Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

message: I am disapointed that instead of engaging in the discussion and replying to many, many comments on his talk page, Ta bu shi da yu boilerplate responce seem to be 'take this up with Jimbo and the Board'. This looks like 'let's scare them with big names, and maybe they'll drop the issue'. Now, I assume good faith and so I don't think this was the primary reason why Ta bu shi da yu adopted this responce - but I'd like to hear from him his own reason for doing so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree. Might I point out that it will be the board who will have to deal with legal issues if someone sues Wikimedia for copyright violations. Inaction from the board on this issue could be detrimental to Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying there shouldn't be a policy against copyright violations. I'm saying the exact way those are handled and whether they're discussed for 7 days before being deleted doesn't need to be a Board decision (unless we've had an actual DMCA notice, in which case the policy wouldn't apply and they'd be deleted instantly). Angela. 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need to discuss clear copyright violations and misuse of fair use? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't need to be discussed, then the policies ought to reflect that, but CSD doesn't currently allow speedy deletion of fair use images. I'm saying the community should change that, not the Board. Don't confuse the fact I don't want this to be a Board decision with the idea that I don't want the policy to exist. Angela. 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have taken your advise and made an amendment to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment. I am no policy maven, whether this is the right/wrong way of proposing the amendment I don't know. If I could get your assistance on making this happen, that would be great. Thanks Angela! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Who decided that this was suddenly now the case? You? Obviously, these images were not "clear" copyright violations or they would have been gone long ago without incident. Many of them had been up, on popular articles, with no controversy, since 2003. Uris  01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Almost none of those images were compliant. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost none were compliant? That means you speedy-deleted at least some that were compliant... Uris  04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true. I deleted one image inappropriately which was promptly reuploaded. I think you should bare in mind that none of my deletions are undoable. I also note that it was one image in several hundred I have so far deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So one. That you know about. So far. Why do I get the feeling that you are likely to have made more mistakes? Now it is more obvious than ever: speedy-deleting this many images was pretty stupid. Uris  13:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not engaging you in debate any more. I've told you that they didn't have fair use rationales, I told you they weren't used correctly in articles. You can see ALL of those things for yourself (yes, you can ask an admin to undelete any of the image description pages to check it out). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of work you've created for me if I were to do that one by one. Uris  14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more work than if I'd listed each one on IFD. You asked how you could check my decisions were correct. Here's a way of telling. You asked for it, now you say it's too much work. Which is it? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more work than IFD, unless everyone is an admin. I, for one, am not and have no desire to be! Also, I said that's a lot of work, not "too much" work. Please read more carefully. Uris  15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bearing in mind what that I'm about to say below, as this appears to be mostly about how this was done I'd also like a slightly more expository response from the big fish.  Was there some emregancy, or was the suspicion that the normal methods wouldn't work, or was it just "this is obvious, let's not stuff around"?  He's not known (to me at least) as a rouge, and of course gets the benefit of the doubt, but "talking is hot" as some have said.  - brenneman{T}{L}  23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is so hot. Mike H. That's hot 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: take this up with Jimbo and the Board

message: Err, what is it?  Just a nice concise explanation of how we're defining the "success conditions" for this RfC, please.  brenneman{T}{L}  23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, a succesful RFC will kick off action on enforcing tighter fair use rationale enforcement. I would propose that a more restrictive policy that enforces the exist Wikipedia:Fair use criteria be started. Something along the lines of the non-commercial and commercial image deletion edicts that Jimbo gave. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming he was not asking for the desired outcome of the "accused". Another desired outcome may be that Ta bu shi da yu be reprimanded in some way for ignoring the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times over, or perhaps just to serve as a warning to other self-appointed vigilantes to read the rules of Wikipedia before deleting everything in sight (and also to use "Edit summary" as a chance to provide rationale to users who find that many articles are suddenly deprecated). Uris  00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:IAR. RfC isn't to reprimand people. Discussion about Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment would be a far more useful outcome. Angela. 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR could just as easily justify Willy on Wheels; but as for the RfC, it is serving out its purpose, for me. It'll be interested to see, however, if Jimbo Wales comes to TBSDY's aid with the cloak-and-dagger email, since TBSDY referred all questioning to him... or if TBSDY is in fact all alone here. Uris on Wheels  14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Citeing WP:IAR justifies nothing. Probably the reason people tend not to do so any more.Geni 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploading fair use images and not complying with Wikipedia:Fair use criteria also justifies nothing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So who is the judge of when this has occurred?  You, a sole judge and jury, deleting what you see fit without any reasoning given? How can anyone tell if you were right or wrong in each deletion, when we can't see the images nor why you deleted them? Uris  04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have told you: all the images I deleted had no fair use rationale, most had no source and almost all were being used to illustrate an article. All of these things are things you can see, or if you need to get an admin to show you. Check the deletion log, pick any image and ask an admin to temporarily undelete the image description page. This is you can see for yourself. Now it's my turn to question you. What gives uploaders the right to upload other people's copyrighted work? This could be seen, and in most jurisdictions actually is, a form of theft. Why do you think that Wikipedia actually wants fair use images? We don't, in fact, we only tolerate them if nothing else will do. I strongly suggest you look at Wikipedia's aims and objectives again. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are speaking for all Wikipedians as "we" but you have shown no willingness to follow Wikipedia's accepted rules or processes. That's kinda funny. :) Uris  15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, go away troll. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... no, you! Uris  16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desired outcome 

