GuildWiki talk:Image attribution project

Implementation
How do we want to do this, delete images that haven't been updated after X weeks notice / users which won't comply? What about users that re-upload images when they have been deleted for copyvios, block them? &mdash; Skuld 08:39, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Templates
can we change the template, to accept more then one image at a time, otherwise you will bloat the user pages with repeats. Im going to remove the input and all you will have to do is put * on a line for each file and at the end, add your tag. -- Xeon 05:47, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * ok done, use this

~ -- Xeon 06:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * [[Image:blahblah.jpg]]
 * [[Image:Ohnoes.jpg]]

Have you noticed that the Image use policy does not set strict requirements or have any guidelines for including copyright and source information for images? Images should be considered fair use when possible if no tag of any sort has been added. You also don't seem to understand 'fair use'. ''Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include''&mdash;


 * ''the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * ''the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * ''the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * ''the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Most of the images are a small portion of the original copyrighted work, are not used for commercial purposes and are not harming the potential market of the original copyrighted work, and can therefor be used as 'fair use'. -- (gem / talk) 07:41, 3 May 2007 (CDT)


 * (Edit conflict)Rubbish. You are obviously unfamiliar with the sections of law in question. Fair use is not a get-out clause, it is a rationale. Using copyrighted images for the decoration of your user page does not qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law. I refer you also to Image attribution project - the shortcomings of Image use policy are not an excuse for violating licensing or copyright issues. 84.13.251.42 07:47, 3 May 2007 (CDT)


 * From what I've experienced on multiple other wikis and websites, I'm pretty sure that images can be used for this kind of purposes with the 'fair use'. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 07:51, 3 May 2007 (CDT)


