Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok

message: I agree with both of Robth's caveats. I realize that incivility is no excuse for further incivility, and I know I need to try harder to be polite no matter what is thrown at me. I think he's right about accusations of bad faith, and I shouldn't have done that, whatever my thoughts; I should have just pointed out Sebeng's edit history and let people draw their own conclusions. I will try hard not to do either of these things in the future. I would also like to add, though, that I'm certain this RfC still would have been filed even if my conduct was 100% exemplary, simply because I'm tagging these images. —Chowbok ☠ 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Robth's caveats 

message: In response to Badagnani; I was focusing on tagging promophoto-tagged photos; specifically I started at "Q" and went down through the alphabet. I agree that I wasn't tagging the articles initially because there wasn't really a good procedure for that (which I complained about here, as a matter of fact). Once somebody came up with a template to add to photo captions, I started doing that on all articles that images I tagged were in (except ones in infoboxes with no caption parameter; I'm not sure what to do about those). I would also respectfully disagree that I "[do] not acknowledge those instances (namely, those images that are irreplaceable or extremely difficult to recreate) when fair use is the only option at this time", although I think it's indisputable that I have stricter criteria for determining this situation than does Badagnani. See for instance here, here, and here for a few examples of when I changed my mind on a tag based on uploaders' irreplaceability arguments. Of course, this doesn't reflect the vast number of images I looked at and didn't tag in the first place because I wasn't sure they were replaceable; if anyone's really bored, they can compare my image edit history with the promophoto category and see what I skipped. —Chowbok ☠ 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Badagnani's comments 

message: #I think it's telling that everybody so far (most recently Fourdee) who has said I am inappropriately placing tags has yet to give a specific example. I'm ready to defend any tag I placed, but it's much easier just to say I'm wrong and avoid specifics completely.
#Sebbeng and I live in the same neighborhood of Chicago. That's not really relevant to anything, I just thought it was funny. We probably pass by each other all the time at the Co-Op (the local grocery store). —Chowbok ☠ 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been mentioned (above) that it isn't solely the tagging that is at issue.  Badagnani 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was. But when Fourdee says something like that I am "placing the tags improperly", it would be nice to have specifics so I can at least clear up my thinking on the issue. —Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to above point #1"placing the tags improperly" I will give the example of Cassandra_Ford.  This is an image released by publisher to public domain.  Did I just tag with wrong copyright then?  What is the right tag?Hackajar 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a specific general Public Domain tag there someplace. See, that's another problem: when you're uploading images, the pulldown doesn't give you the full range of acceptable license tags. This makes it really difficult for people to find the correct one. TheQuandry 03:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? I didn't touch that image. This is the first time I've seen it. How is that an example? —Chowbok ☠ 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it was the band photo that you tagged, not her individual pic.  Both were from same press junket though.Hackajar 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple random thoughts 

