Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 13[edit]
File:Daniel Brochu.jpeg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy deleted - F9: Unambiguous copyright infringement Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Daniel Brochu.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader says: "I copisde it off the Internet." Eeekster (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, at least he admitted to copying it, however. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, I found where it was copied from. [1] It's a clear copyright infringement, so speedily deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Scott Martin.png[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Keep If you really want Scott to upload the image to Flickr as PD, which he can legally do, I'm sure he will. This whole thing is a silly exercise that does not seem at all focused on preventing image copyright problems. WP:AGF and WP:COMMONSENSE are really all the policies you need, and what they say in this case is obvious.
I am re-closing this because the justification for undoing the last speedy close was due to an objection at Scott Martin being the closer, rather than an objection to the close itself. Prodego talk 11:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Scott Martin.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep. The image was drawn specifically for me in real time on 4chan in 2008 by an anonymous artist who released their work into the public domain. No record of the conversation exists. I'm closing this myself as the only person able to truthfully and accurately relate the copyright status of this work is me. I already did so by tagging it as public domain at the time it was uploaded. — Scott • talk 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have unclosed this discussion since the uploader closed it with a blatant disregard for WP:INVOLVED and WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Our policy on ignoring all the rules is not WP:IM_AN_ADMIN_SO_I_CAN_DO_WHAT_I_PLEASE. Please also read the copyright and licensing part of our image use policy, which explicitly states that you must be able to prove that the image is free of copyright (emphasis mine). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't produce what doesn't exist. As I evidently need to repeat myself, no documentation of any kind exists for this image. The only person on this project who witnessed its author place it into the public domain was me. Either we accept my statement, on the public record, as an administrator, that this file is in the public domain, which is as close to proof as anyone will ever get, or somebody has to call me a liar. Will it be you? — Scott • talk 18:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have unclosed this discussion since the uploader closed it with a blatant disregard for WP:INVOLVED and WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Our policy on ignoring all the rules is not WP:IM_AN_ADMIN_SO_I_CAN_DO_WHAT_I_PLEASE. Please also read the copyright and licensing part of our image use policy, which explicitly states that you must be able to prove that the image is free of copyright (emphasis mine). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence for licence, no source. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointless discussion with more than an added sprinkling of bad faith as it could be argued Matt is in a little bit of a dispute with Scott Martin on other image related issues. We have absolutely no reason to not believe Scott's explanation; there's not a whole catalogue of bad uploads, there's not a history of failing to understand copyright policy, there's absolutely no reason not to believe Scott's declaration that the image is in the public domain therefore the upload should stand. The glaringly obvious point people are missing is that Scott could have claimed this to be his own work if he wished it to remain on Wikipedia, hiding any issues with the actual copyright status of the image, in light of this, I consider the copyright statement to be accurate and correct. And that's without mentioning Scott's administrator status and the fact he's trusted by the community to know copyright policy and understand what he can and cannot upload. We trust semi verifiable people e-mailing into OTRS to be making truthful and accurate statements about images they're releasing under open source licences, we should at the very least treat a long term, good faith editor to the project in a likewise manner. I also find the manner in which this tagging was done to be wholly unsatisfactory and way beyond the expectations we have of providing a pleasant, collegial for people to contribute, no editor who has made more than a handful of edits and hung around the site for a few weeks, making productive, good quality edits should be treated in this manner, this issue could have possibly been resolved had Matt spoken to Scott first and had a discussion to agree what was needed to keep both parties happy. This tagging and behaviour with a less experienced editor could quite clearly leave a bitter taste in the mouth and drive away a content contributor, as Scott suggests, we're almost at the stage of calling someone a 'liar'. Nick (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I have no doubt that Scott is telling the truth about the image, I'm afraid image copyrights are one issue where we aren't allowed to simply AGF and get on with things. We know the image has been produced by a third party but we have no evidence of its copyright status beyond Scott's own statements. It's not a matter of calling him a liar but of getting verification so that we can have an auditable trail of this image's status. Perhaps Scott could ask the 4chan contributor to send OTRS a permission email? Otherwise I'm afraid this will have to be deleted if there's no independent confirmation that it's been donated. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How funny that any anonymous yahoo can upload any image to Flickr and add a label that says "this is freely licensed", and that statement is taken at absolute face value; yet when I make a sworn statement in public under my real name as a 10+ year contributor and administrator, it's somehow invalid. Are you going to turn up to every Flickr-scrape and request "independent confirmation" there, Prioryman? If not, why not? — Scott • talk 21:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not comparable. If someone releases an image on Flickr under a free licence then there is an independently verifiable audit trail. Take the example of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Devils_Gap_Battery.jpg . I imported it via the Flickr upload bot, which confirmed - independently of me, the uploader - that the image was freely licensed at the time of the upload. If the Flickr user was lying then that's a problem for them, not me, as I did everything I could to confirm the image was free to use in good faith. In this instance there's independent, verifiable proof that the image releaser stated it was free to use. That's simply not possible in the case of a third-party image which you upload and then say that someone gave you permission to use it. It's not possible to verify that release. Note that Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing states that you must be able to prove either that a third-party image is freely licensed or public domain. There is no discretion for editors to state on trust that images they upload are correctly licensed - they have to actually be able to prove it. I wouldn't expect to be able to upload images purely on trust myself, and I wouldn't expect that of others. That has always been the way Wikipedia's copyright policy has worked and I don't see any compelling reason to deviate from it - actually, I don't think we have the discretion to do so. It's a policy that's been set by the Foundation so we couldn't set it aside if we wanted to. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone releases an image on Flickr under a free licence then there is an independently verifiable audit trail.
