-
File:Doing battle with the Deletionists.jpg (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
The license was fixed
Dream Focus 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
I thought everything was done, but to my surprise the page got deleted. I tried discussing this at
User_talk:VernoWhitney#The_license_was_fixed. The Fair Usage Rational #8 was used as the reason for its deletion. I believe it met all requirements, as it does significantly increase a reader's understanding of the article material. It is linked to in the
Peter David article, but the administrator stated the image had to be in an article, so someone added it to
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia where it fit perfectly, there a section concerning it there.
[1] If anything needed to be updated, such as pointing to the new article, that could've been done quite easily. I did misread the part about a second tag, thinking that was just the FUR information. I can easily add that though,
Template:Non-free newspaper image meeting the requirements just fine. Note that the copyright holder did give permission, which has been confirmed, to use this anywhere on the internet, that including Wikipedia, for which he knows it was uploaded to.
Dream Focus 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- In that case, since it was just a misunderstanding, can you undelete it and let me add
Template:Non-free newspaper image to it? I assumed the FUR would be a reason you'd want to keep it deleted.
Dream Focus 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion The template you would like to add says "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages..." (bolding in original). This was not a low-resolution image, but completely legible. There's no provision in
WP:NFC to permit us to reproduce articles as images; on the contrary, it's listed as an example of "unacceptable use" there: "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source." (Doing this, of course, opens up the prohibition against extensive quotations.) (The best approach here seems to be, as recommended at
User:VernoWhitney, asking the copyright holder to provide a usable license that allows print reuse and modification.) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 03:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
-
Template:Non-free with permission says Wikipedia can use it, but it can't be printed and resold anywhere. Which one of the many other tags would be appropriate for this then? There are far too many to be sorting through. He isn't going to give permission to have someone print and sell his work of course, so I'm not bothering him asking that.
Dream Focus 04:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Even with that tag, images must be fully compliant with non-free (fair use) policy. (The talk page of the template may be instructive there.) I don't believe that a valid nfc argument can be made to reproduce this article in its entirety, which is what, in effect, the high resolution image does unless Mr. David is willing to comply with our licensing requirements. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- See my comments in response to Dreamfocus' request for help at
Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Can_someone_help_me_rescue_an_image?. Arguably, depending on whether the magazine acquired the text rights when they published it, the author maybe able to release the text on a wikipedia compatible license, they certainly cannot release the rights the the page layout which will be owned by the magazine or the images unless they specifically own the rights to them. The release Dreamfocus claims is to internet use only, which is not compatible with wikipedia as we require release for commercial use anywhere. Therefore this can only be used under NFCC and, as MRG explains above it doesn't meet the NFCC.
Spartaz
Humbug! 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
This is Peter David, the author of the piece in question, speaking. Since I post infrequently, I don't have the hang of the various codes and such required, so I apologize in advance if there are elements to this post that are missing, but the content should be clear nonetheless. While I appreciate irony as much as anyone, I feel compelled to point out that I could not have been more explicit in giving broad and total freedom to distribute the article in question as much as humanly possible. For individuals here, now, to try and seize on some aspect of Wikipedia bylaws in order to delete an article critical of Deletionists seems remarkably self-serving and--as the Church Lady would say--conveeeeenient. Still, I appreciate copyright protection as much as anyone, and if spelling it out yet again is required, then fine: Use that article for anything, anywhere, anytime. The only stipulation I've ever given is that it say "reprinted with permission" and the source cited, but otherwise that reprint is unconditional. If someone ever wants to collect that article as part of--for instance--a history of Wikipedia and then charge for it, go right ahead. Hell, if someone wants to reprint the article on the front of a t-shirt and sell it, hey, if you can get people to buy it, knock yourselves out. As far as this discussion goes, it is my explicit desire that the article be relisted, and I hearby release Wikipedia or its assignees, licensees, etc. from any responsibilities, compensatory or otherwise, that may arise from its reuse. Does that suffice? --PAD — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Padguy (
talk •
contribs) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- We require that licenses be compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. So the above should be sufficient provided that "use this article for anything" includes the right to create derivative works.
