User talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive7

Corbis Images
Hey, Sounvisions1! After my last post I realized that Getty Images are all pretty much watermarked, but not the case with Corbis. The fact that I can easily take images directly off their website surprised me to say the least. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I have sent an e-mail to sales@corbis.com to hopefully get some answers. I brought up Bing and Flickr, and I inquired as to their policy of using their images on the internet in general (and WP specifically). Hopefully I'll get a response soon. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Me again! Hooray!  I'm sure you saw it, but I struck out part of my argument that I found later to be quite incorrect (gotta learn somehow, right?).  I failed to see the "web site" part of the Getty Images pulldown menu, and Corbis (of course) confirmed that they would charge WP for use of one of their images (like $200 for 2 months use), just like they would any web site.  They don't own the copyright to this particular image, however.  Interestingly, within hours of my original post, the very pictures I had pulled off of Corbis w/o watermarks - became watermarked on their site.  I know millions of people use WP everyday, and I'd like to think it's a coincidence, but it's kinda weird.  Anyhoo, you and I disagree sometimes on some things, but that's how it works for everyone, right?  No hard feelings as always, and Cheers, Soundvisions1! Doc9871 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: AlecStevens.jpg
It was used with his permission almost four years ago. Just email him at editor@calvarycomics.com and he'll confirm. Seems odd to delete this image now, so long after the fact. Best, Chris A. Chrisart7 Chrisart7 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is twofold. One is the image is *of* him, so he is not the photographer. Second is the source website does not state the image is free. You can have him send an email from an address associated with the original publication (calvarycomics.com) to , stating his ownership via a 'work for hire' of the material and thier intention to publish it under a free license. It will help to also have them submit any contract showing the photographer was hired via a 'work for hire' contract. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page and the file will be restored once the permission is verified. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI: Ajona1992
Hi Soundvisions1, I responded to the points you and xplicit brought up at AJona1992's ANI and hope (whether negative or positive or simply providing advice on how I should proceed) that you will take the time to respond on my comments. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Agnieszka Vosloo.jpg
Hi, Soundvisions1. I noticed you recently placed a tag on File:Agnieszka Vosloo.jpg claiming that it has no source information. But it's tagged with (twice), which makes the claim that the uploader created the image. This seems to be source information to me. Am I missing something? —Bkell (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you are missing something - something important too. First, Pd-self does not mean the uploader is the copyright holder. Oft times a user takes a frame grab of a TV show and claims it as pd-self, clearly they may have made the frame grab but they are not the "source" of the actual image. Likewise may people upload headshots or other images they found on the internet, or that they were "given" or purchased and they uploaded them as pd-self. Again - wothout any source we can not verify the given license and/or copyright claim. In this case the uploader appears to have only uploaded two images, File:AWV.jpg and File:Agnieszka Vosloo.jpg. As such there is nothing to compare too - no indication of the source of this image or even the subject. All there is to go on is the image name and a vague pd-self. The tag for no source is clear, at least to me, it understand there is a copyright tag of some sort but there is no source listed. In order to verify the license/copyright is correct we need a source. I hope that explains it. (I see you didn't wait for my reply so I reverted your edit.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - just as some examples. File:Alice-in-blunderland-cover-1907.png is a book cover. Most likely it is in PD but doubtful the uploader who claims they "created this work entirely by myself" and is the copyright holder via the pd-self tag really is the copyright holder. File:Like You'll Never See Me Again.jpg may be a self made CD cover but did the uploader take the image own on the cover? What is the "source" or that image? File:Alig.jpg was taken from stuaratmorrison.com and uploaded by a user who seems to have a track record of uploading images taken from elsewhere - again, with the "source" we could not tell this appears to be a blatant copyvio. I can give to loads more if you want. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, and I've seen and dealt with such copyright violations many times before. However, since the tag does say, "I, the copyright holder of this work, …" it seems inappropriate to me to tag it with, which says, "This file has no source information." The  tag is a claim of ownership as well as a licensing tag. I know that this tag is often misused, and I agree that in this case the claim of ownership seems pretty bogus—but the problem is not that there is no source information, it's that the source information provided seems doubtful. When I run across an image like this which I doubt the uploader has created himself, I list it at Possibly unfree files with an explanation of the reason I doubt the ownership claim. Usually the outcome is the same (the image will be deleted in a few days), but it gives the issue a larger audience, just in case the uploader actually used the  tag honestly and correctly. Let me know what you think. —Bkell (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess I didn't have to give those examples than. :) No problems. I list files all the time at PUI and IFD. I pick and chooses. I listed several Aerosmith photos the other day at PUI because I simply was overwhelmed by them all - they were all blatant copyvios and if I had the source handy I would have tagged them all speedy. The problem with some images, such as this, is that they are just vague enough that they could easily be moved to commons and kept - but that would not solve the missing source issue. The3 same when I use the di-no permission tag. In many case there is a "permission" via use of a pd-self tag however when I see there is a photographers name and it appears the uploader is not the photographer I tag it. Such as File:AlecStevens.jpg that I tagged as a copyvio and the uploader commented on above. I may have said this to you before but if not I believe that use of the template found at Uploading images page should be mandatory and I also feel a permissions OTRS being required would help a lot of these "Well I got an email 4 years ago saying it was ok" type of comments. But going back to the tag itself - I come from a perspective of a photographer. When I think "source" I think camera, and with the internet I think website. I know the upload process for Wikipedia is somewhat hard to follow and it is suggested to just put something like "I created this" as the source but years down the road that is not much help when/if these "free" images get put out in a book or magazine and someone comes forward saying "I am Mr. B Jones and this is my photo" and all the Foundation has to go on is "Well, USER:Bubmblepaints uploaded the image and said it was created by "me" and released it into Public Domain 4 years ago". Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise very good points. I agree that the tag should be mandatory, and the fields should be filled out manually by the uploader—that would help a great deal with the mess of figuring out the copyright and licensing status of images here. I also agree that we cannot idly allow questionable images like these to remain on Wikipedia, blindly trusting that what the uploader said is true.
 * At the same time, however, we must keep in mind that there is the possibility that the information provided (scanty as it is) is true, unless we have proof to the contrary. I don't like placing a tag on an image that basically says to the uploader, "I don't think you're telling the truth when you claim to be the source of this image, so I'm going to disregard your claim entirely and ask that this image be deleted in a week, with no public discussion, for not having any source information." That's why I list these things at PUI—I can express my doubts and see whether other editors agree. Usually they do.
 * I don't know how to answer your last concern. For example, I've uploaded a few photos of my own to the Commons and described them as my own work. But I haven't really provided any proof of that besides my word. If I should vanish from Wikipedia, and years later some photographer claims that I stole those photos from him, what would happen? Is there something I should do now that could possibly help in a situation like that? In my particular case, it might be relatively easy to sort out, since I am not anonymous here on Wikipedia (I give my real name and identifying information on my user page). But suppose it were you or another anonymous Wikipedian in that scenario who uploaded images, claimed them as self-made, and then vanished. It is an intriguing problem, but I don't really have a solution to suggest. Do you? —Bkell (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm sure the Foundation's legal counsel has pondered this scenario in depth, and they probably have figured out a good way to respond to it. So, while it is still of great importance to identify and remove copyright violations here, we are doing it more for "moral" reasons (e.g., it is wrong to steal from other people, and our goal is to build an encyclopedia of free content) than legal reasons (e.g., the Foundation might be sued). At least, that's my view of things. For instance, we certainly don't have such strict non-free content criteria because they are legally required—we have them because we are trying to uphold a loftier ideal, that of building a free-content encyclopedia. —Bkell (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My idea
There a several issues at play. First the pd-self tag, like many other tags, is somewhat generic. It is easy for anyone to place the tag on an image and just because the *tag* states "I, the copyright holder..." does not mean the uploader really *is* the copyright holder. I tend to disagree with the "assume good faith" concept when a generic tag is used. The main reason is I go through "self" images a lot - and have for the last 3 years - and I know for a fact that numerous copyvios, derivatives, "I was told it was ok" and PD works (But not "self" PD works) reside at Wikipedia. I know that some editors and admins are against the use of "di" tags all together because they feel their use is acting in bad faith. I want to stress though that the "di" tags, to me, are a happy medium because they allow an editor, hopefully the uploader, to clarify whatever is being asked. That is still good faith - it is not saying to the uploader "We don't believe you", in the case of di-no source it is simply asking "Can you tell us what the source is?" I would say in the last three years or so less than 1% of the images I have tagged as lacking a source or lacking an author are corrected by the actual uploader. However I have had to explain that "self" does not mean "I scanned this" or the more common "I uploaded this" ("with permission") to several editors whose images I used some form of "di" tag on. In other cases an uploader will argue that the image is from their personal collection and they "own" it and I try to explain that does not mean they own the copyright. Much like purchasing a DVD or CD - the physical media is "owned" but the materiel on it is not. Now to address your images - I looked them over and, at least for what I do, I most likely would not quesiton them unless they appeared to be blatant copyvios. The reason is that I am looking for images such as concert shots, head shots, promo photos, CD/DVD covers, frame grabs, etc. In other words I scan through and check things such as who took the image vs who uploaded the image and compare "Author" and "source". I know that landscapes can be part of stock image gallery's but with the amount of images I look at would make it hard, for me, to focus on a relatively generic landscape and search to find if the uploader is the source. The same can be said for product shots - some of your images wouldn't raise any red flags to me whereas some images found (not yours) that are tagged as pd-self would.

