User:Eqdoktor/archivedis

Screenshot of Carrie Underwood
Made from a digital recording that I personally made from the finale show on May 24, 2006. God bless large capacity hard disk recorders. --Eqdoktor 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is a screenshot from a copyrighted work, so it is still under copyright. Since it is a picture of a public figure who makes public appearances, the image fails the first fair use criterion which requires that copyrighted works used under fair use could not be replaced with a free alternative and that no alternative could be created.  —ShadowHalo 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to get into this game with you. I see that the only narrow criteria that will fulfill your requirement is a completely free copyleft picture that cannot reasonably be made by non-Americans (who cannot show up at her concerts or appearances). I believe that this picture fulfills the fair use rationale AND does not contravene fair use criterion. I have disputed your tagging. --Eqdoktor 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't appear that there's anything for me to answer, I won't. I noticed that you removed refu-c from the caption on the page and just wanted to know if I should re-add it in or leave it since it's a different picture.  —ShadowHalo 08:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A Flickr user has released a picture of Underwood under a free license here. —ShadowHalo 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC and its implementation
I may be quiet in this dispute but I am following the debate with some interest.

Firstly, it appears that editors who upload fair use images of living people in good faith are caught up in this particular crossfire:

Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos

Wikipedia talk:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote

Which I think is pretty unfair to ordinary users and editors of Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing campaign by various factions within Wikipedia to eliminate the contributions of a substantial number of editors, it should be made VERY CLEAR both within WP:FUC, the licensing templates AND the upload page that the whole thing is still under dispute and their hard work may be lost.

I have looked into your userpage profile and of other that delete pictures based on WP:FUC. Not that it matters, but my opinion of WP:FUC is that its badly worded in the first place with undue stress on the word reasonable. One man's meat is another man's poison - whatever that is uploaded can always be disputed as having a "free-er" version. The only truly free photograph that can be uploaded into Wikipedia (that will make corporate lawyer weasels happy) is one that both the photographer AND the subject/event copyright owner releases their rights to Wikipedia under GFDL. Thats the gold standard that everyone seems to be shooting for. Is that reasonable? It depends on how thin you intend to slice that salami, to Carrie Underwood (in this case here) and her circle of friends (who may or may not be Wikipedia editors) - its perfectly reasonable. Is this the ONLY acceptable form of "fair use" (or rather completely free GFDL) that Wikipedia is now accepting? How much less free can we go from there before its deemed acceptable to you and your faction?

Editorial: As I see it now, WP:FUC is being used a certain faction within the editor community to impose whatever standard of "FAIR USE" that THEY deem acceptable and reasonable. You can always rules lawyer to twist WP:FUC into any outcome you desire. It does not help that the wording is so vague (without falling into lawyer legalese) that you can essentially define whatever you like out of it. In this case turfing every single fair use image of a living celebrity out of existence from Wikipedia. Its a game I do not like to play.
 * I don't think that we'll be settling Wikipedia's interpretation of appropriate fair use here, so I'm not going to comment on that. However, I would like to clarify one detail.  I do not associate myself with any faction.  I have three comments on those pages.  One clarified examples on what was pointed out as "a lovely sounding anecdote totally unsupported by any actual meaningful facts or actual research".  One was asking about some possible revisions to a boilerplate request for permission.  One was in support of a WikiProject to obtain free publicity photos.  I would ask that you please avoid using the phrase factionalism as it implies that Wikipedia editors are working toward opposite objectives and weakens civility and good faith.  —ShadowHalo 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding my use of the word "faction" and your pointing out civility and good faith. I would similarly ask you to label your edits fairly and not misrepresent my picture as "copyright violation" as in the case when you removed my picture from Carrie Underwood. The picture in question is in a dispute over a subjective interpretation of reasonable first fair use WP:FUC policy - a technicality hinging on the word reasonable. In and by itself, it is a picture uploaded under the Wikipedia fair use interpretation of US copyright law. It does not fall under CSD 12 guidelines of copyright violation (which can and usually are swiftly deleted). Misrepresenting a fair use interpretation dispute as copyright violation (aka theft as in I violated the copyrights owner's rights) also weakens civility and good faith if not a subtle attack on my integrity. --Eqdoktor 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC dispute over Image talk:Underwood Carrie.jpg
Image talk:Underwood Carrie.jpg has been disputed for the following reason: Although the owner of the image file (the person who created the screenshot) has given permission, the fair use of a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show is disputed.

