User talk:Quadell/Archive 20

Though I am new here, I think I understand, generally, about image copyright. Perhaps not enough information was listed about the image you so kindly deleted. ;) I requested and received permission from the photgrapher of this photo Christian Hejnal and it's curently back in the Jessicka article. Should I paste the e-mail correspondence into the picture's discussion page? I just want to make sure that this photo is not deleted again and is documented properly. What else do you suggest? (Artcookie 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC));

This is actually a tricky subject. All of Wikipedia is released under the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Copyright for details). This means that for us to use a photograph on Wikipedia, the photo has to be released under a free license. It isn't enough for the copyright-holder to say "Yeah, Wikipedia can use it." He has to say "Anyone can use the photo." Otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't all be released under the GFDL. It's complicated, but the bottom line is, the copyright holder has to give permission for anyone to use it, not just us, before we can accept it.

If the photographer is willing to do that, then great! No problems. But if not, it will (sadly) have to be deleted. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I wam planning to upload some stills of the new Stamford employees of the Office. Do you mind if I use your fair-use rational? NauticaShades 22:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, so long as you change it from saying "Quadell believes" to say that you believe it. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the image on Chris Sabin's article removed? vDub 23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was removed from the page because the image had been deleted. It was deleted because it was deemed "replaceable". What that means is, someone could take his photo and release it under a free license. Because a free replacement would be possible, our fair use guidelines don't allow us to use a non-free image to show the person. This is true for all living persons, whether they are wrestlers, politicians, or whatever. See "criterion #1" and "counter-example #8" in our fair-use guidelines for more information. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you may have deleted an image by mistake. The image was File:Colt McCoy quarterback Texas Longhorns college football team-small.jpg. This had been tagged replacable fair use. This tag was then disputed. There was discussion on the Talk page between 3 people (all admins I think?) and the decision was to leave the image in place. Please don't delete such images in the future. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only been on Wikipedia for less than 6 months, and the Toyota Aurion article is just about the only article I have edited. I do not know the Wikipedia terminology so I don't really get what you want me to do about the images.

Waiting for a reply, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabeta777 (talk • contribs)

Since Wikipedia strives to be a completely free encyclopedia, we use "free" images as much as possible. ("Free" images are images in the public domain, or available under a free license such as the GFDL.) The Toyota Aurion images were "non-free", meaning they were copyrighted, and reproduction was only allowed with the permission of the copyright-holder. We can't use these sorts of images on Wikipedia, except under a narrow set of circumstances. The best way to have images of the Aurion on Wikipedia would be to take a photo of an Aurion yourself and upload it to Wikipedia. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you somehow conjure the text back up for me to work on -- perhaps just paste the wiki-markup straight into an e-mail and I'll adapt it to something compliant. This is a notable school and many editors had worked on it over time as you probably noticed. I have no idea how it fell into copyright non-compliance.

Either that, or give me access to the article history so I can pull up a compliant article?

Thanks, --A. B. 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll e-mail you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice the deletion of the image that was on the James Lunney article. Although no reason was given for its deletion, I presume that the image was a copyright violation. I thought I would try and track down what info there was about the source of the image to see if I could get the necessary permission but the deletion of the image seems to delete all history of it so I can't do that. Is there a way to track back that information? Is it possible that you might have a record of what licence claims were made or which user uploaded the image? Cheers. KenWalker | Talk 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The deleted image was named Jameslunney.jpg, and it was originally uploaded by User:Earl Andrew. It's listed source was http://www.parl.gc.ca/. It was Mr. Lunney's official parliament photograph, held under Crown copyright.

The reason for its deletion was that it did not pass criterion #1 at Wikipedia:Fair use. According to that criterion, any non-free image which is "replaceable" may not be used on Wikipedia. What that means is, if it would be possible for a person to photograph Mr. Lunney and release that photo under a free license, then we cannot use a non-free image to show what he looks like. (See also counter-example #8 on that same page.)