In regards to fair use and the "legal" side of Wikipedia. The Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107 which deals with fair use, says four core issues must be looked at: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Wikipedia has based the 10 criteria on the United States law and expanded on it. It is not fully because of "moral" issues, it is because of legal issues. Certainly due, in part, to the concept of a "free" encyclopedia it caused Jimbo to issue the directive that images marked as "non commercial" and "for Wikipedia use only" should be deleted on site and, in turn, that lead to more strict criteria for use of non-free material. But even with that there are editors who feel it is allowable to take any image they want, for any location, and slap a FUR on it irregardless of the Wikipedia policy or the real world law. This ties back into the use of pd-self because anyone can remove any "di" or speedy tag, remove the "incorrect" tag and slap one of the non-free tags on it and ad a FUR. Suddenly a blatant copyvio is "legit", suddenly the logo that was uploaded "for Wikipedia use only" becomes allowable, the unsourced image of a recent news event becomes "encyclopedic". Than we have discussions all over again - but not based on any user supplied (or not supplied), first upload, usage only on the concept of fair use. In regards to the "Source" concept it applies here as well - if we do not know what the actual source is we can not determine copyright status. Imagine, for example (and I have seen this happen), an image is tagged di-no source and an admin comes along, says it is mistagged and "fixes" it by claiming fair use. Without the real source we can not fully determine, in US Copyright law, (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work or, in the words of Wikipedia's policy on use of non-free images, ''2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.'' The same thing has happened at deletion discussions, an image is sent there and somebody feels the image is good for the project, says it was mistagged and should be fair use and does so. Now the IfD/Pui becomes invalid because it is a fair use issue and the nom is most likely *not* based on the image failing the fair use criteria.

