Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Amendment

message: The onus is on the editor who uploaded the image to prove that fair use applies to the image.
:I'm not sure anyone can prove fair use applies. Also, it applies to the use, not the image itself. I suggest changing it to "The onus is on the editor who uploaded the image to demonstrate how the fair use criteria apply to the use of the image." Angela. 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Angela. Thanks for doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: onus is on the editor 

message: Is this 7 days/24 hours from when the user first edits the relevant talk page with the warning, or seven days/24 hours from when the user who uploaded and used the picture first learns of the problematic copyright status? The difference is real and significant. --maru  (talk) contribs 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing 

message: This would be more sensible after :Category:Fair use images has been reviewed and emptied out. There are hundreds if not thousands of images that have been thrown in there because people were unclear about Bridgeman etc, or decided to be conservative, or whatever. I've made a couple passes, but it's a huge pile. Also, the fair use rationale is intrinsically squishy, for instance nobody ever seems to agree on what "low resolution" is supposed to mean, or what is "historical", so it's kind of unfair to put a hard deadline on something where reasonable people can disagree and need to debate it for awhile. Stan 03:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the image resolution, in my view, must be significantly lower than the original (i.e. if you printed Wikipedia, then the image would look terrible). No more than 72dpi. As for what is historical, a description in the text of the article would deal with this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 72dpi would be good for almost everything except postage stamps, which are only about half-inch across typically. What I meant by "historical" is that most broadly, it could be anything that happened in the past, so an AP photo of last week's playoff game could be said to be historical, and even described as such in the article about the playoffs, but I don't think that's exactly what we have in mind. Stan 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some common sense is in order here. One thing to keep in mind is: can we replace this with a free image or not? Also: do we need this image on the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As your surprisingly-popular RfC suggests, there is quite a bit of disagreement on what constitutes "common sense". I commented on this yesterday in Wikipedia talk:Fair use review, observing that WP works best whenever we can draw a sharp line, even if the line is arbitrary. (One could even argue that relying on the common sense of editors regarding fair use is what got us into this whole mess in the first place.) For instance, if we adopt a rule of "72dpi or 250 pixels, whichever is larger", that covers small objects too. Or if we went to "250 pixels max", it could be checked with a bot, saving the poor admins from being hassled by all and sundry. Stan 13:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: What about disputed fair use? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, admins must use their commonsense. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from amendment to talk page 

message: One issue I have with not notifying the uploader and reducing the length of time that they're tagged is this: I recently had a fair use image that was used legitimately in an article. Someone removed it and replaced it with some image that was subsequently deleted. The bot came around and tagged my image for deletion because it subsequently wasn't used anywhere. If anything, I think it should be highly suggested that the uploader be notified in all instances, because someone else may have caused the image's use to become improper. enochlau (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have made an initial change - removed the "without warning" part. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumstances change 

message: I disagree with one part of this policy. This was written for single images, but what about all of those TIME covers? There was a mass deletion by a user who shall go unnamed a few months ago. One image can be replaced, but the matter is different when you go to your pet article and find it devoid of images. So, I propse this:
:For multiple images of similar content (roughly, images that would belong categorized together), when such images have possible encyclopediac value, the 24 hour rule does not apply. Rather, consult with the uploader and associated or concerned Wikipedians and find a way to balance the reduction of  the number of these images without deleting all of them.
One image can be replaced. But the effects of deletion are multiplied eexponentially when done to multiple images.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your pet article is devoid of images because all your images were copyviolations, my advise to the uploader would be to sort out the core problem, which is: you are not following image or fair use policy. Start following the policy and you'll never have your images deleted. I strongly oppose this change. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk deletions 

message: To get rid of the worry about timelines, and avoid the pain of irreversible image deletion : set up a quarantine for images that seem to fail fair use and other criteria.  Move all troubling images there.  If the original uploader, or anyone!, is around to move it back, make them justify its license.  
Then once you hvae a quarantine, in which no images are harming the project in any way -- it is clear that these images are 'probably not safe to use' but being held to see for sure -- you can have a leisurely time scale, such as a month, in which people can return to Wikipedia, find their favorite image or personal upload missing, and go to the quarantine to rescue it.  +sj + 20:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And thereby undo all the work it took for the who identified it and Quarantined it with nary a thought? It's hard enough work when you don't have to live the life of Sisyphus, overall I'm not opposed to the idea.. but so far what you've proposed is far too vague to be actionable and not well thoughout enough to be acceptable. Can you cite some cases where this would really be needed? --Gmaxwell 01:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems a lot like the prod. Is there any reason why we can't just use prod for images where the fair use rationale is lacking? That gives five days for the problem to be addressed. Hiding  talk 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quarantine. 

