Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Archive 1

message: The following people support opening and using this page.
#Michael Snow 02:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: The following people oppose using this page:
*I must resist the cabal. ^_^ ugen64 01:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
*:TINC, and why do you oppose using this page? Guanaco 01:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: How many images uploaded before Sept. 20 should be listed per day?
Create a new header like 5000 to vote for a number that currently has no votes.
----
5
#Jamesday the original proposal did allow a reasonable amount of time to work through all of the older images.
50
#Karada 22:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Guanaco 21:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yep, which also means those of us on ADSL will have a ROYAL pain editing the page.  Much less those unfortunates who lack even ADSL!  Pakaran. 14:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that there are tens of thousands of untagged images. When the page grows too big, it should be split up.  I suspect this is going to be necessary. anthony (see warning) 22:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Number of listings

message: I've noticed a few people are now adding images and the warning against using the page has gone.  Is it now open for use?
:according to the Recent Changes masthead, it is - at least for newly uploaded images. But the restriction against old images was removed from the page itself. Whosyourjudas 20:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page now in use? 

message: :Image:Eugene Debs.jpg and :Image:AntonPannekoek.jpg were listed on September 20, but they look awfully low-risk to me.  They look like 100 year old photos that have passed into the public domain by now.  I think that on this page, we should encourage people to post higher-risk images, like :Image:Pm SH-BS114.jpg, that are at least probably copyrighted.  Yeah, I know the other two images might be from 1992 and have been contrived to look old, or they might have been touched up and hence copyrighted, but the probability seems low and I'd prefer to not sweep all the old-looking photos off Wikipedia when 90% of them would pass muster if the poster were still available to verify their origins.  Tempshill 01:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  All images, whether 'high-risk' or not, need to be proved/assured to have free licenses.  Any non-free picture has to be removed from Wikipedia, regardless of risk. That's the point of this page, isn't it? Whosyourjudas 20:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  remember, thanks to Mickey Mouse, copyright in the USA is now lifetime + quite a lot.  In fact the copyright, can vest in a spouse on the authors death, almost as if the spouse were a co-author. (Don't know how this applies to Hollywood style "chain" marriages.) So if you assume an old author who commewnced work young, marries  a much younger spouse who is in turn long lived, copyright could be c. 200yrs.  Also there are about five pieces of work that are perpetual copyright in the UK, and Peter Pan has had anomolous copyright extensions. Rich Farmbrough 10:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's prefer high risk images on this page 

message: In light of the concerns raised above about making sure we retain the focus on documenting and getting free images as efficiently as possible, following is a proposed new listing procedure, designed to cut the work of dealing with the images, so more images can be worked on with the same amount of effort, and to give ample time to contact those most likely to know about an image. Jamesday 12:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say Instruction creep? This piles on all kinds of requirements, and unnecessarily splits up existing ones, such as requiring you to contact the uploader two weeks before listing the image instead of at the time of listing. The uploader is already given a full thirty days before deletion. --Michael Snow 21:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Listings (proposed)

message: Some time ago I created a template to be tagged on (non-free) images for which a suitable and free replacement was available.   The text as of this writing reads:
:This image should be deleted because a better or free replacement for it has been found ().  Administrators should check the newly-replaced image before deleting.
Parameters: 
I have no idea how the deletion process should go about, whether by speedy deletion or otherwise.
Discuss.  Peter O. (Talk) 20:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't know if anyone uses that particular template. If an image is rendered obsolete because a new and better image has been uploaded, add the  tag and list it on Wikipedia:Images for deletion. This works regardless of the obsolete image's license status. The process does need to be followed, however, and being obsolete does not warrant speedy deletion. --Michael Snow 20:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Imagereplaced]] 

message: I had my user talk page picture (picture of me) listed here. I wasn't notified on my talk page, among other things.
Questions/points:
# The Wikipedia User pages are not intented to be reused and republicised; the issue of non-free or restrictive images is nowhere large here. We could keep cool about it, and users could have anything on their userpages (no copyvios or other stolen content, of course).
# Why troll the user space for images; this project is about our concern for non-free images in our content, right? Shouldn't we just leave other namespaces out of this?
✏ Sverdrup 22:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree with you, but things may not always be quite so simple. I agree that images in user pages should generally be given wider latitude than in articles. (I tend to agree with the "no copyvios or other stolen content", and if we placed no restrictions, as I'm sure someone could figure some way to abuse it.)  However images might be come upon by random search, and as we still have a bug as to image pages displaying what pages they are used on, I can't say if whoever listed your image here was doing anything inappropriate or not without knowning more. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpage materials

message: Do we have any sample letters for writing to people asking for images / permission to use images?  I seem to remember something similar on wikipedia but can't remember where. Ojw 22:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Letters?

