Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 6 June 2009

If you're here about an image, try asking your question at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

Answers to common questions

Why did you delete my image?

The simple answer: I didn't. Someone else did.

The full answer: If you're coming here to ask about an image, it probably was deleted because you forgot to note where you got the image from, or you forgot to indicate the copyright status of the image. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy for more information on what you need to do when uploading images.

It says that anyone can copy this image. Why is it being deleted?

The image is not under a free license. There are three things that the image creator needs to permit for an image to be under a free license:

1. They need to permit distribution
2. They need to permit modification and incorporation into other works (the creation of derivative works)
3. They need to permit distribution of derivative works

A permission to copy covers #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what lets Misplaced Pages use it in an article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Misplaced Pages, and what permits people to re-use Misplaced Pages content).

I got permission to use this image in Misplaced Pages. Why is it being deleted?

Simple permission is not good enough. The image owner could revoke permission at any time, and the image can't be reused anywhere else: not in Wiktionary, not in Wikibooks, and possibly not in the other languages Misplaced Pages is available in. It also prevents people from re-using Misplaced Pages content. Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Simple permission fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

It says that anyone can use this image for noncommercial purposes. Misplaced Pages is non-commercial, so that means it's okay, right?

The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Misplaced Pages, is registered as a non-profit organization. That doesn't mean it's noncommercial, though: the German Misplaced Pages, for example, sells copies of the encyclopedia on CD-ROM as a fundraising measure. Further, Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with a "no commercial use" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

It says that anyone can use this image for educational purposes. Misplaced Pages is educational, so that means it's okay, right?

Misplaced Pages articles are intended to educate, yes. But "educational purposes" is a very vague term. The creator of the image could mean that they only want the image to be used by universities and the like, or they might object to Misplaced Pages's coverage of popular culture. It's best to stay away from images with such vague terms.

Further, Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with an "educational use only" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

The web page I found this image on doesn't say anything about copyright. That means it's free to use, right?

Wrong. In the United States, under the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, every tangible work of creative effort created after March 1, 1989 is automatically copyrighted. Including a copyright statement gives you a stronger position if you file a copyright infringement lawsuit, and you need to register your copyright with the Library of Congress to file the lawsuit, but neither step is needed to get a copyright in the first place.

I found this image on the Internet. Anyone can see it, so that means it's in the public domain, right?

Wrong. Anyone can see a book in a public library, or a painting in an art gallery, but that doesn't mean those are in the public domain. The Internet is no different.

The image was created 50 years ago. It can't possibly still be copyrighted, can it?

Wrong. In the United States, copyright lasts a very long time. As a rule of thumb, everything published in 1930 or later is copyrighted.

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005 November 5, 2005 to January 24, 2006 January 24, 2006 to February 15, 2006 February 15, 2006 to April 13, 2006 April 13, 2006 to June 30, 2006 June 30 to December 1 December 1, 2006 to January 6, 2007 January 6, 2007 to July 19, 2007 July 20, 2007 to May 28, 2009

Now Commons this

It might be a good idea if the ImageRemovalBot were to see if an image has been moved to the Commons on a different name. See these waste-of-time edits which I corrected thus.

This page is a totally ridiculous 451 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but that sort of name change isn't easy for a bot to find after the fact. --Carnildo (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are your messages in my Talk going to go away?

The messages you have alerting me about images I have added were taken into consideration and the specific changes were made. Will these messages be removed as I keep on thinking that you still want something more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardya (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You can remove them if you want. They won't be automatically removed. --Carnildo (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected Irony

I was looking at the deletion log for someone to speak to and here you are dealing with a redirect. Anyways, is this a necessary redirect: Dysautonomia (does not have to be familial) (Autonomic Nervous System Diseases)? Highly doubt it ever gets used. -WarthogDemon 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably deletable, but I wouldn't worry about it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny edits by User:OrphanBot

I just deleted File:Giggio.jpg since it is a duplicate and has no licensing info. However, OrphanBot made some strange edits, which showed the following:

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet at no point was this image removed from the indicated page. I checked the history, and this was not vandalism (all 6 edits were indeed from the bot), so I have no idea what could have caused this. Just letting you know. -RunningOnBrains 02:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the ampersand in the article name. I'll look into it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Have you any plan for release your bot script? If you do this, I can use this for Bengali wiki. Thanks in advance.- Jayanta Nath 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The code for ImageRemovalBot is at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl and User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot-followup.pl, OrphanBot's code is at User:OrphanBot/orphanbot.pl, and the support libraries are at User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm and User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm. ImageTaggingBot's source code isn't online, but if you want it, I can provide it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late response. Thank you for great bot script and I need ImageTaggingBot's, you can send me as email to jayantanth@gamil.com or any other else.- Jayanta Nath 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is available at User:ImageTaggingBot/tagbot.pl. It requires more customization than the other bots: you'll need to fill out the lists of what templates mean what (at the very least, the files "sourcereq.tags" and "nosource.tags"), and you'll need to modify the section that processes {{Information}} templates to handle any similar templates that your wiki is using. --Carnildo (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Centre William Rappard

This is becoming increasingly difficult to understand, and also time-consuming and somehow frustrating. I received the email from Brandon Weeks telling me that "the necessary modifications to our article(s)" have been made (it seems that the message refers both to the article "Centre William Rappard" and all the photos included herein. However the article continues to be invisible and showing the "Possible copyright infringement" notice (which being copyright holders is a bit nasty to read in). Furthermore, now I receive this new notice from OrphanBot about the rights of File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg. We are the right holders of these material (text and images), and contributing authors of most of it. We followed the process suggested and granted the necessary permissions to publish it. Is there anything else we should do to consider this article published? --Lamerica (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Corralesx.jpg

After an FFD closed as keep and it was endorsed at DRV, deleting this was clearly out of process. Please restore it. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The discussion was about deleting it under WP:NFCC #2: respect for commercial use. I speedy-deleted it under CSD F7 and WP:IAR as a clearly replaceable fairuse image. I probably should have tagged it and waited the 48 hours called for by the CSD criteria, but some of the people who close that category of CSD are of the opinion that only images of living people meet the criteria, and I wanted to make sure the image was deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)