User talk:Soundvisions1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barnstar![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For Soundvisions1's tireless image tagging! Athaenara 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Speedy deletion declined: File:Aaliyah in blue.jpg[edit]

Hello Soundvisions1, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Aaliyah in blue.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: subject is deceased so a fair use claim can be made - should be discussed at WP:FFD as it is not blatantly inappropriate. (I'm sure the FAC lot would have picked up on it as well if it were inappropriate). You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before declining such images. CSD F7 - Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately. You may also wish to review our policy on non-free content, in particular criteria number 2 - Respect for commercial opportunities. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Soundvisions1. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 10:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Forget the above tb - I placed it here in errorr. I was heavily involved in the article AfD but had nothing to do with the images. Apologies for any confusion.--Kudpung (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful essay. Civility and AGF policies.[edit]

I think you could find useful to reread WP:DTR. Regular users with long history of positive contributions deserve a few human words rather than pasting a boiler plate template. Regarding the substance of your entry on Giakomo's page I find that a civility warning was a sensible thing to do (while the template form was not the best expression of the idea). On the other hand assumption that a prolific editor with a long list of positive contributions misled the community about the usability of the image for encyclopedia work and instead intend to misuse it as a personal file storage to be a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Would you mind to redact your entry in a civil and friendly manner? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to not have noticed that I used my own words to issue a warning based around a template. I did not paste "a boiler plate template" and leave it on the users page. It would also do you well to note that I am not involved in that deletion discussion and only issued a warning based on a user "with long history of positive contributions" who has made personal attacks in violation of policy.
From my uninvolved view of the deletion discussion an image was nominated as unused. There is no bad faith in that nom at all. The bad faith has come in by the uploader making strong "own" comments which was met with a link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is clear that Wikipedia is not a a place for mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles nor is it a file storage area. It was also suggested the image could be moved to Wikimedia Commons. These policy based replies were met with a clear lack of civility and amount to personal attacks. Comments calling any editor, admins or not, an "idiot", "ignorant morons" and "ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about" are not done in good faith. The uploader has continued their made personal attacks in their response to my warning. Your comment to me, here, asking that I redact your entry in a civil and friendly manner is misplaced. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange, for an editor of 3 years standing[edit]

I am surprised that you would both template another long term editor, and that you would choose to do so to User:GiacomoReturned with a civility warning. Perhaps you have been fortunate enough to so far conduct your WP editing unaware of both the general and specific nuances preferred in these matters - and it may be for the best if you did not involve yourself further before familiarising yourself with such "protocols". Disruption may take many forms on WP, but there are those admins (even some who are morons and are inept at producing content) who are able to recognise it and take steps to diminish it. I suggest you ensure you conduct yourself more appropriately, if you intend to continue commenting on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See above response. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine, I shall make myself more clear - I strongly urge you to take advice on whether your current approach is, under the circumstances, appropriate in fostering a collegiate and relaxed editing environment. It is my perception that, instead, you are carelessly embarking on a course of action that will result in increased disruption, and which may lead to you being blocked. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a level 3 ("no assumption of good faith") warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just curious - is that a threat? Soundvisions1 (talk)
No, it is a warning - just as it said. You were given advice independently by two parties, which you chose to ignore and then acted to potentially escalate a situation. I then warned you of a possible outcome should the result be considered disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well than your warning was misplaced as there was no violation of policy on my end. I did not ignore the posts, as anyone can see I actually responded to both. As for what you feel you were commenting on, pointing out that calling editors retarded, idiots, twits and morons is a breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks is in no way worthy of being issued "a level 3 ("no assumption of good faith") warning." In itself your "warning" to me could be seen as "carelessly embarking on a course of action that will result in increased disruption, and which may lead to you being blocked." Although in assuming good faith I feel you most likely misread, or did not read, what my warning was for. In which case I accept your apology. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your WQA report, you may be right, you may be wrong, but be aware that there's a lot of history here. Very rarely does anything come out of a Giano incivility thread other than a polarizing argument between Giano supporters and Giano opponents. --B (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA[edit]

Courtesy note just to say: I closed the WQA report and left Giano a note about being more civil. If several people say it, perhaps the message will get across. No judgement on your actions, but the bottom line is that any discussion about Giano's civility reduces uncontrollably into a drama-fest and fight between his supporters and haters. Probably best to avoid that. Practically speaking there is little else that would have come from even a lengthy WQA thread - blocking Giano is about one of the biggest minefields there is :) particularly as civility blocks have little community support. --Errant (chat!) 14:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI My attempt was unsuccessful, sorry. I have opened a thread on WP:AN/I with a proposed sanction for Giano which mentions your involvement. --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]

Intentionally inflicting stress on another editor by attempting to delete their contributions through the petty application of rules may be construed as a form of trolling. You'd be very wise to disengage from Giano and not participate further in the very counterproductive drama that you have sactimoniously ignited. We are here to try to help each other, not to trip people up, delete people's work, or get people blocked. Many thanks if you will consider what I have said for a day or two, and then respond. Jehochman Talk 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Um - excuse me? EDIT: oh, I see - you are mistaken. if you took the time to read the above conversations or the deletion discussion you would have noticed I was not part of any deletion discussion involving your pal. Also you have a very skewed reading of what trolling is. Your comments are very misplaced here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Soundvisions1 - have you looked at his block log? You'll notice every single block was overturned within hours (usually minutes). This is an editor who gets "special treatment". There are a few and he is one of them. Best to let it lie, because the powers that be won't allow it. HTH :> Doc talk 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Why are you asking me that question? I never, at any time, asked for a block of this editor. It was the other way around - At least one editor came here and specifically said I would be blocked if I continued to follow Wikipedia policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I only mentioned the block log to show that he gets treated differently (his blocks are always overturned) - didn't mean to imply you were asking for a block :> Doc talk 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
He has, this is my responsibility (actually if we are being accurate Giano's). Jehochman if you have a point to make then please direct it as me. But I have already received a number of emails variously threatening blocks and "we will be watching your edits, don't slip up now" etc. so I think the point is being made :) --Errant (chat!) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anybody needs to be blocked. What needs to happen is that users should stop using "civility" as a weapon to get others blocked. That itself is not civil. If an editor gets steamed, tell them, "You seem to be upset. What's wrong? How can I help?" You'll find that this sort of response is a lot more effective than templating them or petitioning for a Civility Restriction. Jehochman Talk 21:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried talking to him. You're right, perhaps asking what the issue was might have helped. I wish I had done that, but I don't have confidence that it would have turned out differently. Bottom line was that whatever the issue this is not the first time, and I can't help feeling the core issue is so ingrained there is no simple solution. rather than bother Soundvisions1 feel free to bring this to my talk. --Errant (chat!) 22:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is using NPA as a weapon to get others blocked. It's using NPA as the policy is supposed to be used, to stop editors from insulting and demeaning other editors. I support blocking the editor involved for this sort of thing if it recurrs, even though I agree completely with him on the underlying issue. Yes, people in a dispute sometimes do bait each till one drives the other over the line, and I agree, Jehochman, that that such acts are reprehensible, but that's not what is happening here. What's happening here is the attempt to stop one of the things that drive away editors, and it should have been done earlier. Way earlier. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

re Your edit to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars[edit]

Hi. I would note that I have undone your edit to the above page, per WP:BRD, since I do not feel that there is consensus - via established practice - for it to be included presently. I have opened a discussion on the talkpage with a view of incorporating the point you are presumably making; of modifying templated messages in such a way to make them more reasonable. For what it is worth, I think that perhaps this might be incorporated into the essay but only when there is consensus (that is, agreement that the practice is permissible) for it to be included. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The point was already in it, see this version, tale note of this wording: Writing what the template says in your own words, with reference to the particular situation, is more likely to communicate well if the editor is amenable to reason. I just reemphasized it, almost duplicating the exact same wording. I will post at the discussion as well but I wanted to repsond here as well. Soundvisions1 (talk)

Compliment[edit]

Well, I came here to give a compliment and I see from a couple sections above that you're getting badgered by some people. So, perhaps the timing of this is fortunate :)

Anyway, as you know I occasionally patrol Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for unanswered questions. Today, I came across this section of that page, and seeing that it was an answered question I started to read to make sure the answer was right. After a sentence or two, I realized you'd posted the answer. I stopped reading; I know you'd give the right answer. You saved me time. A few minutes later I really thought it deserved mention to you.

So, thank you and bravo! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you kind sir. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Image credit policy[edit]

In this and this edit, you restored image credit to Erling Mandelmann as seen in the Charlie Chaplin article. Such credit is not necessary, contrary to your apparent interpretation of the guideline. At Wikipedia:Image use policy#Watermarks, credits, and distortions the guideline says "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page", not the article page.