 * yes, but you need to say what license it is under on the file description (not talk page), even if it is fair-use. -- Xeon 07:44, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, tell me then waht to include on my image page? There are no instructions and guidelines everywhere. A nifty template would be nice. And what copyright do such images all under? An easy way to know? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 07:51, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * doing that right now, this guy is tagging them to fast before i can create the templates. Ill be done by tonight. for the moment you can just leave it until the templates are done, the images wont be deleted for at least 14 days. -- Xeon 07:54, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Would you prefer that I stop tagging for a few hours and move to templates? As per this talk page I am not attempting to be purely negative 84.13.251.42 08:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes i would prefer, im drawing up templates for each license atm but i need a compilation of what people should do to acquire what license the image is under, pretty much a guide. -- Xeon 08:05, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, I think that the templates outlined in the project should all be easily adapted from Wikipedia's image templates. As for the individual user ascertaining the status it is fairly safe to assume that if they do not know it, they don't have permission to use it. Unlike Gem's flawed reasoning that an "image without a tag = fair use", it is actually more correct to say that an "image without a tag = an image without permission = shouldn't even be uploaded" in the first instance. 84.13.251.42 08:10, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree, that was a mistake on my part. Proper tagging is required. But yes, you should have waited until the whole project has been planned, templates are ready and there are easy instructions for people to follow. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 08:14, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, at least this is getting people's attention to act. 84.13.251.42 08:18, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Pretty much what im doing, im converting the wikipedia style over to here but changing some of the flags around, to blend with our template usage. -- Xeon 08:16, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * So this is basically what you want, but with a nice template instead of my simple plain text? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 08:24, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Pretty much but im putting it into a table and such, i would rather like people to work on the documentation and not worry about that part, it will be finished soon. -- Xeon 08:28, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah, could you also tag the images that you tagged for deletion with the new template instead? A lot of images were allready deleted with no notice to the users beforehand and I wouldn't like to see that happening again. -- (gem / talk) 08:46, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The images that Tanaric deleted on the copyvio tags were blatant copyvios, with, in most cases, the source and/or copyright holder's details attached to the delete tag. I don't think that such cases are really open for discussion - they are blatant copyright infringements that no amount of discussion would rectify. The batch of images currently marked as "unattributed" will be around for at least 14 days, Xeon anticipates. Changing the tag wouldn't be efficient use of man-hour resources, as the information given is still pertinent. 84.13.251.42 08:50, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * No, the original deleted batch included images which were not 'blatant copyvios' like you said, for example the SW user box image from my user page. I'm sure that many of them should hav ebeen deleted just like you say, but you've made atleast some mistakes, which is the reason why you should give people time to verify your work. Deleted images cannot be undeleted so any mistakes are unrevertable. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 08:54, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * How is your Star Wars image not a blatant copyvio? I see you have marked it as fair use screenshot: Does it fall into this rationale? "This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image may be copyright infringement. Just calling it fair use does not make it fair use. As I have explained elsewhere, the prettification of your personal user page cuts no ice in copyright law. 89.241.239.102 09:14, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * See wookieepedia and it's image use for examples on how another large wiki handles image screenshots from movies and small images taken from comics. The fair use stuff that I've quoted in a few places uses the wording "for purposes such as". A user page user box telling that I like SW is definitely a comment on the SW series, and the fair use also specifically states that use for commenting is allowed. Once more the whole quote: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 09:22, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Your user page is used for none of those purposes. The wikipedia discussions on fair use images and their usage in wikipedia point out: "A still from a DVD for a famous film? Fine, assuming the typical uses, to illustrate an article about the film, the character(s) in the scene or those involved in the production. On the other hand, not fine would apply if on the user page of one of the authors of the encyclopedia, because the context there is different." Examination of many of the non-free images in wikipedia that have fair use rationales attached to them eg Wikipedia:Image:Firefox-logo.svg also clearly point out that they must not be used in user space, as there is no case for their fair use there. 89.241.239.102 09:37, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I think this information would have been more useful earlier in the conversation. It's my guess that Gem was only defending the use of the image because there wasn't any argument brought to him stating otherwise besides your stating that he shouldn't be using it (and being a sysop they get a lot of jokesters out there - especially from anonymous users).  This information does then explain that point Anon was trying to make better and could have been used to avoid said misunderstandings much earlier.  Simply telling a lot of people that they are infinging on copyrights doesn't help.  I could say your breaking the law too by spitting on the sidewalk.  Either case doesn't help the accused to understand why or even promote willing participation to then not break these laws (if they exist as this is an example) as the accused party then may act opposite stating they weren't doing anything wrong and the accusation is outlandish (which may be true, not all people tell the truth).  Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse but absolutism in it's enforcement won't promote cooperation either, it promotes defiance. Please, in the future, use references to back up your point or no one will take you seriously. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  09:51, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Instead of bickering about this, can we get some solid documentation written about what is allowed and what is not, including license details for user created and gw screenshots. -- Xeon 09:53, 3 May 2007 (CDT) This should be moved to GuildWiki_talk:Image attribution project, anon can you move/copy this over there cause really you should be the only one that does that. -- Xeon 08:55, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, just trying to keep the peace. It's be nice if the anonymous person could supply us what they are looking for, etc. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  09:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Image use
Reading the policies adopted, it seems clear that when the wiki was first started copyright issues were not that important - after all, the images would all be coming from Guild Wars screen shots and the like. As GuildWiki has grown - beyond the expectations of the original founders, perhaps - the use of non-Guild Wars related images and copyrighted images in user space has proliferated. The original image use policy was adapted from that used by Wikipedia, and in returning to that starting point it seems obvious that one of the excluded sections has a place now in the policy: (draft, from Wikipedia)

Adding images
Before you upload an image, make sure that either: or
 * You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself).
 * You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license.
 * You can prove that the image is in the public domain.
 * You believe, and state, a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.

Always note the image's copyright status on the image description page, using one of the image copyright tags, and provide specific details about the image's origin. An image summary and image copyright tag are required for all images. The image copyright tag provides a standard template for the licensing of the image. The image summary provides necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag. The recommended image summary contains some or all of the following: Description: The subject of the image Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the better Location: Where the image was created. The more exact the better Author: The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on GuildWiki with the selected image copyright tag Examples: 89.243.251.48 10:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Public Domain images - Image:example1.jpg
 * Image by author other than the uploader - Image:example2.jpg
 * User-created image - Image:example3.jpg.
 * Fair-use image - Image:example4.jpg
 * Screenshot - Image:example5.jpg

Documentation
Documentation can be made at Image license guide. -- Xeon 11:09, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Example image of license