Taemyr (
talk) 14:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I'd concur with Taemyr here, but Spartaz raises a good point about the copyright ownership of the layout. An alternative, if derivatives are permitted, might be to host the text of the article on Wikisource, or to incorporate it broadly into whatever pages are appropriate. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 14:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - It's remarkable the effort that some editors will expend to carry on the
battle. What valid use does this image have anyway, besides for the amusement of Dream Focus? I think
this page sums is up quite nicely. Sure, it could probably be crammed into
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, but even then you have to ask yourself if this is really an appropriate image to display in any article? It's not really an image, it's a scan of a magazine article, (i.e. a source). It's a source that should be referenced in an article, and just because the article isn't hosted anywhere on the internet doesn't mean that Wikipedia should host a scanned image of the article and include it in an article as an thumbnail image that you can click to read the whole article. This isn't how sourcing works. If you want to refer to the article, a simple citation like this would suffice:
- and if the article isn't hosted on the internet so people can just click on a URL and read it immediately, then tough beans. Not all sources are internet accessible.
—SW—
express 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. It is our policy that
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It seems clear that permission to reproduce this image has been given by its author. The niceties of licensing can be attended to after the image has been restored.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 16:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia is subject to Foundation mandates, including
Terms of Use and
licensing policy.
WP:BURO and
WP:IAR do not trump those. If the publisher holds rights to layout of the page, Mr. David cannot supply a usable license for that without their consent. He can supply rights to the text (presuming he has not released that right; we had some issues with a Scottish author who used his text without securing consent of his publishers, which subsequently had to be removed). If he has rights to the text but not to the page globally as published, the image will never be usable as it was uploaded, even if the text is. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. As and when we get a free license release, we're good; it is policy that user-created content cannot be fair use.
Stifle (
talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
|
Whack! You've been
whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
|
That's for just about everybody involved in this discussion. For God's sake, what's wrong with you?!? A notable author wants to contribute content to Wikipedia under a free license. Some folks here think he hasn't recited the magic words properly (and he may not have). Nobody's posted a suitable request on his talk page, or indicated any effort to communicate with him about whatever problem remains. The comments about the publisher's rights in the image remind me of nothing so much as the publisher's toady of a lawyer who told various news outlets that authors don't have the rights to sell ebooks of their own novels, because when they do it they're stealing the vital creative contributions of the proofreaders, copyeditors, typesetters, etc who the publisher paid to create the physical books. It might be technically correct, in the most attenuated sense, but it comes across as a desperate to evade doing the right thing. On the other side, what is the encyclopedic value of the image? The author's released the text, why not just OCR the image or type in the relevant text, or even the whole thing? This whole thing comes across not as a dispute over licensing, but as two sides arguing over whether to overemphasize a potentially embarrassing incident or to sweep it under the rug, not about genuinely encyclopedic values. Simple resolution: Author wants to contribute content to Wikipedia: HELP HIM AND STOP ARGUING!!
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Two points: The first point is that the author may not be sufficiently authorized to contribute the content in that form, so as much as he'd like to contribute the content, he can't. The other point is that the content really has no place on Wikipedia as an image. It is a source, and should be cited as such. I challenge you to find another article where instead of citing the sources, we provide high-resolution scanned images of them in the article.
—SW—
comment 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with the first point entirely. On the second, if I understand you, it's pretty common.
[2] would be the classic example. As long as it's got a CC-BY-SA license or something similar, we're golden to host it.
Hobit (
talk) 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well, first of all, the Mona Lisa is a painting, not a magazine article. Secondly, obviously if a WP article is about the source itself, then you'd want an image of it. This is a different story. My point is that you're not going to have an article about an
Antelope, and in it have a scanned image of a few pages from Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals by D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch. You're going to cite the source. There is no WP article about Peter David's pro-inclusionism article, there is only an article on
Peter David and an article on
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, and in neither of which would it be appropriate to have a scanned image of the article. I think this is a pretty basic concept which should be easy for anyone to understand.