message: The below is text I have tried to streamline from what I had originally put in my endorsement comment; Irpen said it was too long and needed to go in its own section. 
I disagree with Chowbok that he is implementing policy the way it is intended to be implemented and if the consensus is that people are supposed to go deleting all fair use promophotos one encounters after just sticking a tag up, when only a tiny percentage of people in the community have heard of this supposed new policy then the procedure should be changed. Chowbok doesn't listen to the reasons given in reply to his tag messages and then tries to bait an argument by repeating the question that has already been answered, tries to feign a halo of courtesy by complaining on each person's talk page that he can't get a civil conversation out of the person, and disrespects reasons given in reply to the photo tag notice, then doesn't give the person a chance to get any further work done on the photo in reply to the first notice. The procedure Chowbok follows, which I do not believe is that of wikipedia, is antagonistic and baiting arguments rather than working as a team with people because he's not interested in any of the articles. If the purpose of this RfC is to discuss procedure, I think this could have been handled in much more harmonious way by user Chowbok, who refuses to give me any time to work on seeing if a replacement or freer license can be found. Chowbok also says everyone is terrorizing him by their responses when he is flame baiting by his lack of respect for their replies. 
I do believe Chowbok would be very beneficial to wikipedia if chowbok were in charge of a project to communicate to editors who need to learn of the new rule and ask them if they could find a a free photo or if they could ask the photographer about a different license, but without rushing to add tags to photos first; that is, Chowbok could ask the editor to investigate whether it's replaceable or not before Chowbok assumes it's replaceable and tags it for deletion. Chowbok could write a greeting to editors who have fair use photos up, mention to them how much better a free photo is for wikipedia and the new policy, and ask the editor if it's replaceable, or offer to help replace it (in my case, I don't need help, I'm working on it with the band and photographers to see if a free image can be located or the current promophoto given a freer license myself, but some might want chowbok's help in obtaining a freer photo, should it be determined by the editor contacted that it's possible to get one). I think there are good ways for Chowbok to use this energy in a way that will benefit wikipedia, but should approach people differently, not by tagging first and pressuring people. In the case of a photo that an editor is trying to find a replacement for at Chowbok's request he investigate this, it can take a bit of time to get free ones because you have to explain to photographers what a license means sometimes and not just introduce the concept of the license without explaining it; we don't want to mislead a photographer by not providing information about what we are requesting. Editors need time to do this. If Chowbok would lead this project in a way that doesn't pressure people, I think he or she will see more fruit come from this. 
I don't like a procedure such as RfC that sounds vaguely like "censuring" an editor; I wouldn't want to be RfC'd, whatever this means (a "dispute"?) and want Chowbok to enjoy his time editing. I think Chowbok means well, but the way he's gone about this has really added stress to my life and not treated me as a person who is in good faith trying to check on what he wants done; this is because of his understanding of tag first, instead of inquire first and not involving the editor uploading it in the decision to remove it or conversing first. I hope everything works out for editor Chowbok and we all get our work done in a way that makes us all feel comfortable. – Bebop 04:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bebop's View (previously was posted in my RfC endorsement) 

message: Please note users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view. At this point, Robth would not seem to be in compliance with that. Jbuzza 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorsed the response--that's different from editing it.  You can endorse as much stuff as you like, but you can't edit (i.e. change the content of the statement) in more than one section. --RobthTalk 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (At least that's my understanding--I've observed RfCs before, but never actually participated in one.) --RobthTalk 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing that isn't clearly worded ;) Jbuzza 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Views 

