Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 15 January 2007

Utilities: Newpages • Recent Changes • Newbie contributions • Message templates • User:Oden/Boilerplate Template:Attempting wikibreak

Regarding fair use images, please read Robth's explanation and read my Image FAQ before posting a comment.

"Love. Fall in love and stay in love. Write only what you love, and love what you write. The key word is love. You have to write something you love, something to live for." — Ray Douglas Bradbury (attributed)

BS-0 This person does not understand Bullshit (or understands it with considerable difficulties or does not wish to communicate in Bullshit). Template:User du-0 This user removes fair use images from user pages. Such images can only be used in the main namespace.

no ads This user is against advertisements on Misplaced Pages. linkspam This user despises linkspam, and will terminate it on sight, as well as any other spam by the contributor. ZT This user supports a strict zero tolerance policy on vandalism.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria

I think that you've misinterpreted clause 9 ("Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace..."). Infioboxes are in articles, and so in the article namespace. They mustn't be used in templates, which are then in turn added to articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria # 8:

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

A image in the infobox only serves a decorative purpose. Image:Kosmalla.jpg also fails fair use criteria # 1.--Oden 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis of your claim that it serves only a decorative purpose? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It cannot illustrate specific points of text because it is inside of a infobox. It cannot be used for identification since it is replaceable in that context. The only reason left is a decorative purpose. --Oden 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that this matter has been listed by Mel Etitis at WP:ANI in case you wish to comment there. WJBscribe  19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- if nothing else, I hope you could acknowledge that the issue of whether or not an image in an infobox serves a useful purpose or a merely decorative one is controversial, and should be discussed on talk pages. And, further, do not characterize edits that you disagree with as vandalism as you did here. Mangojuice 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of fair use images in infoboxes, I can agree that the issue is controversial. However, WP:FUC criterion # 1 is specific when it comes to replaceability, so the image would be deleted regardless of where it was positioned in the article.

As regards the insertion of inappropriate images, I disagree. I would characterize editors who repeatedly insert images which they know to be inappropriate as vandals. On example is the article on Jennifer Morrison where fair use images have been removed from the infobox five times since December 6, 2006 (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5).

WP:VANDALISM says: "Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Misplaced Pages will result in a block or permanent ban." Removing a message which says <!-- Only freely-licensed images are permitted here. Please see ] before adding an image. --> and adding a fair use image is in my opinion a non-constructive edit. I can admit though that I should be more forgiving on first-time offenders (I have a zero-tolerance policy on vandalism). --Oden 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is, you may consider it a non-constructive edit, but you should assume good faith, and view that edit as an attempted improvement. From someone else's perspective, you're removing a totally legitimate image, which weakens the article. And your message about "only freely-licensed images are permitted here" is not something that has consensus necessarily, so removing it is appropriate if others disagree with it. The proper way to read that quotation is to interpret that edits which are meant to be non-constructive are vandalism, as opposed to intentionally-made edits that someone may view as non-constructive. Mangojuice 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that only freely-licensed images are permitted to depict living people has the force of official Misplaced Pages policy (WP:FU, policy #1 and counterexample #8) and has specifically been upheld in at least one RfC and by explicit comment from Jimbo Wales and (although I'm not sure on this point) by the Misplaced Pages Foundation. Note that in Mr. Wales's case, this is a compromise from his preferred position which is a much stronger stance against fair-use image use. --Yamla 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the image is merely a depiction, then I agree, consensus backs that pretty well. However, it's quite reasonable to identify an actor or actress with an image of them in a famous role, because that does more than identify the subject, it also illustrates something they're famous for. Although this would be better illustrated with a caption, this kind of thing is pretty routine. Just because an image appears in an infobox does not mean it is only shown for purposes of identification of the person. Therefore, simply insisting that "only freely-licensed images are permitted here" does not have undisputable consensus. Mangojuice 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will assume good faith. However, the fair use criteria at present has strong community support. If the person is still alive, then a fair use image which only serves to illustrate what that person looks like is generally not permitted regardless of where it is placed in the article. I will try to stress this point in the future. --Oden 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"It cannot illustrate specific points of text because it is inside of a infobox. It cannot be used for identification since it is replaceable in that context. The only reason left is a decorative purpose." The first is a non sequitur. So is the second (only more so). The third is thus unsupported.

