Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Archive 2

message: As you may have seen Jimbo has created a new criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators are free to delete on sight any image that has been in :Category:Images with unknown source and :Category:Images with unknown copyright status for more than 7 days. Informing users, adding boilerplate texts and waiting for thirty days goes out the window for a large class of images that were previously put on PUI. I want to provoke some discussion of what this means for this page. Some possiblities:
# We ignore it, and keep on with the PUI process as it is.
# We shut up shop. PUI has served it's purpose and is now shut down. We speedy those that we can and wave goodbye to this page.
# We fight. PUI is a better process than speedy deletion. We ask for some review of the process.
# We change. - But how?
above comment by Zeimusu
:On Jimbo's talk page, someone asked if these changes mean that PUI is unnecessary. Somebody replied "No, as invalid fair use claims still need to be taken through there". Personally I support speedying unsourced/unlicenced images. It's too easy to upload them, and too tedious to PUI/IFD them. PUI was originally created to deal with them, but the process takes far far too much time and effort to deal with the thousands of images, so the backlog has only continued to grow. Coffee 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The PUI process is unnecessarily cumbersome and should be radically revised. Putting  during phase II is way too time consuming and I'm not sure it serves any legal value since the image itself is tagged. Get rid of phase II. Mark the images PUI for 15 days and if uploader does not respond and fix the issue - delete the image. --Nv8200p (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too much stuff here that just falls under the speedy criteria. Now there is a bot helping with nosource and unknown these should go away faster, so I dont see the point of listing them here. If its important to get rid of the image fast, contact an admin; ifd also is much quicker. WP:FU can deal with fair use claims. Not sure I see the point of this page in 99% of cases. Justinc 00:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new CSD rules and PUI 

message: Does anyone know if use of images from these agencies is fair use? 
http://www.wireimage.com
http://www.ap.org/pages/product/photoservices.html
I tagged :Image:Zane.jpg as no source, but I tracked it down to an image from wireimages (via imdb) should I remove the tag or leave it?
Thanks Arnie587 14:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They should not be uploaded. WP:FUC: "photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work." The only occasion I could see a WireImage/AP image as a fair use would be if it were a low resolution being used to illustrate the actual photo in question. This isn't the best example, but if one were to write an article about Tara Reid's nipple slip they could make the argument that the image is a fair use.--Fallout boy 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wireimage and AP images

message: Dear everyone,
I would like to tell you that most of the images uploaded by mine are just for educational purposes only and not for commercial reasons. However, I don't know how to tag back the images based on their copyright status, so can anyone tell me how to do it?
From all those images, Campro04.jpg and Campro03.jpg are obtained from Proton's official website, http://www.proton.com but however the copyright owner allows anyone to use it mainly for educational purposes. The rest of the images are from my own collections obtained from somewhere else, used only for educational purposes. Thanks - Hezery99
:Unfortunately, Jimbo has said that non-commercial use only images are to be deleted, as they are not appropriate for Wikipedia or its mission. If you are the copyright holder, please consider changing your images to use a free licenses such as the GFDL. If you are not the copyright holder and you would like to see that these images remain on Wikipedia, please get permission from the copyright holder to license it under the GFDL (permission for Wikipedia use only is not adequate).
:To tag your images, please select an image copyright tag at WP:ICT and add the template to the bottom of the image description page.
:Hope this helps. Wikiacc (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of the uploaded images uploaded by mine are for educational purposes only! 

message: Last year I uploaded the files :Image:De Chirico's Love Song.jpg and :Image:TheNostalgiaoftheInfinite.jpg. At the time I believed them to be public domain, but recent questions arose and both images were placed on WP:PUI. I was NOT contacted first and the user that contributed them (user Restituta) apparently has no user page on Wikipedia.
I have claimed fair use for De Chirico's Love Song.jpg. As these images were placed in the phase II list 15 days ago I would appreciate it if someone could look into this case as soon as possible. If at all possible, I would also like a stay of exicution for TheNostalgiaoftheInfinite.jpg.
Thank you. Justin Foote 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  de Chirico issue 