I look at what I do here, in regards to images, as a legal issue "down the road". I was looking over old threads on the same topic and found I feel exactly the same way now I did almost two years ago when I said this: In a nutshell" anytime there is no source information I am not CSD'ing the image, I am only using the tags as they are for obtaining the missing information. It is not about trying to CSD everything, it is about making it easy for the legal dept to sift through all this when, and if, they ever decide to release a book or such. As I mentioned in the past - an image without a valid "release form" is not much good. Images with no source information or where a source is listed as "me" or "My friend, who said it was ok" are not going to cut it. The more I do, the more I am finding that many of the existing tags don't fully work. So to somewhat reply to your question of "It is an intriguing problem, but I don't really have a solution to suggest. Do you?" I do have many - but a large part of the problem is being consistent from policy to policy and from policy to guideline. Copyvios, as they relate to fair use, is a pet peeve of mine and is a perfect example. We have a strict image use Policy about fair use that says Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. To back that up we have 10 criteria that must be met - this is Wikipedias policy on non-free content. Criteria number 2 states: Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Say somebody uploads an image from the Associated Press and uses a non free tag, such as Non-free historic image, and a FUR. To me that is a clear violation of two polices so far. But because nether policy that I have mentioned is explicit and states "photo agency" or "press agency" and many don't understand that their are guidelines that were put into place - such as Unacceptable use - Images - ''7. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article''. Even the Non-free historic image tag clearly states ''Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not [be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)''. At this point it should be 100% clear that not only is an image taken from a photo agency or press agency not allowable per policy, but it also "Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use" thusly the image "constitutes copyright infringement" and "can be removed on sight." We even have another policy that allows for that - CSD F9 - Unambiguous copyright infringement which states that while copyvio can exclude images with a FUR it *includes* most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. But my experience is that a large percent of admins working on images deny a speedy because they only read one line in the tag - "This does not include images used under a claim of fair use...". Some, when questioned, will say that F9, when used on fair use claimed images, only applies to "stock photo libraries" and more specific "Getty Images or Corbis", press agency's such as AP are not included. Others will say Wikipedia has no policy stating images from a press agency or photo agency are deletable as copyvios. Many of the same will state that the Non-free historic image and Unacceptable use - Images example are only guidelines and don't have to be followed.