message: In looking up the applicable policies, it occurred to me that the only speediable copyvio on WP:CSD is that of articles, and specifically not images. I think that makes it pretty clear that the current approach is simply completely out of bounds, but I'm interested in what others think. I have to admit I'm not very sympathetic to the "we must act, and not think or deliberate!" approach since deliberating seems to have worked to create these policies in the first place, and I haven't seen any evidence in this case of it failing (WP:FU was almost totally rewritten not too many months ago to clarify a number of important points, for example, and additional CSD criteria have been added when necessary). I also think that when used as anything but a last resort it really trivializes the efforts of users who actually do try and come up with good policies in an open and transparent fashion (such as with WP:WPFU). --Fastfission 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have over 130,000 images on en which are tagged as 'fair use'. A small but significant random sampling suggests that a majory may be violations. Users who attempt to clean up violations are attacked on two sides, one by article editors who are upset that we've taken their favorite illustrations, and on the other side by our armchair fairuse wikilawyers who think we should be spending all our time making up excuses for inexcusable acts. Your process has failed. Get over it, and stop trying to get in the way of users who are making a real difference. --Gmaxwell 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap! *gasps* over 130,000 images? Bloody hell! We are in so much shit. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stick OrphanBot on it immediately.  At its normal rate of operation, and assuming that new unlicensed images are being uploaded at a rate of around 40 an hour, the last images should be removed 27 days from now. --Carnildo 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we cool it down a bit? You're an armchair fairuse wikilawyer too, only with a different POV and more overwrought. KWH 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, he's quite right to be concerned. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicable policies

message: Orphan it and kill after 7 days.Geni 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is no different from orphaning and deleting the image directly. Plus that really would be seen as disruptive, and in fact worse than my action. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. People then have 7 days to object. If they do you discuss the image with them. If they are wrong and fail to get a clue then is the time to get heavy. For some reason when I do this no one sees it at dissruptive. There are other advantages such as the way it allows you to seamlessly deal with the issue of an image being used on multiple pages sometimes correctly sometimes incorrectly.Geni 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The process is broken Geni. If people object the images are kept. Almost Always. I've tagged over 20,000 images as orphaned fair use. More than 99% the the 3500ish objected taggings still exist. People have objected, and will continue to object, over these TIME covers. TBSDY's removal takes away the only good illustration a lot of articles have. The only aspect of our process that works is for images that no one cares about. --Gmaxwell 08:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? We know how to deal with people who object.Geni 10:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats my point, we don't. I agree.. it looks like we do, but we don't. We can engage them in one on one debate, we win but each cases is days of frustration. It doesn't scale... we hardly have enough resources to deal with the copyright problems when there are no objections, much less when each one becomes a court case. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Principles are difficult. KWH 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as the principles of being a Free content encyclopedia and the principle of not violating copyright law? :) --Gmaxwell 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much so. That's why I'm interested in talking it out. It's obvious at this point that TBSDY is resolute in his task and opinion, so the purpose in talking it out is to help to better reconcile these principles. (Whether it is my understanding which needs to be modified or others) KWH 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well there's irony. You want due process, but heaven forbid an editor should object! We know how to deal with them. What exactly does that mean, anyway? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the editor is free to object. The problem is when they are wrong repeatedly. Editors can normaly be talked round. If not find another admin to delete the thing and deal with the problem of the user reuploading if it happens. I'm always happy to explain copyright to people if asked (as long as as it isn't a complex issue).Geni 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't scale, Geni.  Every day, approximately 960 new fair-use-tagged images are uploaded.  If the user:image ratio for fair-use images is the same as for no-source and no-license images, this represents 560 unique people uploading images each day.  Based on my experiences running OrphanBot, one person can effectively deal with ten to fifteen uploaders a day, and doing so takes up all the time they would otherwise be spending on Wikipedia.  Based on this, we'd need a dedicated force of 35-50 users spending all their time chasing down people uploading images that don't qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority don't complain when you orphan thier images.Geni 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of people who upload no-source and no-license images are no longer here.  That's not true of the 23 people who uploaded fair-use-tagged images in the past hour. --Carnildo 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is an effective process for deleting purportedly fair use material