At Wikipedia:Captions#Credits, it says: "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article." How is Mandelmann relevant to Chaplin? There is no indication of any relevance between Mandelmann and Chaplin in the Chaplin biography.

Foreign-language wiki usage of the image does not employ image credit in the article: de:Charles Chaplin, es:Charles Chaplin, de:Charles Chaplin, et:Charlie Chaplin, fr:Charlie Chaplin, pt:Charlie Chaplin and sv:Charlie Chaplin. There is no other article which gives Mandelmann credit for this 1985 image of Chaplin. Just FYI. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I had thought my edit summary's were explicit. Part of the license requirements on the image is that attribution is required. Wikimedia Common's has been allowed to distribute this photographers work under the agreement attribution will be given when the image is used. It is also a requirement of the licensing terms and Wikipedia policy does not override those terms. However, as I am extremely familiar with image policy here at Wikipedia, (and also extremely familiar with the licensing terms set forth in the license for this image) the policy, at times, may read as it at odds with the license - however when the policy was worded the CC 3.0 license was not the preferred license and many editors do not know that, or forget that. Beyond that is is perfectly acceptable to give attribution within article space, however, again, the way the Image use policy is worded it is often seen at odds with overall attribution at Wikipedia, including templates such as {{Source-attribution}}, {{Kremlinru}}, {{Include-USGov}}, {{NPS}} and {{CCBYSASource}}. I do not "work" for other foreign language Wikis so what they do is not my concern in this case. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Attribution for the image is required, sure, but that requirement is satisfied at the image page. At Commons:Credit line there is no specific requirement that images be credited in the article, and at the image page on Wikimedia Commons there is no stated condition that the image be credited in the article. Credit on the image page satisfies all of the above. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not correct at all unless the photographer agrees to not being attributed. In this case they did not. Credit stays or you can, on behalf of Wikipedia, say "No thank you" because of the attribution requirements. EDIT: That may have been too vague. The image is being distributed by Wikimedia Commons and while it is a related project it still is not Wikipedia. If you read Reusing content outside Wikimedia it is clear that Other restrictions may apply. These may include trademarks, patents, personality rights, moral rights, privacy rights, or any of the many other legal causes which are independent from copyright and vary greatly by jurisdiction. The right to attribution falls under moral rights and in the United States there is no such right given in Copyright - that is where contracts come into play. In this case those rights are explicitly covered in the license agreed upon. The photographer was extremely kind to allow Wikimedia Commons to distribute his work free of charge for free use, asking only they receive photo credit. The alternative is to say a variation of Thanks, but no thanks as you feel it is too much of the photographer to expect/ask/require to be credited. In which case you simply remove the photo from the article and say in your opinon you don't feel Wikipedia can honor the terms of the license. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
What exactly did this photographer require of Wikipedia? His OTRS letter to Wikimedia, ticket #2010090210007829, is not quoted in full or in part on the image description page. I don't have an OTRS account so I cannot see the ticket.
The absence of any specific attribution requirement is not an indication that we must credit Mandelmann in articles using the image. Your supposition that a photographer must agree not to be credited for us to skip per-caption credit is based on what guideline? Unless Mandelmann required his email address and name for each appearance of the image, we have no need to credit him on articles using the image. We only need to credit him on the image description page. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I was editing my above post to make it more clear, hopefully that answered your question down here. But if not let me try it this way: Attribution for a photographer is equal to a photo credit. In the "old days" Wikipedia did not always use attribution licenses and the assumption (and that was all it was it was at the time) that a hyperlink to the "source" was fine for images. Since version 2 all Creative Common licenses have been attribution licenses and since version 3 Wikipedia prefers that license. When that happened I wondered how that was going to affect the policy, and I have been involved in discussion over the last three years on the issue overall. General consensus shows, on a day to day basis, that Wikipedia does allow for attribution on article pages. The only attribution that some editors like to "restrict" are those moral rights of photographers, which due to the broad acceptances of a license the explicitly allows for them is not something that the policy here can override. Some, such as yourself, will argue that "We don't allow it" and/or "It doesn't say that it has too" however each case may be different. Just by way of example - look at Madonna (album) and see how so much is attributed. Start off by looking at the info box - it gives attribution to "Sigma Sound Studios, New York", it give attribution to "Sire, Warner Bros." It gives attribution to "Reggie Lucas, John "Jellybean" Benitez, Mark Kamins" and it also gives attribution to the main performer - Madonna. Look way down at the "notes" section - while called citations that section also is giving "attribution" to writers, papers, magazines etc. This scenario plays out over and over gain without any question - have you removed any such attribution or do you only single out photographers? How about Wassily Kandinsky where the paintings are attributed? Now the argument could be that "Well the article is on the painter so it is needed" but the argument could also be "Well the article in on the painter so it is obvious the images of art are by the painter and they are not needed." The argument could also be "Well we don't allow those kinds of credits because a reader only needs to click on the picture." Now look at the wider Abstract art article - all of the image in that article appear to have attribution as well.
Now on your question of Your supposition that a photographer must agree not to be credited for us to skip per-caption credit is based on what guideline? I will say this as clear as I can: This is not "my" anything. If you take a moment to not only read, but understand, the terms of the license being used you will see it says a few things. One is that the creator and/or copyright holder has the right to define if, and if so how, they want attribution. That right is in the license and the only way the right can be changed is if it is done in writing and agreed upon by *both* the licensor and licensee. To be even more direct, on upload pages at Wikimedia Commons (and here at Wikipedia) it does not say that "By uploading your work here you agree to waive your moral rights." Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Crediting images in the articles themselves poses a huge problem for us. The Creative Commons licenses all have something like this in them: "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." (emphasis mine) In other words, if we credit some photos inline in articles, then we have to do it for all of them. --B (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
See all my above comments. Bottom line, at least for Wikipedia, it is a case by case basis but a "local" policy or guidelines doesn't void a valid contract when it is in place. In other words when a license is accpented by a user (In this case Wikipeda) one editor, or several of them, can not simply decide to ignore the terms of use and do what they want. It becomes much harder after material has already been in use for a while. This is not a new image, it is not a new image for the article, it is not the only article at Wikipedia that gives attribution. Beyond that the wording that "everyone" uses to try and say why Wikipedia does *not* do it, but "everyone" does not really apply across the board is "reasonable manner." To make that a truly valid argument you would have to remove every single piece of attribution throughout the project. Why? Because it is extremely clear that attribution is allowed, accepted and in many cases encouraged at Wikipedia. If it is a "reasonable manner" to give attribution to other works, including "captions" and "bylines", in main article space it is certainly a "reasonable manner" to do so for photographs and their creators if it is a requirement of the contract, more so when it is a contract that is widely accepted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Where are you seeing on the image description page that the copyright holder specifies that attribution must be made under the image itself and not on the image description page? If that were a part of the contract, I agree that we cannot unilaterally change it, but we can't accommodate it either. We would simply not use the image. I agree that it is a "reasonable manner" to put credits directly under the images and some websites do that, but in general Wikipedia does not. With the Creative Commons licenses, which require each CC-licensed image to have a credit "at least as prominent" as the credits for other contributors, that would demand that if we display one in-line credit, we have to do it for all CC-licensed images. But I'm missing where in this particular image description page we're even asked to do it inline. I've had this argument regarding photos from jmhphoto.net before (e.g. File:GT Gailey.jpg). This image (and other images from this person), unlike the Chaplin image, actually explicitly demands the inline citation. My contention is that this is unacceptable and we should simply delete the images - we don't need to give in to self-promotion - and even if we wanted to, that would necessitate being "at least as prominent" with all other CC-licensed images, which is not attainable. --B (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me try it this way:
Wikipedia accepts various licenses.
Creative Commons 3.0 is one of them.
A content creator who does, but they do not have to, want to specify attribution may do so.
The person, or company, who is offering this material and using such a license can be as explicit as they want, or as "simple" as they want.
Per the contract (the license in this case) the only way any of the restrictions can be rendered null and void is to obtain it in writing and both parties must agree to it.
Now, on the overall issue - professional photographers understand that "attribution" = "photo credit". Most Wikipedia editors are *not* professional photographers so may not get what is obvious to those that are. This is where the discussion always gets widely varied - from "it isn't attribution, it is a photo credit and we don't allow photo credits" to "We don't allow any material with restrictions such as this" to "We only accept free content and copyrighted material is not free content" to "They can not dictate attribution because we don't allow any restrictions" Much, if not all, of this is due, in large part, to a, now, slightly outdated policy and guidelines based on that *and* people not bothering to read the license being used. As far as the concept of "attribution" goes most photographers simply will say "photo credit" should be given and not worry because most in the real world would get that - however, again, most editors at Wikipedia are not professional photographers and/or most of them do not deal with it on a daily basis in the real world.