message: I unequivocally deny that I, Irpen and the endorsees of the main RfC presentation are on the wrong side of the policy disagreement. I haven't found any official Wikipedia policy stating that fair use images should be deleted. I have found one stating that they are acceptable until a free one is created. If anything, the RfU template is not in accordance with policy. I insist that my/our stance is legitimate, in spite of how we may say it. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm not always a very nice person, but this doesn't negate that I believe I/we are absolutely right and that policy is on our side. TheQuandry 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would it take to convince you that this is not the case? Just out of curiosity. —Chowbok ☠ 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I7 (a policy page): "...Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the  template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified.".  --RobthTalk 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is a selective presentation, ignoring the significant discussion that has taken place on the Fair Use discussion page and elsewhere. Earlier in this discussion, on at least three separate occasions, examples were provided by several editors regarding the continuum between easily replaceable and irreplaceable/extremely difficult to replace images, yet these examples have not been satisfactorily responded to.  Such examples regarded the example of taking a photo of the summit of Mt. Everest, individuals photographed at a particularly meaningful time in their lives that cannot be reproduced, or individuals who do not appear in public.  This is a continuum and in many instances images that are on the upper end of this continuum have been summarily deleted.  There has to be some reasonableness exercised here, something that has been sorely lacking (to say the least) over the past three weeks or so.  In such decisions of replaceability the input of productive and long-time editors should be respected, and has often not been, in the most blatant way.  Badagnani 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for providing that policy, it's the first time anyone has provided me with the policy they're following. Do we have two policies that are refuting each other? It seems that way. This is the one I'm operating on (from Wikipedia:Copyrights)  Additionally, (and as Badagnani covered above) the fair use guideline states that fair use images may be deleted if a free image can REASONABLY be created. That word "reasonably" is up to interpretation as what's reasonable for me may not necessarily be reasonable for you (and vice versa). TheQuandry 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other pages on this subject where many other users disagree with Jimbo Wales on the use of promotional fair use images where no others are available, and let me add my voice on this page to theirs - if a substitute image exists - FIND IT. The images I use are the exact same images offered to and published freely by press sources worldwide. If these images cannot be used, then the entire promotional category should be deleted from fair use, and Wikipedia can handcuff itself versus nearly every other published source on the planet. Absurd. Tvccs 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that absurd?  Unlike nearly every other published source on the planet, we have free redistributability as one of our core principles.  Promotional images are still very useful for subjects of which no free image could be created--deceased people, fictional characters, unreleased concept cars, etc.--but if an image can be replaced (which does not imply that a free replacement exists right at this moment, but that one could be created by one of the many people who contribute their original images to Wikimedia projects) then we decline to use an unfree image so that a free one is more likely to be found or created. --RobthTalk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the entire concept of fair use, as stated in Wikipedia policy is that "an image may be uploaded under fair use until a free replacement is found". Not "fair use is limited to the deceased, fictional characters and concept cars". And in the case of fictional characters, why did Chowbok add an RfU tag to an advertising poster for [Soviet Champagne], which was then deleted by an administrator? The poster contained fictional characters and I provided a LENGTHY explanation of why it was not replacable on the talk page. Yet IT WAS DELETED ANYWAY (emphasis, not shouting). Why? Furthermore, it appears to have been deleted in such a way that I can't view the delete log. It has been "disappeared" somehow. So I can't even find the administrator who did it. TheQuandry 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkout here 21 November. Megapixie 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, <U>this is the crux of the problem</U>.  There seems to be no accountability and the deletion occurs without proper discussion and without notification of the original uploader, even when the use is justified, and evidence is presented (even at some length, as mentioned above).  This does need to be addressed, and still has not been.  Badagnani 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image I had tagged was also deleted despite an explanation of why it was irreplaceable and of historical significance. No explanation was given for deletion - did anyone even look at the reasons once it had been fatally tagged ?? The policy is not being implemented as written. I can see what people are trying to do and would have no issue with it if the policy were written in that way but it isn't. Jbuzza 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jbuzza can you confirm you are talking about this image -  -  replicated at answers.com. This seems like a fairly straightforward RFU case to me. Megapixie 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what we are reduced to?  Quasi-legal procedures after the image has been deleted without careful, considered discussion?  Something is very wrong with this, and an editor feels s/he has been slighted.  Let's improve this, please.  Badagnani 07:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it replaceable ? This is a picture of Steele at the presentation of an award for becoming the player to have made most appearances ever for London Broncos (a career highlight described in the article). I have searched the web and found 3 images of Steele in total. This one being the only head shot (a promo picture from the club) and two copyrighted by a sports picture agency called Empics (one of which was used also by BBC). He is no longer in public life having retired from the sport. I am happy for people to make decisions to delete pictures but lets have a clear definition of "replaceable" first Jbuzza 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The implementation of the policy as has been advocated by a select few here, and is the case in dozens of images I have posted, is that they should be wholesale deleted NOW if there is any possibility a free image could eventually be produced, regardless of its actual availability, and this is being proffered by those that have a policy belief that all Wikipedia content should be GFDL free, regardless of the actual policy in place.  That is exactly what has occured in the attack I am under - every single image marked as promotional is being targeted with a CFD in revenge for me expressing a contrary opinion.  It's also just incredibly galling for people here to say what's the big deal about deleting images when I have busted my ass to find legitimate images, even going to the artists directly, for use on Wikipedia, and to see dozens of pages and dozens of hours of work simply trashed so someone who generally never bothers to find any "free" images, instead just play editor god, can butcher my efforts and get their ya-yas out.  It's beyond pathetic. And I notice not one of the advocates of the so-called "when it's actually available, we're really not that unreasonable, we're actually flexible and reasonable " group here has stepped forward to say anything about the wholesale attack I'm under.  I'm expected to add material to dozens of promotional images in seven days, and then likely have those images simply dumped by an admin without anyone proving they are in actual violation, or actually providing the replacement image they claim must be available, god forbid.  Tvccs 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a huge hang-up on what "Fair Use" is vs "Public Domain" vs "GPL".  The wikifoundation has come in under budget now for last year, why can they not hire a copyright lawyer to help re-write the policy from a true legal standpoint?  IANAL claus seems to apply to everyone in this disscussion (as no one has pipped up and said otherwise).Hackajar 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional comment on, and response to, Jimbo's statement 