message: Wow, this has become complicated. This whole process needs to be streamlined again. Am I really expected to keep an eye on things that I put in Phase I and move them up periodically? Not going to happen. Suggestions or comments? Fawcett5 23:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like some clarification... is the person listing the images really expected to keep an eye on their nominations and come back here after 15 days? Or is the moving-to-Phase-II simply done by any helpful user that's keeping things moving along at PUI? Coffee 14:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction creep 

message: Where should I raise the issue of (extensive) non-fair use of fair use images?  Most editors understand and accept this, but one ( insists on adding fair-use images of album covers to articles on other albums — e.g.:
*L.A. (Light Album)
*Love You
*Keepin' the Summer Alive
*The Beach Boys (album)
*Made in U.S.A.
*Still Cruisin'
There are many others.  This isn't just one misuse, but multiple misuses of each cover (the infobox style is also against the album Wikiproject, and has been criticised widely on the basis of its misuse of the images and its rather bloated appearance).
If this is the wrong place to raise this (as I suppose it is), where is the right place? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-fair use of fair-use images? 

message: This page is now incompatible with speedy deletion criteria, which clearly say that any image that was marked as unknown, should be deleted after 7 days. This page proposes 30 days procedure, which is much more. 
Many people become confused by these incompatibilities - I have wandered around Wikipedia: namespace for few hours before I found out clearly which are the rules for the unknown images and how these images should be marked.
I have proposed this page's templates for deletion; please check WP:TFD#Template:PUI. --Monkbel 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major incompatibility with [[WP:CSD]] 

message: I'm a bit confused.  I understand that some images can be tagged with nosource/nolicense and get deleted quicker, and that PUI is mainly for whatever falls between (like images were the source is nonsense or license isn't legit).  But for the images that I do tag as nosource/nolicense, do I need to also add/keep the PUI tag and still go through the phases and put unverifiedimage in the captions?  Also, what about images listed here that can obviously be tagged with nosource/nolicense... do I remove them from the list?  Thanks for your help! 
P.S. I'd also like to point out the unverifiedimage thing in the caption is a good idea (if time consuming) because it gets article authors involved.  Usually they would just go on editing/maintaining the article without actually checking the pics... Foofy 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUI and nosource/nolicense 

message: Let's discontinue the use of WP:PUI for images that are missing source of licensing information. It is completely redundant with the new WP:CSD criteria for unsourced/unlicensed images. We can simply add guidelines on the PUI page that instructs people to use the  and  tags, which are faster and simpler and easier on everyone. Coffee 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects in a few days I'll just go ahead and modify the procedure. Based on the above comments on this page, Foofy, Justinc, and Monkbel would agree to the change. Coffee 03:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine by me. The we can use PUI for better things, like images that appear to have erroneous sources and copyright etc. Justinc 13:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah me too, let CSD deal with the images people haven't bothered tagging properly (or at all). PUI could then be "reserved" to deal with cases where tags and source are in place but disputed or incorect or other "difficult" cases. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've altered the process and added a notice to the top of the page similar to the one at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The images that are currently tagged with  should be allowed to run their course and eventually all the images in :Category:Images with unknown source for deletion will be taken care of. Right now there are 204 images in that category. Coffee 07:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're at it, how about renaming  to ? That way it'll be consistent with , and it won't be mistaken for a speedy delete tag. This seems to me like an obvious Good Thing, so I'll go ahead and move it. Coffee 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I expanded a bit on the "speedy notice" to include mentioning the  and  templates and recomending that people notify the uploaders as well (in most cases). Hopefully I didn't make it too long winded or complicated. --Sherool (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Do away with &#123;{[[Template:PUI|PUI]]}}