—SW—
yak 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- If there is a free image which helps that article (which is an editorial decision, not one for DRV or FfD), we should have it. Does it help? No clue, but also not an issue for this forum.
Hobit (
talk) 00:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse pending a properly done (free) license, after that it's a clear restore if such a license should appear.
Hobit (
talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse: unless I'm completely misunderstanding this, it seems like the permission is coming for the author of the article, not the copyright-holder for the magazine. The article author does not own the copyright for the layout, design elements, logos, etc. that make up the magazine page. This is not a free image, and is not going to be a free image even if Mr. David explicitly releases his article under a free license.
Chick Bowen 05:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse per Moonriddengirl, Spartaz and Chick Bowen. Also, I read the article in question when it was still up and it was a particularly vapid bit of windmill-tilting, so I have to agree with SnottyWong that it has no real use here.
Reyk
YO! 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Peter David here again. In point of fact, I DO own the visual layout in question. The design of the page was specifically commissioned by me ages ago, done for me by a friend of mine, who turned over all rights for the design to me. The photograph was taken by Maggie Thompson who has no problem with it being reproduced anywhere, anytime. The page is owned, wholly and completely, by Second Age, Inc., which is me. I'm beginning to suspect, however, that if I produced a letter from the Editor in Chief signing off on this, someone here would declare that there's no proof the letter isn't a forgery. At this point, any reasonable observer would assert that continuing to make an issue of this stems not from concerns over legal requirements and more from certain parties simply not liking the content and wanting to shut it down. Frankly, the only one who I think has been truly honest in opposing it is "Reyk," who spent some time crabbing about how s/he didn't like the article. The quality of it shouldn't be in dispute, but that's really what's at issue here. You guys don't like what I had to say. In my view, this isn't about toeing a legal line. It's about the convenience of making something that doesn't reflect well on you go away. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Padguy (
talk •
contribs) 12:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Reasonable observers are often wrong. :) At least in my case, I haven't even read this specific article, although I've enjoyed quite a bit of your work in the past. This is simply
red tape; we don't have a lot of it, but we have some. We have policies and processes regarding republishing materials; this is intended to protect the project, the copyright holders and our downstream reusers (as we encourage people to reuse our content, even commercially).
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains a few of the issues, including the concerns with the assignment of rights to publishers. Via e-mails to the Wikimedia Foundation, we process dozens of permission letters every day related to images and text that people are willing to allow us to use, but there are certain formalities that we have to follow. For instance, in terms of photographs, when we receive a donation of a self-portrait from somebody via e-mail, we aren't supposed to accept it, but have a form letter we use to advise the correspondent that the photographer owns the copyright and to ask for a usable license from the photographer (unless there has been a legal transfer of copyright). Maggie Thompson opens kind of a new can of worms. :/ I still believe that the easiest way to deal with this is to clear the text, which does away with all other issues (we tend to take your word for it that you haven't assigned your rights to your publisher and this wouldn't require that you muster Maggie Thompson to clear the photographs). I'd be happy to help transcribe it; it could certainly be hosted in your userspace, and it can be used in whatever appropriate manner may be desired. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Unfortunately it's the reaction of someone such as yourself who apparently does fully hold the rights and the reaction of someone who doesn't tend to be pretty much indistinguishable. There is a large caution regarding copyright and it's not solely directed at your work, nor work you feel will be distasteful to some members of the community, see
m:Avoid copyright paranoia showing this to be a long standing topic.