1. Illustrations are often not exactly next to the text that they illustrate; given the shortness of most of these articles (certainly the ones that I saw), the infobox is always on the same screen as the descriptive text.
2. The property of being replaceable is completely unconnected to the use of the image.
3. Thus you have offered no grounds to believe that the image is merely decorative. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FUC criterion #1 addresses the issue of replaceability. A fair use image has to meet all the fair use criteria. Any image which fails the fair use criteria can be speedily deleted after 48 hours per WP:CSD I7 (etiquette is to wait 7 days).
• The contents of the infobox serves to represent the entire article, and cannot be used to illustrate any specific part of the article. You wouldn't put a picture of a Saturn rocket or the mission badge for Apollo 11 in the infobox in Neil Armstrong? Or a picture of Homer Simpson in the infobox in Dan Castellaneta?
• The reference to the image being decorative refers to the fact that it fails WP:FUC criterion #8. A simpler way to put it is that the image fails WP:FUC criterion #1 and WP:FU#counterexamples#8, since the subject is still alive. --Oden 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I know about replaceability (though I think it's usually a peculiar claim; few fair-use images are in fact replaceable, even though it's remotely possible that they be replaced); the point is that replaceability is unconnected to how an image is used. The fact that an image is replaceable can't mean that it isn't used for identification. I don't really see why you think that it does.
2. With regard to etiquette, one of my main concerns was that you were simply removing images with a vague reference to WP:FUC, with no waiting period at all.
3. The contents of the infobox are general, but in an article about a person, the generality concerns that person. An image of that person is therefore pretty representative, ifentificatory, and illustrative. It you'd deleted a fair-use image of her handbag, her car, or her pekinese, I'd have understood.
4. I think that the term "decorative" should be dropped, therefore, as it's clearly being used in a way that bears no relation to its meaning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. If the image depicts a unrepeatable event it is not replaceable. An image that is only used for identification (to show what the subject looks like) is with a few exceptions always considered replaceable if the subject is a living person. That is the connection.
2. The etiquette refers to the deletion of images, articles can be edited at any time. If removing an image is wrong it will be returned.
3. I cannot delete anything, since I am not a sysop. I can tag an image, but the processing admin will make an independent assessment. However, when dealing with a contributor who has uploaded multiple fair use images which all fail the fair use criteria it is fairly obvious what the outcome will be. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, the most efficient method of dealing with an editor who has uploaded 50 or 100 fair use images in a short period of time is in my opinion to remove them from the articles immediately.
4. Suggestions on changes in policy should be discussed on the appropriate policy talk page. --Oden 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought -- what if we change the {{infobox}} template to allow for captions, and start adding them so that articles don't simply splash a picture up every time they use an infobox? This could skirt your concern in a lot of cases, and has the nice benefit that it would actually improve the encyclopedia. Mangojuice 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The primary use of an image in an infobox is for identification. Fair use images are allowed in infoboxes if they cannot be replaced, while decorative use is not permitted (fair use criterion #1 and 8 and counterexample #8). However, more often than not the subject of the article is a living person or the article is on a topic where a replacement could be obtained under a free license (window blinds for instance or the Mission District, see this e-mail).

The main reason why images available under a non-free license should be replaced has to do with downstream use. More often than not this means removing the image in question without an immediate replacement, which is less than satisfactory as regards article quality. On the other hand the removal of an image without replacing it could increase the incentive for finding a replacement under a free license.

It is also worth remembering that the primary purpose of Misplaced Pages is to produce high-quality article text, and not to find and upload a bunch of pretty pictures with little regard to licensing. It is possible that some versions of Misplaced Pages will be reproduced with no images in order to save space (one image can take up as much space as an entire article, see also WP:ASR, 2006 Misplaced Pages CD Selection and Children's Machine). --Oden 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sprouse Bros.png

Please inform me how a free image that illustrates a TV show can be found? The only way to get a picture from one is a screenshot making the picture fairuse. So how can a free image be found?? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is at present being used to identify what the subjects of the article Dylan and Cole Sprouse look like, and in that context it is replaceable since the subjects are still alive (fair use criterion #1). If the image was moved to a section of the article which describes the event depicted it might be considered differently. --Oden 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is also used in That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. The image that was used before this one was also a fairuse image. If you can provide a free image for them I'd be glad to see it in the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Our fair use policy only requires that a free image could be created, not that it must exist in order to delete a fair use image (fair use criterion #1). --Oden 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, but a picture was requested as there has been controversy amongst fans about the length of their hair. I believe that qualifies use of a fairuse image doesn't it? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of pictures elsewhere on the internet (such as IMDb). If you want to request copyright permission see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. --Oden 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just sent a request for a free image as you suggested. Hopefully we can get one and this will solve the problem :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lenna.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Lenna.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Oden 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard test images

Hello - This probably won't affect your attitude towards the Standard test image article, but at least you will know where I am coming from.