So, my first thoughts on "Do you?" would be to make some sort of focused attempt to clarify all the terms used and sync up all the polices. That would include making it more clear in the upload process what "public domain" really means; require use of the information tag; explain "source" and "author" may not be the same thing and why it is important to not say "me" or "I created this" in association with a username; reword generic templates; create a "work for hire" tag that, if used, requires an permissions OTRS; explain that "attribution" means "by line" and "photo credit" and is allowable via Wikipedia accepted CCLs; clarify that an end users CCL can be revoked per the license terms; and directly state in all image related polices that use of photo and press agency images are considered blatant copyvios, even if they have a fur, *unless* "the image itself is the subject of commentary". And I have tried in bits and pieces in various locations throughout the years to clarify a lot of these things. With the push towards Wikimedia Commons I have a concern that a lot of these images will end up being lost in the shuffle in regards to accurate licensing and attribution. To me Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - and even if the overall thought is not "for Wikipedia use only" I feel images uploaded here were, and are, intend to be used here, especially in regards to non-free images. Wikimedia Commons on the other hand is acting as a distributor, or sub distributor, of images and, as such, needs to have a lot more accurate information associated with images. Photos with by lines of "me", "myself" or even "user:hihowareya" just don't cut it, IMO. Outside of true PD I lean towards a permission OTRS being required at Commons. I am positive Getty, Corbis, PA, AP and the numerous other agency's don't accept images for distribution based on vague authors and sources. That isn't just a moral issue, that is a legal issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is a very impressive and thorough response. I am glad we have someone like you here, who has a real-world perspective on these things. I like to think that I try to do my part to sort out the copyright quagmires we find ourselves in, but pretty much everything I understand about copyright and licensing I've picked up over the years from Wikipedia rather than any real-world experience. I think I agree with everything you've said—I'm going to have to take some time to digest it and ponder some of your points in greater detail, though. I am completely satisfied that you understand what you're doing (likely better than I do) and that we're both working toward the same goal, so I won't pester you about your usage of tags any more. :-) Sorry for making you respond in such great depth over a trivial thing like that, but I really appreciate reading your point of view. If there's anything I can do to help you out sometime, let me know. —Bkell (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI: AJona1992 one month ban copyvio
Hi Soundvisions! First, thanks for responding. Second, just wanted to mention (amongst all the clutter in that ANI), that Xeno proposed an indefinite block for any copyvio on the ANI. I updated the proposed sanctions/remedies section with that, and advised AJona, who's fine with it. So... all in all, the current penalties are quite a bit greater than your proposed block period. :-) Thanks again, Robert R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops... if you're suggesting that the block be set with a minimum requirement (just realizing that "indefinites" dont necessarily have minimums), I can revise the proposed sanctions. He should be fine with that. I'm actually impressed that after I told him he would probably be banned for his admission, that he decided to go back to ANI and admit to it anyway. Best, -R R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I've added your sock account restriction... I put it at perm for the sock, 7 day for AJona1992 (and same repercussions if AJona1992 tries using IP to perform the same sock-like actions). Please feel free to comment if you think the penalties should be increased or are too harsh. I've also updated the copyvio section so it clearly states minimum of 30 day block for copyvio. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 02:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that is fine but rather than 7 days, if it is a copyvio, I think that same "rules" for the main user doing it should kick in. In other words if AJona1992 uploads a blatant copyvio claiming it as their own and that causes a minimum 30 day block than a sock of AJona1992 doing the same thing should also result in a minimum of 30 days for the copyvio *to* AJona1992. (plus the permanent ban for the sock). For other sock uses - 3rr, threats, deletion discussions, etc the same type of block that is already mentioned for those issues should kick in. If the user gets less of a block for being a puppet than they would doing it under their main account it kind of defeats the whole point I feel. (I am also posting this at the ANi as well) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok... feel free to make it more clear and change those sections. I kinda figured it was implied, as he'd get two penalties. The sock would be permanently blocked, he'd get the 7 day block for socking on the AJona1992 account, and he'd get the 30+ day block for the copyvio (which would override the 7 by adding 23+ more days to it). Just figured one wasnt in exchange for the other. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free tag may have been applied incorrectly?
I noticed you added a non-free tag to File:AlLohman.jpg, although it did state in the upload description that there was no copyright attached to the paper. It's probably safe to apply it to fictional media, but not to photos of real people unless there was never a license tag. mechamind 9  0  14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you note the summery says "Q-103 Monthly Newsletter November 1990," that is very important as to the source. If you look over the history first it said the newsletter had no copyright, than BirgitteSB tagged the image and, correctly, said that "photographer/scanner is not the copyright holder in this case". The uploader than changed the original summary and said "Photograph taken by uploader." While the image may belong to the uploader the newsletter scan would not. My photos have been published in papers, magazines, album covers and so on but I can not scan those and upload them as pd-self. I reverted your removal of Skier-dudes tag. Unless Q-103 submits an OTRS the only way this image can be used would be to claim Fair use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the uploader. This was an in-house newsletter only, I put it together for the amusement of the staff of the station. Probably 15 copies were run of each issue, I kept a copy of every one. Q-103 has been defunct as a radio station for over 15 years now. It's a scan, it was run on the in house copy machine. How much more pd-self can we get here? I'm not trying to be difficult, I would have never even used the Q-103 name if I would have known it would cause this much trouble. --Manway (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember that I did not leave it claimed as a public domain image. Both I and PMDrive would stick with something other than Public Domain on it. We still agree not to use PD-self on it, though. mechamind  9  0  05:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I doe snot matter - GFDL, CCL, PD - none of them work unless Q-103 name submits and OTRS for the image. Soundvisions1 (talk)

Doors pic
Oops. I only meant to change the tag, not to delete your comments from the page. Apologies, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Image question
Hello Soundvisions1! I just want to ask you if you can do something about my images license. It's been 7 days since my image source sent message with a licensing prove and so far nothing's happen. I wait almost 7 days (other member tells me that's the usual time for waiting while considering image tags), and I want to ask you if you can do something to make that process faster, because we in our club have in plan to improve our pages on wikipedia with more text and details. Thanks for your time. Cheers. Zuull

Rollback
Kindly do not use rollback on an administrator who is declining speedy deletions. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk page for information on how you can resolve use of rollback onyour removals of vlaid tags. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajni with Kalaignar
Hi. I clearly explained under image Discussion Page, in all ways to use this image in the article since it does only one thing - to support the article 100%. Since you are pointing the sentence in the image Caption page. Let me change that to "Rajinikanth meeting Kalaignar in support to the DMK-TMC alliance in 1996 election"

Will that be fine now.

