| Revision as of 04:08, 28 October 2007 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Oh for god's sake: discussion of bots and image tagging← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:27, 17 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)213 edits Undid revision 1269999479 by 102.88.111.42 (talk)Tag: Undo |
| (286 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WPFairUse}} |
|
{{Shortcut|WT:FUR}} |
|
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" |
|
|
| align=center|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
== Using images more than once == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
If a valid fair use rationale is provided for an image for use in an article, how many times can it be used in that article? ~ ''''']''''' <sub style="font-size:8pt;"></font>]]</sub> 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:You mean using the same image more than once in the same article? If you can explain or link to a page where that happens it might help. I'm having a hard time imagining how this would come up unless you're using it for some kind of decorative border or navigational element, which are both prohibited as per image use policy. ] 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::'']'', an article about an album, where the fair use image in question is the album cover which is being used first in the infobox, but the cover art section discusses the album cover in detail. ~ ''''']''''' <sub style="font-size:8pt;"></font>]]</sub> 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I understand. The image appears once on the page but it's used in two senses. I don't know what the exact rule is but I would combine them both in the same rationale. For instance: "the album image is used in the article about the album, both for purposes of identifying the album and also for commentary on the cover art itself." Any other field or query where the multiple purposes comes up, just mention them both. I think that works. ] 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK, thanks. ~ ''''']''''' <sub style="font-size:8pt;"></font>]]</sub> 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== question == |
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, don't get it. what do you want me to add exactly? thanks. --] 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Use rationale needs to reference US laws, not Misplaced Pages policy == |
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a question of what the rules are, it's the function of the use rationale. It's for external, not internal consumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
So please change it back to what it was and no revert warring, okay? ] 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't really agree that use rationales are for external consumption. External reusers need to have their own lawyers and make their own decisions; it's not our role to give them legal advice. As I see it, the point of us requiring written rationales is to ensure that there is a sufficiently strong reason to use the image and to ensure that ''we'' are following fair use law. I thought that is why they are now called "nonfree use rationales' instead of "fair use rationales". — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The doesn't give us any guidance here. My argument is that the text of this statement is for us and downstream users to justify to the outside world why the image is not infringing. So it's necessarily geared to a fair use defense. It's not to justify that the image complies with our policies. A court or outside lawyer considering suing someone for using these free images will not be swayed by what Misplaced Pages policies are. The only question is whether they're infringing. There's no such thing as a "non-free rationale" defense to copyright infringement. These two examples have stood quite a while. Is this a case where they were just overlooked when we changed the terminology from "fair use rationale" to "non-free use rationale"? Or is this one of those places where the rationale has to interface with copyright law? How is this treated elsewhere in the project where these rationales come up? ] 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree an outside lawyer is unlikely to be swayed by the fact an image meets our policies, but why would she pay much attention to our claims that the use is legal? If I were to hire a lawyer to consider suing WP, I would hope that lawyer would use her own understanding of the law, not rely on WP templates. Similarly, if WP is sued, I would expect Mike Godwin to use his knowledge of the law, with the help of some legal research, to craft a defense. So I don't see the templates as being particularly relevant in a legal setting. It ''is''important that our policies are tight enough that an image meeting our policies is not likely to be legally dubious, but that's a question for policies, not for licensing templates. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::A different reason to avoid saying "fair use" very much is that it may give people the impression that any use that meets fair use law is acceptable for WP. It isn't enough for an image to meet fair use requirements, it needs to meet our nonfree image policies. So it makes sense that the rationale should explain why the use meets those policies, not why it meets the requirements of fair use. