User talk:Travisglodt

Possibly unfree Image:Wikipediaonly.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wikipediaonly.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts only free content
Hello, Travisglodt, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for uploading Image:Wikipediaonly.jpg and Image:Wikipediaonly01.jpg. However, you indicated very clearly (through the use of huge distracting watermarks in the images) that these images were licensed for use on Wikipedia only, and any copying, reposting, or distribution was not allowed.

The goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia of free content, which means that anyone can use it for any purpose. (See the third of the five pillars which define Wikipedia's goals.) For that reason we do not accept images which are licensed for Wikipedia only; they must be usable by anyone. I have deleted the images you uploaded because they were clearly not freely licensed.

If you would like to repost these images, you are more than welcome, but you must not attach such restrictions as "USE OUTSIDE WIKIPEDIA IS ILLEGAL" or "RIPPING OR REPOSTING IS NOT AUTHORIZED". When you contribute to Wikipedia, you are contributing to a free-content project. You should also not add watermarks or credits in the image itself, because this violates Wikipedia's image use policy. The place for image credits is the image description page.

Again, thank you for your contributions, and I hope you will decide to contribute more. Please let me know if you need help or if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: By Travis Glodt www.speakphoto.com

TITLE: Misleading and restrictive license policy

Wikipedia. I know you have your goals, objectives, policies and a direction for the site. And I applaud you for that. You cannot make a site that caters to every single individual.

I imagine © is something you are tired of discussing. The fact of the matter is your licensing policies are brutal when it comes to photographs and conducive to manipulating and distributing less accurate information.

The first issue is the underlying terms of uploading an image are basically complete right forfeiture. Which is unnecessary. Providing free information is a good cause. I am also not naive enough to know that people take images of celebrities and such and use them to generate negative publicity and cause damage to the individual depicted and misrepresent the author who created them for personal reasons.

According to your guidelines, someone can do whatever they want including use the work to make a profit via manipulation and under false pretenses, slander the message and name or damage business relations. Though you do work to remove works quickly. . . which I appreciate. You do allow people with no real proof of © to upload images that do not belong to them under the harsh licensing guidelines that stipulate incorrectly to viewers that the author of the work has granted damaging permissions. Even if the works remain up for only a few days. Your starting requirement is little more than good faith.

If you want quality works posted to your site by people who deal and work in visual media. There are plenty of working artists and professionals who would probably contribute more readily. Thus increasing the content quality of the information. As it would come from people working in a more disciplined capacity in respective fields. But license is given outside of "free information" to an unnecessary extent.

I would contribute more readily to your site. But your licensing is conducive to damage and dilution of archives. There is no reason you cannot provide a licensing option that allows the author to give license only to Wikipedia. And include a clause that limits your liability to what the user does. Because in the long run. I believe you are leaving your self open to more legal liability with your licensing policies in the first place. Unless you confirm every last work through the © office PRIOR to posting or contact the artist.

Posting an image on the site IS giving people free ability to look at the visual information. Your licensing guidelines are conducive to misrepresentation and inappropriate right forfeiture that can distort the validity and accuracy of the information and damage the creator / subjects reputation without their even knowing.

Travisglodt (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Travis B. Glodt
 * Hi! I noticed your comment, and thought I'd respond.  Part of the point of Wikipedia is that it entirely free for others to use, in its entirety- the encyclopedia's contents are already released under the GDFL; allowing copyrighted images would violate Wikipedia's existing permissions, which it has already given.  But don't worry; there are plenty of photographers who are happy to provide pictures under the GDFL, so if you don't want to, you certainly don't have to. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: By Travis Glodt www.speakphoto.com

The fact of the matter is there are many holes and an actual lack of visual content for precisely this reason. If there are "plenty of photographers." The vast majority of the "plenty" are people who do not deal and work in the field. Because of the thousands of photographers I do know. There are very few. Outside of a handful of people who can and would agree to completely loose control of their work, allow someone to alter it in a negative capacity or use it for their personal profit for the sake of posting on a free encyclopedia.

Travisglodt (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Travis Glodt


 * Okay, but I don't see how Wikipedia could allow copyrighted work when it has already allowed all of its contents to be freely used by everyone. There would be no way for Wikipedia to honor its own commitment without violating the image copyrights.  And Wikipedia isn't going to stop allowing all of its contents to be freely used by everyone, because that's part of the purpose of Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your license policy is not asking for free use of the original work. Your licensing options require a contributing photographer to agree to complete right forfeiture and legally allow manipulation, misrepresentation, redistribution for profit and transfer of ownership via alteration.

It would seem to me higher quality content and greater accuracy of the actual material would prevail if your license agreement at the very least allowed public use and information only distribution, but restricted manipulation. Which is already free use. No one is paying a dime.

It is free use of the original work without acknowledging total loss of rights to the work to share it. Whereas free license to manipulate is free license to redistribute under new authorship via manipulation. Which means someone else can own, profit from and market my work to their gain by stripping in a new background without so much as contributing a dime to the actual production expense and having to develop the portfolio to reach the people depicted in a professional capacity. And for whatever their motive is. Be it positive or negative, and at the expense of the reputation of both the artist and individual depicted. And in some instances my name will be attributed to such manipulations regardless of the skill level of their execution.

Just my .02. As a photographer those licensing terms say "Go Away".

Travisglodt (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Travis Glodt


 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course, and if you feel that the licensing requirements of Wikipedia are unfair to you then you do not have to contribute. However, before you decide that these licensing requirements are fatal to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to take a look at Featured pictures (and its counterpart on the Wikimedia Commons, Featured pictures) to see some of the outstanding images that have been contributed by photographers under free licenses compatible with Wikipedia.
 * I would also like to point out that many free licenses, such as the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons "ShareAlike" licenses, require people who modify an image to release their modifications under the same license. This prevents the exploitation you describe where someone may make a minor modification to the image and then claim exclusive rights.
 * Some of the "problems" you describe, such as "slander[ing] the message and name or damag[ing] business relations," are outside the scope of copyright law anyway. We are not asking contributors to forfeit the right to sue for defamation; we are only asking contributors to release their contributions freely so that others may use their work without fear of being sued for copyright infringement.
 * Finally, I understand your concern that we may "allow people with no real proof of © to upload images that do not belong to them under the harsh licensing guidelines that stipulate incorrectly to viewers that the author of the work has granted damaging permissions." This is a very significant potential problem. But there are many editors, including me, who spend quite a bit of time examining copyright claims of images on Wikipedia precisely to find such dubious claims and do something about them. You might be interested in Possibly unfree images, where such potential problems are discussed. —Bkell (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)