message: Would it be an idea to incorporate  (and possebly ) "formaly" into this process? I notice Wikipedia:Fair use already states:
If you believe an image that is tagged as Fair Use is definitely not Fair Use, you can add  to it, and it will be eventually nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
But IMHO it would be better if those tags instructed people to list the image here rater than relying on them "eventualy being nominated", far to few people seem to have images on theyr watchlists so most images with those tags just stagnate in those categories for months with no discussion taking place.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use is trying to come up with a process to verify and review fair use claims (at least it's a stated goal, currently focus seems to be on rewriting tags and clearifying polciy and such). With a few tweaks PUI might be eable to fill that role without the need to invert yet another process for images. Sorry if I've missed a previous discussion on this somewhere. --Sherool (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is PUIdisputed, nobody wants to delete that.  I was wondering if it's technically possible to add the  to captions in articles that use  type tags.  That would at least get over the problem of nobody watching the images and seeing the problems.  Adding that stuff manually is time consuming, though in my limited experience here, nobody pays attention to it anyway.  :( Foofy 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUI and &#123;{[[Template:fairusedisputed|fairusedisputed]]}} 

message: Just a FYI,  (see it's talk page) has been listed on TFD here. Just figured I'd mention it since it's part of the stage II process here. --Sherool (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The template was also blanked by someone else.  I have restored it (and put it on watch) until the TFD is done.  I don't think it's necessarily the best solution, but it is better than nothing at all.  People simply don't notice the images are going away without it.  I wish there was something similar (and automated!) for no source and license tags. Foofy 22:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  &#123;{[[Template:unverifiedimage|unverifiedimage]]}} on [[WP:TFD|TFD]] 

message: ::::The guidelines still say that the third step in considering deleting an image is to place an unverified image tag in the caption field of every instance where the image is used.  Well, it appears that those on image copyvio patrol aren't doing that.  I don't know whether a policy decision has been made that advising those who have pages on their watchlist don't deserve to know when the images on those pages is being challenged, and that the guidelines just haven't been brought in to synch with the policy change -- or whether some volunteers on image copyvio patrol just are unaware or uncaring about the wikipedia's policy.
::::I've contributed to a bunch of articles on various Canadian Coast Guard vessels.  I uploaded various images from the CCG site, back before {noncommercial} images were proscribed.  The relatively recent policy changes that noncommercial images weren't welcome, and older images time was numbered wasn't pleasant.  But I believe in respecting policy.  So I went looking for alternate images which were free.  I went through the several dozen images that volunteers like myself had uploaded, and made two galleries.  The larger gallery was of images that had been challenged.  The smaller gallery was of the images that had not been challenged.  Most of the images that I found were challenged seven weeks ago have been deleted.  And, recently, some of the images which hadn't been challenged in early February have been deleted as well.  No one put the required warning on any of those images.
::::I think conducting the wikipedia's operations in an open and transparent fashion is essential.  I had a recent dialogue with a volunteer on image copyright patrol, who seemed to be excusing himself for not putting the {unverifiedimage} tag in the caption fields because it was just too much work.  He seemed to be telling me that I should regularly check the list of suspect images to see if the images on articles I am interested in have been placed there.  
::::Something I would like the volunteers on image copyright patrol to understand that casual vandals, and vandals who upload copyright images with false liscenses, aren't the only kind of vandals that damage the wikipedia.  There are vandals who are partisan, who remove or alter the sourcing information in articles, and then suggest removal because it is sourcing is suspect.
::::There was an image that I had been looking for, that was found by someone else, a new volunteer.  This new volunteer initially didn't put the right liscense on the image.  That guy who was following me around almost like a stalker subjected that new contributor to some pretty harsh criticism, in violation of the don't bite the newbies policy.  Even though I had nothing to do with uploading the image I came in for some harsh criticism too, in violation of the no personal attacks policty.
::::I'd asked the uploader if the iamge was a screenshot from a television documentary.  A still image of this individual had been used in a television documentary about GIs who abused detainees.  Eventually some put a screenshot liscense on the image.  I thought the issue was settled.  And I trusted that if someone had a concern about the image, they would put the warning tag on the caption field, and the watch I had on the article would give me a heads-up when the caption was modified.
::::Well, a couple of months later I noticed the image had been deleted.  I tried to figure out how it got deleted.  A volunteer on image copyright patrol had a concern that it had the wrong tag.  So they changed the tag to unverified.  Apparently they put a notice on the uploader's page.  A worthless gesture since they left the wikipedia shortly after their contributions were treated harshly.  But they did not put the {unverifiedimage} tag in the caption fields, so the rest of us who had an interest in the image would get advised.
::::A few days later an administrator deleted the apparently unverified image.  I don't know if they had a responsibility to check to see if {unverifiedimage} tags had been placed in the caption fields of the articles where the image was used.  They didn't perform this check.
::::I urge you, you volunteers who patrol for unfree images, and you administrators who delete unverified images, to make sure you too follow the procedures to the letter.  It is very important.  --  Geo Swan 03:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The unverified image tag