As far a contract law goes the CCL is enforceable as such. It is a pretty simple concept - one entity says to another entity "here is somehting and here is how you can use it". The other entity says "Ok" or "No thank you". It is really up to the person on the receiving end to understand what they are accepting. Oddly enough, in the case of Wikipedia and even Wikimedia Commons, that is a concept often tossed out for not being more explicit on content pages (such as an image page) yet I am always amazed at how many editors don't follow that when uploading, or "accepting" uploads. (The "Wikipedia only accepts fee content and free = no copyright" argument always surprises me when I see it for example) Because a user of this license does not always *give* attribution they want it *is* required to be given by the end user/s by the nature of the license. If there is no valid source and no valid author than it is not a valid contract and should not be accepted - but when it is valid, at least to Wikipedia standards, giving some sort of attribution for licensed as such content, would not be that hard - even if it was "USER:Phlemluver32" as the author. How and where that is given depends on where it is being used, unless it is explicitly laid out. Remember CCL's are generic - for example the requirements for credits on a film, a films advertising, promotional material, soundtrack for the film all are different. Thus "reasonable manner" depends on the medium being used. Yes the licensee *can* explicitly state how each credit will read in each medium it could be used in however even if it doesn't that does not mean each use should simply contain a link a website under the guise "well it wasn't explicitly stated to actually put a credit in the film, on the one-sheet, on the 8x10 promo shots, on the soundtrack." Again - "attribution" is to be given in a "reasonable manner" to the medium is it being used. Here at Wikipedia most it is allowed, and has been allowed - that is well established. It than becomes various arguments about any amount of things - as I said above.
Repeat: These images came from a professional photographer. OTRS's are private, and in cases such as these I do not think they should be. However that is another topic all together. But as someone who was involved in the early conversation/s about these images I can say the trade off for free use is the attribution. It clearly says it publicly however. Wikipedia is not exempt from the real world of contract law, nor are they exempt from a licensor informing a licensee they are going to invoke their right to terminate the contract (license) with them if their work is not being used according to the requirements. In this case Wikipedia is simply using the work - I personally feel it is very much an insult to this photographer to expect him to give up his moral rights just "because", which at this point is really what is being said. (i.e - not that you, yourself are saying this, but overall discussions on such matters where reasons for not giving credit in the article page when it is clearly already accepted are akin to "Well, just because this photographer is not as important as this other photographer is...", "Well, just because this photographer is not as important as the recording studio where the album was recorded...", "Well because this photographer is not as important to the cover art as the distributor...", "Well, just because this photographer is not as important as painters...", "Well, just because this photographer is not as important as the website who used someone else work is...", "Well, just because they asked for it does not mean they really expect it", "Well, just because contract law doesn't matter at Wikipedia", "Well, just because my neighbor Bob down the street didn't expect it when they uploaded their photo of dog pooh", "Well, just because I don't get it with my own photos...", "Well, just because it is allowed in other places doesn't mean it is here too..." and so on).
We can agree to disagree on the "How to provide attribution in article space" but that is about it unless Wikipedia (And Wikimedia Commons) cease accepting attribution licenses and/or every single article page stops offering inline citation, info boxes with various form of attribution, all images remove all attribution no matter how it is worded. But really if that is going to happen it needs to be stated that way *and* enforced across the board. If you want to be the caption of the "unacceptable and we should simply delete the images" ship go ahead a set sail. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, unless there is specific attribution requirements listed (and they should be, if it comes from OTRS) then the default clause of the CC license applies, which asks us to provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Ssection 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The issue faced here is that to meet your claim that we must put it into the article you also must include the URI, proper image title, etc etc. However it is accepted here on WP that reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing allows us the leeway to have the license information on the image page and not in the article without violating CC & keeping to the spirit of the license. Or to put it more simply; the advantage of the Wikipedia medium means that in the absence of any specification of attribution form we can employ a neat format that avoids us having to use the traditional and clunky photo credit. The crucial wording at COM:REUSE is you must mention the license terms or a link to them, simply saying "by X" is sufficient--Errant (chat!) 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
First and foremost: I agree what matters is the license. It states what I said, what you said. But I think you are ignoring the license meaning in the context of it being a generic license with wording meant to apply to *all* forms of content in order to justify a slightly conflicting Wikipedia policy that only is (currently) applied to photographers when attmepts are made to enforce it. Once again: "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing" relates to the overall generic wording. The media Wikipedia is using is a website. Does Wikipedia use attribution? Yes. Do mainspace articles use attribution? Yes. Do images use captions when used in mainspace? Yes. Do those "captions" contain attribution? Yes they do. As such it is painfully obvious that "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing" means "you" (Wikipedia) most certainly can use a "clunky photo credit" because it is clearly "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing."
On the other hand, if you want to now "enforce" the policy and make it a CSD-able offense than I expect you, and anyone/everyone else who wants to, to start actively removing *all* forms of attribution from *all* main space articles.
In the "crucial wording" you mention you left out a few important facts - first is that Wikimedia Commons is a distributor, a content provider. As a whole they can not re-license work via a new reworded "license" saying the only requirement is that all user simply provide "a link to them". That is a 100% false reading of not only the overall page but most likely a massive violation of thousands of images being offered via Wikimedia Commons. Next is that you didn't mention the equally, if not more, "crucial" text that I pointed out above: Other restrictions may apply. These may include trademarks, patents, personality rights, moral rights, privacy rights, or any of the many other legal causes which are independent from copyright and vary greatly by jurisdiction. Likewise some more "crucial" information you didn't mention: If a work is published under a single license, all of the terms in that license must be followed - it does not state that "only the terms you want to follow must be followed" Likewise it advises all end users to Please read the full licenses for legal details - again, it doesn't say "Just ignore the full license" Now down by CCL's, which is maybe how you misunderstood the wording of "or a link to them" the full context of the ext is that you must give attribution to the creator and "you must mention the license terms or a link to them" And, perhaps in context of what you are suggesting, is that Hotlinking is allowed from Wikimedia servers. But that is not a solid requirement, matter of fact the very next line is For hotlinked files, it is still good practice to add attribution as you would for copies on your own server. Now that would bring back the entire (false) argument that Wikipedia never allows attribution to appear in an article or in a caption. Which will also bring me back to what I said - If you want to now "enforce" the policy I expect you, and anyone/everyone else, to start actively removing *all* forms of attribution from *all* main space articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm confused. Are you saying that this photographer asked in OTRS to be credited inline in the article, but this request was not mentioned on the image description page? That could be confirmed by someone with OTRS access. The legal license (contract, whatever), which says "This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.", also says "The credit required by this Section 4(c) [all that stuff above like "the name of the Original Author, etc] may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." In accordance with that license, we (or any other content reuser) can make attribution in any "reasonable" way. That could mean that if you are writing a book, you make the attribution in footnotes or endnotes. In the case of Wikipedia, we have chosen to make that attribution on the image description page. I haven't seen anything in what you have said that invalidates the image description page as an appropriate place for attribution and were we to give inline credits in some cases, we would be required to do so in all cases of images with CC licenses. --B (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking the last part first. That is exactly what I said, except I used a movie, a soundtrack, promo photos, etc as examples. That is exactly why generic wording says what it says - and Wikipedia has already established itself as allowing attribution on and in mainspace articles. This can be done by "footnotes or endnotes" as well because that is more accepted than as a caption, however I stress in these discussions that , due to the fact they are in use already, captioned images are allowed. If there as a blanket policy that was actively enforced policy that said "No captioned images ever, anyhow, for any reason" this would be a different discussion I am sure.
I have never said, in any discussion, that content pages (such as an image page) were in any sort of violation of the license.
Not sure why you quoted This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. unless it was meant to reinforce what I was saying - that a policy, a guideline, en essay, or a few editors - be it at Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia - does not override that core license unless there is "mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You"
For the rest - see the above reply. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we are circling the nub of the matter: the quoted bit of CC license which says "The credit required ...may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors."
That sentence does not require us to put the photographer's name next to a single occurrence of his work appearing in an article such as the Charlie Chaplin biography. Rather, it requires us to credit Mandelmann if his image appears in a collection of images, each featuring the name of the artist or photographer. In the Chaplin article there are no other artists or photographers named, not even for the two sculptures. I cannot see how Mandelmann's name must be included. Of course it may be included, but it is not required. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The point of "This License may not be modified ..." was that a demand for attribution to be made in a certain fashion is an unauthorized attempt to unilaterally modify the license. I'm still not clear, though, on where this particular photographer asked for an inline credit. Are you saying that all professional photographs should be credited inline or are you saying that this particular photographer requested it somewhere (like OTRS)? You make a good point that we allow quoted text to be attributed inline (e.g. uses of the {{cquote}} tag in articles like Virginia-Virginia_Tech_rivalry#Post-April_16.2C_A_New_Complexion.3F) But I don't think we would really consider people we are quoting would really be considered "authors". For a particular article, the authors of text-based contributions are credited in the "history" tab and the contributors of image-based content are credited on description pages. I don't see a problem there. As for hotlinking, I think it's a real problem that we allow hotlinking - I have sent a takedown demand in one case where someone was hotlinking an image I created without attribution or linking to the description page. I had a discussion somewhere about that at one point in time and the bottom line is that the technical staff didn't care - it was too much work to try and check whether the hotlinking was coming from a legitimate site. I have become sufficiently ticked off at seeing my photos appear, even in the MSM, without attribution that I no longer contribute them ... and as sucky as my photography is, I can only imagine what it's like for people who actually take good photos. --B (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy line beak[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think you/we all need to go back to square one because there are a lot of important points being missed.