message: Ghirla takes me to task for three things: incivility, lack of mainspace edits, and revert wars. I've conceded the first point already, and have promised to work on that, but I think the other two accusations are completely unwarranted. Anyone who looks at my edit history overall (not just in the past couple months) will see that I have done extensive work in the main space (obviously, it's nothing compared to Ghirla's edit numbers, but that's a pretty high bar, after all). It's true lately I've been focusing on images, but even now that's not exclusive; I just created Ralph Bates (writer) the other day, and I submit that it's not terrible as a starter article. As for revert wars, the only time I've done anything like that was when having to continually restore improperly removed RFU tags. It says "do not delete this tag" right on the tag; what am I supposed to do when people ignore that? —Chowbok ☠ 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job on the Ralph Bates page.  I encourage you to spend your time on similar efforts going forward. Tvccs 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Ghirla's comments 

message: I had a look through the main RfC page... it doesn't seem to cover this. How long does the RfC continue, how do we know it's over/when a decision has been reached and who will enforce the decision? I don't see anyone with admin privileges involved in the page, except Jimbo. TheQuandry 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We keep discussing until it appears that an agreement has been reached or new comments stop coming in, I believe. RfCs aren't really the forum for creating enforceable decisions, but for giving editors feedback and clarifying issues. So far it looks like we've made steps on both of those fronts; Chowbok has responded positively to feedback about the importance of civility, and Jimbo and others have clarified that tagging and deleting replaceable fair use images is indeed policy. --RobthTalk 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Rob, I still dispute that the policy is being implemented correctly, but I do thank you for explaining RfC to me. TheQuandry 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thank you for explaining. TheQuandry 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, this one seems to clearly be demonstrating that community consensus is that this RfC is without merit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain how you came to that conclusion?  I don't see that.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just wishful thinking, something we're all susceptible to from time to time.  Maybe he didn't read this.  Badagnani 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, apparenly he failed to notice where consensus seems to lie. Or maybe he just likes making glib, unsubstantiated comments for fun. TheQuandry 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the only admins talking here and the founder of the encyclopedia agree with Chowbok, although I may not know who all the people are who are admins. That kind of weighs in his favor, I'd think. I wish that someone would look at procedures to make things run smoother since Chowbok would probably follow whatever procedure is agreed to as policy. The bottom line would probably be that many of us would like things handled differently, and that's a policy issue. Chowbok's behavior is reflecting his understanding of policy although he's a little pushy about how to implement it sometimes, but if the policy says "7 days" then he's doing what it says. So someone should look at dealing wtih the policy. Chowbok would probably enforce any policy to the letter, so maybe the people in charge of policy should review this RfC, take a look at things like my comments at Robth's talk page showing an example of what is sometimes involved in trying to get a photo license regarding needing time to communicate with a photographer the details of legalities on the license, and make some alterations that give an editor a sense of when it's appropriate to give an editor a bit of time to work on things instead of be pushy. People's time should be treated as valuable. Also photographs are valuable works and the photographer needs time to consider what he's doing. It can take a bit of time for people to research and negotiate these issues. Not just 7 days. – Bebop 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if I understand this thing, Jimbos and admins opinions are no more valid or invalid than anyone elses. It doesn't matter who they are. That's MY understanding anyway, I could be mistaken. TheQuandry 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 7 days is the time to discuss either or not the image is replaceable. Not the time to replace it. The article may go without an image if no free one exists but could be created. The point is that the lack of an image is the incentive to produce a free one. --Abu Badali 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not policy. Like I keep saying, per wikipedia policy, "images are allowed under fair use UNTIL a free replacement can be found. That means the fair use image should be left intact until a free replacement is obtained. TheQuandry 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which policy are you referring to exactly? --RobthTalk 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This change occured to bring WP:FUC into compatibility with WP:C, for more info see this section. - cohesion 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens when this is over? 

message: There seem to be a gread deal of confution going around as to what the Wikipedia's policy on fair use images. So to clearify:
Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is what you need to be looking at, that is where the actual "up to date" fair use policy is laid out in detail (it is also translcluded to the Wikipedia:Fair use guideline page, wich I agree is not ideal since it's confusing to have one section of a mere guideline also be bonafied official policy). Wikipedia:Copyrights just give a brief summary of it, and was unfortunately due to an oversight left with an old wording that did not reflect recent updates of the fair use policy itself, resulting on some confusion. That's all there is to it rely, no grand conspiracy by the WP:CABAL or anyting, just a simple oversight that caused the summary on Wikipedia:Copyrights to not reflect changes to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Wich resulted in some unfortunate good faith misunderstandings about what the policy rely was. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A clarification of a simple question would be helpful - is it appropriate to use free promotional images for living persons if no free image is readily available?  Can someone answer that? The position being advocated by some here is that any living person could somehow have a free image magically produced, and until that happens, no promotional images should be used.  Is THAT the policy, and if so, why even have the promotional tag at all?  Tvccs 16:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not what the policy says but those are exactly the type of images that are being deleted through RFU tagging. Jbuzza 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy clearification 