message: haie guys, as I'm not to familar with the procedures on en i post it here. this image is under GNUFDL. Just i dont believe this. Poland is a modern sate but that the  Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland is publishing images under GNUFDL is a bit more then i can imagine ;) ... Sicherlich  Post  07:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Swital.jpg]] 

message: There seems to be a mess and an unhealthy dispute about images tagged with :Template:GermanGov and shown in :Category:German_government_images.  The template was changed after an extremely short debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:GermanGov and so they are (or would be if updating worked) also in :Category:Images_with_unknown_source_for_deletion.  In most cases the source is in fact clear: the pre-1945 Third Reich.  It does not seem that the uploaders have been notified that their images are liable to deletion.   My interest is in :Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg which I know (a) that it is not (as originally claimed when published) a photograph of a bombing raid in September 1940 (it shows buildings removed by 1938) and (b) impossible to get German government representatives to comment on the copyright status. --Henrygb 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People considering deleting these images might look at  or  - I am not a German lawyer, but it is unclear to me that the need for deletion is clear. --Henrygb 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German Government Images

message: I would like to propose that we handle these by splitting the pages into daily log pages, à la WP:IFD. The reasoning behind this is that currently the only way to find what happened to an old listing is to search for it in the page history, which is really cumbersome. The only drawback to this is that we would need a bot to handle the daily chores. I was thinking of asking Cryptic but he seems to have left. Any thoughts? howcheng  {chat} 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If editors were to stop bringing images that are unquestionably unfree here, that would help considerably.  Many images here can be speedied as lacking source information, copyright information, or obviously failing WP:FUC.  Jkelly 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Log pages 

message: I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Copyright review, based off Wikipedia:Copyright problems, to merge the copyright verification processes together. Please discuss the proposal on its talk page, not here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Proposal 

message: ..Or should that be spelled with a capital "H"? The image is so universal, appearing in decks of cards all over the world — Are these all licensed from the U.S. Playing Card Company? And why is the King of Hearts the only playing card image up for deletion? – Morganfitzp 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link to the image in question? User:Angr 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume this is in reference to :Image:King of hearts.jpg.  The card box says, "The public is hereby notified that exclusive rights are claimed to the various names, numbers, back designs, case designs, ace of spades, jokers and other distinguishing characteristics of our brands of cards."  As far as I can tell this king of hearts is uniquely drawn and thus copyrightable. -SCEhardT 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King of hearts?

message: What's to be done here?  I feel it fits  or  and , User:Angr objects. --tickle me 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't qualify for  because a source is given, nor for  because a license is given. If you think the source isn't adequate, tag it with  and list it here on PUI under today's date, giving your full reasons. User:Angr 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I won't edit war about it, I'll have to comply. However, I feel my reasoning is sound. Neither source nor license is verifiable, thus they don't qualify. The MEHR NEWS permission in alleged, no link to the imprint page or other page proving the claim is given. The burden of proof is on the uploader - afaik in dubio pro reo is not the policy here, for good reasons. --tickle me 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the burden of proof is on the uploader, but the uploader is given two weeks to provide that proof, not the 5 days granted by nsd/nld, nor the zero time granted by . If the necessary proofs haven't been supplied in 2 weeks, the image will be deleted then. User:Angr 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Nasrallah and khamenei.jpg]] 

message: The image is tagged that all rights have been released. Who questions this on what reason?
Wandalstouring 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#September 16. —Bkell (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible to discuss any problem there. I just asked the creator of this article to clarify his source and the legal trouble we have. You could have done this yourself. Wandalstouring 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Hussite_Infantry.jpg 

