Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches

Question

Everything in the walkthrough section is clear and easy to understand, but I'm left wondering how I was supposed to learn/know all of this and which Wiki Page I would go to if I want to learn more. Can there be a Seealso at the top of each section? How would I have learned this info without this tutorial? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)

Precious little has been written about reviewing images. Existing pages generally address only what is acceptable (i.e. what one should consider before uploading), not how determine whether what is already here is acceptable. To my knowledge, Wikipedia only has Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations (which is almost exclusively for copyvio prose) and Commons has Commons:How to detect copyright violations. Knowing, for example, that low resolutions and/or lack of metadata should prompt additional scrutiny is largely knowledge gained from experience uploading and reviewing images. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK :-) So, this Dispatch will fill in the gaps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question II

Regarding "The image usage policy (WP:IUP) requires an image to have three pieces of information": All images? On Commons and on Wiki? Is there a difference ? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)

Yep, all images. WP:IUP is implicitly Wikipedia only (i.e. WP:IUP is not COM:IUP). The relevant Commons policy (COM:L) is stricter, in that it also mandates information (e.g. description, date, etc.) not always required on the Wikipedia side. For the purposes of FA and GA reviewing, inclusion of COM-hosted images in an article certainly subjects the images to WP policy, but it's moot, as WP is more lenient (the FA and GA criteria do not provide consideration of COM policy).

To go on a tangent, the criteria for both processes are poor in this regard. FAC becomes subject to IUP only because the criteria include "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles" (where "requirements" links to a policy list, to which IUP belongs) and GAN is not directly subject to IUP. The criterion only says "images are tagged with their copyright status"; there's no consideration of whether those tags be correct (perhaps implicitly, but the wording is quite open to gaming) or requirement to provide additional information (author, publication date, etc.), which would be necessary to substantiate a claim. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free / Non-Free

I see you've decided to restrict your discussion here to free images. I do hope you'll do a follow-up on non-free images. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the plan. Ideally there would be three (evaluating free, evaluating non-free and one elaborating on public domain), but non-free is a certainty. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

screenshots

Some screenshots of image license pages might be good. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a screenshot and numbering where to look. Image:Rhinebeck screengrab.jpg is probably going to be confusing, as the presence of two sets of licensing information (the screenshot itself and the licensing therefor) may throw the 101 folks off. Image:Rhinebeck screengrab2.jpg is better, as the markup helps distinguish the two. Obviously, it will need some refining. (MS Paint?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a thing

What about licenses such as the one on this image or even this one. They seem fine to me, but they are neither CC nor GFDL. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're indeed fine (meaning images so tagged are valid and free). CC and GFDL are introduced as "Common copyleft licenses", which is perhaps not explicit enough in the articulation that they are but two of many copyleft possibilites. The dispatch has probably already run afoul of WP:TLDR, but, given the sheer and absurd volume of tags, I only wanted to touch on the most common for reasons of practicality and ease of comprehension. If you, however, think it would be helpful to list those as well, by all means let's do it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provenience

What is this?

FoP
Image quality, anachronisms, usw.

Unfinished ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished indeed. I haven't forgetten . ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had me worried :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling it a night. It's still not done, but it's close enough (I suppose?) in case I can't get back to it before it's "published" (I'll be back in ca. 10 hours - there's never enough time...) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Dispatch didn't post til the 9th, so you may have more time. Have fun! I'll read it tomorrow <yawn, bedtime> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoC example

You give the LoC as an example of a reliable site for information about whether or not a work is in public domain. In my experience, however, they don't necessarily give that information. I've been trying to confirm that this image (also found here, by the way) is public domain, for instance, and frankly can't find any verification that it is so, though it would seem almost certainly the case. Specifically, I have no idea of when it was published, either in the USA (if it was) or in France, when the lithographer died (or even necessarily who the lithographer was), or if it is a copy (derivative work) of some prior painting. Incidentally, any clues would be magnificent! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC, of course, does not always have complete information (thus the "Rights status not evaluated" notice on that image). The context in the Dispatch (at least intended - perhaps it isn't sufficiently articulated or clear) is that LoC is a reliable site (e.g. the information it reports, when available, can be assumed to be reliable). This image, for example, has author, date and a declaration of "No known restrictions on publication" (the LoC's "cover our rears" way of saying it's PD); those can be considered reliable assertions. The point I'm trying to get across, simply, is that LoC is a reliable source for image information (certainly not that all images thereon are PD). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC

Re. this edit (and the "common misperceptions" section), would it be possible to list all the acceptable (and perhaps even unacceptable) licenses? For instance, would I be right in saying that the following (and only the following?) are acceptable:

CC-by
CC-by-SA

And the following are unacceptable:

CC-by-NC
CC-by-ND
CC-by-NC-ND
CC-by-NC-SA

Is this a full list? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Ec is concerned about length, but I agree with Jbmurray; I think this is an important Dispatch, will be much read and referred to, and I prefer comprehensive over length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Elcobbola, you've put an enormous amount of work into this Dispatch, and it's much appreciated. Ready for part 2 yet ? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been kind of fun. Although... I have three typewriter-related articles that would be so easy to bring from scratch to FA, but I keep getting side tracked. ;) Is there a projected date for the fair use version? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CC licenses can also add country "modules" (e.g. DE, IN, etc.) to indicate country of publication/origin (e.g. CC-by-DE as a German-specific variant), but I don't think that's really necessary to articlate here. So yes, that would be a complete list.

