Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 11 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

Image:Fala do Trono.jpg

Hi there; actually, there is no sense to consider the above image of restricted copyright, since it was painted in the XIX century. The Imperial Museum of Petropolis cannot hold the copyright of it - the author died more than 70 years ago. I do not know how to proceed anyway, since this "fair use" is nonsense. Thanks. --Tonyjeff 17:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the license to {{PD art}}. --Oden 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, question from a newbie about fair use pictures

Hello, I saw your edit to Sonia Vergara. Fair use really trips me. I am working on ten projects I want to post in the next. Here are links to two: Image: Image:Sabor latino 3.jpg and Image:Voz voto 3.jpg. What would you think of them? The other question I have is: if I were to take a picture of their building with its logo would I and Misplaced Pages have free use to the picture. I have gone back and forth on those question. I'd like a media savvy opinion from you if you don't mind (and yes, I have read the articles on fair use). I just keep tripping up myself saying yes, no, yes, no etc. Thanks, Ronbo76 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, they come directly from KUVS's website which is hosted by Univision which its parent company and are tagged as with license unknown. Ronbo76 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you write the article text first I can give you advice on suitable images. --Oden 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personally

But I know my way around with copyrights...roughly, I must say you have chosen one hell of a task for yourself... Anyway its Russian Christmas right now...So take no offense from me.--Kuban Cossack 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will leave it up to you to use your good judgement and apply our image use policy and fair use policy on the images you have uploaded. --Oden 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not you, but after User:Lupo's merciless crusade against Soviet PD image licensing in the commons and in here, we are naturally defensive of any attacks, even minor ones...So I do apologise for the rough remarks thrown at you by me...--Kuban Cossack 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, I've been called worse things (diff). --Oden 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not target

I understand that you have taken upon yourself a war on inappropriate fair use rationales, but you appear to have targeted images uploaded by some users more than others and to have received warnings over this in the past. Please extend good faith toward users such as user:Irpen and do not seek conflict by going through their contributions to tag their images. Given past questions with images he or she uploaded being fully answered, you should be turning your attention elsewhere. Paying undue attention to users with whom you have been in conflict can become a matter of stalking, and therefore a matter for Arbitration. If you are in conflict with user:Irpen, please consider mediation. If not, then extend that effort effort and try to communicate with the user before you apply a dispute tag on images he has uploaded. You can always ask people first and listen to what they say. Geogre 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "war" would suggest an antagonistic approach, I would rather prefer the term cleanup or maintenance. I would also object to the statement that I target specific users, when I find a questionable image (such as this diff or this page history) I review the upload logs of any editor which appears in the page history.

As regards User:Irpen, two images which I have tagged have subsequently been deleted, which would suggest that my edits were correct. I could of course contact an administrator instead of interacting with the user directly (like i did here). I am also not the only one to have issues with User:Irpen, see for instance Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Irpen or the block log. --Oden 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, because someone had enough of an issue with the user as to lodge an RFC, you are justified in having "issues" with him? It seems to me that you are essentially admitting to targeting that user's image uploads because you dislike him. That is inappropriate behavior. Let it go and concentrate on issues, not people. If you cannot work out your "issues," then it's best to just look elsewhere: it's a very big project. Geogre 18:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks says:

"Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I would suggest that you concentrate your efforts on examining the content in question (see Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2007 January 6/Images, Image talk:Chornovil Vyacheslav.jpg and Image:Ruslana pub.jpg) and not the contributors. Your statements above also indicate a misunderstanding of cleanup and maintenance, if a contributor uploads unsuitable material then it is natural to examine other contributions from that contributor. If you want to examine my contributions feel free to do so. --Oden 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

Hi,

I kindly request you to have a look on the Princess Diana Institute of Peace whether the details I have submitted are meeting the criteria for citation. Thanks Rajsingam 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

In re this; I don't think that the user is strictly trolling, in that my impression is that they think they're trying to help and aren't here just to argue. Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use has become somewhat of a forum for pissing and moaning, or grandstanding, instead of a place to have reasonable conversations about the guideline or to help people who have questions about it. User:Jenolen is not, to my mind, even the worst offender in this regard. I would like to see the trend reversed, and so I broke my habit of ignoring the stuff to comment on the behaviour. That shouldn't be taken as my thinking that further engagement is likely to be useful. Jkelly 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I usually try to ignore comments which I regard to violate WP:CIVIL per WP:DENY, but in this instance User:Jenolen was simply talking nonsense. I am probably fanning the flames, but I didn't like the straw man argument that was presented by comparing physical and intellectual property. Denying or minimizing the existence of charitable contributions on the talk page for a encyclopedia written by users as a charitable contribution and funded and operated by a not-for-profit foundation really is taking things too far. --Oden 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Then consider giving slack and working with people instead of bureaucratizing everything down to the thinnest line. I, along with those against these current policies, have tried to work with you guys. You won't work with us. I think you need to reconsider your own approach before you criticize mine.

