User talk:Rowland Goodman

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!  Mr. R00t   Talk  21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Image credits
Hi -

Just so you know, the Wikipedia Manual of Style has a guideline for crediting the author of an image, at WP:CREDITS:

''Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate.''

I hope that this is not a big problem. Your tennis photographs are amazing and are a great contribution to Wikipedia. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a big problem - it is a breach of the copyright conditionRowland Goodman (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a little unusual. The photo page provides no specific instructions as to how the photograph should be credited; how would an editor know what the copyright conditions are?  Since a photograph on Wikimedia Commons is already part of Wikimedia, it's not being reused or republished when it's added to a Wikipedia article, so it is not generally considered a copyright infringement to do so.  Can you say more about what you're concerned about with having the photo credit appear not only on the photo page but also on any page where it appears as a thumbnail? Tim Pierce (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, when you released it with that license on the image description page you state that anyone may copy, distribute, or share that image. That includes use on any page on the encyclopedia. Quick question though, if you didn't want it used on Wikipedia than why did you upload it to Commons? Cheers,  Mr. R00t    Talk  21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The licence states:

There is nothing unusual about photo credits. Rowland Goodman (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, there's nothing unusual about photo credits, so the photograph page has your photo credit on it! :-) But if you look around Wikipedia a bit you'll see that individual contribution credits, including photograph credits, just don't appear on the article pages.  Wikipedia is understood to be a collaborative work, the result of contributions by thousands of individuals.  It's an encyclopedia, not a magazine.
 * If you're concerned about ensuring that anyone else who would use your photo knows that it's under copyright, it seems to me that anyone who would reuse the photo would not use the thumbnail version on the Wikipedia article, but would click through to the larger version on Commons, where they will see the copyright notice with the precise restrictions. So I still don't see why it's important for the copyright notice to appear on the article page.  Can you help me understand? Tim Pierce (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are trying to do is to redefine the licence conditions offered on Wikimedia Commons. This is not OK.  If you feel that the licence conditions offered on Wikimedia Commons should not be offered, then then take action there.
 * In the mean time, please respect the licence conditions.Rowland Goodman (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having the attribution on the image description page and not in the caption is perfectly acceptable. If you don't wish to respect the MOS, and do not want your image used without attribution in the thumbnail caption, feel free to remove it from the article.  — fetch ·  comms   00:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The licence conditions are met by providing attribution on the linked image. We take great care to follow the copyright conditions, and the way Wikipedia attributes photographs has been approved by all kinds of folks who know about such things. If you insist that Wikipedia is in breach of CC because we do not state the attribution on the article page, then you are mistaken...but if you disagree, and wish to pursue it, then of course feel free; see WP:CONTACT.  Chzz  ► 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also of consideration is this archived discussion where the legal code, rather than the human-readable code, states: "The credit required by this Section 4(b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner".--Commander Keane (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

More on licensing
It's been brought to my attention that, while the "human-readable" version of the Creative Commons license says that credit must be given "in the manner specified by the author," these words do not appear at all in the actual text of the license, which says only that "The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner." (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode)

The Creative Commons FAQ explains in more detail:

In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:


 * They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
 * They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of this is that you and I were both mistaken on this point, and the Creative Commons license just doesn't allow you to specify completely arbitrary citation requirements. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But what in fact is happening is that Wikipedia is displaying images on pages without any kind of attribution on the pages where the image is being displayed on. This is a clear breach of licence conditions.

The wording you quote above could be used to justify writing a different form of words for the attribution than the one I specified. It cannot justify not having any kind of attribution on the pages where the image is displayed.Rowland Goodman (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard practice for years around here has been that when attribution is required, it is noted on the image's description page, not on every single use of the image within the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's fairly confusing how you are "attributing" the images. Example: File:Olga Puchkova 17Jun08 1356.JPG. You're saying on the image description page on Commons that the image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. But, in the image caption on the Olga Puchkova article, you're claiming the image is copyrighted. Those are usually interpreted as being mutually exclusive around here. I recognize that the image remains copyrighted, but available under that license. I'm not disputing that. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless he uses the CC-0 waiver, then they are still copyrighted. Btw, the user did place all of his images up for deletion on the Commons due to this crediting dispute. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they aren't copyrighted, as I noted. It's just unprecedented in my experience to see crediting on photos on articles. Such credits appear on image description pages only. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rowland, I've begun a discussion on the admin's noticeboard on Commons regarding your uploads to Commons. You may wish to participate. More details on your talk page on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I must disagree that this usage is "a clear breach of licence conditions." The images are properly credited on the image page.  The Wikipedia edit page says, "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."  The Wikipedia convention clearly is to credit photo authors on the image page, not on article pages.  Your licensing request on the image pages does not make it clear that you do not consider the normal Wikipedia convention to be sufficient.  I will be very sorry if you proceed with your deletion request, and I hope you reconsider, but I think it is what you will have to do if you cannot abide the Wikipedia crediting guidelines. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tim. These are excellent photographs, but if you're not willing to abide our attribution guidelines, we're at an impasse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Delete all the images by this uploader from Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion. --John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It turns out that only five images were involved. I've deleted them, and found a GFDL replacement for one of them. --John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Attribution
Go ahead and put your name in the captions. While there is not a lot of times where the name of the photographer is in the caption (also some photographers do put their name in the file names), this is what you require, go ahead and put them back in. The MOS guideline (as they are) do not trump copyright rules that we have. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me here, my talk page or through email. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edits on Irina Khromacheva per WP:CREDITS. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed the image completely, so the issue is moot. However, WP:CREDITS is only a guideline that will have exceptions from time to time. I am going to make a exception so we do not loose these photos. I think you and the others who demand to have something simple as this removed due to some tiny MOS guideline/suggestion are acting in a manner which will cause people to be angry for no reason and losing good photographers as this guy is. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a wise exception to make but I respect your concerns. At the very least, however, the licensing statements on the photos must clearly say what kind of attribution is required, so that this argument is less likely to recur in the future.  I will update the license requirements on the photos to reflect what Rowland is asking for. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 18:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I think "I third that" is bad grammar I'll go with: I agree with Zscout370.  Mr. R00t    Talk  18:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this sets a seriously bad precedent. Either the images should stay without the attribution in the caption, or the images should go entirely. This in-between compromise will lead to trouble. It already has. We already have an agreement in place that the author has agreed to attribution being sufficient if a hyperlink is provided. One is provided on EVERY image. The author already agreed to this form of attribution. We can't have it both ways. I'll note that this agreement, which you can see in every edit window, isn't a guideline. It's written in stone and is fundamental to the way we operate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hammersoft. I am not comfortable with using "only a guideline" to dismiss the credit issue, and I think this is likely to bite us later. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I think is this; the MOS is really only a guideline that is a suggestion but not policy. I loathe the MOS. Copyright is a pilar that sets the foundation of what Wikipedia is and should be. I think pilar > guideline. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am not suggesting for a moment that we break copyright laws. I am saying that a user does not seem to have the right to set the kind of copyright conditions that Rowland is asking for, and that it is futile for us to try to accommodate them, as future editors will continue to reuse his Commons photographs without noticing the specific credit requirements he has requested.  I am also saying that I do not think adopting a convention of photo credits in Wikipedia articles will best serve the encyclopedia in the long run. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look it at another way, users see these photos and gives them a goal to find something better and perhaps require less restrictive requirements. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Uploading more photos
I would not bother uploading any more photos it I were you. Wikipedia is dominated by people who get their kicks out of enforcing various 'rules' in the Manual of Style. Useful contributors like yourself, haven't a chance. So don't bother.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)