  1. With all CCL's there is not any requirement that the licensor *must* specify attribution, but it is allowed if they do. This is not the fault of the license itself, nor the fault of the copyright holder who is licensing out their work. When someone is on the "inside" a lot of presumptions might be made. By way of example a contract for a director might say they will be credited as "The director" but may not explicitly define how or where - the presumption is that they will be getting a credit on the film and in advertising. It may not be a main credit above the title, it may not be above everything (i.e "A directors film of a producers production"), but it would be placed in a "reasonable manner" relative to the medium. Because the people actually putting together the film do it all the time they know a "director" credit comes at the head of the films main credits - in many/most case it comes right before the first frame of the film after all the credits. Imagine being the director, sitting in a theater and where the credits are supposed to be there is just a link to a website somewhere. Use the came "hyperlink" idea being used here and imaging sitting watching a DVD and there is nothing - but if you click on the black frame before the main film you get sent to a website with a full list of credits.
  2. CCL's are worded generic. Question not yet answered: Why do the editors posting here on my talk page feel a photographer is all that is being discussed? Why do you feel that only one class of people who use the license need not be given due credit when others are? In other words - why does the same "reasonable manner" and "reasonable to the medium or means" appear to be defined as "There is no requirement for attribution alongside a photographers work" yet for a painter it means "An artists name should appear alongside the artists work even if the work is in PD and there is no explicit request for attribution to be given"? (Can also be applied to anything else where Wikipedia is currently given attribution in an article)
  3. Along the same lines - parts of this discussion revolve around "Well, they did not explicitly state a location so therefore it doesn't matter" and "Wikipedia does not give attribution in article space" yet, as I have pointed out already, Wikipedia does allow attribution in article space - even when there is no license being used that explicitly requires it.
  4. While it hasn't come up here yet I usually get "There is no case law about this" tossed out at me. So before that does happen let me explain that the use of these "free" licenses is still something new but already courts have decided that they fall under a valid contract and if the terms are not followed it can be seen as a "simple" case of contract law. As a huge part of these revolves around attribution the idea is that why would someone give away their work for free? Well by the nature of "attribution" that can be seen on one of the big payoffs. The lack of attribution has been part of many lawsuits through the years, so it is nothing new - the 'new" part is how licenses such as CCL's figure in. Susan Chang v Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons was a lawsuit based on a few things, and one of them was that Virgin Mobil did not give the required attribution and instead only provided a link to a website. Failure to do that resulted in the contract being canceled with Virgin Mobil - the "contract" being the licensee and the ability to do that explicitly laid out in the license. It would have been interesting to have had this case go all the way, however Texas didn't feel it had any jurisdiction in Australia so the Texas courts dismissed the case. Another very interesting case (deeply rooted in Copyright law as well as attribution) is not based around any sort of "free" license, but it is based on the idea that when a photographer, Daniel Morel, placed their images on Twitter they were basically allowing use of their images and no permission was needed. Not because of the photographer saying, or not saying, anything but because, at the time, the TOS of twitter implied that Twitter had the worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). Those terms have since changed, due in large part to this case I would imagine and the case is still ongoing. The reason I always mention this case is because editors often say Wikipedia has a policy which says what it says yet is not fully in line with the "contract" much material is licensed under. The outcome of this case will touch on many issues related to the internet I feel. You can read a very detailed response to a reverse lawsuit brought against the photographer bu the press agency who stole his images here: AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE v DANIEL MOREL. (And the complaint from the AFP is here)
  5. Some may feel I take a hard stand on some issues and I do. Why? Because I deal with this sort of thing in the real world and I understand that when a professional photographer, or content provider, has a requirement of attribution they do not mean to *not* give to them when the content is actually used. Think of Wikimedia Commons as a free version of Getty Images. You can not go to Getty, find a photo, purchase it and than whenever it is used simply hyperlink back to the images description page under the assumption that, because that page doesn't explicitly say "Credit must appear with the image when used", you don't need to give attribution. The above AGF case is more often an exception to the rule because in most cases commercial content providers will not blindly accept material which they can not verify, but the idea is the exact same with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Sometimes we obtain images directly from the copyright holder for re-use and it is verified, other times the images are simply taken from the web and, even if the licenses follows the "source" it may not always be accurate. This is a curse of the modern age. #Buy My Photo from the British Journal of Photography is a good little article on some of the issues being faced.
  6. To continue on the same thought, but to attempt to tie it in to "why" - take a look at this article, about a new book where the author did not give "attribution" to Wikipedia. (see also Chris Anderson’s Free Contains Apparent Plagiarism for more details). Now that is just an example of a "mistake" and yet it is an issue - whereas I have seen more than one editor "argue" that, with images, there is no control over how others use material found here so there is no need to be more explicit on image pages. But, in context of "attribution", more and more article, *with* associated content, are being lifted form Wikipedia. Attribution ends up being to Wikipedia only. In the case of images there may no way of telling where they came from, what the license is, or even if their use if overall correct. In Wiki-world think of the same concept - a user goes to a newspaper where an articles text is under a free license - they grab the text as well as images taken from a local photographer, the Associated Press, a film studio, and Getty Images. The user re-posts it here and says "Taken from the newspaper" - is that the correct attribution? (And please lets not go into the whole "That would be a blatant copyvio and not allowed" or "That would have to fall udner non-free content" - it is the idea of how it is being used at play) Take a look at this Bluetooth Article. Here is a direct link to one of the images: 3-7f54fbde7b-000.png - it is from an older version of the current Bluetooth article so it isn't even in the current version - what is it? How does a user look for information on that image? Now here is another image - which is File:Drone 4.jpg, an image now hosted at Wikimedia Commons and licensed under PD. Now here is an image of two image form the article - the top one is PD, but the bottom one isn't. (File:DELL TrueMobile 350 Bluetooth card.jpg) But how do I know that? because I had to find the Wikipedia article, and than follow the image links. I doubt many people just browsing around would do that - and many editors within Wikipedia won't even do that. The same issue can be said of The Beatles biography - credited to Wikipedia , and that would include the images as there are not other attribution for those (Nor links). Websters online is using content from Wikipedia - see Extended Definition: guitar pick for example, which uses File:Guitar picks-KayEss-1.jpeg. There is no link back to the "Source" page, and you have to go way down to the bottom to read the small print that says Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; from the article "Guitar pick". Image Credit. - however the "Image Credit" link does not say anything and is only a hyperlink to an internal link at Wikipedia Image Credits: guitar pick, which displays broken icons and link to the Wikipedia page/s (Which in themselves display the information but also point out that the image/s are hosted at Wikimedia Commons - is anyone reading this following that I am saying and, more important *why* I am saying it?). The core point I always make is that "internally" editors feel it is "easy" - "Just look at the damn images page!" is the underlying attitude. However because I deal with this sort of thing in real life I know that is not feasible in 2011 when material is simply lifted from anywhere and everywhere. Wikipedia, as a whole, does use the core wording form the CCL and slightly modifies it in an attempt to make it clear (provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikimedia community.) however the wider use is that content is credited to "Wikipedia" at most off site duplicates - some may include links back but the higher percentage of the ones I have seen do not, they simply use the general "Wikipedia". What is also noted is that Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which we will strive to indicate clearly to you. - which, at least to me, I take as an argument in support of, well, "strive to indicate clearly to you." what the requirements are - and this should apply to *all* content, not just text. As I said way up above we encourage attribution via such templates as {{Source-attribution}}, {{Kremlinru}}, {{Include-USGov}} and {{CCBYSASource}} (and even extend various attribution in templates such as {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox animanga}} and {{infobox album}}) and when these are in place the Foundations stance is Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users. Oddly though "non text" gets a small throw away requirement: Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file. I feel that is a shortcoming of the Foundation to clearly lay out what is laid out for "text" reuse - because, as I said, outside users typically just "cut and paste" without caring to "view the media description page"
  7. The argument of "if we give it to one we would have to give it to all" is a good point - but it is based on what? If Wikipedia *really* did not use any form of attribution on/in main space/page/article it would be one thing, but as Wikipedia already gives it to "one" the argument based only on that falls flat.
  8. "We only allow attribution to be given if the photographer is notable" is an argument I have also heard several times, and is hinted at in the policy and related guidlines - but I gather from the editors in this discussion that wouldn't matter anyway. The argument itself could, note I am saying "could", have merit if that was part of the license terms. It isn't. The license itself does not indicate attribution is based on "notability". But lets presume Wikipedia policy and consensus could override the terms of the license in the absence of the actual creator/copyright holder/licensor - Based on other policy requirement and guidlines inclusions might be based on if there is a stand alone article on the English speaking Wikipedia. If that were the case than Erling Mandelmann would meet those criteria. However, as I keep saying, overall, various editors seem to only be inclined to remove certain attribution from certain articles - yet nobody has ever wanted to take the steps to omit/exclude *all* of them - why? Nobody here has yet to give me any direct answer.