So what can we do? It would be great to have a free photograph of Mr. Lunney. One possibility would be for a Wikipedian to photograph him at a public appearance. Another possibility would be to write to Mr. Lunney's office and request a free photograph. Frequently, campaigns will assist in this, especially if it will increase their exposure. You can find sample letters at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How could you delete this image? It's not replaceable and I added the fair use justification. Further, I contested it so deletion without the discussion being complete is not okay. Please un-delete so the discussion can continue. --MECU≈talk 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the image violated our first fair use criterion at Wikipedia:Fair use. See counter-example #8. No amount of discussion will change that fact. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to check out Image:10-haparsim-street.jpg and other recent contribs made by the uploader. Fair use images are suddenly becoming his own. ccwaters 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it, thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, have you noticed that he's uploaded new versions of all those photos. They are from his personal collection. I would clear your cache. The new versions are his, and are not from the Baha'i media bank, and he can put them in the public domain. -- Jeff3000 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was quite confusing. Sorry. ccwaters 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. This calls for close examination. Developing. . . – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Free image has now been posted. Thanks for your help. Pepso 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for notifying me, though I'm not exactly sure how a free alternative to this particular image can be created as it's copyrighted. Combination 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. It's an image of the game. I thought it was an image of the car. I take back my objection. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I'll see about adjusting licences to avoid any more confusion. Cheers. Combination 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How can an image be created of a person? You mean someone has to take a picture for themselves? As far as I know, Japanese laws applying to talent agencies such as the one that Fukawa is part of don't allow for free publicity photos taken by non-professionals. The photos have to be directly released by his company or they're not legal at all within Japanese borders, and the talents have no control over this (I am not well versed in the rules, but this is what I have come to understand).

I was merely interpreting the sentence ... a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created to mean that "created" applied to diagrams and logos, and "found" applied to photos of real-life objects.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A photograph would be creating an image, and a person could take a photograph of a celebrity without the publisher's permission. It happens all the time. Note that counter-example #8 on Wikipedia:Fair use says that a non-free image of a living person is not allowed if it is used to merely show what a person looks like. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing that out. But still note that in Japan, you can not publicly display pictures of celebrities without the publisher's permission. If a foreigner took some shots and left the country, they probably wouldn't get chased by the publisher, but in Japan they have a lot of rediculous and unchallengable privacy laws, that really only exist to benefit the publishers. It's almost impossible to get pictures in the first place, because cameras are always banned from premises where taking proper shots would be possible (and they run after you if they see you carrying). Notice that on the Japanese Wikipedia that that are no celebrity photos at all, except in very rare cases where the publisher has explicitly given permission to Wikifoundation. I don't even think Japanese laws allow the photographers to release their own work as public domain.

If counterexample #8, An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like, is unchallengable, than I will have to get such photos of Japanese celebrity removed, though until now I have added a series of pictures released on the official websites of various celebrities for publicity purposes; the kind of pictures that are also used on television (generally on programs created by a company directly related to the publisher) for giving talent profiles and such. I figured that they would be the easiest sort of picture to justify under fair use, because other than that there doesn't seem to be any other way.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In Japan, and in several other countries, there are privacy laws against taking photos of some people. (In Canada, it's restricted to the Royal Family, for instance.) But these are not copyright restrictions. These are separate. Does that prevent these images from being replaceable? I'm not sure. You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:fair use. It would help if you had a link to the relevant laws. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine it doesn't apply to copyright laws, especially within US's domain. The reason why it could possibly deem them "irreplacable" is because there simply are no pictures available, and/or they are impossible to get a hold of, because doing so would involve an illegal act of some form. Since the privacy laws apply within Japan, it doesn't make sense for an amateur Japanese photographer to waste their time collecting such pictures, unless they are specifically hoping to send them overseas.