message: This page often sounds like a broken record, with various editors going to a fair amount of trouble to explain the same issues again and again.  Thus, I suggest we work on good answers to a set of common questions that we can then refer people to.  This should hopefully cut way down on the work in the long run as well as help to ensure consistency.  I've made an (empty) prototype: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/FAQ.  Thoughts?  -SCEhardT 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably better to link to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and extend it as needed instead. --Sherool (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a seperate page here is probably helpful as the kind of users we are trying to reach are the kind of users who don't have the patience to read anything as long as Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, although it's probably worth linking to individual sections in the main copyright FAQ. Megapixie 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ 

message: There's a new tag in town: . Details and discussion are here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable fair use 

message: Why is the backlog so huge, and what can be done about it? Valrith 00:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The backlog seems to be only one day, at the moment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing the backlog 

message: It appears that an Image going through WP:IFD can be deleted after 5 days, but under this speedy policy it can be deleted after 7 days. How is that speedy? Isn't WP:CSD supposed to be faster than xFD items? I believe 24 hours is plenty of notification and time. A user should not upload an image unless they immediately intend to put the image in an article and are prepared to provide the source and copyright. They may be guess the copyright wrong, and then we can help, but if they don't provide a source or copyright, 24 hours is more than plenty. WP:NOT an image hosting service. --MECU≈talk 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow you're right. So much for "speedy deletion".  and  can only be used after 7 days have passed. --WikiSlasher 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest 48 hours. But yes, as it is, it is inconsistent. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the huge problem. The point of "speedy deletion" is IMHO not nessesarily that stuff need to be deelted fast-fast-fast (well except attack pages and such), just that the process is streamlined. Just tag & forget, no consensus to interpret or multi stage listing process, just a (usualy) binary solution, either it fits the deletion criterea or it doesn't. As such I think it works pretty well, the long-ish "lag time" helps reduce the complaints that stuff get deleted without warning (keep in mind that a fair number of users don't edit every day). Besides we are frequently backloged half a week or more as it is, so there is a limit to how much practical effect a drastic cut in "lag time" would have anyway. --Sherool (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're still in a renaming frenzy (as with VFD, CFD, etc), perhaps CSD should be "Candidates for straightforward/simple/streamlined deletion". I've heard that question about delay-activated CSD's more than once in recent weeks and months. -- nae'blis 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily so speedy. I have to wait a week before I can even apply . I think I might change the tags to make them easier to use. --WikiSlasher 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind we have  (requires substing). --WikiSlasher 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy slower than IFD 

message: I came across this page through a link on a user's talk page. It isn't mentioned in WP:CP or in other pages of the series; does it still have a place in the process? Should images with disputed licensing information be dealt with here? What about ? Should images tagged as such be directed here or to WP:CP? -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was originally for untagged images, but once those were made speedy deletion candidates, it evolved into a place to list images that are claimed to be free but appear not to be.  Thus, it isn't really formally part of the copyright problems process at all, but remains because it still serves a useful purpose.  The main difference between these images and those tagged with , as far as I'm concerned, is that most of the ones sent here are assumed to be deliberate deception, not an honest mistake.  As you can see if you look through the page history, probably 90% or more of the images sent here are deleted, not retagged.  Chick Bowen 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does/how does this page fit into the copyright problems process? 

message: What's the difference? I could go out and just as easily take the same photo, or anyone with the right equipment could. If it's of a person, or their pet, or inside their home, or something personal that is not visibly in public, then maybe those photos should be protected from distribution. But of a public place that everyone has access to???? Give me a break. If you choose to take a picture of a public place, then it's your problem if you wanted that picture to make a profit off of if you put it online for everyone to download and see.  If you don't want it copied and used for other purposes, then don't put it online. Make it into postcards and sell it, but don't put it online. 
Again, a public place? What's stopping me from taking the exact same picture and giving it to Wikipedia or anyone else just because I want to? Are you going to come at me and say I took a picture of a location you copyrighted? I don't think so. Public place, no right to privacy, or copyright if you ask me....
Anisa Rodriguez
* You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.  Try reading up on copyright law and ethics so that you can speak intelligently on the subject. Valrith 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree - it's ridiculous to have copyrighted photographs....