Please do not see where all to find mistakes and try to be a obstacle in construction of the article. As time goes each significant article should be updated and allowed which follows all legal,legitimate,proper rules of wiki. I hope you get me.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia has some strict policies in regards to the use of non-free images. Please take a moment to re-read the Non-free content criteria policy and the Image use policy on Fair Use images. This image does not aid in the understanding of the text. (NFCC 8) Even the slight change you propose is not really enough to justify yet another fair use image in the article. It currently contains three, which is stretching it. (NFCC 3). I notice an I.P (98.207.111.31) has been blocked for removing tags such as dfu. It appears that I.P is you and I noticed that I.P removed a tag from this same image on September 24 without addressing the concerns raised by an admin, which basically mirror my own concern in the tag I placed October 5, including the fact that the subjects of this image are both still living. (NFCC 1). I do not see how this image can stay in the article unless the section it is used to illustrate can be rewritten to explain *why* the appearance of these two men together was so important. Currently, at its core, all we have is a section of an article on a celebrity that says they endorsed a candidate and/or party. This use of this image is not needed to illustrate that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Common guys!! You should be knowing better than me that this image increases readers understanding. I hope you know "a single photo speaks 1000 times better than a paragraph/sentence/word/letter. Even after meeting all wiki rules again & again raising question of concern is seriously making editors like me to go hanged. Even though the subject are still living we cant go back to 1996 and take it again. Thats the reason why it has been used as a fair-use rationale content. Please try to understand. Be a little more broad and practical. I do not know in what other way to convince you. Before editing something, I seriously check myself to be fit and then only I enter doing it. So after so many time spending I did this and I expect a little respect for my work as I am giving respect to all wikipedians with administrator status.

Lastly if this image is not needed then I feel so even that section of the article is also not needed. That much connection "Alliance section of the article and this image has together". So 100% it increases readers understanding. Please make a note here.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

A hypothetical question
Hello, I see you are very active in checking claimed pd-self images, and I congratulate you on that work which clearly is very important since such a high percentage of those images are wrongly tagged by people who don't understand what they're actually claiming when they tag them.

But here's the thing. I am a photographer. I take professional-quality images. I understand copyright law. I own the copyright on all of the images I create. I sometimes license images commercially, but I never sell the copyright. I don't often upload images to Wikipedia or to Commons but if I did, I'm a bit scared that you or someone else might challenge the source of the images.

How would I prove that I created them?

What's especially worrying is that I might license an image commercially, and you might find it on a website somewhere. That website might even have a generic copyright notice on it (most of them do!). All the same, I'm the copyright owner, and I might choose to upload it to WP or Commons and release it to the public domain, or license it under creative commons. As the copyright owner, I'm absolutely entitled to do that and it's perfectly legal.

How could I convince you in that situation that I didn't copy the image from the website, and that I was entitled to upload it to WP and tag it CC or PD?

A further case. Some other website could easily and legitimately take my pd-self-tagged image from Wikipedia and use it on their site. Even though they've taken my PD image, they probably still have a copyright statement on their site. You might find that website, which copied the image from WP, and conclude instead that *I* copied the image from them :)

How would I prove to you that this is what had happened, if it did?

It's even possible to imagine a scenario where I license the image as CC-By-Attribution and the external website uses it *without* attribution, and hence actually is breaching my copyright - but it might look to you like I'm the one who committed the breach :)

I figure that uploading high-resolution images (even much higher than needed for web purposes) and including EXIF information that backs up my license claim is a good move (see for example ) but of course even that isn't *proof*.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thparkth (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of "easy" solutions. Most photographers who are serious have no issues with being very specific about their images. So if one is willing to allow free unrestricted use of their images the first thing I always suggest is to read Image use policy and apply what is laid out to the example in the Mini how-to. In other words a photographer should have no problem stating their real name and a method of contact. There should be no problem with the date of creation or the location and other information about the shot and what the source is. I have found that one of the biggest misconceptions that both uploaders and admins/editors have at Wikipedia is that a "source" and "author" are the same, and that use of a generic tag such as PD-self meets the requirements of the policy. It doesn't. There are some good suggestions at Help:File page, especially under the Image summary section. However as it is not a policy there is no requirement to follow it. By way of example I feel File:ACF headshot.jpg gives no real information - there is no source, there is no author. Some would argue because the generic "self" tag that uses "I, the copyright holder of this work..." there is nothing to worry about. In the case of this image I can look at it, and do nothing else, and guess it is a personal snapshot. However if it were File:Lady GaGa.jpg and it had no information, I would for sure question it. Some examples of images with good information are: File:DSC 0487.JPG, File:Hoellentalangerhuette Richtung Zugspitze.jpg, File:20071229-ASKA.jpg and File:Falmouth irb 02.jpg. Ignoring quality issues for a moment some bad examples are: File:Bigger.JPG, File:UncleBTour.jpg, File:Avenging Justice II Poster 2.jpg and File:GodsWar.jpg.