I haven't read the image in question, but I'd suspect the material isn't directly usable as text within a wikipedia article, so I'd agree that this sounds more like a source so we don't need an image of it, we can just reference it in the appropriate places. If someone really feels strongly we need to host the text of this, then a userspace essay would seem the most appropriate place. --
82.7.40.7 (
talk) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well, this is certainly going nowhere useful. I'd like to know why it is that there's so much attention being paid to the "layout" copyright interests of a publisher here while the project is riddled with far more dubious images under far more questionable claims. For example, consider File:Marilyn_Monroe_in_How_to_Marry_a_Millionaire_trailer.jpg. The trailer itself is apparently in the public domain. But this image (one of many such) isn't taken from the trailer itself. It's a "screenshot." That means it came from a videotape or an optical disc, neither of which technologies were around when the trailer was originally issued. So somebody had to republish the trailer by transferring the photographic film images to a different medium, and that process involves much greater skill/craft/creativity than laying out a page of prose. We don't know, for example, the extent to which the republisher of the trailer corrected/adjusted the color values from the film stock. There are any number of reliable sources describing how transferring film to videotape/optical disc isn't a simple, mechanical process but one requiring skill, craft, and creative decisionmaking. And that creates copyright interests for the republisher, which we've been, it seems, blithely ignoring for years. And there was this longrunning circus
[3]
[4]
[5] , pretty much a mirror image of this one, where WMF copyright policy was reduced to the status of mild advice. So far all that's come out of this escapade is that a fairly well-known, moderately influential, and very reasonable writer has become convinced that Wikipedia editors are trying to keep his published opinions out of Wikipedia, using copyright policy as an excuse. That ought to be a clear signal that something has gone very wrong here.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Given his published opinions are given a fair coverage
here in the article, then I'd say his view they were trying to be keep them out would be badly founded. It isn't for the encycolpedia to merely reprint his view in a verbatim form, and nor should we encourage the belief that it is. --
82.7.40.7 (
talk) 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I'd note that it's actually been included for over a year
since Jan 2010 where it is attributed to the Mar 2010 publication, so if the regime is trying to supress the view, then the regime is failing badly. --
82.7.40.7 (
talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and/or Endorse: as long as the image is restored, since the copyright holder is participating in this discussion and seems fully willing to satisfy any technical objections. This whole discussion is surreal.--
Milowent •
talk
blp-r 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I'm confused by this. #1 do we have solid evidence that this is the copyright holder? #2 has he agreed to a free license? I may have missed it in the discussion somewhere, but I think we are right to wait until those two issues are cleared up. I'd hope that folks would be willing to help him get those two things done.
Hobit (
talk) 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- He is most definitely the copyright holder of the text; his identity has been verified through OTRS. He indicates above that he is not the copyright holder of the images in the piece. Whether or not he holds copyright to the arrangement of the text is unclear. I've proposed transcribing the text as soon as he verifies that permission is suitably broad (commercial reproduction, modification. His original release was for internet use only; that restriction has been cleared up and commercial reuse is now explicitly permitted). --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Re the image, he says above "The photograph was taken by Maggie Thompson who has no problem with it being reproduced anywhere, anytime. The page is owned, wholly and completely, by Second Age, Inc., which is me."--
Milowent •
talk
blp-r 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, thanks, I read that; that's why I refer to mustering "Maggie Thompson to clear the photographs";
WP:CSD#F11, which is precisely for such situations; "Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." This is standard practice. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 20:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- We certainly don't have a scan of every public domain/CC-BY-SA source we use. Why should this be the exception?
T. Canens (
talk) 19:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- That's an editorial question, I guess, but I don't think we need delete every such image either.--
Milowent •
talk
blp-r 20:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I guess it's quite a complex question, probably not one which DRV can answer but. If it is licensed as CC-BY-SA/PD then it's something for commons normally, Wikipedia wouldn't normally keep a free but unused image around either, however I doubt commons would particular want the image and wouldn't be kept around if it's unused. Generally I can't see it as something for wikipedia, we don't have scans of the sources and it sort of becomes along the line of
article ownership, a wikipedia editor has published something elsewhere then that text becomes an immutable part of an article albeit linked in image form. So perhaps wikisource? I agree it's not something which DRV needs to decide per se, however there is little point going through the process if the end result is we have no real editorial use for it and so delete it. --
82.7.40.7 (
talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The reason for its deletion is now mute. Permission has been granted without any reasonable doubt whatsoever. Whether or not you believe it belongs in an article or not, can be debated elsewhere. Having a picture of something related to the text of the article is perfectly valid for a Wikipedia article.