Its proposed replacement:

Image talk:CroppedCarrieUnderwoodAtTheWorldArena.jpg, the photographer has given permission, this is a photograph of a celebrity in a copyrighted concert (the ownership of the broadcasting rights/publishing rights of the concert belongs to whoever organized the event/Carrie Underwood). This is a fair use of photo taken in concert whose copyright is reserved.

I cannot understand the logic of the nominee who considers a blurred screenshot of TV program is less free than a sharp photograph taken of a copyright reserved concert. I would like to have the WP:FUC status of screenshots vs concert photos cleared up. --Eqdoktor 10:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The licensing tag itself states "This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it." It is already established that a screenshot of a copyrighted work is also copyrighted (by the same copyright holder).  However, I have not seen the issue of publishing/broadcasting rights come up before (though I'm not refuting its existence).  Would you mind showing how an entire concert can be copyrighted?  —ShadowHalo 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An entire concert can easily be copyrighted under broadcasting rights and publishing rights. Broadcasting rights is self explanatory; its when they (the record label/event organizers, artiste management) videotape the concert and later release a DVD or broadcast a TV show entitled, "Carrie Underwood live" (title example only or something like that). The event organizers/record label/artiste management are the copyright holders. Publishing rights is when the copyright holders of the concert hire a bunch of professional photographers to take photographs of Carrie Underwood performing in concert and publish a book, "Carrie Underwood concert pictorial book" (example title also).


 * The copyright holders can also sell these rights to other entities, like Fox (TV network) for broadcasting rights or Time Warner for books. Amateur photographers may be (in certain performances, photographs are banned) allowed to take photographs of the performance, they can even sell their photographs BUT they cannot profit from the copyrighted work the photographs were derived from - eg: amateurs cannot publish a book entitled, "Carrie Underwood concert pictures I took - $20 bargain" (or something like that) without paying for the publishing rights OR obtaining a release from the rights holders (unlikely) of that concert. Even if the concert is not recorded or photographed by the organizers, "all rights are reserved" (even if Carrie Underwood's people do not intend to release a DVD or book of that particular concert, the public cannot use that as an excuse to produce bootleg concert DVDs or books for profit). The copyrights are reserved even if they are not used.


 * In this particular dispute in Wikipedia, what we have here is:
 * a) Low resolution fairly blurry picture of a screenshot of copyrighted TV show - Fair use of a TV screenshot.


 * b) Fairly high resolution picture of a performance artiste in a copyrighted concert (at the least, all rights reserved) - Fair use of a concert performance in which all rights are reserved (broadcasting and publishing included).


 * Both pictures have elements of implied fair use in Wikipedia.
 * Once could basically point out that (a) single low resolution photo screenshot cannot conceivably replace a high resolution DVD or book of the American Idol finale. On the other hand, a high resolution (sharp) image of Carrie Underwood in concert might conceivably infringe and compete on the copyright (or reserved rights) of Carrie Underwood and her legal representatives (in publishing a book for example).


 * In this dispute, I believe that the replacement proposed by the tag nominatir to replace the disputed screenshot image is actually of greater liability ("less free") than that uploaded originally. I believe that the image I have uploaded meets the WP:FUC criteria in which no reasonable free alternative can be created. I also believe that WP:FUC has been misinterpreted by numerous overzealous editors as a license to delete ALL fair use images uploaded in good faith thereby undermining the second aspect of the Wikipedia mission in producing a quality encycopedia. --Eqdoktor 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reader's digest version:

Images and recordings of concerts and performances (especially the ones that you pay money for admission) are not "free". Any use of images and recordings of "un-free" performances in which the artiste/organizer has not explicitly given permission to release, are essentially "fair use" in Wikipedia.

