for being the first attempt at getting rid of fair use images, that is not the purpose of this amendment. I am well aware that fair use is a valuable part of the U.S. copyright system, and in fact nobody hear is disputing this, but you can't just upload an image and say "This is fair use" and expect to get away with it if you can't even demonstrate that you understand what fair use actually is! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't think of anything to say that hasn't already been said. Extraordinary Machine 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bot notifications these notices really should be delivered by humans (or at least each one should be signed by a human who has at least looked at the specific image and established that the notice is needed) just to make the contact less obnoxious and so that the recipient has someone to respond to with questions or whatever. No opinion for now about the rest of the proposal, might add one later. Phr (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comments

[edit]

Hey, I thought this wasn't supposed to be a vote ("It is not a vote"). Sure looks like a vote to me. Oh well. I support the Non-compliance part and oppose the Exception part. If we're going to do this, might as go full force. I don't see any significant drawback to adopting the resolution without the exception. Kaldari 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you'd like, I can remove the sections. I just figured it would make it easier to see opposition and as such make it easier to correct anything in the amendment that needs changing. This definitely isn't a vote, though I admit it looks like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD's supposedly not a vote either. I think to say something is "not a vote" just means that the outcome will be based on consensus and discussion, not on the number of votes in each category. There is some risk though that the headers could create a false dilemma. Deco 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... well, in my own defense, there is no proper guideline to how to kick one of these things off (which is why it has hung around for so long) so I'm making it up as I go... I'll remove the headings. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generally we just edit the page and add the intended text... but because when you started this there was so much smoke and sound it wouldn't have stuck.--Gmaxwell 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, a lot of people are afraid of making big changes to hot articles simply because they fear the possible repercussions, and they don't know how to get a consensus of support for their changes.  Denelson83  02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusion: I've never understood the special status of images (as opposed to other media) on non-article pages. If I support some argument on a discussion page by quoting a few sentences from a copyrighted reference book, that's no different from a fair use point of view from embedding an image for similar purposes, as far as I can tell. Phr (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria/Amendment/Consensus&oldid=1211979365"