message: 2 problems: 
# The greatest problem with this mass tagging seems to be that admins are not actually reviewing the talk pages or attempting to decide fairly if an image is actually replacable (and READING peoples explanations for why the image is currently not replacable). They just seem to be going along hitting the delete button. So, thus far, pretty much any attempt to dispute replacability has been pointless. This reeks of a select few people ramrodding their agenda through Wikipedia with no concern for others. 
# The text on Wikipedia:Copyright was edited by someone participating in this discussion. I DO assume good faith on your part, but I find it counterproductive at BEST to begin rewriting policy pages when debates are ongoing here, not to mention on the fair use talk page. TheQuandry 15:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed in total.  Tvccs 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree, 200%. --CJ Marsicano 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional problems 

message: Wikipedia:Publicity photos
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.  
Publicity photos, distributed as part of press kits by celebrities, corporations, candidates for political office, and others, may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. These images are most often photographs of people, products, or events. As with all images uploaded to Wikipedia, the source of the photo must be identified on the image description page, and copyright information, when supplied with the photo, must be included.
Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted. This assumption of an implicit license may or may not include for-profit commercial activity, however. Because Wikipedia no longer uses restrictive licenses, their usage on Wikipedia must fall under normal Wikipedia fair use policy restrictions.
If it is possible to replace the publicity image with a new, free, image of similar value to the reader then the free image must be used in preference to the restricted and copyrighted publicity photograph.
Note that the above only applies to photos that are explicitly distributed for publicity purposes, and does not apply to most photographs of celebrities. For example, a wire service photo of a celebrity or a film still from the site for a movie cannot automatically be presumed to be a publicity photo distributed as part of a press kit. Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies, whereas many images that may appear promotional in nature are intended for commercial use by the image's copyright holder.
Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos. Publicity photos found on the Internet typically have the following characteristics:
They are found in a section of a web site called "media kit", "press kit", "press", or something similar 
The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions (upload the JPEG versions to Wikipedia though) 
There is text on the site asking that the photographer be credited and/or there is licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes (usually using them to sell products is prohibited). 
If you have personally contacted an official promotional agent, modelling agency, or talent agency and have received written support for the use of a promotional image on Wikipedia, please additionally add  to the image's description page, along with the relevant correspondence. For how to solicit permission, see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
Use of such images on the non-profit Wikipedia, for encyclopedic purposes, is highly unlikely to be contested. Commercial reusers of Wikipedia content should consider whether their use of such photos qualifies as fair use, and whether their use infringes on the subject's publicity rights.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicity_photos"
:I am having clearly marked press kit photos marked for deletion when no free images are available only because they are of living persons - this essay clearly allows the use of press kit photographs - these deletion requests would seem to directly conflict with this essay.  Tvccs 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing this. What undoubtedly will happen, now that you have pointed it out, is that some editor or other will simply go in and change the text to fit his/her personal interpretation, of course not allowing for any significant discussion of such changes.  Badagnani 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an essay, not a policy. --Abu Badali 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Publicity Photos - Does this mean anything anymore? - there is no living persons restriction 