At the source end - meaning for a Creative Commons license - by way of their examples:

  1. See also Marking Image at Creative Commons. For images, a CC marker — a graphic or line of text stating the license — should be displayed on or near the image.
  2. See also Day 8: CC Argentina - not so much for the text content but how the images in the article are used. Note the "photo credit" wording.
  3. See also Page attribution example from Creative Commons.
  4. See also Image attribution example from Creative Commons.

The above examples follow what most who deal with it day to day consider the "norm". Wikipedia mostly follows that "norm" as well, except when it comes to photographers. As far as Wikimedia Commons goes the image in question is being distributed correctly. As far as Wikipedia goes this image was being used correctly per the terms of the license, per the accepted "norm" - meaning not only the "norm" of image use but the Wikipedia "norm" of allowing attribution. Again - this is not a new image, it was not just placed into the article when this discussion started, it is not the only image that contains a "caption", or a caption that contains a "photo credit", it is not the only main space article that contains some form of attribution on the same page.

My page is not a policy page so we can discuss this forever but it still would not change the policy wording to make it more clear. In no way am I saying that opinions on how Wikipedia policy on such matters should read are not valid, I am saying that the policy can not over ride the authors/creators/copyright holders license. The issue of Wikipedia and attribution must be done on related policy pages because, again (and again and again) Wikipedia, in day to day practice in 2011, does use and promote attribution in main space. I have never been provided any good reason why a photographer, if they request attribution or not, is seen as "not worthy" of what others are allowed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments have merit, but you are showing where Wikimedia policy and contracts do not mesh with Wikipedia policy. I imagine that you would be interested in changing Wikipedia policy to match your assertions, to protect Wikipedia from civil suits placed by image authors. However, the current Wikipedia policy is what I follow, not any proposed versions.
I'm deleting the image from Charlie Chaplin. Too much drama surrounding it, and Chaplin—let's be honest—is very ugly in the snapshot. Out it goes... Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would love for the image use policy (and guidelines related to this issue) to be updated to reflect current 2011 usage at Wikipedia. And yes, the idea of making sure all the I's" are dotted and the "T's" crossed is a large part of what I do here. If it is the intent of the Foundation is to not allow any form of attribution, and the further claim of (English) Wikipedia that it is consensus to adopt a very clear policy about *not* allowing any license which requires it to be given, and further that it should never be given, it needs to do that. I will make a note on the Wikimedia source page about Wikipedia and useage of this photographers images here. Likewise I am going to be keeping an eye on *all* main space attributions to make sure you keep to your word of following the policy as you are doing in this case. Keep in mind I am assuming good faith you will be doing this, starting with the articles I mentioned above. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As ever, anybody is welcome to examine my contributions, but your statement about "keeping an eye" on me makes me... respond negatively. Have fun with your work. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was what I said - based on this conversation I have asked very specific questions that nobody here has directly answered. I gave specific articles that, as of right now, you have not edited to remove images or to remove attribution from them. I gave explicit templates for main article space that, as of right now, you have not sent to deletion discussions. As I said anyone is welcome to say "no thank you" and use policy as a reason, but if they do so for one image they must do it for all like images. And it must also be backed up with other like actions "across the board" where main space articles are given attribution for any reason. So yes, if you remove this image than I assume good faith you will be doing so across the board. There is no way to see if that is happening other than keep on eye on the things I have mentioned here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to update if the editors from this discussion are reading - I have been in touch with the photographer and am allowed to say this now in "public":

For professional users a credit-line is normal, but no-professionals do not know. For them I think a byline could be a good thing in order that they respect the author's name.

I am going to clarify the source image pages with their request to explicitly say what some of us felt was obvious via the listed attribution. Per the photographer it is going to now read: 'Usage allowed only with Byline Erling Mandelmann / photo©ErlingMandelmann.ch / CC-BY-SA-3.0

I hope that makes it more clear what "attribution" meant when they agreed to this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A close on PUF where you probably should have !voted[edit]

Going through Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 24, I noticed this file, where you closed the discussion within about an hour of its nomination. I think you probably should have !voted in that case, because while it did seem fairly straightforward that it was an errant nomination, it was a bit out of process, as good-faith errors are not included in the criteria at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A !vote would have been more keeping in line with processes, and then the file would have still been kept.

Also, since you're not an admin (yet, at least), please make sure to tread carefully when closing discussions (use WP:NAC as your guide), and to always mark that you're doing a non-admin closure.

Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Butting in here, still had your talk on my watchlist. That was a normal good close. Non-free content nominations on there should always be closed as fast as possible on WP:PUI. After all, it is called "Possibly Unfree files", not "100 percent certain unfree files" :) Garion96 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • RE to SchuminWeb - There was not a need to voice an opinion on this images deletion discussion because it was a misplaced nom and it was straight forward. Had I voiced an opinion it would have been out of process for me to also close. I am familiar with the guideline you linked to, but it seems odd you would tell me I should "should have !voted in that case" and than sent me to a guideline that says, under Inappropriate closures, not to close if en editor has a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly straightforward keep to me. WP:SK does say that if a nomination appears completely erroneous (as if the nominator hadn't read the article) it can be speedied. In this case, it looks like he just had completely failed to notice that the file said it was unfree. Perhaps a small tweak to speedy keep to cover this situation....?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC) tweak here

(edit conflict)

You are suggesting I should have just said "Speedy Keep" in the closure section instead of using an explanation instead? Makes sense, I can see that. As you know I tend to explain things more than most do, so I can see where a bold outcome ("Keep", "Delete", "Speedy Delete", Speedy Keep", "No Consensus") would have worked as well. EDIT: Ahh - you mean the guideline, not the closure. In the words on Emily Litella - "Oh, that's very different. Never mind". Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove[edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg
Missionedit has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thank you for your © comments! USchick (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment[edit]

This photo you commented on has been nominated for deletion. You're invited to vote here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 15 USchick (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Saeed[edit]

Can you explain how we decide the image is under copyright (the family's), as opposed to the state of Egypt's, or as opposed to being public domain? Each one of these is at least plausible, but requires a different line of discussion.

  • If the family owns the photo, because they took it, then we have to decide if the circumstances of photography were illegal or immoral in such a way that policy would prohibit our using it.
  • If the state of Egypt owns the photo, then we have to address NFCC rationales, which may or may not be different from the first case.
  • If the family took the photo, and then intentionally released it in such a way that it became so widespread that it was public domain, then our only concern is with a NFCC rationale for the blog or newspaper we copy it from (if that's a correct by policy).

And in any of those circumstances would the family's permission be needed? I'm assuming no, but would it be helpful if we could get it, or the permission from one of the republishers, such as Wael Ghonim, who administered the Facebook page?