I've been trying to peruse through documents of these laws, mostly those outlined (in relatively simplified, though still frustratingly criptic Japanese) in jaWiki's (not incredibly conclusive) policies. I'll bring it up at FA when I've gotten a better grasp of things.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. Does this mean that any FU picture of a living person can be considered to be theoretically replaceable because the subject is still alive, and eg, they are not in hiding, in jail, missing, etc? I think you might want to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics and tell all of us because we have been using the USOC publicity photos en masse. In any case, if you go to http://www.usocpressbox.org and try to download a photo - a prompt will come up asking you to comply to their "license of use" - which seems to imply that Wikipedia usage is OK with them - In that case do we have an implicit permission to use their pictures? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we have their permission or not, if the images are "non-free" then we can't use them to identify what a living person looks like. If a photo of the person could be taken of the person and released under a free license, then our policy says we cannot use a non-free image of that person, even if the copyright-holder gives us permission. This is because we want Wikipedia to be as free as possible, limiting the non-free portions to what could never be replaced by a free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Quadell, thank you for advising on the fair use tag. I have followed your suggestion and tagged as well as writing in the discussion section why this is a fair use image. I hope this is satisfactory but if there is anything else i need to do just ask. Collieman 09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that our Wikipedia guidelines prevent us from using any non-free image to illustrate a subject that could be illustrated with a free image. In this case, someone could take a photo of the device and license that photo under the GFDL. Therefore the non-free image is "replaceable", and we cannot use it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; the result was indeed gratifying, especially given the strong field we had.

I'm sorry to see the note on your userpage; you will be missed while you're away (and your substantial contributions will be too), and I hope all is well with you in real life. Best wishes, --Robth^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me second that. I hope these unexpected changes in your life are of a positive nature, and that you and your family are fine. All the best, Lupo 08:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who nominated it for deletion? Kingjeff 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was tagged {{Replaceable fair use}} by User:Abu badali on October 31. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you claim that free image is available you should offer a proof or a convincing argument like a reference to a published source not protected by copyright. In the absence of such you can say what you want but removing the images will definitely violate WP guidelines. Thus I believe it's time for you to remove the warnings you placed on the images you "replaceable fair use" labeled. Mhym 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand Wikipedia's guidelines. If it would be possible to create a free photo that would replace a non-free one, then the non-free one is "replaceable" and can not be used on Wikipedia. Even if a free replacement image has not been created yet, we still can't use a replaceable non-free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a specious argument, at best. Just because a photo *can* be recreated within the free realm does not mean it is easy or practical to do so. One could argue that *any* photo can be recreated in the free realm so long as it does not capture something of historical significance that has already happened, yet there are many pictures within the 'pedia that meet fair use criteria and could be recreated for "free" but it would be difficult to do so. The *spirit* of a guideline is exactly that: it's a guideline not a matter of rule or law. While we should do our best to use only free and unencumbered works, fair use rules exist for exactly what we're using them for. If an image *could* be replaced, its best to label it as such, as you are doing, but using speedy deletion denies our readers useful visual examples of many topics for weeks, months, or perhaps even years, simply because a free image wasn't readily available. -- ChadScott 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that even if it is difficult to produce a replacement, that doesn't prevent an image from being "replaceable". Our guidelines are what we are expected to follow. According to Jimbo Wales, the founder and president of the board, any non-free images should be deleted unless they can be shown to be irreplaceable. He has said it would be better for an article to have no image, than to have a non-free image, if there is a chance that a free image could be found within the next ten years. If you disagree with this policy, take it up with him. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's quite clear now that your deletions are a personal attack directed at another editor. The thing is, please understand how it feels for a productive, positive editor to have one's enormous time and efforts undermined by such an apparently personally motivated, targeted campaign that really serves no purpose. Your assertions are a misreading of the guidelines and your time (and mine) would be better served enriching, not depleting, our encylopedia. No C&D order has yet been received for the use of the images I have uploaded and they are permitted via the "promophoto" tag. Badagnani 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not issued a personal attack against you. This is not a targeted campaign against you. I have deleted thousands of images (all in-process) within the last few weeks, and a very small percentage have been yours. Please assume good faith. No one is out to get you.

