Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free/Archive 3

message: Has there ever been any floating of the idea to have required fields to fill in when uploading an image?  By which I mean:
*Source:
**Please give details as to whether the image is from a web site by providing the web address or if it is a self scan, in which case also provide the title of the work from which it was sourced and the page number if applicable.
*Tag:
**Please choose a tag from those listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and enter it.
*Copyright:
**Please indicate who you believe the copyright holder to be, either by referencing  the physical source if self-scanned or the web site if sourced from the internet.  If the image is public domain or GFDL enter that information instead.
If these fields were not filled in, the image would not be accepted for uploading, and if the fields were filled out nonsensically they would be CSD candidates.  Any thoughts? Hiding  talk 14:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda like the idea, you would need some kind of check so the fields where only required if you upload a brand new file (if you overwrite an existing file none of the info you input on the upload page is actualy used, so it would be anoying to be forced to enter a bunch of info beyond what is visible in the "upload summary"), but overall it might help reduce some of the blank uploads, the dire warnings on the upload page seems to still be overlooked quite a bit (though to be fair much of the backlog is due to image tagging aparently beeing a fairly recent requirement). Heck why not make a required "fair use rationale" field appear if a fair use lisence is selected while we are at it, those are very often overlooked. If you file a enhancement suggestion along those lines at MediaZilla (I believe that's the "right" place to suggest software changes) I for one would support it. A bare minimun should at least be to refuse completely blank uploads. --Sherool (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would point out that on works of art, it may be extremely clear what the source is, and that it is fair use in an article about the work of art, but extremely murky as to who owns the copyright. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of the source is extremely clear no one is going to throw a fit over having to actualy write it down (what web page did you lift it from, did you scan it from a museum borchure? Did you take a picture of it yourself in the museum etc.). All it would require is a good faith attempt to provide the information. If someone just wrote something like "the copyright status is unclear" the software would not complain, it would still be up to human beeings to evaluate wether or not the image can be used (and the image page can still be edited after the upload). Such a feature would simply make it slightly harder to completely ignore the fact that you are supposed -- no, required to provide that kind of information. There are still people, who despite the huge red warning label on the upload page upload files with no text or copyright tag whatsoever. Just try spending a few minutes doing though the list of recent uploads and I'll guarantee you find several images who's description page is completely blank along with several more who included a copyright tag, but gave no source. --Sherool (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Um, I don't like the options given for "source". Lots of images that I have uploaded don't really have a direct source as such (that is, they're not copies of other diagrams); they're illustrations of concepts. --Bob Mellish 17:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required fields when uploading 

message: After reading this discussion on WP:ANI, is there a WP policy or guidelines page that specifically states that copyrighted logos cannot be placed on userpage templates? I would like to be able to put a link to it in the edit summaries when I do remove them. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Fair use.  Jkelly 20:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was kinda of looking for a specific statement or section on there that explicitly says it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  "The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement." from the "Policy" section.  Jkelly 20:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I always link to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy when I remove fair use images from templates and such, not that it stops peope from puttig them right back, or arguing special dispensation or whatever, for example  that argue that firefox logos are fine to use on userpages did survive TFD despite what the policy says. It's like fighting windmills sometimes, people tend to interpret the rules to theyr liking. I've seen several people argue that anyting on the web is public domain and what not, or "there are thousands of other images, why come after mine" or if all else fail just cite WP:IAR... See #Fair use in templates? above too. --Sherool (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted logos on userpage templates 

message: Do they really need a fair use rationale? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Gmaxwell 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots of computer programs 

message: Since toolserver is working again, I've put my report of orphaned fair use image back online. These are images which (minus external and :Image linking which can't be automagically detected) meet the CSD criteria for fair use images not used in articles. Right now there are about 2,200 outstanding.. I'm about to start a new tagging run. --Gmaxwell 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to this report at :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to give it more attention from a broader range of admins. It seems to be working. :) Coffee 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned fair use report back online 

message: Wikipedia:Restricted image licenses is a proposal to accept a slightly more limited license for images, one which might be acceptable to many content creators/copyright owners who are not willing to release images under the GFDL. Your comments and views are welcome. DES (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited license for Images

message: There's a nice new template, , to request someone to review the fair use status of an image. But how does one actually encourage a review to happen? Does simply putting the template on mean that an expert is likely to look at it eventually? Or is there a talk page for requesting a review in specific cases?
Thanks for any guidance, Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to get an image reviewed 

message: I have put four very dubious image copyright on tfd. , ,  and . Church and Vatican are the worst since they have been stuck on all sorts of unsourced, "presumably fair use" images, I have retagged most of the images with the other templates. Your sensible votes and help re-tagging the remaining templated images would be appreciated.--nixie 09:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates on tfd

message: We don't seem to have a template to get text reviewed for fair use, so I am leaving a note here: would someone take a good look at Louie, Louie? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of text 

message: Here's a tricky one: :Image:Max_Brod.jpg. It almost certainly dates from before 1923, but it's hard to guess whether it was published in the US before that date. If we knew who owned copyright, there would be a trivial fair use argument to use it in Max Brod. We can't credit copyright, because it seems to be lost in the mists of time. The photo (like others that are clearly from the same photoshoot) is widely reproduced, but no one seems either to credit a copyright or specifically assert public domain. I ventured , but not really on solid grounds. What do we do with this? Can we assert fair use when we don't have clarity on the origin of the image? Of course we'd happily acknowledge any copyright we became aware of… -- Jmabel | Talk 10:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe it would be worth checking in books that may contain this image- books are usually pretty good at providing sources.... Arniep 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Brod 

message: Here's another dispute about unlicenced images being used outside of the article space.  I'd appreciate any comments there.  JYolkowski // talk 21:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation as of right now is that the Template is protected, an alternate image was designed and implemented after some discussion, but  edited the protected page back to the official logo version with an edit summary of "oh please".  I am unsure what an appropriate response might be.  Jkelly 20:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, WikiFanatic edited the page 7 minutes before it was protected.  dbenbenn | talk 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  Jkelly 02:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:User democrat]] 

message: I removed the image of the Simpsons character on that article, but was reverted with the summary "Abelson (rv vandalism, the image is fair use, RTFT)". Now, this isn't fair use is it? / Fred-Chess 17:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't, and that's not a civil edit summary by a long shot, either. I've commented on Talk:Hillbilly. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It isn't even logical use, much less fair.  Cletus is a "yokel," not a hillbilly, although he does speak in Hillspar dialect (the hillbilly dialect), but that's a function of the Hank Azaria's choice: the comic type of the "rube" (yokel) is what that character is.  Hillbillies aren't comic (see Woolfe's Look Homeward, Angel).  Geogre 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hillbilly]] 

message: Griselio Torresola contains an awfully long quotation. I'd appreciate hearing from others whether they think we have a fair use case for this. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another text issue