Comprehensive this dispatch is not (partly why I wanted to split to three); it is very much "101" and stays quite general, so it seems odd to me to include such detail. The dispatch mentions, in several places, that free images need to be licensed to allow derivatives and commercial use. Given that the meanings of NC and ND are articulated, it seems unnecessary to elaborate further. I'm also trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel; pages like Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Comprehensive, although quite out-dated, are already there to lay out the gambit of copyright tags. Part of me feels too much elaboration can even be condescending (i.e. is it disrespectful of our readers' intelligence to assume they can't put two and two together?) Ultimately, however, this dispatch needs to help people and if expanding the CC licenses is really necessary to do that, then let's. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pitched about right. I do think that the above information is useful, as it does seem to be a frequent cause of confusion. I know you don't want to produce a checklist, but if people know that they should look for the acronyms "CC-by" and "CC-by-SA" (and that the others won't do), then that's a help. NB we can always save space by continuing to copy-edit your, ahem, sometimes circumlocutious prose ;). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plead incompetence; images don't seem to mesh into my brain (and particularly not when I'm trying to sort what to do about GimmeBot, a big zap on my time). I'd say, ask Awadewit about the pitch. If Jbmurray and Awadewit are happy, good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verily my verbiage veers verbose. You're actually stripping out more than you may realize; I suspect our real life writings are meant for quite different audiences and that, in turn, is manifested here as, perhaps, disagreement over what is necessary and/or appropriate. In any case, I'll drop Awadewit a note. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

Works so licensed are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all, of the protection that copyright affords them. - This might bear repeating. It is quite important and often misunderstood.
- The concept is also implicitly contained the the "free" definition in the lead. Is there a place in the dispatch where you think it could/should be worked in again?
  - Maybe in the common misconceptions? Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A public domain image may be used freely and without condition by the public at large. - Is it worth noting that public domain images can be altered?
- It certainly wouldn't hurt. Done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the "author" field the strangest in the information template. When you upload to Commons, for example, it asked you who created the file, however that is not always the most relevant information for that field. I don't know if this confused other people, but it sure confused me when I first started uploading.
- Hmm, that seems more pertinent to the uploading side of images - not so much the reviewing side. The Commons' upload forms seem to change every day, so I'm no longer surprised when poor word choices appear. I tend to ignore what it asks for and rely on the preview button to make sure the end result is right - that or just upload the damn thing and enter information "manually" once it's there.) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess what I'm getting at is that this field, because of poor naming etc., might confuse some people and I wondered if it was worth putting special emphasis on what goes in this field. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this would be more germane to, say, User:Mifter/Signpost. From the reviewing standpoint, at the end of the day, all that really matters is that we have the "necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section on "Derivative works" might need a bit of expansion to explain what would be acceptable and what would not be acceptable. An example or two might highlight the issue more clearly.
- I added "acceptable" and "unacceptable" examples. Let me know whether the addition helps/needs more. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent! Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Freedom of panorama" section might confuse some readers. I think the accumulation of jargon might be the problem.
- I tried to clarify but, to my eyes, the only real jargon is "derivative work", which is defined before the FoP section. Is there wording in particular that you think will trip up readers?
  - I think the accumulation of words like "infringe" and "jurisdiction", which is legal terminology, might trip up some readers, but perhaps I am wrong. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wiki-linked "infringe" and changed "jurisdictions" to "countries". Hopefully this will make the section more accessible. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-made": What about adding scanned images claiming to be self-made which can be caught through halftones?
- Good idea. Done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk
What about including something about republication rights and how they sound like "free" works but are not?
- I'm not sure what you mean; can you elaborate? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've often seen republication rights tagged as "free" in some way, but it should be made clear that republication rights are limited and that the author still owns the copyright, making the work a fair use work, not a free work under Wikipedia's system. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I worked this in among the "Imprecise disclaimers". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions help. Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great dispatch

Very informative. I consider myself well-versed in matters of copyright, but I learned a new point or two from this dispatch. I agree that this Dispatch would become a great reference in the future. :-) --seav (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ec, this is a beautiful article. Can we submit it to FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'm sure that would go over really well. I think the "advice" section of WP:WIAFA may be as close at it could get, if that. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just like to second or third the praise...this is great article on an often frustrating topic. Great job!Erudy (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

taking/publishing

Hi. I previously changed the stress in the "freedom of panorama" section from taking photos to publishing. It's been shifted back:

Freedom of panorama is a copyright law provision that allows for photographs to be freely taken of works (e.g. buildings and sculptures) permanently installed in public places, even if the works are still under copyright. (my emphasis)

But surely, except in military states, it is always permissible to photograph outdoor sculptures and buildings etc. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "freely taken" verbiage is from the Commons guideline (obviously, it's not correct there either). I've changed the wording, but I don't think it's optimal. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FU images

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia after Tony removed and I added back "fair use" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the people at NFC are quite insistent that there's no such thing as a fair-use image; only non-free. A fair-use justification is sometimes upheld. Tony (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still catching up this morning, will ask Elcobbola how he can factor that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree. The Wikipedia vernacular, however, tends to use the terms interchangeably. Therefore, as a main goal of this Dispatch was accessibility to the image layman, I do think the inclusion of "fair use" is appropriate. Would something like "or, erroneously, 'fair use'" be workable? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking you might work in Tony's justification word; doing something would be helpful, since idiots like me aren't aware of the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]