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia only has one image in it so far, and this image very well demonstrates the subject, so would be better than the one they have now in that section.
Dream Focus 23:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Did we log Maggie Thompson's permission somewhere? It's not at the OTRS tickets we've already received. :/ --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- He said he owns the rights 100% so its his call.
Dream Focus 01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- On this page, he says, "The photograph was taken by Maggie Thompson who has no problem with it being reproduced anywhere, anytime." That's not the same thing as saying he owns the rights 100%. If he were writing to OTRS, our FAQ would require that we ask for further information, either in contact from Ms. Thompson or further information as to how copyright was transferred. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Comment This is a very interesting thread. Essentially, we have established that the original "release" was defective because the user uploading the image and asserting release didn't do their due diligence - but in fairness that's often inevitable due to the complicated nature of how we handle rights and releases. The current status is that the release is still in lacking because we need a bit more detail on the image. This is an excellent example of why users should cast fewer aspersions and offer a lot more good faith to admins working with images and perhaps do their homework before wasting the time of other editors with DRVs that are wholly nugatory as, by foundation rules, this image cannot be undeleted until adequate releases have been received and logged on OTRS by the Foundation.
Spartaz
Humbug! 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- There is no possible chance of Wikipedia being sued over this, or getting any complaints at all. The rules exist to prevent lawsuits, not to waste everyone's time with nonsense.
Dream Focus 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- So what? The Foundation have given us a clear policy on how we handle rights issues. As the trustees of a project committed to free content it ill behoves to play fast and loose with other peoples' rights. Unless we declare UDI from the Foundation this is pretty much windmill tilting. You knew a long time ago that there were issues with registering the release of the image but you did nothing tor ectify this. The consequence is this massive waste of time which would have been all avoided if you had followed up the release properly with Peter Symonds months back. Instead you'd rather moan and complain about nasty admins... In future we would all benefit if you showed more respect for concerns raised by users who don't share the extreme attitude to inclusion that permeates your contribution to wikipedia.
Spartaz
Humbug! 14:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- You seem to have gotten your ego wounded somehow. This isn't an "extreme attitude to inclusion" but something that falls under the category of common sense. And no, I can not possible take the concerns of some seriously when those concerns are just so utterly ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You are suppose to
ignore all rules and use
WP:common sense for things like this. See
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I think it sums up the situation rather well.
Dream Focus 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- (
edit conflict) We've been through that one already, too. IAR does not apply to legal issues or Foundation mandates. The simplest and most effective way to deal with this from the start would have been to secure usable license from the copyright holders. We do this every day. Barring verified & usable license from the copyright holders, we can't accept previously published content. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 14:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- What ego? its no skin off my nose. I never saw this image before you raised the DRV so I have no stake in the outcome. I even tried to help you when you said it had been registered with OTRS but it turned out that was wrong and you knew it. That's just plain wasting my time and you continue. This whole thing would have been avoided if you had followed up the release by the rules but its much easier to attack people you don't agree with actually do something by the book isn't it.
Spartaz
Humbug! 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Assume good faith. I did not know it. I had assumed the issue was resolved. And the OTRS already confirmed his identity, and anyone could just read Peter David's post on his own user talk page where he gives permission at
[6]. I would think that'd be enough. It really should've been. This entirely ordeal is just absolutely ridiculous. I really hope he does another article about this. And really now, all of you need to read
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.
Dream Focus 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Comment What we do every day and what should have been done are getting in the way of staying focused on the goal here, which is to get proper licensing for material for the
written compendium.
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
|
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Mona_Lisa.jpeg){kind=link}