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We should avoid the term "fair use" whenever we can when we are really referring to Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies. As someone who does a lot of copyvio patrolling, I get enough people telling me "you don't know anything about copyright law, haven't you ever heard of fair use?" as it is. It confuses the issue further if people think they can use images on Misplaced Pages to the full extent of "fair use" under US law. This is particularly true as most users don't understand what the "free" in "free content" means. Using the term "non-free" draws a much better contrast than "fair use". --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::None of that really addresses the question, though. Ultimately the policy is all about fair use, and making sure there is a fair use defense. The rationales themselves are worthless as a defense, true. But they are a check to make sure there is one. Back to my question, how is the wording of these rationales treated elsewhere? In my own use rationales, I try to say both when I'm in the mood to go all the way: "Use of xxxxxxx in the article complies with Misplaced Pages non-free content policy, and fair use under United States copyright law, as follows." ] 02:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::As I am constantly telling folks over at ], ultimately the policy is all about creating a free-content encyclopedia, and fair use, or any non-free media, don't contribute toward that goal. Otherwise why have a policy that's stricter than the law requires? As it is, an image might be perfectly justifiable by law under fair use but still fail the policy. Result? We get a deluge of questions over at MCR about people who don't understand why their uploads are getting speedied because they see "fair use" all over the place and assume that as long as they obey the law in that area they're OK. (Plus they don't read the links in the tags, but lets not go there.) Talking about everything in terms of the non-free media policy (which itself should reference the law) makes for less ambiguity. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::A couple of years ago it would have been hard to argue with you. "Fair use" was all anyone talked about. But I disagree that the resolution provides no guidance. They mention the law, but the policy is not made with respect to the law. It's made with respect to the idea of free content. The law enables the use of non-free media; it's the ''policy'' that tries to keep a lid on it and which determines which media will go and which will stay. Not that this hasn't been Misplaced Pages's goal all along, but this refocuses it. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I know all that (although your summary is a little off - the image policy represents a balance of competing goals on Misplaced Pages) but it still doesn't answer the question. I'm not trying to rehash the issue of why we favor free content, but more specifically, is the rationale explicitly supposed to argue there is no copyright infringement. We can't rest entirely on policy while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is copyright. Again, what is the current practice? If the rationale is expected to argue the legality of the use we're not going to overturn that in a discussion here. If the wording is an aberration as compared to other examples and standards of use rationales then we should bring it into line. The licensing resolution offers zero guidance on what the text of a rationale needs to say.] 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::My understanding (or possibly my interpretation) is that the rationale is supposed to justify the inclusion of a particular non-free image in our free content encyclopedia. It not only has to satisfy copyright law, but also overcome our presumption that non-free content is not permitted, which is a stricter standard. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I think it's a bit much to expect image uploaders to add a legal argument to the image pages, which is what it amounts to if they're going to "argue no copyright infringement". It's much more reasonable to expect them to argue conformation to the policy, which is written in such a way that any media that does comply with it should be within valid fair use. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 22:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::There's the rub. The use policy has a goal of keeping the images compliant with the law, but unless we worry about the law sometimes that's not necessarily going to happen. There's no practical way to make conforming with policy any easier or safer than conforming with the law - we run up against all the same subtle issues. In some aspects the policy stands in front of the law, but in others it simply restates or incorporates the law. We're not asking users to argue legalities, but simply to comply with the policy and assert that the image is legal. The US law on copyrights is still in the thick of ], mentioned many times both as background as also as operative rules. I think it would be a mistake to remove it entirely for a number of reasons. ] 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::We're not discussing removing it from the policy, but rather removing it from the model use rationales. There's no reason the policy can't mention fair use law on its own. I would say the policy should mention it somewhere, but not in the model rationales. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: On what grounds could users make this assertion? Determining valid fair use . The law itself is vague, and there's not much in the way of caselaw to clarify it apart from certain specific uses like parody. We'd be asking editors to make an assertion where they're not qualified to evaluate whether or not it's true. I know I wouldn't try to decide fair use on my own, aside from those instances where it's relatively clear. Conformation to the policy is no guarantee of fair use, but it's certainly less ambiguous than the law and as it's designed to be more restrictive it will actually result in valid fair use much more often than not. As you say, one of its goals is compliance with the law. Editors should only have to worry about complying with the policy, by virtue of which the burden of complying with the law can be left to Misplaced Pages. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Current policy and guidelines do currently ask people to mention the law. ] 10(c) says the use rationale is for when "fair use is claimed for the item" so that a "fair use defense" can be built for the item. The "acceptable images" section of the ] guideline mentions that images must satisfy ''both'' Misplaced Pages policy ''and'' copyright law. |
