User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Black macaque monkey reads its Wikipedia article and copies it?

Possibly, as suggested here. However, as suggested here in the "reliable" media, Wikipedia never said that the monkey owned the copyright on the image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed on the decision-making ability of those at Commons who decided this man, who owned the camera, developed the film, and yes- OWNED THE PICTURES, asked them to remove it and they refused on shaky ground. How many of you involved in the discussion are actually lawyers? I'm sincerely saddened by this and would now never post any photo to Flickr or Commons or anywhere on the internet without copyright protection. I hope this man does sue and win. Someone asks for a photo of theirs to be removed, why discuss, just remove it. What reasoning that the photo absolutely must be on Wikipedia?! I'm curious how Jimbo would have !voted in the discussion and his opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, because cases like that, where someone asserts they own the copyright of a photo/scan where they do not are extremely common, and honouring bogus copyright claims would obliterate our supply of public domain materials. Historic art owned by museums/galleries and so on is a very common case for this sort of thing, but also people who own a physical photo with expired copyright - stock image companies and the like especially. While the case is a little unusual in the specifics, the general pattern is common. As the photo itself is notable, it's tough to argue we shouldn't have a copy - nevermind that it's very dodgy for a free project to honour invalid copyright claims. WilyD 17:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. There are enough cases where copyright is abused, that it is entirely reasonable for us to be aggressive in defending the public domain in cases where copyright does not apply. It's unfortunate when someone like David Slater ends up at a disadvantage as a result, but consistently defending the limitations of copyright is not nearly as morally dubious as some might like to depict it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that copyright does apply in this case under pretty much every legal definition, Wikipedia simply decided that they would ignore it. Ironic for a so-called "free" encyclopedia, isn't it? Not to mention arrogant. Like Camelbinky, I'd really like to think that he'd sue - but I'd quite understand if he didn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office decided it wasn't copyrighted, so we could go by that even if we didn't think the photographer was taking liberties with the notion of copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep whistling in the dark. The Commons decision was ill-considered, unethical, and immature — taken up a notch by the arrogant buffoonery that happened at Wikimania in London. Lawyers are doing their thing, I understand, and we shall see... Carrite (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm particularly sickened by the way that an admin, infamous for his hard-line approach to NFC, so harsh on it that he worked hard to hide an obvious sock of a banned user who was equally hard on NFC material, chose this image to decorate his user page.

Not that the Lord of the Flies celebrations at Wikimania, where the children celebrated their victory over the grown-ups by dancing around their animal head totem, was much better. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And so the response to the photo being public domain is that everyone unhappy that Wikipedia, Commons, and their communities take a fairly hard stance on copyright law comes here to sling insults? WilyD 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's in copyright or not. Commons has the precautionary principle such that if the copyright is dubious, that media should be deleted from Commons unless it can be demonstrated that the content really is free. To quote Commons itself, "arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", [...] are against Commons' aims:" Commons has deleted thousands and thousands of images under issues like COM:URAA, where they're very clearly PD in their country of origin but there is a suspicion of a problem in another country. If it's not absolutely clear that an image is free, then it just shouldn't be on Commons. (It should be obvious that many Commons users, and the photographer_(sic), hold that there's a copyright problem here.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Its good to see that the Celebes crested macaque uses File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg which is at an angle and is the actual photo the monkey took, rather than the rotated and cropped version produced by the photographer. In my view any post production of the image counts as artistic work and has a much greater claim to copyright.--Salix alba (talk): 10:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The editorial and ethical question of what commons should have done is an interesting one which could be pursued separately. There is a complex and interesting set of cases in which, although the law is firmly on our side, we may choose to remove something for a variety of reasons. I won't offer an opinion at the present time about this particular case.

What I will do is respond to Camelbinky's assertion that there is for some reason "shaky grounds" here from a legal perspective. There is no "shaky ground" here - this is an open and shut obvious case. I'm surprised that an experienced Wikipedian would not know that "owning the camera" and "developing the film" have zero bearing on copyright. I hope this case doesn't go to court, because I feel sorry for the photographer for making an outrageous and laughable legal claim and wouldn't like to see him waste his money on a frivolous court case.