There are at present no convenient pre-defined licensing templates that reflects the above "fair use" of concert/performance media (something that I might think of creating). At present, the most appropriate licensing tag to for the alternative Carrie Underwoods picture that ShadowHalo has provided would be in which a broader interpretation of "fair use" is implied. Frankly, I do not believe it qualifies under wikimedia commons. --Eqdoktor 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia links that may be helpful to the discussion
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

WikiLawyering:

A discussion on what I believe is the misuse of WP:FUC that is occuring here. I believe the spirit of WP:FUC is to stop the egregious misuse of "fair use" tags slapped randomly on any promotional images regardless of copyright status. On the other hand, overzealous or wilful interpretation of WP:FUC by a group of non-admin editors has lead to it being twisted to in an agenda stamp out any genuine fair use images uploaded to Wikipedia in good faith by regular editors. --Eqdoktor 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Point by point - WP:FUC
Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:


 * 1) No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily - Check - I believe I have fulfilled this requirement to the best of my ability in creating a free TV screenshot image. This is under contention but I believe I believe the dispute is a subjective misinterpretation of WP:FUC and is being pushed as an agenda in the ongoing debate over the use of fair use images.
 * 2) The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media - check one low resolution image (blurred screenshot) - cannot compete against a high resolution DVD or book.
 * 3) The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). check see above.
 * 4) The material must have previously been published - check screenshot of TV show from May 2006.
 * 5) The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements. yes i believe.
 * 6) The material must meet the media-specific policy requirements. yes
 * 7) The material must be used in at least one article.yes
 * 8) The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. yes
 * 9) Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space - yes
 * 10) The image or media description page must contain:
 * 11) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).yes
 * 12) An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.yes
 * 13) For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" yes

--Eqdoktor 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A reply to Nick

 * "there's no way we can justify application of process for every single on(e) of those images.". I'm sorry if I am ignorant of any new changes to policy. Since when did ALL fair use disputes (supposedly all 50,000 of them as you have it) fall under speedy delete procedures that needs no deletion process review/discussion or debate? Has WP:CSD superseded WP:IFD? I am genuinely curious as how you have arrived at this conclusion. Perhaps if this was true, I suggest you had better post on WP:IFD to inform everyone there that any and all debate is unnecessary and time not be wasted on reaching a consensus. --Eqdoktor 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_19

 * What is the hurry to sweep it under the rug?: "Over zealous process wonkery" as opposed to willful disregard to proper deletion procedures and complete disregard of consensus building - two official policies ignored by the admin? I am sorry but this is a classic case of "two wrongs not making a right". As stated on the header above, WP:DRV is about process, not about content (goatse pics notwithstanding /grin). I believe given a chance at debate/discussion in a WP:IFD review - I can make a good case for the image. The merits of the image need to be debated/discussed in the proper forum of the WP:IFD page NOT swept under the rug in such a rushed manner. As it is, in this particular forum - it has been already pre-judged as unusable. Nevertheless, I am dismayed and disappointed a Wikipedia admin is allowed to "pick and choose" whatever policy/rules to apply based on his bias. If the image is restored and promptly deleted in 7 days (which I contend will hopefully not happen) - what is the harm? Rule of Law in Wikipedia Consensus is reached, I have been showed the error of my ways and a few million electrons get burnt out. If an admin missed pushing out a vital FA article, I will apologize profusely but I think thats a better outcome than arbitrary and capricious actions of overzealous administrators. I'm just asking for a chance to be heard, discuss and debate the fair use issue in its proper forum - the image appears to have been speedily deleted to avoid just such a discussion. --Eqdoktor 20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)