 * The second "easy" thing would be to submit a permissions email to OTRS. Then questionable images (With no source, no author, dead source links, different licenses, different author than the uploader, etc) such as File:Kelly Wells on Set Bang My White Tight Ass 17 4.jpg, File:Sorgente all'interno della Riserva Naturale Bosco SS. Trinità OTRS.jpg, File:Kuk sm.jpg and File:Tony and Estrada.jpg can be, hopefully, confirmed. My personal feeling is that the Information tag be required and filled out as the policy says, and an OTRS be required. It would save a lot of headaches.


 * As for the rest of your comments. I am an old school photographer with the ability to understand the new technology. I do not simply go by an image having, or not having, exif data attached. I have seen deletion discussions were opinion are voiced for "keep" or "delete" because of the lack of, or inclusion of, metadata. This is an age where digital images are uploaded all over, with metadata in tact - so that fact alone doe nothing to prove an uploader is the original source. Likewise images shot on film and scanned from negatives, slides or prints may not contain any metadata but the does not mean the uploader is *not* the original source. Have a higher res upload my prove somethings, but again, sites such a flickr have original hi res images available there as well. Many companies, including studios and labels, offer hi-res downloads for media use. So the simple fact an upload is hi res does not automatically mean the uploader is the copyright holder. What I tend to do is actually take some time to look over things. If a user has uploaded other images I look them over. I look at the quality of them compared to each other. This is where the exif data can come in handy - if there are, say, 10 images and each one uses a "self" license but every one has different exif information something is up. If one is an image from 1924 and another is from 2009 and another is a scan from a book and another is credited to someone else it raises a red flag.


 * Obviously one size doe snot fit all, but there are a limited amount of tags available for use and I have always felt it is harder for the original copyright holder and/or photographer to upload their own work. Some examples off the top of my head - a company wants to upload an image they use to promote their product. So they use the Non-free promotional tag and suddenly it is deleted because it doe snot have a FUR, or it is considered freely replaceable. So they try again using PD-self, but now it becomes an issue because the image is not really in public domain. It is, in reality, an image used to promote something...it really is "promotional". This can be applied to actors and musicians and film makers and author and artists - anything used to promote them is automatically placed in the the "non-free" category if the uploader is being truthful. That is why there are so many headshots, promo photos and "form personal collection" images in the "self" category. And that opens up the other side of the copyright discussion...who owns the copyright? If the uploader is also the subject of the image and there is no real source listed other than "I created this" or some variation I will tag the image di-no source. If it gives credit to the company or photographer I will tag it di-no permission. And yes I do have to "defend" it to admins who do not understand why "I, the copyright holder..." is not enough in many cases. But this is why there is OTRS.


 * As for attribution that is a whole other issue. Bottom line is that if a photographer requires attribution they can - and they can specify what they want it to say and where. That right is part of the accepted licenses at Wikipedia. The end user must also keep intact any notices, such as copyright information or by-lines and the material is provided "as is". Removing watermarks, failure to give attribution and required, using the image in a way that could give a fails endorsement - any of those could result in that license being revoked to that end user, even if that "end-user" is Wikipedia. This is not what I think, this is explicitly laid out the the full "legal code" of the accepted Creative Commons license. But your comment seemed to be more aimed at finding your image with a by-line for someone other than yourself at another site. It is hit and miss in some cases but if you uploaded and image today and claimed credit but it was "published" somewhere else two years ago credited to someone else there is a chance it would be questioned. If the reverse of that were true, it would help to aid in that you were the original source.


 * The "in a nutshell" answer to all of this is if you follow the policy and give information that most serious/pro/semi-pro photographers do when entering into a licensing agreement with an end user or distributor, there should be no questions about source or author or copyright. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed response. You should consider writing some of this up as a guideline - it's very helpful :) Thparkth (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"For use on Wikipedia"
You'll notice that WP:CSD only applies when the uploader states "for use on Wikipedia only" (the last word being emphasized) - otherwise the copyright tag with override it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I have a much better grasp on image related polices than you do. F3 is to be used for images that have *any* like wording, such as: "Used with Permission" "by permission" "For Wikipedia use" "To be used on Wikiepda" "For the Wikiepdia article" "For other use contact author" "Not to be used unless permission is given" and many other variations. Just because the template does not specify every possible wording known to mankind does not mean the tag is misued, or incorrect.   This image clearly sates "for use on Wikipedia." Had you looked at more than the tag and misunderstood what it means, you would have also noticed it is unused and had further looked you would have seen that the A Little Bitter article was deleted on July 28, 2008. There is no doubt this was licensed "for use on Wikipedia". I know hindsite is 20/20 but had I known you did not have a firm understanding of image related polices I would had give a firm "No" instead of my "Neutral" at your RFD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting you have a better grasp on image policy, seeing as I passed my nomination for adminship on knowledge and am probably in the top 10-20% of administrators. This leaves me wondering why you haven't run for adminship; after all, remaining as you are now creates extra work for us admins with less knowledge who have to review your well placed deletion tags. You shouldn't have any problems gaining the post with your vast knowledge and intelligence. As for the matter at hand, the fact that community put the last word in "for Wikipedia use only" was really an oversight; the very different connotation that has is clearly an unfortunate side-effect. After all, there's no way that an uploader who says "uploaded for Wikipedia" and clicks the self-created "public domain" button could possibly actually mean the public domain part of his upload. Nor is it possible that this policy was created in mind for the vast array of images without a license tag at the time, or that had clearly conflicting licenses (e.g., "public domain but don't use it off Wikipedia").