message: :::As an FYI, I contacted the image source, who is also a musician and a fan of Keith Emerson, that you copied this image from, and others, from Flickr. You did not seek his permission or notice him you were using the images in the way you did.  Let me quote him directly: 
::::"I had no idea Keith's photo got nabbed off my website and edited."
::::"Keith Emerson deserves a better photo on WikiPedia, doesn't he? Plus, that gets the mysterious hand off his shoulder"
::::"I've changed the licensing of my Flickr account to All Rights Reserved...Not only am I happy to do it but thank you for letting me know in the first place."
:::The copyright owner has now specifically permitted (I have the email) the Keith Emerson image's use on Wikipedia for the purposes only of this discussion.  He has decided to relicense all of his images after seeing how they were being used on Wikipedia of his own choice, and any and all images from his site should be immediately removed from Wikipedia. Tvccs 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to know that a creative commons free license is irrevocable (although I agree we shouldn't use the image if the copyright holders explains he released it by mistake). Also Tvccs, I would really really be interested in the text on your message to him. Could you paste it here? Best regards,  --Abu Badali 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire point of the Creative Commons license is so that you don't have to ask permission. He shouldn't CC-license stuff if he doesn't want it copied. —Chowbok ☠ 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality is that many Flickr posters have no idea what can be done with their work under a Creative Commons license, and this is a prime example.  The person in question can change the licensing as they see fit, chose to do so, and it would be in extremely bad faith for a Wikipedian to insist they could continue to use an image that was posted by someone who had no idea it could "nabbed", (his term, not mine), and used for this purpose.  I find that line of rationale appalling in light of all the babbling about potential liability for Wikipedia that goes on here, even in regards to images some artists themselves provide and release under fair use for specific use on Wikipedia. It's really quite simple...I sent the person a link...asked them if they thought the image of Keith Emerson was used appropriately, and explained they could leave the licensing as is, change the one image, or change them all.  They chose to change them all to restrict usage because they thought Keith Emerson deserved a better image than the one kluged from his Web page, and didn't want to see any other images used as such. Tvccs 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The license specifically says what people can use it for, and that it's "perpetual". I don't think it's bad faith to assume people know how to read. —Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people have no idea how a CC license can be implemented, and this person is a direct example.  Bad faith would be to continue to use images that once a person understood and saw how their images were being used, and chose to change the licensing as a result, would be to continue to do so.  That would be very, very bad faith.  Tvccs 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. On Flickr specifically, when you select a license, it walks you through a wizard which very specifically asks you what you do or do not want done with it. It's insane that we should just assume people are too stupid to understand what the words plainly say. If the license could be revoked at will, it would be useless. You managed to get him to change the license (by the way, I love how everyone's accusing me of making the encyclopedia worse by removing copyrighted images, but you are actually actively trying to get people to revoke licenses for free content, which is repulsive) before the Commons folks verified the license, so I won't contest this; but if they had, there's no way I'd let this go. I hope sometime when somebody enters a legal contract with you, he tries to get out of it later by arguing he didn't really understand what it said. I'm glad you'll show your "good faith" by letting him opt out. —Chowbok ☠ 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would he actively try to get someone to revoke a free license? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. What he did was show the person how their image was being used and they made that choice themself. TheQuandry 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...yeah...And you'll likely get your chance on the license verified issue.  The nonsense is that everyone understands what a free license means on Flickr in real life when it comes to how their images are used, and that the license runs in perpetuity essentially allowing anyone to do anything - this case is proof positive.  I would never be so presumptuous as to tell someone that they should change a license for something they owned.  As indicated above, I simply informed the user, showed him the link, and gave him the options.  The choice was his.  He thought it was a good choice, and I certainly support it.  Tvccs 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I say I'm really really interested in, if possible, reading the contents of this message exchange. --Abu Badali 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh...a suggestion for all the Flickr grabbers...don't you think it would be a good idea to notify the user that you wish to use their image for the intended purpose and show them your edit?  And if they choose not to allow the usage, suggest they change their licensing accordingly? That would be common courtesy at the least.  Or doesn't that work here?  Tvccs 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By specifically marking their photos cc-by or cc-by-sa, they already have consented to allowing people to copy the image. That's the entire point. (And I should add here for people not familiar with Flickr that you have to opt-in; the default is "all rights reserved" and you have to jump through some hoops to mark them CC.) I don't share your low opinion of people's intelligence; I assume they know how to read. —Chowbok ☠ 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how many times do I have to say it...this person did not understand how his images could be used and edited under a CC license before I showed him the Emerson image you edited and posted.  When he saw what could happen, he changed the licensing on all of his images.  I didn't make it up, and he made his own decision as the copyright holder and original source of the images. The above quotes I've provided verify same. I work with and write an Internet, etc. newspaper column for the general public, and I can assure you the large majority of them would be largely baffled by all of this, and many, many people would do exactly as this Flickr former CC user did once they understood under similar circumstances.  Once again, you appear to struggle with accepting anyone's viewpoint other than your own, as you did for some time on the question of artists not wishing to provide GFDL images. Tvccs 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's clear that the photographer, when he learned that a professionally shot promotional image of Emerson was forcibly replaced with his admittedly more amateurish and unflattering one (under the very unfortunate circumstances described again and again in this page), he was displeased with the way this site is being manipulated at this time, and rightly so. Rather than being proud to have his image replace the professional one, he realized that his own photo belonged on the Flick site, and the promotional photo taken specifically for the purpose of representing the musician was the one which belonged in our encyclopedia.  Thus, out of respect for the musician, he asked that his own photo be removed.  Personally, I can't argue with that reasoning, although it leaves the article without a photograph.  Badagnani 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you continue to object to the common courtesy of simply notifying a user what you wish to do with their image, showing them same, and gaining their approval.  You just "nabbed" and ran, and want to continue to do so.  Your lack of respect for both the subject of the photograph and the person who owns it are simply staggering.  The user in question had no idea whatsoever that his fan image with Keith Emerson could end up cropped as the primary image of Mr. Emerson, who he is a huge fan of, worldwide.  Pardon him for not having a crystal ball, like 95% of the rest of the general public would not in a case like this. The usage of images without expressed permission in cases like this opens a far larger can of potential problems, not to mention ill will, for Wikipedia than a thousand legitimate press images, which you are hellbent on removing, ever could.  Tvccs 07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific follow-up information on this image