That's the only part I'm responding to, because I do think the legal situation is not the right route to a proper resolution of this case. The image is absolutely in the public domain, and that's that. Whether there are human dignity and courtesy reasons that it should have been deleted upon request is a very very valid question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Camera ownership and image development aren't really the grounds of the argument to be made. Rather, whether setting up gear and causing creation of an image is sufficient or whether one must physically click the shutter. That's a matter which is very, very unclear. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not unclear at all. According to Wikimedia's legal counsel (private email in a different matter): Who clicks the shutter is irrelevant. The person 'directing the shot of the image' is the copyright holder. The only remaining question is whether leaving a camera with a monkey can amount to 'directing'. --Pgallert (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we're being armchair lawyers, I'll put forth my theory, which I admit may not hold water, but is fun to theorize anyways. This is all a good back and forth amongst us all. My theory is that if you set up the camera, leaving it with an animal with the intent that the animal will take pictures, it is your rights; and I admit I worded wrongly which Jimbo pointed out it doesnt matter if he owned the camera or developed the film, however I believe those two things SHOULD indeed be taken into consideration. Just as in criminal law you have mens rea, which is the fact that you have to have the intent to commit a criminal act for it to be a criminal act (for certain crimes) or else you are not guilty of the crime; so should it be considered that this man had the intent that the animal should take the photos FOR HIS USE. The animal didnt steal the camera take some photos and the man figured he'd never get the camera back, as sometimes happens to tourists in places like Cambodia with similar primates (monkeys? Do macaquese have tails or not?!). As Jimbo stated though, it's a moral issue, not necessarily a legal issue. In my opinion the people on Commons should have considered more than "the law is on our side we have to protect the bigger picture of copyright law and how we want it interpretted".

If the photographer had left a hand grenade instead of a camera, would they be considered as guilty of culpable monkeycide?

IMHO they would have been, and the two situations are analogous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm; this is an area where I rarely see WMF and some people in Commons in same bench. They may right in legal grounds; but I don't think such celebration and humiliating a fellow photographer among us is justifiable in any point of views. Jee 12:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at this one, with the "personality rights" warning on it, because we wouldn't want to infringe the personal rights of a WMUK staffer with whole categories of content dedicated to them. Rip the copyright for a commercially valuable image from the photographer though, that's just fair game. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the WMF aren't on 'shakey ground' here they are treading quicksand. All photographs taken by camera traps are copyrightable to the photographer that set them up, it matters not how the shutter was triggered. Trip wire, movement detection, or infrared sensor, why would animal pressing button be any different? What we have here is a 1000lb gorilla in the shape of a WMF Fagin, employing its Artful Dodgers on Commons to rob and steal. Its a shame the you Jimmy are taking the Bill Sykes character. John lilburne (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So if I set up a motion acivated camera at my remote cabin, and get a picture of bear and a burgler, who owns the copyright to those pictures? Nyth63 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Pgallert's description of the WMF email, you would have "directed the shot" in that instance, I think. But the main moral here is that somebody has to stand up for the commons. I understand that under our flawed economic system, photographers feel compelled to pursue their fiduciary interests to the letter of the law, whether they make sense or not. (Just ask the people who find out their wedding photos are copyrighted and it's a violation to post them to social media) What will be left to the commons if people say let's back off, "just to be nice", we'll let people take our inventory away and make it unavailable to the whole world? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Wnt, I have a tangentially related question- I'm in discussions with an artist to do a commission work for me, he's well known enough he's mentioned in at least 6 of our articles though lacks an article of himself. Since I paid to have it commissioned would the copyright go to me and I could give permission for it to be used in Wikipedia? If the answer is yes to that, could not the argument be made this man "paid" the monkey to do the work for him?Camelbinky (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the theory there is that there's some sort of handover of copyright going on. I'm not a copyright lawyer (nor any other flavor) and I doubt I will make any more sense out of work for hire than you can (especially since it's my stated position copyright doesn't make sense, and it's totally arbitrary and unpredictable who turns out to be the fabulously wealthy founder of a Google or YouTube and who turns out to be a criminal responsible for Napster or Aereo). All I know is you're free to make your best case, and unless the artist is sure he can't, he's likely to make his also. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that this photo should have been deleted from Commons upon the request received, and it is my view that this should be done now as an Office action, if necessary.

The communities on both English Wikipedia and Commons spend, in my personal view, far too much time debating the fine points of, and deleting useful content based upon, ever-more-abstruse, purely notional copyright claims where there is at most a vanishingly small chance that any copyright-owner would actually assert the claim. By contrast, we are far too indifferent to the wishes and rights of persons who own or at least arguably own intellectual property rights and are actually asserting them. This manner of proceeding cannot reasonably be justified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with you in the first part - some of the claims of architecture copyright on random street scenes there are beyond ridiculous. But not the other. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad nails it. The way Mr. Slater has been "rewarded" for the time and effort he spent producing those beautiful photos has been nothing short of reprehensible. Here and on Commons he's been mocked, insulted, and accused of "copyfraud" for asserting the right to profit from what would not exist had he not spent the time and effort to set it up. Even if you think copyright law entitles you to use the images he produced without his permission or consent, it doesn't entitle you to treat him with such mockery as I've seen here and on Commons. And I dare say that those who think it's OK to appropriate his work because they think his claims are "outrageous and laughable" may be in for a nasty surprise should this ever wind up in court. Delete the images and apologize to Mr. Slater for the abuse he's received. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick note