- No, you've missed the point. The act of releasing is based entirely on the say-so of the uploader. There is nothing that will tell you if Flickr user JoeRandom123 is actually telling the truth when they claim that an image they uploaded was made by them. The Flickr upload bot is completely pointless; all it does is say "at the time of upload, the uploader of this image claimed it was freely licensed". To call that process of blind, automated rubber-stamping "verifying" and an "audit trail" is an absolute joke. Yet apparently the say-so of an anonymous person that's been thoughtlessly processed by a bot carries more weight than the say-so of a trusted, named individual.- If some actual aggrieved copyright owner ever takes the Foundation to court over their work being appropriated, the "but it was checked by a bot" defense will last about ten seconds. In the meantime, nobody will do that over this picture of me - because it happens to be in the public domain. Which is why I uploaded it.
- Oh - I forgot to answer this:
...ask the 4chan contributor...
I guess you're not familiar with how 4chan works; there are no user accounts, and all forum threads are deleted within the space of a few hours. It would be virtually impossible to try and contact the original artist, whose status, unlike that of this file, is unknown. — Scott • talk 10:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not comparable. If someone releases an image on Flickr under a free licence then there is an independently verifiable audit trail. Take the example of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Devils_Gap_Battery.jpg . I imported it via the Flickr upload bot, which confirmed - independently of me, the uploader - that the image was freely licensed at the time of the upload. If the Flickr user was lying then that's a problem for them, not me, as I did everything I could to confirm the image was free to use in good faith. In this instance there's independent, verifiable proof that the image releaser stated it was free to use. That's simply not possible in the case of a third-party image which you upload and then say that someone gave you permission to use it. It's not possible to verify that release. Note that Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing states that you must be able to prove either that a third-party image is freely licensed or public domain. There is no discretion for editors to state on trust that images they upload are correctly licensed - they have to actually be able to prove it. I wouldn't expect to be able to upload images purely on trust myself, and I wouldn't expect that of others. That has always been the way Wikipedia's copyright policy has worked and I don't see any compelling reason to deviate from it - actually, I don't think we have the discretion to do so. It's a policy that's been set by the Foundation so we couldn't set it aside if we wanted to. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How funny that any anonymous yahoo can upload any image to Flickr and add a label that says "this is freely licensed", and that statement is taken at absolute face value; yet when I make a sworn statement in public under my real name as a 10+ year contributor and administrator, it's somehow invalid. Are you going to turn up to every Flickr-scrape and request "independent confirmation" there, Prioryman? If not, why not? — Scott • talk 21:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nick's point that, if Scott had just said it was his own work, no one would have questioned it. Why should we question his statement? A refusal to assume good faith about Scott is hardly enough to warrant action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the simple reason that Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing assumes good faith of editors who say they have uploaded images themselves, but requires proof of release if third-party images are uploaded. That might sound contradictory but the rationale is that content owners are given the final say on whether their works should be used on Wikipedia. It's not about questioning Scott's statement or not assuming good faith, but of having a verifiable record that the content owner had consented to releasing the image. From a copyright management legal point of view that's essential if you want to avoid getting into disputes with people who claim that you're using their copyrighted material without their permission. Prioryman (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - An apparent bad faith nomination, but regardless of that fact, the blindingly obvious fact that this picture was made for Scott, and is a picture of Scott. AGF is simply irrelevant: use your brain and think logically for a second - the only person who potentially loses out on this being in the public domain is Scott, since he can't sell on the image elsewhere, and the creator is anonymous, so they don't lose out either. Reaper Eternal shouldn't have unclosed this - INVOLVED is supposed to be discarded on open-and-shut cases, which this is. Scott is a long-term editor in good standing - what's the point of this discussion, which is basically trolling him? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.