message: I have a number of issues with this policy proposal, maybe you can answer them.
*There is no serious problem with material tagged as fair use right now AFAIK. I've seen some images which were definitely copyrighted (and tagged as fair use), but they were detected and removed quickly. Therefore I also ask a question: why is this amendment needed?
**I disagree. There is a very big problem of people tagging images as fair use, and not giving correct fair use criteria. Even Jimbo Wales himself has agreed with me privately that the fair use tag is being abused. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have given my reasons. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The most important thing is that the uploader is notified.  Even if the image is deleted while the issue is being sorted out, the picture can then just be reuploaded with the proper fair use rational. 24 hours is more then enough time as this could be a huge legal liablity.  I'm suprised this wasn't already policy --T-rex 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: no need to take forever

message: How do we start off the vote? Nobody can tell me! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Can I vote yet? This policy is long overdue imhoBorisblue 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kicking this off 

message: I would like to amend that when removing Fair use images 
#You must notify the user
#you should make an attempt to find a free replacement
#you must make an attempt to find a free replacement if removing the image from multiple pages.
#you must fix any formatting problems caused by your removal of the image.
#you must Explain yourself when removing Fair use images and your rational in more than a few lines.  Not just that is it a rule but the rational behind the rule
#You should instead of removing the image yourself you should rather leave a note on the talk page asking them to remove the image themselves 
#*(It makes them feel like they have more control.  Sometimes they will object to you touching your userspace in a non improving Mainer more than the actual removal of the image.)
#If somebody objects to your removal of the image you should make a sub page to talk about this particular image and link to it on their talk page so people don't have to wast their time to restate what is already said Manny times over.  Keep the talk in one place.
You can agree with some of these requirements without liking the whole thing.  Efficacy in removing Fair use images is not my Goal Civilty and AGFity and Biteity are my goals--E-Bod 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Durin/Removal of fair use images is good reading on this issue. ed g2s • talk 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally if you want a response you should leave a message on someone else's talk page... ed g2s • talk 13:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.  What Is Fair Use? Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources
It is maddening, but many US laws are like this: vague on purpose.  So in my opinion it is rather counterproductive that many wikiusers are attempting to carve out strict rules when the law itself has only vague rules. Smart lawyers, I have been told, never give iron-clad guarantees to their clients.  Smart wikipedia lawyers who want to keep their jobs, would only give their opinion on fair use in private, and not issue strict edicts.
In keeping with Jimbo's vision, I feel that fair use on wikipedia should err on the side of users who want to keep these images.  Have broad rules keeping to the laws of the US, and to the vision of wikipedia too.  This is why I do not support this amendment. Travb (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Fair use images from userspace 

message: *"Wikipedia goal is to create a free, democratic, reliable encyclopedia—actually, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. This is an ambitious goal, and will probably take many years to achieve!"--
*"Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." ---Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats
*"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004
*"Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." -- Wikipedia-l mailing list, March 8, 2005
*"Fair use (and the narrower fair dealing) is an important freedom from abuse by copyright holders. It is good to see a decision which supports it." 
I support jimbo's vision of wikipedia. I think fair use is an important part of wikipedia.
The reason there is so much controversy around fair use is because: 
:There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.  What Is Fair Use? Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources
It is maddening, but many US laws are like this: vague on purpose.  So in my opinion it is rather counterproductive that many wikiusers are attempting to carve out strict rules when the law itself has only vague rules. Smart lawyers, I have been told, never give iron-clad guarantees to their clients.  Smart wikipedia lawyers who want to keep their jobs, would only give their opinion on fair use in private, and not issue strict edicts.
In keeping with Jimbo's vision, I feel that fair use on wikipedia should err on the side of users who want to keep these images.  Have broad rules keeping to the laws of the US, and to the vision of wikipedia too.  This is why I do not support this amendment. Travb (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use and Jimbo