message: I reformatted the page to break things down into two phases: Phase I and Phase II. Here's my reasoning.
There were some images - many, actually - that had been listed for over 30 days, but had not been replaced by boilerplate text in the articles that included them. I didn't want to delete these without giving people a chance to see that the image was being considered for deletion. I could have replaced them with boilerplate text, but someone else could, tomorrow, delete them. (They'd been listed for 30 days afterall.) I think we need a way to make sure they are replaced by boilerplate text for at least 15 days. So I broke the PUI process into 2 phases.
Images are initially listed in Phase I. After 15 days, they can be moved into Phase II. Whoever moves them into Phase II must also replace the image with boilerplate text in any articles contained in it, and link to those articles so someone else can remove the boilerplate text later. Even if an image was listed on Phase I for over 30 days, it's still not eligible for deletion unless it's been listed on Phase II for 15 days.
I have a feeling this will work out much better, and cause fewer surprises when images get deleted. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
*Are people using this scheme? why are there Phase II enteries for today? how does an item get into Phase II in less than 15 days? DES 22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When images are moved into phase II, they are put under the heading for the date when they were moved into phase II, not the date they were originally posted on phase I. kmccoy (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. Thanks. DES 22:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase I and Phase II 

message: When is an image of a museum display copyright?  See :Image:Grand Canyon geologic column.jpeg this doesn't claim to be a product of the US Govt, and it seems to me to include most of the features of the display which is taken.  Does the fact that it is only a 2D copy exclude it from copyright problems?  Is it fair use? Feel free to move this question somewhere else if you think it would be more appropriate there. Mozzerati 20:33, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
:Generally, the photographer gets the copyright, because of the artistic input (lighting, positioning).  (Various European countries make difficulties about photos taken in non-public spaces, but this was taken in the US.)  See :Image:Pooh.jpg for another example.  dbenbenn | talk 16:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of possibly unfree 3D objects.. 

message: User:Physchim62/German images lists about 80 wartime photos which have been tagged with the disputed . What do you want me to do with them? Tag them as  and list them here? Physchim62 12:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German wartime images 

message: I would appreciate if you could help me in this. User:Zereshk has been uploading lots of images with copyright problems since long ago, sometime claiming that he has taken them himself (which was not so for at least one image, :Image:Sialk.jpg), sometimes claiming that they came from Iranian websites and hence are not copyrighted in the United States where the Wikimedia Foundation is located, etc. He is almost never providing exact sources, usually simply marks the image as either  or , but also once in a while names the website he has copied the image from, but not the exact URL.
I have found a few of sources of his older images infringing copyrights, a partial list given here. I have not gone through all of them with Google, and I assume I won't find some copyright violating images anyway using Google.
I have tried talking with him on different matters, including copyright status of his contributions, which has resulted in him calling me names. I am going over his images and adding tags to images he has uploaded, but I guess any approach from my side to him trying to explain the issue in the PUI framework would not be well appreciated by him. I wanted to ask for someone to contact him on his talk page and tell him about the status of his images. roozbeh 04:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
PS: Please note that when the user has said something like "photo provided by Zershk" or "photo supplied by Zereshk", he doesn't mean that he has taken it himself. He has meant that he has provided it to the Wikipedia (uploaded it). In cases he claims has taken the photo himself, he clearly mentions so (using form of the verb "take"), sometimes even mentioning the camera brand. roozbeh 04:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
#User Roozbeh has a history of deleting all my edits, and pictures. As an example that his statements are not truthful, see the following image which he erased my GFDL tag that I had put on, and slapped on a copyvio tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wheel_Iran.jpg Note under file history where I give specific info on how I took the picture. 
#I have a large amount of edits. I daresay, a very large chunck of all English language Iranian pages were either initiated by me, or fully edited by me. I am a busy person trying to improve and add material constantly. My contributions to WP are far more numerous than Roozbeh. But as a result, I am often careless about what tags to use. User: Roozbeh however flatly deletes anything questionable instead of correcting the tags. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg He slapped a copyvio tag on the map, instead of correcting the tag to {PD-PCL}, which is what it should be.
#I have brought this to the attention of many admins before: other websites have been downloading stuff I have put up, and then putting copyright tags on them. I can even give you examples of articles I wrote on WP, that has appeared on another website with even another name as author under it!! Then User:Roozbeh comes along and accuses me of copyright infringement. How can anyone make any edits, if their edits will end up on someone else's website, followed by a copyvio tag on their own original work?????! What if I take a picture of myself holding the actual picture of this building, which I took the picture of? Will that convince you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emamzadeh-ebrahim.jpg
#There are other users that also can verify that User:Roozbeh is very confrontational, and has great disregard for all other editors. I'm not the only one angry at him.--Zereshk 10:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help appreciated