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali
And I didn't even start it...someone beat me to it, it appears.  Tvccs 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lookie here...another related Rfc 

message: Bearcat suggested on the RfC page the idea of a Wikiproject dedicated to seeking replacement images.  I like this idea, and would definitely be interested in participating.  Here is how I would envision the Wikiproject shaping up:
*Maintaining a list of all images that have ever been tagged or deleted as replaceable would quickly grow unmanageable, and would probably not be terribly useful.  What would be useful would be, for as many images as possible, as they are tagged, to 
*#Contact the copyright holder seeking a free release (the material at [[Wikipedia:Example requests for permission will be very useful in this regard), and
*#do a search of Flickr for freely licensed images of the subject.
*The best way to coordinate this would be to create a bot that, every time an image was tagged, would list that image and its source url at a subpage of the project.  Participants could then take responsibility for various images and carry out the procedures for them.
Bearcat proposed this as, and I agree that it should be, not a replacement but a complement for deletion.  Basically, the idea here is that right as the image is tagged this project would check the quickest ways to secure a free image.  This would not only produce a number of free images, but would also reassure contributors that their images were not just being deleted for no purpose. This is obviously a very rough sketch of how the project would work, but what do people think? --RobthTalk 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad to see you apparently support the need to locate an actual free image before deleting the fair use image - I hope you make that point clear elsewhere.  Thank you.  Tvccs 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a WikiProject to do this sort of stuff.    Another thought, such a WikiProject could also be used to find free images for articles without any to begin with (and there's a lot of low-hanging fruit here).  If anyone decides to get this rolling, let me know.  If not, I might get this started next weekish.  JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have added an optional parameter to the  template to allow for easy sorting of photo requests into more managable sub-categories simmilar to the location based requests from . For example  adds :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cars. Sorting the exsisting requests into a logical category structure and spreading some awarenes about it would seem like a good first step since there is already a fair number of requests floating around in the main :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. The next logical step would seem to better coordinate with and "promote" existing projects and resourses like Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration as well as things like Wikipedia:Requested pictures Wikipedia:Public domain image resources, Wikipedia:Free image resources, Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources, Wikipedia:Images with missing articles etc. I'd say the need is not so much a new project as it is to get more people involved with what we laready have (though some of these pages could use some maintaninace work I guess). --Sherool (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at all of these things.  These individual pages are all useful, but maybe the one thing that's missing is that there isn't any overarching effort to attempt to ensure that all articles have free photos.  Having said that, I'm thinking it makes more sense to work through one of these existing avenues rather than create something new.  JYolkowski // talk 23:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject ideas 

message: Can Chowbok please comment on what the heck went on in these 2 images.  Why did Chow tag his own uploaded image :Image:Mad11.png with a db-author tag, when the irreplaceable fair use image was being used in an article?  Or what happened with :Image:Exotica II.jpg, loads of tagging some dispute, then finally Chow tags a valid self-sourced irreplaceable non-orphaned image as unsourced?  How would the deletion of that image be of benefit to the encyclopedia? - hahnchen 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to fight over them anymore. Apparently Sebbeng thinks album covers and corporate logos are replaceable, which is an odd position for him to take. —Chowbok ☠ 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. I never tagged :Image:Mad11.png with anything, and :Image:Exotica II.jpg was tagged with a no source tag. The latter still has no source or fair use rationale provided. This is a great illustration of how this particular editor chooses which rules (or interpretations of rules) to force on others, while he disregards other rules entirely. TheQuandry 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See , where you indicate that you think record covers are replaceable fair use. —Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, this was before I understood the clear as mud "policy" (interpretation), which seems to state that one image is okay but another is not on terms that appear to change daily and depending on who you're speaking to. This RfC is about you and I won't let you hijack it and turn it around on me. TheQuandry 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Exotica II.jpg]] and [[:Image:Mad11.png]] 