The project is slowly dying. Enjoy.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The project isn't a living organism, therefore it can't die. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing, for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two. It is therefore considered more rhetorically powerful than a simile. While a simile compares two items, a metaphor directly equates them, and so does not apply any distancing words of comparison, such as "like" or "as." Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile. Bosstopher (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• ........in further news, WMF has already surpassed its aggressive fundraising target for the entire fiscal year (which ends in June 2015), core volunteer count remains stable, and we're now over the 4.7 million article mark... Dead, indeed. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)\

Maybe he is talking about The Project or The Project. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What use does the WMF have for money if they can't find a worthwhile way to use it? KonveyorBelt 16:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Moar VisualEditor. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 23:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't argue whether "the project" is or isn't dying. I'll just say that I spend a fair amount of time in the Wikipedia archives, going back to 2004-2005 and there have always been people declaring that the dream is dead. Maybe it's best to give up what you think Wikipedia should be and work with what it is and plan for what it could be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's convenient. Everybody loves a good zombie story. :) →StaniStani 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Proof that you can't please everyone

I would hate to be in the middle ot this mess. Mysoginism runs rampant in the UK. Nyth63 16:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing about the whole thing is that Harriet Harman is a serious person with real credentials and a solid track record on women's issues. A pink bus just feels to me like a stunt not worthy of someone of her stature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I laughed at most of the article. Some people happen to like the color pink. Some don't (for various reasons). Those that don't seem to make it their mission to bother everyone else with their opinion. And to have to apologize for having a male driver is hilarious too. Nyth63 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Feminism doesn't mean discrimination against men, so a male driver in the pool is only to be expected. The "woman to woman" part is more dubious ... unfortunately, it follows a long and international tradition. Every time an American politician "reaches out to Latinos" (which must be daily -- Latino x anything => Latino and so it's a constantly growing category on the census), he's doing the same thing. All the politicians see a couple of demographic facts about somebody on a form and start basing their whole strategy around racial/sexual statistics - ignoring that what people need are ideas that are valid no matter what the viewer's extraction. Wnt (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Village Pump

Jimbo, your input and that of others would be welcome at this discussion about Wikipedia's potential implementation of HTTPS for all readers. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your birthdate

Hi Jimbo, I noticed you posted on Talk:Jimmy Wales#Birthdate redux that your birthdate is not on the 8th as Britannica says. [1] Britannica also says that you "provided a scanned image of [your] passport showing [your] birth date to be Aug. 8, 1966." Is this true, and if so, are we to believe that your passport has your birthdate wrong? I hope that your response will settle this silly dispute once and for all. Everymorning talk 02:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This revision is pretty good. What I'm guilty of is having a sense of humor. My birth certificate has an error, which has propagated across many but not all legal documents. (As a side note, my birth certificate actually spells my name wrong - as Jimmie.) My mother and father were there, though, and it was definitely not the date listed on my birth certificate. Their theory is that the doctor was tired and didn't note the time (11:21pm, if my memory serves) and got back to his office and filled out the paperwork at the end of his shift in the morning. My sense of humor has been, in the past, to play with people - if they say one date, I say "Oh, that isn't what my mother says". If they say the other day, I say, "Oh that isn't what my birth certificate says". --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Except, right now, the article has the 7th on the first line in the lead, and the 8th in the first line under early life. Very funny indeed. Nyth63 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Are we really that concerned with his proper birth date that we can't share in the humor? Wow. Call someone Jewish and there's an uproar that you can't label people that it is possible BLP to label people as simply "he is Jewish" instead of the awkwardly worded "his mother and father are of Jewish descent" (even if there are quotes where the person has outright said "I am Jewish", such as one quote by Adam Levine). BUT good lord, say yes let's all have a field day having to narrow down someone's birthday because THAT'S not personal information or might be construed as a BLP violation if you get it slightly wrong. Camelbinky (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the "7th" In quotes? Nyth63 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe we just average it out and call it 7.5. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

7.4865th (1401/2880) ? Nyth63 17:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a birthdate template that changes date of birth according to Time Zone. It was the 8th somewhere. That way everyone can have an ambiguous birthdate. It's only fair. --DHeyward (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)