 * In any case, I trust that you'll either be applying for adminship for your knowledge, acquiescing to my point and no longer tagging these images, or asking for clarification at the Village Pump should you neither want to run for adminship nor concede my reasoning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never been interested in having the mop and bucket. But your post is good for a quick laugh, I am glad you can keep a sense of humor. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Transfer on AJA_Wiki_Foto.jpg
Thanks for your note and advice on the copyright transfer. I have forwarded an e-Mail with permission directly from the subject and owner (AJ Arduengo) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please let me know if you need any further clarification. Pnicto-boy (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: AGyHM-P_Gala_Dinner.jpg‎
Dear Soundvisions1,

Thanks for taking the time of watching all wikipedia articles; in the particular case of the file: "AGyHM-P_Gala_Dinner.jpg‎", it has been taken from the "Anuario" (annual) of the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla". Please, read the file's source:

"Source: Anuario 1954-57 by Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla, Guadalajara, Jalisco, (México), 1957"

If you read the article, you can see that the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla" was a Mexican institution that got extinct in 1983 and also, that this institution published only three volumes of "Anuario"; then:

1) The image was taken from an academic publication, not a newspaper--as you wrote.

2) The institution was based in Mexico, and it got extinct in 1983. The Mexican copyright law says that after 50 years, all published works will pass to public domain (unless the owner of the copyright renew those rights, and/or transmit those rights to a third party through a legal documment); so far, the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla" became extinct in 1983, and there's no one that holds the copyright of the institution's "Anuario" (I've checked it before sharing the image here in Wkipedia).

3) Therefore, the institution's "Anuario" (and all its content--even the image which is the subject of this conversation) belongs to the public domain, because it was published in 1957 and no one holds it's copyright since 1983.

Many thanks for your kind attention to this message.

Best,

--Hyperspeed2000 (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * non-free magazine redirects to Non-free magazine cover, and it is meant for magazine covers only. As this is a scanned article and image, as opposed to a cover, from a magazine the closest tag was Non-free newspaper image which address's "page or article". In most case a copyright extends beyond the year that something becomes "extinct", as you worded it, however you are correct that the Mexican copyright is a bit different. A magazine itself seems to be only under protection for five years. However the image is another issue. There seems to be a few issues at play - from what I understand the Mexican FLAR protects an author for life of the author plus seventy five years after their death. If the author of the image died, for the image to be out of copyright they would have had to have died in 1935, which does not seem likely as you state the source is from 1954 - 57. And the persons contained *in* the image have rights that "lasts for a perpetual term that can be transmitted to the legitimate heirs or to any person through a will." Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again Soundvisions1,
 * Thanks for taking the time in reviewing the image. In short: the "Anuario" (it's not a magazine, it's a kind of 'memoirs') was published in 1957. The image doesn't have any author (it's an anonymous photo), so the copyright was owned by the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla" (an institution, not a particular person). This institution became extinct in 1983 (as it's explained in the article)... Today, if someone wants to have some information about this institution, well, there's no place to go, there's no one to ask; just some pieces of information that are published in the "Genealogical Journal" (Utah Genealogical Association, 1971), "The Augustan" (Augustan Society, 1975) or "Hidalguía" (Asociacion de Hijodalgos a Fuero de España, Madrid, 1995); and some other public sources mentioned in the after mentioned article... On the other hand, I knew personally some of the people pictured in that photo (those who weren't dead some thirty-five years ago), because of that, I can confirm to you that all of them are dead by now; also, on Oct 28th 1985, I've inherited all the Academy's archives through a legal will, directly from one of the academicians pictured in the image (that's why I was able to wrote the after mentioned article), so, I can assure you that if someone has any copyright of that image, well, it's me. If you have any other question(s), feel free to send me an email at: hyperspeed2000@hotmail.com. I'll be glad to keep talking about this subject in a private conversation.
 * Best,
 * --Hyperspeed2000 (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say to sounds as though you are stretching things a bit now. The best to way for you to establish you now own copyright on this photo by an "unknown" photographer via "a legal will" is to submit a permissions email to OTRS. Send an email to [mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org permissions-commons@wikimedia.org]. Be sure to include the same information above on the origin of it (source) and how you came to be the authorized copyright holder. In this case that would mean that you should provide a copy/scan of the will where it explicitly states you now own the copyright on the photo. As you also say this was published in the "Genealogical Journal" in 1971, "The Augustan" in 1965 and "Hidalguía" in 1995 it would be helpful to proved any copies of licensing from those publications showing that you were the one who allowed the publication. Also if you own the original photo please scan and upload that as well rather than this scan of a page from a magazine/paper showing the photo.