I mean, when you push another editor to his limit, as many of you have done with those against your policies, what do you expect? I find your way of leaving posts going out of their way to not deal with people and instead hiding behind policy to be much worse than any personal attacks. You've done this before to me, as well, and I didn't appreciate it then, either. You have a problem with something I'm criticizing, work with me, not around me. - Stick Fig 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Hey there, quick note: did you know you can indent your speaks in talks with colons at the beginning of the paragraph? I noticed you usually deindent conversations, putting your talks against the margin instead of moving it below the message you are replying. That makes it very hard to follow conversations; if possible indent your talks. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, but sometimes I restart the indent so that it does not end up in the right margin.

Cheers! :-) Oden 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I'd like to say I feel my nominators did a good and accurate job in summarising my contributions to Wikimedia. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan Björklund

With regard to the image in Jan Björklund, sometimes the software that resizes the image (ImageMagick) has some kind of bug and does not show the resized image. Changing the parameters slightly, like reducing the size by 1 pixel, can solve this (diff). After a while it might be possible to resize the image to the original size. I also removed the height parameter, since the width is sufficient. The proportions of the image will adjust automagically. --Oden 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OOoo. Nifty. Thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep you updated: I have also found out that it is possible to purge the cache if the thumbnail does not load correctly. (see Misplaced Pages:Purge). Cheers! --Oden 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fridtjof Nansen (F310) 650x446.jpg

Unlike U.S. military vessels, free images of the vessels of other nations are difficult to find. That's why this one was used. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a free image in the article, Image:KNM Fridtjof Nansen-2006-06-01-side.jpg. --Oden 03:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A search on Flickr turned up several images (), so it should be possible to replace any fair use images used only to show what the ship looks like.--Oden 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And now you're tagging press-release images from Boeing which are intended to be used for sites like Misplaced Pages? It's not even fair use -- the terms are more liberal than that. One image you have tagged (Image:Air India 737-777-787 Fleet.jpg) is of an aircraft that doesn't exist yet, and thus no fair use version is available. In fact, several of you tagging types seem to like to tag future aircraft images and then wind up rescinding them for this reason. I don't get it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Downstream_use and Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria #1. --Oden 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. At the time, no suitable image for Fridtjof Nansen existed. It is also useful to be able to see different angles on vessels of this size. They are not Volkswagen Golfs where a single image can convey the entire story. And for the airliner images, there is no free version and will not be for years, therefore Criteria #1 as you have mentioned is invalid. The press release images are covered as both press articles and under fair use, the latter covering downstream use. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at User talk:Fresheneesz#Fair use images, the particular Air India image you tagged will not be replaceable merely once the 787 enters production, but only when an example specifically for Air India is produced. This covers the similar images used throughout WP:Air pages. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Fair use does not cover downstream use. WP:FUC criterion #1 also says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available."
2. Boeing has begun deliveries of 737s to Air India (see ), so in that regard the image is replaceable. --Oden 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
   1. Yes, but two of those models haven't been delivered yet. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the image can be replaced then it does not meet the fair use criteria. Fair use criteria #3 says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." The image in question depicts four aircraft models belonging to three families: the Boeing 737, 777 and 787. The 737 and 777 have been delivered to Air India (B737 and B777). So it would be sufficient with a fair use image which only depicts the Boeing 787, like this one. And when the 787 has been delivered then all promotional material will have to be deleted (when that happens you can tag it yourself with {{subst:rfu}}). --Oden 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That 777 in your free image is not the same variant in the Boeing rendering (there are substantial differences.) It is also the old vs. new livery. In any case, your purported link comes back with a 403. And right now, I would assert that a) the image should be of an Air India 787, not just any 787 and that b) as a pre-production aircraft, the only reliable images come from BCA. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you updated the link. It is a BCA image and has the same terms. The only reason the 787 represented in your link looks different from the 787 in the photo I posted is because of revisions in the 787 design. You will not find a reasonable quality image of the 787 that is copyright-free. I went to the root of the site you suggested earlier and it had BCA images used under the same terms, as well as similar ones for future Airbus products. I still don't see why you can't accept that you cannot find free versions of some images. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC criterion #1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." It does not have to be identical information. Also it does not require that a replacement be procured, merely that one could be found ("could be created"). Fair use criteria #3 says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." The Boeing 787 is fine (for now) but the B737 and B777 do not meet our fair use criteria, since a free equivalent could be created. --Oden 05:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Airbus fair-use pic

Hi! Please see my reply here - Adrian Pingstone 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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 this 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)