message: I propose that this page be moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Removal of fair use images  and that at least or now we stop focusing on what's gone before and focus on moving forward.  This would mean that in the short term
*We put on hold the discussion about the correctness and/or appropiateness of the removal of the Time images in particular.
*That since there are questions about the images, we follow the existing guidelines and leave those images off of articles until the question is settled.
*That any further deletion of images be carried out only within the existing venues.
In the longer term, I'd like to see
*Some discussion about exactly how urgent a problem this is, as opinons seem to vary wildly from the "We are in so much shit" position.  Urgency != rash action, but it's good to know soon we'd have to take decisive action.
*More exposition on why the currecnt system is not percieved to be working.
*Some suggestions as to what the long-term goal is.
I'm sure that lots of this has been discussed elsewhere on the big wide wiki, so even just providing links would be good.
brenneman{T}{L}  02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, there's even an appropriate WikiProject for talking about this kind of thing. Stan 03:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put an annoncment there about this and we consider if a "Speedy Project".  Or just redirect and merge this into the project.  Whatever is the best way to harness the energy and passion here for something useful. - brenneman{T}{L}  04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of direction 

message: Given that:
*Respect of copyright law is a legal obligation and a foundation issue
*Wikipedia prefers free images to those used by permission or under fair use.
*Fair use can only be claimed for a particular use of the copyrighted work.
*The board has left the implementation of a procedure to remove copyvio images to the community. 
*Jimbo saying that he would do something doesn't mean that it should or may be done by other people.
*Wikipedian community operates by consensus and has long and consistently frowned upon unilateral actions.
I propose that:
*We close this RFC.
*The board draws up a set of criteria under which copyrighted images (under fair use or by permission) may be used on Wikimedia websites. These obviosly must be within legal limits, but may also be much more restrictive.
*We require every use of a non-free image to be explicitly justified by one of the criteria, possibly using something like .
*We use the regular editing and decisionmaking process to remove images from articles where usage is not justified, and delete orphaned images after a week.
*We follow other established policies for dealing with emergencies and unexpected situations, and ignore all rules when necessary.
Zocky | picture popups 08:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiproject Fairuse in the past has rejected proposals to require per use justification templates. If you'd like to see this happen then you'll need to speak up because other users are not so supportive of the idea. --Gmaxwell 03:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way forward 

message: The argument for the TIME deletions started off as a way to prevent catastrophic financial liability. I believe that argument is dead, based on exisitng case law that we have discussed already, and a letter in our hands granting us "fair use". Now the issue is being framed as who's version of fair use applies: the copyright holder's liberal version; or, our narrow version. Our narrow interpretation was designed to be cautious since we don't have the explicit permission of each copyright holder. So why does our narrow version designed for the unknown apply here? Isn't that why we had our own biolerplate for TIME covers?
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly didn't start that as I didn't start this RFC. As I'm sure I've already said, that TIME boilerplate is not adequate! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats because the wording doesn't contain any of the information in the letter from Time magazine. The license should only contain the wording from Time and nothing else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the argument switch from "our liabilty" to a definition of fair use? 

message: I am assuming that all DVD screenshots will have to be deleted. We have the covers to the DVDs to illustrate the articles on the movies, but there are DVD stills to illustrate almost every movie and every actor. I am assuming the same logic will neccesitate their deletion. They are copyrighted. We have no permission from any individual studio. There are other available images of the actor via publicity stills. Is that our next target? We have to think of the reusers and the print version...
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, the use of DVD captures in an article about the actor is fine as long as the article explicitly discusses there role in the movie (unless suitable publicity stills from the movie are available - which would be a better choice). Captures of a movie to illustrate an article on the movie is pretty good grounds for fair use (as long as there aren't too many). The correct analogy here would be to use DVD captures of Star Wars to illustrate Space flight or Jurrasic Park to illustrate Dinosaur articles (neither of which would be valid uses unless the article was specifically discussing the movie). Again these fair use cases are only valid if a fair use rational is spelled out on the image description page. --Martyman-(talk) 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still waiting for you to address Martyman's concerns higher up on the talk page, but you seem to keep throwing about different arguments in the hopes that we'll forget that you can't answer questions directly. Mike H. That's hot 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this addressed to me? I haven't a clue what your refering to. If someone wants to contact me they can leave information on my userpage or email me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is. Martyman wrote above "I interpret the letter not as a permission for use (which would be a non-free license anyway and not acceptable) but as an admission that fair use may apply if used correctly. It is in no way a free-license and therefore does not in any way get around our requirement to comply with the fair use rules of wikipedia and the US government" to which you replied "Corporate logos are also a non-free license. Do we delete them? Or do the articles have to discuss the logo to be considered "fair use"?". It was then pointed out to you that this is not addressing the subject in question. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD screenshots