message: Thought many of you may find this interesting-
TheQuandry 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The debate 

message: This page also saw some seperate debate about Chowbok, fair use, and whatever.  It would appear that talk about this springs up all over. Can't we get some centralized location and figure out exactly what the policy is and how it should be enforced? There is no concensus, there must be middle ground somewhere! (DELETION AND NON INCLUSION IS NOT MIDDLE GROUND!). It took me days just to discover that there was discussion going on here! --Jeff 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spirited discussion also here 

message: I have had a coupla images tagged by Chowbok. I do believe s/he is over zealous with tagging, however, I have to say that s/he did contact the copywrite owners of at least one of the images and got them to change the license on it, so it could be included here under the rules as Chowbok understands them. I also have to admit I over reacted when my images were tagged and apologise for my rantings.
Jcuk 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My twopennorth 

message: *Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement
:It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. 
:Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy?  My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it.  But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked.  Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the phrase in the policy is obviously wrong. Everybody do what they want to do (or have talents to do) on wikipedia. Very few jobs are rezerved to specially appointed people, tagging copyvios is not one of them Alex Bakharev 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase is right if taken in the correct context, but in this case it certainly is not. It was meant as a friendly introduction, and rarely are friendly introductions wanted in policy that is left to be interpreted.--Jeff 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have explained on Chowbok's talk page, I think Jeff is misinterpreting the statement. --RobthTalk 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well... Sorry; it's not me. Hackajar is the one that made the original interpretation. Not me. Please, you're seeing things! --Jeff 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're competely right, and apologies for the confusion.  I knew that I was talking to two people, but I confused who was who... --RobthTalk 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rank and File" users roles in Copyright 

message: Imagine that. And it wasn't me, either.  TheQuandry 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the was tagging completely inappropriate; there is no debating that it is not possible to create a free image of an artist's copyrighted drawing.  The tagger is apparently a sockpuppet of User:Waiting4 and has been blocked.  ×Meegs 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone tagged one of Chowbok's images 

message: :NOTE:  Someone deleted this comment, I don't know why.  If it's not appropriate, then tell me why --don't delete the thing :-p --Bobak 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be appropriate for a "statement/response"? 

message: An interesting thought, so I hope people are still following this.
The concept that is continually brought up by the editors and administrators who tag and remove fair use images is "Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia". Again, how you define the word "free" dictates courses of action.
For as long as I've been reading and, later, editing Wikipedia, I took "free" to mean no cost. As in, if I wanted access to an encyclopedia at home, I'd have to buy a set of the World Book or Britannica for many hundreds of dollars. But here at Wikipedia, I have a huge wealth of collective knowledge that doesn't cost me anything to access. To me, that means free.
But to others, "free" means LEGALLY free, as in " we can do whatever we want with said image and aren't beholden to anyone". I don't agree with this interpretation. Is there a place in Wikipedia that defines the meaning of the word "free", as it applies to this website? 
Thoughts? TheQuandry 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Five pillars item #3: "Wikipedia is free content". See also Gratis versus Libre. --Abu Badali 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. TheQuandry 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free vs "free" 

message: The problem is not with Chowbok. He is enforcing the fair use policy as it currently stands. Rather, the problem is with the policy itself. I have a problem with Wikipedia being entirely a "free liscence" encyclopedia if it does not allow for the use of "fair use" publicity photos of living people. I recognize that this brings me into direct disagreement with Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.
The thing is that most non-wikipedians are not aware that Wikipedia is intended to be a "free liscence" encyclopedia. Rather, most non-wikipedians simply think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia with no cost. As such, they will think less of Wikipedia for its lack of cast photos and screenshots on articles about movies and tv shows.Librarylefty 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem is not with Chowbok -- Problem is with the policy