 * Image:TMHK 70x40.png Custom made, can extract some structure from it
 * Image:WNx Logo.jpg using current template, reasoning (or Fair use rationale as named in on that page) will be included into the template soon. -- Xeon 11:45, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

current template status
The overall view of the template is done, guildwiki notes need to improved, more licenses templates need to be added, user notes needs to be implemented, im not sure if date and location should be on any of the templates. Required fields for that license appear in red notifying of the problem if they are empty. Documentation of which licenses people should use and how people are to acquire that information needs to done. created Template:Badfairusereason to be used to mark bad reasons in fair use details. templates for each are found at Category:Image licenses. -- Xeon 15:28, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

unneessiary bureaucracy
as cute as this template is, it's really unneeded. we're small enough to track images with manual oversight far easier then this template process, and the only images identified by this process are outside the main namespaces. the idea is sound, but the process is overengineered for our small subject matter. --Honorable Sarah 23:12, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * We have over 22000 images. That's not small enough to track with manual oversight. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:13, 3 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree the template is too complex for my liking, but I don't agree that it is unneeded.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:53, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Im trying to make the templates as simple as possible for people but the most important thing is documentation, the strength of the template comes from how well the documentation is done. -- Xeon 03:59, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

I get it now
This from the Wikipedia article on Public Domain, Public Domain:

Public domain and the Internet

The term "public domain" is often poorly understood and has created significant legal controversy. Historically, most parties attempting to address public domain issues fell into two camps:

With the advent of the Internet, however, it became possible for anybody with access to this worldwide network to "post" copyrighted or otherwise-licensed materials freely and easily. This aggravated an already established but false belief that if something is available through a free source, it must be public domain. Once such material was available on the net, it could be perfectly copied among thousands or even millions of computers very quickly and essentially without cost.
 * Businesses and organizations who could devote staff to resolving legal conflicts through negotiation and the court system.
 * Individuals and organizations using materials covered by the fair use doctrine, reducing the need for substantial governmental or corporate resources to track down individual offenders.

Freely obtained does not mean free to republish

These factors have reinforced the false notion that "freely obtained" means "public domain". One could argue that the Internet is a publicly-available domain, not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. This specious argument ignores the fact that licensing rights are not dependent on the means of distribution or consumer acquisition. (If someone gives a person stolen merchandise, it is still stolen, even if the receiving party was not aware of it.) Chasing down copyright violations based on the idea that information is inherently free has become a primary focus of industries whose financial structure is based on their control of the distribution of such media.

(Almost) everything written down is copyrighted

Another complication is that publishing exclusively on the Internet has become extremely popular. According to U.S. law, at least, an author's original works are covered by copyright, even without a formal notice incorporated into the work. But such laws were passed at a time when the focus was on materials that could not be as easily and cheaply reproduced as digital media, nor did they comprehend the ultimate impossibility of determining which set of electronic bits is original. Technically, any Internet posting (such as blogs or emails) could be considered copyrighted material unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The distribution of many types of Internet postings (particularly Usenet articles and messages sent to electronic mailing lists) inherently involves duplication. The act of posting such a work can therefore be taken to imply consent to a certain amount of copying, as dictated by the technical details of the manner of distribution. However, it does not necessarily imply total waiver of copyright.

Furthering the public domain with the Internet

Many people are using the Internet to contribute to the public domain, or make works in the public domain more accessible to more people. For example, Project Gutenberg and LibriVox coordinate the efforts of people who transcribe works in the public domain into electronic form. Some projects exist for the sole purpose of making material available into the public domain or under no-cost licences.

Note that there are many works that are not part of the public domain, but for which the owner of some proprietary rights has chosen not to enforce those rights, or to grant some subset of those rights to the public. See, for example, the Free Software Foundation which creates copyrighted software and licenses it without charge to the public for most uses under a class of license called "copyleft", forbidding only proprietary redistribution. Wikipedia does much the same thing with its content under the GNU Free Documentation License. Sometimes such work is inadvertently referred to as "public domain" in colloquial speech.

Note also that while some works (especially musical works) may be in the public domain, U.S. law considers performances or (some) transcriptions of those works to be derivative works, potentially subject to their own copyrights. Similarly, a film adaptation of a public-domain story (such as a fairy tale or a classic work of literature) may itself be copyrightable.

I understand why we do this Copyrighting and Attributing business now. Makes me feel ignorant not knowing things like this before >.> That's what I get for not taking Government classes yet! (T/C) 02:37, 4 May 2007 (CDT)