Of course, in any of those cases there are still nfcc6 and nfcc8 issues, but those are secondary to the initial question. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm a bit confused. The Wikilove template you received two posts up here says that I gave it to you (Ocaasi gives you...) but USchick posted it. Is there a user:subst happening or am I daydreaming? Ocaasi (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Last question first - I see that. Must be a script issue. You can ask at User talk:Kaldari/wikilove.
For the rest - Short version: Copyright varies from country to country and Wikipedia tends to go both ways at times. Mostly is is presumed that copyright belongs to the creator of the material and we go off of that. However we also look country to country *and* we look at what countries are part of the Berne Convention. This is not just a Wikipedia thing, it is based on US copyright law and Circular 38a - International Copyright Relations of the United States.
Longer version: Egypt is a member of the Berne Convention and is listed thusly: Egypt · Berne (Paris) June 7, 1977; Phonograms Apr. 23, 1978; WTO June 30, 1995. Depending on how you look at the image in question "Berne" mostly relates to "Literary and Artistic Works" and the image is not "Literary" and it can be questioned if it is "Artistic." The "Phonograms" section mostly applies to recordings - being from 1974 I doubt it would apply to thing such as video or digital and was mostly about records. The one that could apply is the "WTO" - These agreements, which include the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, affect, among other things, intangible property rights, including copyright and other intellectual property rights. The effective date of United States membership in the WTO is Jan. 1, 1995. Of course *that* could be argued as not being relevant as the image is not a product that is being sold. But, to me, if this image were put on the front of a book published in the US it would for sure be a violation of the copyright holders I.P rights. But, in lieu of that we are back to "basic" copyright - which, because the country is also a member of the WTO, the US would follow based on their laws - which would be "Law No. 82 of 2002 Pertaining to the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights" - in short "Author" s defined as The person who creates the work. And "Work" is defined as Any created literary, artistic or scientific product, whatever its type, mode of expression, significance or purpose of its creation. It gets a bit wordy from there but the idea is based on first publication within *any* of the WTO member countries. Artcle 140 defines that "Photographic and similar works" are provided "Protection under this Law."
Based on the above the copyright holder would be the "creator" who appears to have been the brother. The wider issue is about the location which the image was taken. That is the widest variable at the moment. For the most part it was not a "legal" image because someone had to be paid off to obtain it. The simple distribution of the image does not eliminate the source. The best way to draw a comparison would be something such as child porn or bestiality - in some countries it is legal and under copyright, however even if it is widely distributed that does not stop it from being 1> illegal in the United States and 2> Under copyright depending on the source country laws. (And this is one of those "Wikipedia is not censored" areas where it doesn't matter because images that depict the subject matter *is* illegal in this country). A not so radical example would also be the Nazi insignia - legal in the U.S but not in Germany although artwork of images with it would still be under copyright as they honor the US copyright laws. What I am saying here is that the image in question *is* under a copyright - chances are Wikipedia is not going to obtain an OTRS from the "creator" of the material. The legal side is another issue, but based on policy it was obtained "unfairly" (illegally) - which goes into:
Both the image use policy and the NFCC policy apply to *everything* - not just a living human. It applies to dogs, trees, cats, planes, kids, dog pooh, human pooh, a pencil, a bottle, a broken pencil, a broken bone - everything. The Image use policy, and the section I apply to NFCC in this case, is not simply about a living person in a private place in a shower - it can apply to a painting in a private residence where no photos are allowed. It can apply to a dead body in a casket at a private funeral where no photos are allowed. It can apply to flying over the Pentagon and taking a picture (Even pre-911). It can apply to bribing a guard to let a photo be taken of a family member when no images are supposed to be taken. By way of example, according to the Execution of Saddam Hussein article there was the "official" video and than there was the cell phone video - in that case On January 3, 2007, the Iraqi government arrested the guard who they believe made the mobile phone video and later it was announced that three arrests had been made in connection with the investigation into the video recording and leak. In the image being discussed here nobody has mentioned if there were any arrests made of anyone. Not that any of that answers the "does the state have a claim" question but certainly it might appear they would have a claim based on how the image was obtained.
The wider issue with most everything today is the internet. Once it is out there it can get re-distributed. Wikipedia, at least in relation to what I mainly do here, is a prime "target" for this sort of thing because of the ease that anyone can upload other peoples work and claim it as their own. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it isn't. And I am *not* saying this image is a copyvio, but I am saying someone picked it from somewhere and upped it here - the issue is how the source they obtained it from got the image, and so on, and so on, and so on. A large part of the NFCC is based on material having been published prior. Some editors feel a self published source means "published" but the term "Previous publication" was not meant to be a posting on a blog, facebook, myspace, flickr or the like - it was meant published in a book, a news paper, in a film, on television or the like. When Wikipedia stopped accepting content that was "non commercial use only", "Permission only" and "Wikipedia use only" it was in line with "Previous publication" - otherwise any editor could upload all their image to flickr with all of those restrictions and than up it here via NFCC claiming flickr was the "Previous publication." That, I think from what I can tell, was part of this images issue at first - even though nobody worded it that way. There are, really, two "sources" for images - first is the "first" source and second is how did Wikipedia obtain it? In most cases that is an "easy" fix by listing the "author" as the first source and the "source" as the source. But, again, if it is "sourced" to a personal blog or facebook that isn't really a valid source for a NFCC image. In this case however there seems to be enough other sources that cite the facebook account so, IMO, the chain might be something like "Author" - the brother who illegally obtained it, the "source" being cousins who created the facebook page and than a "legit" source (i.e - Ny Times, Time Magazine, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, The Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC - you get the idea).
I don't know if any of that answers your questions but I hope it does give you at least a start on where to look for more information. Based on past conversations on such issues there is always one sector that only see "censorship" and ignores anything else. Than there is another sector that only sees "OWN" and takes it personally when "their"" project is touched in anyway. Then there are those who mean well but just can't fully explain policy related issues and their feelings at the same time and it comes across as "censored" (Which I really think is what happened at the first Ifd) to outsiders. From what I read, across every conversation, there were those who said the image was, or came across as, simply in the article to "draw attention to" the article, there were those who said the text was fine sans image, there are those who said their is no commentary on the image itself (as opposed to the event surrounding the image), there are those who questioned the source. In between there were a lot of "not censored" comments (such as the DRV) and one of the talk subpages on the image. I have tried my best to stay neutral and based what I feel on the policies as opposed to the "need" to see the police brutality, which, to me, is already well documented in text. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, thanks responding in depth. Sorry I didn't read it sooner today. Can you tell me what "yes, no maybe" means? Does that mean 'it depends', or is that selective answers to different parts of a question? Ocaasi (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If I can be honest, I think you know way too much about policy to be dealing with this issue. I can understand why USchick would say, partly out of ignorance, and partly out of distate: Fair Use? of a dead person? that's gross to look at? on wikipedia? And I can say: The image is phenomenally historically significant and clearly fair use, not replaceable by mere text, an asset to the article and the reader... because I know the situation in Egypt well. But what I can't do, for this image, is put it in the context of every past deletion discussion about album art and snowballing.jpg. It's just too important. Even the seemingly analogous media, such as Sadaam's hanging or Daniel Pearl's beheading were the end of the event. This photo was literally the beginning of the revolution. If anyone doesn't get that, they just don't know enough about what happened in Egypt. Which makes me feel this is a better discussion for the article talk page than the copyright talk page, where people have many different agendas and leanings and recurring battles. I don't want Wikipedia covered with pictures of corpses, and I support simple filtering so users can opt out of them in the future anyway, but I can't deny that this image belong in the article. If you would take a few minutes to read over the More Sources, I think it would make a difference. One 20 year old, face shattered, photo taken, revolution started. It is that simple and that meaningful. Sorry if this sounds curt, I'm just being a bit off-the cuff. I agree with Thparkth below that you have a wealth of knowledge, and if it were a different image on a different day, I would be more interested in the academic nuances and clever probing. Today, I just want the image to rest. Ocaasi (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I really struggle with the notion that Wikipedia respects not just foreign laws, but clearly unjust foreign laws of dictators. As an encyclopedia and as a publisher, I believe our mission is to expose dictators using the information they would love to conceal. Where there is no commercial issue at stake--and surely here the copyright issues are only political--I don't believe that our maximally conservative approach, in which we take the most restrictive legal climate involved and comply with it, makes sense. I genuinely think that an RfC on whether to use this image solely on the basis of it's origination would be an absolute slam-dunk in favor. Jimmy Wales would not say that Wikipedia conceals media of human rights abuses because of a copyright technicality. It wouldn't happen, and I'm shocked more editors haven't made the same basic point about that aspect of the discussion. Of course, there are other aspects of the discussion, and people are always worried about setting precedents, and many just find this image 'too much'; that's all fine. But this is not really a copyright discussion in my eyes but a politeness discussion, and we should be having it at the article page with the image provisionally accepted, pending its inclusion at the article (without which it would violate NFCC anyway, since it has to be used somewhere). Again, sorry to ramble or be a bit gruff (think that's a word). Ocaasi (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to try and be quick - "yes, no, maybe" is the overall question/s. As you say I am familiar with policy and overall some material is not black and white. Can you use a non-free image of cover art in an article? "Yes" - Well - "no" - well - "maybe". I all depends on what the article is about and how the non-free content is being used.
Policy vs knowledge of the topic (and this also relates to the last part of your comment/s) - I learned early on the Wikipedia is not the real world. Some of the most logical things in the real world are very much not logical in Wiki-world. Over the last few years there has been a move to move away from the term "fair use" and call it "non-free content" (April 16, 2007 actually was the date the "Fair use criteria" became the "Non-free content criteria") because far too many editors will walk into discussions and boldly state "it meets fair use, no reason to delete it!" Fair use is real world - non-free content is Wiki-world and it takes a while for some editors to understand that. It also take a while for some to understand that the goal is to be free, not just free to look at but free to edit and free to re-use. It is hard to fully become that when people want to always include more and more non-free material. Sometimes it is needed to show something important - but that too is debated. If you read the Foundations resolution it says the scope of non-free material must be minimal (note that is not suggested that it "should be" but that it *must be*) and be limited to material that can "illustrate historically significant events" (yes there are a few other items but logos to identify things wouldn't apply to the image that sparked the conversation, nor would allowing non free material "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works") Many a discussion has been had about what constitutes "historically significant events" and than, further, what "illustrate" means. It is an endless cycle - it really is. And how this relates to your thought that Jimmy Wales would not say that Wikipedia conceals media of human rights abuses because of a copyright technicality - one of the core policies that drives Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
There are a lot of issues that could be brought forth but another policy is that Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Sure some regime may be corrupt, sure police brutality exists, sure people are beaten to death - but Wikipedia is not the place to "report" those things "first hand". A slight exception might be image or other media, however in itself you can[t really have an article with only an image unless it is verified. More so with non-free content. Turn back the hands of time for one moment - this image being discussed is posted on facebook and someone sees it and goes "Holy shit! Those bastards!!!" - uploads it here, puts it in an article called "Police brutality in Egypt!" Aside from the obvious there, at the time, would be no real verification of who the image was of, how the person in the image died, if it was really due to police brutality, if it was even really in Egypt. verifiability, not truth applies - even if you know all of the above to be true. And it does not even have to be something such as this - you may be passionate about this topic, others are equally as passionate their favorite, unknown, unsigned, local, band not having an article and fight to retain it. As for copyright issues - that is one area where law and policy are most in sync at Wikipedia. Copyright is a very serious item both for text and images because Wikipedia (or anyone) could be taken to court for a copyright infringement. It is also one of the reasons the Image use policy says that an invalid claim of fair use is also a copyright violation - although there is an entire sub section of editors/admins who refuse to delete anything claimed as "fair use" as a copyvio even if the rationale is blatantly wrong.
And just one last thing - World War I. One 51 year old, shot, film taken, pictures taken, World War started. I say this because look at the wider article - World War I. There is no image of the actual assassination. A more narrow article - Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria - no image of his death, which caused a World War. Even more narrow article - Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. And still no image of his death. Now I know you will most likely say it is totally different - but it really isn't.
Death of Diana, Princess of Wales was certainly an significant historical event that had worldwide attention - and it was films and images taken that many say caused that death. Yet no images. The death of Elvis - more specifically his funeral - was photographed by a relative, and the picture appeared on the cover of the National Enquirer's biggest-selling issue ever. No image in the article of it though. Not even in The National Enquirer article where there is not even a mention of it. What I am saying overall is that hindsight is 20/20 - I am old enough to remember how controversial that Elvis cover was and how much it was covered in the media and how much it was discussed in terms of "privacy" issues. I am old enough to remember the controversy surrounding Diana's death and how the paparazzi were chastised and how images were shown in relation to the story (fair use) - but never ones that showed Diana herself and how reporters would make a point of saying they were not going to show those. It wasn't about censorship, it was about was there a really need to show them. Now, in regards to Wikipedia, that same questions apply - is there a real need to show them? Saeed is more or less a current event - will the same "need" still exist when it isn't a current event? As I said before - if the image itself is really that iconic, that historical - than it deserves to have an article on it and in that context the "need" will be far greater than it is currently. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────FYI< In my real life, I read for fun, so I don't consider your responses lengthy. I used the term quick out of courtesy for you, not for me.