message: What i don't understand is that a photograph of a copyrighted work is OK  but a copy of that work is not.  I remember an instance where a puzzle was in a book.  A replica of the puzzle was copyrighted but a photo of the book with the crease in the middle was a self taken photograph.  A photo made by Dell of their laptop is copyrighted but a photo of a dell laptop is not.  I think dell would be happier with their photos of the laptop than one of our photos.  I was thinking of taking a photo of my laptop as an alternative and removing the fair use image but that would just make the article look messy.  Am I not allowed to use a TV image of a cartoon character but i am allowed to upload a self taken picture of a toy in the image of the cartoon character.  Why is having a worse picture always considered better?  You almost want to not make an alternative just so you can use the fair use one one a page.  I See Online news articles all the time using copyrighted press released images.  why can they be used hear if everyone else is using them?--E-Bod 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are refering to Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, which they apply strictly, despite Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation not determining what the size of a fair use image is.  See my comments above about this.Travb (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It partly depends on what you are taking a photo of. If it's a book cover, then it doesn't matter whether it's you or amazon.com who produce a picture of the cover - the real issue is that the cover art is copyright so we have to use it as fair use. If it's a computer, there is no reason at all to use a fair use image if it is possible to produce a free image of that computer ourselves. We aren't trying to build a really cool website, we're trying to produce a free encyclopedia - i.e. one with as little copyright restrictions as possible. The TV character case is more obviously marginal but why not have a photograph of both? Certainly the fact that a character has led to the production of merchandise is significant. Not all copyright laws are as liberal (in fair use terms) as the United States, and even genuinely fair use images are already significantly hampering physical publication of Wikipedia, which is why the use of "free use" images is so important (even if only in conjunction with fair use ones: there are published editions of Wikipedia where the photo of the toy would have been usable but the screenshot would not be). Improper fair use is even worse. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a U.S. encyclopedia so undue reliance on U.S. copyright law exemptions is undesirable if we are to produce a genuinely free, universally reproducible encyclopedia. TheGrappler 16:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crummy pictures wanted 

message: This ammendment, at this point, clearly has no consenus. It has been sitting here since late February and I see more arguments than I see support.  I think this amenment should be shelved, if that is possible.Travb (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. It has to go for voting, then we shelve it. If we shelve it, I'm asking the Wikimedia Foundation to step in. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any vote yet?--Jusjih 10:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus

message: After quite a few months, I have kicked off Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. It is not a vote, but will give each editor the chance to support or oppose the amendment very clearly. I've got it going for a fortnight as obviously it needs to end some time, and there is a lack of guidance on how to amend policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use criteria consensus discussion started 

message: I don't understand how this is different than current policy. Maybe one should further explain that on the proposal page at the top. Is this decreasing the time? Wasn't there already a time limit? → JARED (t)  14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WARNING - MISUSE OF THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON!!!! :-) But seriously, the time limit on the speedy deletion criteria is 7 days. This amendment reduces it to 48 hours. Also, this amendment has been in the pipeline longer than the speedy critera has been in effect. What is the problem exactly with the 48 hour time limit? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nothing, really. I just didn't understand it fully. I do think 48 is a little hasty, though. → JARED (t)  14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... the thing is, I originally had it as 24 hours, but extended it to compromise. The truth of the matter is that those who are uploading images as fair use and not providing an explanation of why they believe the image is fair use are actually breaking image upload policy, and the images should not be staying on Wikipedia any longer than absolutely necessary. That's why 48 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT?!! 

message: I support the idea, but 48 hours is a bit too fast. Perhaps give the uploader a week. It may take the uploader 24 hours to notice the issue (due to time zones) and another 24 for the admin to respond to the inquire on what the problem is. People are not required to check their talk page evry day. Some people prefer to edit weekly, on weekends only for instance. A week is a more confortable time span. Any unjust deletes can be easily undeleted since mediawiki now supports that. --Cat out 23:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistically if an uploader doesn't respond right away then they will not respond at all. We can undelete now and the uploader could always have reuploaded, so whats the problem?  --Gmaxwell 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool Cats view on the matter 

message: I stumbled upon this, I don't know how, and I don't find it relevant. We're all dishing out our two pence, so here's mine.
Fair use media should be eliminated from Wikipedia. The entire project is supposed to be freely redistributable. I suggest that Wikipedia lowers its tolerance on the misuse of the "fair use" provision of United States law.
That's all. robchurch | talk 06:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with a total ban, though I agree that we have to be a lot stricter on the misuse of fair use! When fair use is used properly then the product is freely redistributable, though of course it is even better when fair use images are replaced with public domain or GFDL images. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When fair use is used properly then the product is freely redistributable No it's not!!! Fair use has been a major pain for several groups trying to redistribute Wikipedia. We don't all come under U.S. law on fair use. TheGrappler 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view