|
|
::We ask people to comply with the law all the time. Saying that you believe your actions to be legal is not asking for a legal argument. It's asking for an assertion. Masking the law behind a blanket of Misplaced Pages policy may fill in a few valleys of intricacies but it doesn't affect the broad question of what is legal. People must face the same issues of what is public domain, what is a panorama right, substantiality of use, what does it mean to interfere with commercial opportunities, etc., whether we call it the law or our policy. Users should never lose sight that there is an underlying fair use issue here. If you say they should forget about the law and pay attention only to policy, you lead them astray. You can't ask people to do something by rote without letting them know why they're doing it. If you do, they will step over the bounds of legality because they have no basis for interpreting policy. ] 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I looked for the first quote on the guideline but couldn't find it. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:(ec) If it says that, it was probably missed when other instances of fair use were replaced. I don't think it's intentional. I would think both of these instances of "fair use" should be replaced with a reference to the non-free content policy. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It ''would'' be clearer if everything were consistent on this point. However, if we take "fair use" out from all these places, we need to add a strong statement that although the policy is designed to go farther than fair use, when interpreting or applying the policy we cannot lose sight of the fundamental issue that use must be legal on Misplaced Pages, and designed to be free of significant legal restrictions for downstream users.] 04:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Policy is designed to ensure two things: (1) make sure the usage is clearly within the legal terms of fair use; (2) make sure no fair-use content is used that might inhibit or compete with the creation of free content. And that's really as much as there is to policy. Everything else is commentary. |
|
|
:::These rationales are scarecrows, designed (at least in part) to make busibodies go away. Our basis against such tiresome make-nuisances is U.S. law, not the internal minutiae of Misplaced Pages policy. Mentioning US Law is therefore no bad thing. But there's room for both. ] 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Standard == |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the standard editing on this: |
|
|
*=== Fair use in ] === |
|
|
*=== Fair use rationle for ] === |
|
|
*=== Fair use for ] === <br> |
|
|
Please clear. I've been editing this stuff and some users might react. ] <sup>(]•])</sup> 12:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There is no particular standard, as long as it's clear what article the rationale is supposed to apply to it's all good. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== tag for missing rationale? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a template that I can use for ]? It's missing a Fair use rationale. I'm asking this here because I feel that non-sysops should have clearer instructions for how to deal with a missing rationale. for the time being I will add a notice on the talk page.-- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: It was uploaded before 2006, so new tag won't work-- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would be more helpful to[REDACTED] to simply provide a fair use rationale (after some judgement), than "tagging" the image because it lacks formal statements in accordance with "current" policy. The persons who worked with that article in 2005 (and uploaded the image) might not be active on Misplaced Pages today. (Tagging new uploads is of course fine, if they fail to adhere to the current policy). ... For this image the fair-use criteria is rather obvious, so I provided one. ] 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
==Oh for god's sake== |
|
|
What is supposed to be the problem ? It is a play. It is the poster for the play. |
|
|
] 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The problem is that it is missing a "use rationale", which is required once for every time a copyrighted image is used in an article. There are perhaps some better places to ask, but you've found the page here where the requirement is spelled out. Read this page and it will tell you what you need to do. Or if you would rather work by example, find an article about a play or a film where there is a poster used, and take a look at how it's been done. We've all learned. It's not that hard. ] 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It would also not have been that hard for whoever noticed that this obviously legitimate fair-use image was not in compliance with the letter of whatever latest version of pointless, energy-sucking rule-duplication is current at the moment, and add the rationale themselves - a rationale so standardized as to be easily cut and pasted. That would have been a good-faith action, and a one-step process that annoyed nobody. But that's not the point, is it? The point is to make sure that ordinary editors are aware of and inconvenienced by the pointless squabbling that goes on here. Well, success. |