You'll be happy to know that I disagree with almost every word you wrote. NotJournalism refers to breaking news and not our mission to curate and present historically significant images. That might sound quaint considering the revolution is nary 2 months old, but frankly, things work quicker. Hundreds of articles point to the photo. It's not really even a question how history will judge it's role, since they have already credited the photo with being the turning point.... I feel like I have to reiterate that this image is not 'some guy's favorite band'; it is 'the photo reported on in hundreds of RS that sparked a national revolution,' for real, in real life.... Copyright liability concerns surrounding this image are far less serious since the risk of a lawsuit from the family or the Egyptian government is almost definitely nil.... First of all, 'Is there even an image of the archduke's assassination?' It was not an image that led diplomatic alliances and treaties to kick in and militaries to move troops to fronts. In Egypt it actually was Said's photo that moved the troops. The problem with analogies is they aren't the same.... On Diana, though photos suggesting an affair, and the death photos were never revealed, either way, there was no single image which sparked anything except a lot of mourning. The photos only captured what had already happened. Same with Elvis' death; it merely publicized what had already taken place. Said's photo changed the course of human history. Apples, meet pyramids.... There is no hindsight necessary--that image's status is locked in. Read the RS again; they don't get any more mainstream or definitive. When historians write the tale of this revolution, the beating of Khaled Said and the role played by the photo of his death will have its own chapter.... Regarding the need to show these images, again context is vastly different. Out of respect for Diana, her relatives, the royal family, and the country, images were concealed. But in Egypt they put Said's picture on their posters when they marched. Mothers sent it to eachother through email and it reminded them of their sons. Teenagers put it in youtube videos and shared them through Facebook. Exposing the image WAS THE POINT.... The iconic status of the image is not in question, and the only reason it doesn't have it's own article is because of BLP1E--the fact that Khaled's notability centers around his death, of which the photo is a significant part, and without the photo and its role, there wouldn't be enough for the Khaled article to stand on its own.... Take 15 minutes. Pick any 3 of the RS I listed, and read the story start to finish. Amazing story. Really, really historic. I don't even have to use my own intuition because everyone in the media sees it. What happened in Egypt was Major, and it started with the death and the photo. Sometimes an image is more than a liability. Ocaasi (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now you are really missing the point/s. And that actually establish my point - this is obviously important to you. I get that. I don't argue that. Is it an amazing story? Sure - so are about a million other stories that started when somehting horrible happened. Many times, especially in 2011, there are video and images galore posted all over. With Wikipedia every single one of these images and videos and stories are important to someone. "You can't see the forest through the trees" is an expression that could be applied here. It isn't meant to say what you feel is not relevant - it is, but I fail to see why you are seemingly refusing to create an article on this massively historic, iconic image that started a revolution and instead are so focused on including it in other articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't invent the importance of this image. It's not my personal pick. Time's man of the year in 2011 will be Wael Ghonim, mark my word, and it will be because of his facebook page We are all Khaled Said and the role it played galvanizing Egyptian protesters around Said's beating. I don't see which point I missed, frankly, and my enthusiasm shouldn't indicate I'm wrong any more than the fact that you don't get my point establishes I'm right; that's just circular and we can debate with more substance. As for a separate article, that specifically is not necessary, but massive expansion of the current article will be possible now that the research has been done. Still, the photo will be central to the article, and it's not only a meaningful artifact but also a bit of a symbol. It represents that on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of record, his image will be recorded and the crime against him displayed. Now again, that smacks of an extra-policy mission, but fortunately it's also within the bounds of policy due to its incredible historic significance. The forest through the trees? Who is proposing we follow a technical violation of copyright law which took place in the realm of a despot so that we keep a history-making image out of an article? I think we obviously disagree, but it's not because one of us has perspective and the other just has an agenda. Have you read the RS yet? They are really, really clear. The events in Tunisia and in Egypt were both significant, but Egypt was the greater accomplishment, and it happened on the back of this photo. Seriously. This photo. This single cellphone snapshot. Catalyzed a country. That's not even remotely in dispute, no matter what I personally think about it. Can you name a single event from 2011 which compares? You can even go back to 2008, after Obama was elected. Egypt's overthrow of Mubarak is singular in importance. Can you tell me a single piece of media which resulted in such a change? Neda was important, and a proof of concept, so to speak, but the revolution never happened. There is a direct causal chain from Said's photo to Mubarak's downfall. How that can be only subjectively important is not plausible. It is objectively epic. Read Newsweek. Read Wired. Read BBC. They're not mincing words about what happened. Why should we turn this into just another image when it is clearly the image? Ocaasi (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

Just a quick note of appreciation. You and I obviously don't always agree on policy issues, but I always enjoy being challenged by your thoughtful and mature arguments. I particularly appreciate your balanced and nuanced contributions to the Saeed image discussion.