 * And please stop reverting the tags on the image. Further removal will be considered vandalism. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Soundvisions1,
 * First: Thanks for your advice, I'll look for the original photo on the Academia's archives (there are four boxes of photos), then I'll send an email with the image and all the info.
 * I think we are looking for the same objective: to make Wikipedia's articles as serious and reliable as possibly.
 * Reading your page, I see you're a dedicated person who knows a lot about copyright. Then, I'd be very interested in know your point of view about the following fact: nowadays, Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor) is more standardized to international requirements (last updated in 2003: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/122.pdf); today, a photo's copyright is fully identifiable in any publication, from a simple brochure to an important book (including magazines and newspapers)... Then, it's very easy to ask/get a proper permission...
 * But in 1950's Mexico, the case was so different to nowadays; and in the particular case which is the subject of our conversation, that photo (along with some other photos) was included inside the 1957's volume of the already mentioned "Anuario" (a book of 300 pages plus illustrations, published in Guadalajara (Mexico) in 1957 ; a copy is catalogued at the Library of Congress as follows: LC Control No.: 56034508, LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/56034508); none of the photos that were published in the 1957's "Anuario" had credits at all, therefore, all of them are anonymous photos (am I right?); this "Anuario", on the back of the title's page, just have the following sentence: "Registrado conforme a la Ley" (Registered according to the Law)... So, who was the owner of the photo's "copyright" in 1957?
 * a) An unknown (not mentioned / anonymous) photographer
 * b) An institution called: "Academia de Genealogia y Heraldica Mota-Padilla"
 * c) ?
 * --(Please, note that the word "copyright" doesn't appeared on the already mentioned publication, nor its symbol ©; everybody can confirm this by looking at the copy of the "Anuario" located in the LC collection).
 * As far as I know, since 1957 no one has claimed any rights about the photo which is the subject of our conversation, the Academia became extinct in 1983; I inherited the Academia's archives--as I already wrote, in 1985... Some references about this institution, its importance and its works, have been mentioned in the publications I have cited, only as an example of where to find information about this institution...
 * Best,
 * --Hyperspeed2000 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

PD-self
Regarding File:Alice-in-blunderland-cover-1907.png, I scanned the cover of an out-of-print and out-of-copyright book. What licence should it be, if not the one I gave it? -- Evertype·✆ 10:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any "Self" tag is supposed to only be used where the uploader is the creator/author/copyright holder of the material. If something is truly in PD and can be verified as such than simply use the PD tag along with the reason it is in public domain. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert
I highly suggest you read up on the talk page where consensus clearly exists and where there was an in-depth conversation, lest you alienate another person who is on your side, and you enjoy throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you made a proposal and ONLY YOU "voted" on it and that does not a consensus make. I, in no way, support that wording - it is not even close to addressing the entire reason for the thread. If anything your edits are further reinforcing the *misreading/misunderstanding* of the criteria in relation to press/photo agency images Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U
Requests for comment/Nyttend I have made reference to an incident in which you were involved. You may wish to comment yourself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Email
You've got email. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re
Fair enough, although I think what prompted me was seeing that the creator (RAN) is an experienced Wikipedian. I see your point, and it's not as if it was for lack of waiting (which is a problem I see with a lot of other articles). I suppose my question is now answered; in that situation, I would most likely have pinged RAN to ask him what was going on, but I can totally understand your reaction. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the editor has been around for a while but this actually stems from a deletion discussion about a non-free image that they had voiced a "keep" on because it was used in an article about the newspaper. The nom was made about the files use in one article, not about it's use in another article that did not exist in 2007, when the file had been uploaded or even before November 24 when the file was sent to a deletion discussion. At first glance it appeared to be trying to save the image by creating an article for it to be used in. It is a bit more fleshed out now, the article that is, but with another newly created article, Clarence Edwin Watkins, as a support link of sorts. I am expecting the (currently no article / red linked) Floyd Calvin Shoemaker and Rod Dixon (publisher) articles to pop up next. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes even more sense now. Let's see if your predictions come true.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to do it today but I see it is closed. FWIW I don't see the point of it now - simply because the admin did not "have time" to respond to anything how does that imply any sort of action was taken? I see it much like the image issue where I brought it to the admins noticeboard where it was "swept under the rug" after a few days with zero action being taken. It wasn't until this RfC when it was brought up again they had been doing that same thing, along with the main point of the RfC. So, I oppose the closing without any sort of "Closing statement" as it were. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg Kurstin
Hi! I saw what you did over at Kim Shattuck - could I enlist your services to help with the same problem at Greg Kurstin? I think this is the fifth time I've entered his birthdate (properly sourced, etc.) and I fully expect it not to be the last. User:Depressedowitz & User:Windowhaircut (same person? Both delete the date and leave the references hanging...) have repeatedly deleted my info without reason. Apparently Windowhaircut is blocked now... could I ask you to keep an eye out just in case this sort of behavior returns/how can I handle it myself? Thanks for your time, Wikkitywack (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)