|
|
::] 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages has decided to require a use rationale even for obvious cases. At least if it's such a routine case, it's easy to add one. Just copy it from somewhere else. Yes, someone could fix that. But you uploaded it, so the logical person to do it is you. I could have done it but if you're going to be uploading more images it's best that you know - you know, teach a man to fish.....It was tagged automatically by a bot and the bot is not in any position to fix the image, just notice that the rationale is missing and add a tag.] 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
When you selectively delete my text, you distort its meaning. ] 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Would you rather I deleted the whole thing? I don't see any change in meaning, just a removal of vulgarities directed at Misplaced Pages policies and whoever is enforcing them. A "thanks for the explanation" would be welcome. I am trying to explain all this, you know. It's a simple bot that's being used to help enforce a rather fundamental policy decision. There's been a lot of contention over it. You're hardly the first person to think it's unwarranted. But there's been a lot of bad will over it, and if people don't make an effort to be civil it tends to erupt in flame wars. Take a look at the bot managers talk page if you want to see some more, ]. He gets five or ten angry comments a day for the past few months. ] 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Yes, he certainly attracts a lot of anger, as most disruptive editors do. Do you really think a couple of curse-words have any prayer of being as corrosive to the civil atmosphere on Misplaced Pages as his bot has been? Betacommand is harming collegiality on Misplaced Pages every day, and he knows exactly how. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The problem would not be difficult to fix if he (and others who are as fussed as he is about media that obviously satisfies fair-use, but was uploaded before their small club of rules-lawyers decided to needlessly complicate procedure) would simply take a little more effort themselves to resolve the problem that they created. Instead, they continue making Misplaced Pages a little more unpleasant every day, in the same way, for months. At this point, it's difficult for me to assume good faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] 00:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I can sympathise. As one heavily affected by this process I can see Dybryd's point. In fact even though I went through the pain to convert to the new rationale templates, presto!, someone got the bright idea to add the article field. I then had to repair the newly installed templates all over again. It was déjà vu all over again, like a bad case of ]. Although extreme expressions elevate the temperature of the debate and normally are not recommended, in this special case they serve to remind us about the pain of a hard working wikipedian as he is being rolled over by robots running amok. Not only running amok but backtracking and changing direction in mid-play for good measure. I think this must be ]. Too bad it had to manifest its ] side first. ] 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::If you just want to vent, fine, as long as you do it without cursing at other Wikipedians. But it's unproductive. Misplaced Pages require use rationales, even in obvious cases. Allowing images to omit the rationale would mean that there is no automatic way to tell whether someone actually has an obvious rationale or simply failed to add a rationale for a non-obvious case. The presence of the rationale ensures that the user actually has one, and also helps categorize the images. That's the reasoning behind it, and whether you like it or not that's the consensus decision of the community. If you don't like it you can take it up as a policy matter but I don't think you will get far. I can understand a concern about disrupting images. To fill you in, to avoid disruption to old images the two main image bots are ''not'' tagging images uploaded before 2007. It's only the newer images, and I think it's reasonable to ask anyone uploading a new image now to comply with the policy. There are also efforts afoot both to simplify the rationales for common situations and also to go back and fix as many old images as possible. I'm the one who proposed the article field, incidentally, and it is a very good idea. If your image already had the article name indicated on the use rationale, the bot will not mess with your image. But if the rationale was missing the article name that makes it noncompliant and the bot would have tagged your image sooner or later if you hadn't fixed it in the template. None of this is new policy, it is only enforcing old policy, which the Board that runs Misplaced Pages has ordered us to do. I'm actually on the side ''against'' deletion of old images, which is very harmful to Misplaced Pages. But to avoid that, we have to make sure we get the old ones into shape, and that people aren't uploading new images that are just going to get deleted later. What we can't do is just ignore copyrights, or leave everything as is. There are 350,000+ copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages, and several thousand image uploads every day. Although many or most are legal, quite a few are copyright violations and quite a few more simply don't have data they require. ] 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Incidentally, the bot is not currently runing amok. It has run amok before (in my opinion) and what it's doing now is nothing commpared to its amok behavior. Just stick around and you'll see how upset people get when that happens (emoticon).] 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