Thparkth (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

no consensus[edit]

When an active discussion is under way, you discuss...not revert. You do not have consensus. Please follow BRD and continue discussion here please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This cluster fuck of a thread that was closed did have a discussion on the topic. I did not see you there commenting on this topic at that time, but there was a consensus - without you. Do not keep reverting something that was achieved at this closed discussion until a new consensus is reached at a new discussion - which means you are officially re-opening the discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't work that way. I didn't need to become involved in discussion to read along and take part in consensus garnering. Happens all the time on the wiki. I can see that there was no consensus for your assertion...and even now Masem removes your falsehoods. You are trying to presume to much. You say they say/think a certain way...okay, then ask them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
...and it doesn't mean I'm re-opening the closed thread. It simply means you are asking the others to clarify the result of the thread. You either have that consensus or you don't.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And Masem said the same thing he said several times in the discussion, where they also said it was illegal several times. It is not a falsehood - and consensus does work that way, the lack of ability to read through a cluster fuck is not surprising however and because I actually participated in it I have a better grasp on what was discussed and in what context before it became a CF. But either way your new NFCC discussion is started. I was bold and started it for you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Image-Use-Policy[edit]

At the risk of sounding like I'm claiming spoils from victory, which I have no intention to do and nor do I think your objections were trivial... do you think the image-use policy should be clarified to reflect what multiple editors expressed about it, that verification/RS applies to the image (photo) and not the source of the image (webpage), unless there is a dispute about what is actually depicted? (Specifically: "where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified"). Thanks, Ocaasi c 17:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of idle curiosity, what image is this in reference to? We shouldn't be using images without a really strong belief that they depict what they claim to be. --B (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg (warning: it's graphic), which as a depiction of what it purports to be is uncontroversial. The [long] discussion about its copyright status is here . --Ocaasi c 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The photo is under copyright and the source is a Facebook page. USchick (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone has tried contacting him to ask for a Creative Commons release have they? There's at least a chance that he would say yes. After the Virginia Tech massacre, this photo was omnipresent in the media. I contacted the kid that took it and he released it under the GFDL. --B (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is to use it, in direct violation of policy. Can you believe it? USchick (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
We really ought to have a blanket ban on using photos from private individuals without at least attempting to contact them. An argument can be made and good people can disagree about whether this image meets our fair use policy. But what isn't arguable is that if we don't ask for copyright permission, we're not going to get it. Most private individuals are not trying to profit commercially on their photos and more often than not, they will say yes. If someone is on Facebook, they are pretty easily contactable - if he speaks English or if someone can be found who speaks his language, then I would bet we could get him to release it under a Creative Commons license. --B (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
B, that, in addition to every other possible objection, was discussed at length at WP:NFCR. Please peruse that discussion before hastily determining that something is amiss. USchick, I'll only rehash these issues as part of new policy discussions at the respective policy pages, or as part of an WP:RFC at WP:NFCR. Just going around crying foul would not change consensus, even if you had a legitimate objection. Ocaasi c 18:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Facebook is not a reliable source per Wiki policy, even if you can get consensus saying otherwise. USchick (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh good grief, I think I can comment about my preference for a change to our fair use policy without offending the almighty Wikipedia Process. My preference for a WIKIPEDIA POLICY (which is intentionally more restrictive than what the law requires) is that if it is possible to do so, we attempt to ask for appropriate copyright permission before using a photo under a claim of fair use if there is a chance that permission would be granted. Obviously, there's pretty well zero chance that company logos, news media photos, or other things being used for profit would ever be released under a Creative Commons license. But for something like this, there's no downside in trying. --B (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
If I can clarify your reasonable idea in this case, the downside is that we take weeks, months or years trying to contact the mother or brother of someone in Egypt, who might not speak English, might not want to fill out paperwork, might not want to be located or tracked down, and whose son/brother was killed last year, and whose country just went through a revolution. It's not a bad idea on its face, but it does have a downside, especially if while that effort is ongoing the article has no photograph of an image which was spread by the family to blogs already and spread around all over the world and reported by hundreds of RS to be a catalyst for the revolution. This is all at NFCR, if you want to wade into it. Your suggestion is about rephrasing NFCC#1, so maybe bring it up at the policy talk page. Ocaasi c 17:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this piece of the notability policy, Wikipedia:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary to be somewhat on point with regards to our discussion of news vs. historic appraisal. Although notability is different than iconic-status or blp1e, it is a part of policy, and I think it codifies part of what I was saying: If coverage was sufficient in scope or sufficiently sustained, there is no need for it to actually continue before including that person/subject. I'm not exactly sure how this weights on NFCC, but it seems like a good balance to WP:CRYSTAL. Ocaasi c 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Very busy with RL at the moment. Verifiable in regards to images comes from a source and because of the ease that images can be changed and passe around the internet if an image is questioned the course needs to be verified. In the days following the September 11 attack a photo made its way around the internet - it was proven to be a fake. But that doesn't mean we need to use it either, even though it was widely/worldwide discussed, in an article about Rumors about the September 11 attacks. On the other hand it's use in Tourist guy is very much in line with what the policy is about. Without this image the "Tourist guy" article would not exist, and the article itself revolves around the image. In that sense "notability is not fleeting" - but not so much the person, the image. That is a key issue. Again, in the same vein, not every single "notable" event requires a non-free image. This is what is laid out in the policy and the Foundation resolution. "Iconic" and "historical" most times come hand in hand. When something truly is "notable" in regards to "iconic" it is also "historical", but not every single "notable" subject is really "historical" to the wider populace. It is, in part, why templates such as {{Globalize}} were created. When an a truly "historical" event is happening lots of images/video/film/stories come out - however it is the passage of time that will establish what is truly "iconic" about the event itself. File:First Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpg is an historic event from a historic battle during an historic war. Is the image "iconic"? Not really. File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is the image that has become truly "iconic". Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some time back I made the claim that Wael Ghonim would be time's man of the year, for using Saeed's photo to promote activism. In defense of non-hyperbole, this is pretty close [1], [2], [3], [4]. It's a start. Ocaasi c 14:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that that the Time article (And related articles about the Time article) discuss Wael Ghonim - not Saeed. And more important is that you still put the emphasis on him being noticed "for using Saeed's photo to promote activism" yet not one of those links even mention that image, or Saeed, as making Ghonim so notable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Evita 1978 Prince Edward Theatre .jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Evita 1978 Prince Edward Theatre .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually it is not so much "orphaned" as it changed. It appears a derivative work was made and re-upped under another name using the exact same information. I have made a note at the derivative. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

Deletion review for 1313 Mockingbird Lane[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1313 Mockingbird Lane. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - filelakeshoe 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Pine cone on pine tree.jpg Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow it's been a long time since we first meet at AN/I. Hope all is well, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg[edit]

This image is nominated for deletion per WP:FFD. You can discuss it there. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Should be a speedy as this is from Getty - "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately." Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you are right, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz already nommed it for speedy on the same grounds, and Magog the Ogre turned him down and started a deletion discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Can I upload a different photo from other sources, such as ABC or Warner, so the current photo is deleted as orphaned? --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Adding Reuters photo of Aaron Spelling[edit]

I have permission from Reuters to use a photo of Aaron Spelling. However, there are considerations of fair use in Wikipedia. What are your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Di-no author-notice[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Di-no author-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this notification - too bad it is pointless as it was not discussed at all. Not that it matters but in looking over the other discussion it doesn't surprise me why the "parent" template was nominated - the basis of that was based on the noms misunderstanding that no "deletion criteria or image policies states that the author of a file must be provided" thus "author" is not relevant is a poor reason for deletion. Wikipedia has always been clear the any use of any material must be established and this is done via a few methods - who owns the copyright being the core one. Image Use Policy has always been clear in what the requirements are - Currently it says Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the origin, sometimes called its "source") and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. . I, personally, have never had a problem understanding that for an image "where the image came from" is meant to be more than simply naming the website the uploader stole it from. And it is 100% clear that when using the Information template when you leave off the "Author" tag you will get a notice that says: "This file has no author information, and may be lacking other information. Files should have a summary to inform others of the content, author, source, and date if possible. If you know or have access to such information, please add it to the file page." Leaving off the "author" could, and oft times has, caused the F9 to be used. And there in lies the issue with far too many admin who over see Images and speedy. No author 100% equals "lack the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status." Template:Di-no author-notice was added as an explicit reason that people could understand - Lack of supplying an author is cause for deletion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me figure out if I am notable[edit]

Hi my name is Dennis. I was in two notable bands with pages so I thought I was notable (music guideline 6, 2nd part). You discussed this at length before I got here. Can you try to see what's up with the Dennis Donaghy page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R039j0f (talkcontribs) 12:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-Birthday!![edit]

Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Hey, Soundvisions1. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Anastasia (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps cookie.svg