I had a project involving image processing and I wanted to compare my results with the results in the literature. I spent hours digging up standard test images on which to run my algorithms, and then comparing the results to the literature. Not copies of copies of portions of standard test images, but the images themselves. I then wrote the Misplaced Pages article and included the images for the benefit of any one else who might be faced with the same problem.

About a year ago, the article was threatened with destruction because I was using a generic fair use template on the images. I then had to spend a lot of time learning about how to generate a new "standard image" tag from scratch, which I then applied to the images. Now you come along and want to delete the tag, delete the images, while recommending that a "free version" be substituted instead. Now I have to study up and become a Misplaced Pages lawyer all over again. Do you understand why this drives me up a wall?

I will try to be less territorial about my contribution here, if you will focus more on what constitutes a good "Standard test image" article, and less on a blanket removal of images that on first glance look suspicious. PAR 17:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not matter which tag is used, the fair use criteria are the same for all fair use images. That this article has been allowed to exist like this for so long is unfortunate, since it gives the impression that the use of fair use images in this manner is acceptable. --Oden 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright paranoia

I agree with your statement, and caution is of course needed, but it is too often these days that images are marked for deletion when they do indeed meet fair use guidelines. I do not refer to just the image I am defending currently. A perfectly good fair use image should not be replaced for a lower quality one. Doing so as often as it is being done now only serves to lower the quality of Misplaced Pages itself. --Twigge 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of copyright versus free image (a free image trumps a copyrighted image, even if the quality of the free image is lower). Sometimes removing a copyrighted image makes way for a free image, even if one does not exist at the time. As a final note, it is entirely possible that some versions of this encyclopedia will be reproduced without any images at all. The quality of the article text is really our most important contribution. --Oden 07:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so

I probably shouldn't have let my personal life get in the way, but i was already pretty angry last night seeing pretty much half of what i've done here for the past 25 months up for deletion didn't help, but either way i didn't attack you personally, so sorry, anyway... goodbye. -- SmthManly / / 14:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages#In popular culture

Hi, Oden. Twice, now, you have removed " Some Misplaced Pages users, or Wikipedians, maintain (non-comprehensive) lists of such uses." from Misplaced Pages#In popular culture. You described the first removal as "removing self-reference". I think that this whole article Misplaced Pages is self-reference, but on-topic. Is it not appropriate to refer in another encyclopedia to Misplaced Pages users and the lists of references to Misplaced Pages that they maintain? If it is appropriate there, why not in Misplaced Pages itself, specifically in Misplaced Pages#In popular culture? Thanks! -- Jeff G. 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the article concerns this encyclopedia, so in a manner of speaking it is a self-reference. However, I removed a statement which referred to a particular page on Misplaced Pages, and used that page as reference. Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references says:

"To ease reusability, never allow the text of an article to assume that the reader is viewing it at Misplaced Pages, and try to avoid even assuming that the reader is viewing the article at a website."

The Misplaced Pages article on Misplaced Pages should not use Misplaced Pages as a primary source. One of the requirements for notability is that the subject of the article has been cited in multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. The guideline on notability can also serve as arough idea of what should be included in an article. --Oden 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, so now you have changed your objection to one of notability. I don't think notability applies for a single sentence, instead I think it only applies for an entire article. I propose new text to be appended to the first paragraph of Misplaced Pages#In popular culture, as follows: " Misplaced Pages maintains a (non-comprehensive) list of such uses on its page Misplaced Pages as a source." -- Jeff G. 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I use the notability guideline as a rough indication of what warrants inclusion, and the statemenet in question is in my opinion trivial and lacks relevance without the supporting link. It also looks like self-promotion rather than encyclopedical content. --Oden 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lena images

Thanks for the comments on my talk page about some Lena images. Is your belief that the image is only appropriate on the Lenna page and not on other pages? I agree it is not necessary on lossy data compression, but its use as a de-facto standard for image processing techniques does make it nice to use on those kinds of pages. - grubber 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed that the article on Lenna be merged into Standard test image. --Oden 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ASUE

Hello, Oden and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dave keuning.jpg

Is there a CC 2.5 template for self-taken images, similar to gdfl-self? —Disavian (/_contribs) 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need, but the source needs to be provided. If the copyright holder is identical with the uploader then this has to be stated, since it is not presumed. Also, if the image is available on a website this should also be stated in order for the license to be verified.

With regard to the image in question, the upload log says "CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5". This license is not a free license, so the image will most likely be speedily deleted unless the copyright issue can be resolved. --Oden 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg

I have removed the {{permission}} template from Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg becuase that template have not been valid since May 19, 2005. Any image uploaded after that date that uses the {{permission}} template will be deleted. -- Donald Albury 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 03:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the 3-revert rule on Standard test image page

No formal report this time. Next time I file a formal report. PAR 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages as a source