Free content is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which are our fundamental core principles. When we use non-free images in place of free ones, we violate that principle. If you read the {{promo}} tag closely, you'll see that it requires the images be non-replaceable.

In the past, I have uploaded several replaceable, non-free images, under the false impression that these were acceptable on Wikipedia. After the policy was clarified to me, I had to delete them all. So I understand how you feel. We welcome free content, but we cannot accept non-free content except under very restrictive circumstances. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot create a free image of Austin nichols. There are no free images of him available, and publicity hotos are considered fair use. What would you have me do? Dev920 (Please vote here) 19:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Publicity photos are only considered fair use on Wikipedia if they are non-replaceable; that is, if it would be impossible to take a replacement photo and release it under a free license. What would I have you do? You could upload free images to Wikipedia. You could try to contact wrestlers or federations and request free (GFDL) images from them -- this sometimes works. Check out Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for samples letters and ideas. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This image is not "easily" replacable, as I have noted on the talk page. I will make every effort to replace it in the next few weeks but, in the meantime, please leave the image alone as it is the only one we have for both the DA40 cockpit and the G1000. -- ChadScott 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi--I see you removed the photo of the most recent Princess Kay of the Milky Way. The photo was a publicity photo, used with proper copyright documentation, and is relevant to the article. I don't want to just rv your article without checking with you, so here I am. mitcho/芳貴 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The image wasn't just removed from the article -- it was deleted. The reason it was deleted is that it had been tagged {{Replaceable fair use}} for over seven days. It would be possible to find the person in question and take her photo, and then release the photo under a free license. (Alternatively, someone could write to her and ask if she has a photo she would be willing to license under the GFDL.) According to our fair use guideline, we can not use a non-free image, even a promotional one, if a free replacement image could be created. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.57.201.171 keeps vandalising the McMaster University article. I reverted his/her edits but the person would not stop. see history of edits Is it possible to block his/her IP address? 219.77.171.24 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It sure is. He appears to have stopped, for now, and he already had a warning. I'll keep an eye on the situation, and if he keeps doing this, the IP will be blocked. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He (or someone else using that IP) now seems to be contributing usefully. Well I'll be. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that IP is vandalising again. Vandalism

219.77.171.161 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded pictures of the Toyota Aurion I took at the Sydney International Motor Show, 2006. However, some of these pictures are blurry and their quality is less than that of the press release photos. Is this alright?

Thanks.

Alphabeta777 05:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's wonderful! Thanks for uploading free images. If someone creates better free images, they might replace yours. But until then, it's good that your are there. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh added replaceable fair use to the criteria for speedy deletion [1]? You created the template [2]. Chowbok is tagging images like crazy. This will affect many many articles and will require lots of edits and deletions and I want to know why. I guess I missed the discussion, and want to know why all these have to go before we have replacements. DVD+ R/W 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If there has been no consensus for the drastic changes in the image policy (and there seems to have been none), Chowbok's behaviour should be classed as disruption of the Wikipedia process. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to field this one for Quadell, since it's a general question. Fair use criterion number 1 (non-replaceability) has been around forever--here is the version of that page from a year ago, with the criterion present; the problem is that enforcement was nonexistent. This was bad not only because we built up a great number of unacceptable-under-policy images, but because it allowed a great number of contributors to reasonably get the idea that such images were allowed. They were not, of course, and were subject to rather rapid deletion; this revision of CSD from back in September contains, as part of CSD I7, the line "Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.". So replaceable images could have been deleted like that; a fair number also came through the copyright problems page. The logic behind the criterion is as follows: our primary goal here is to create a good free encyclopedia. Thus, we want to have as many, and as good, free images as possible. The reason we don't want to allow replaceable unfree images is that by putting them in an article we remove the incentive for a contributor to go out and take or otherwise create a new free picture. If you look at Quadell's talk page here, you can see several cases where a free picture was created almost immediately after a fair use one had been removed. I have seen a number of others mentioned; in some cases, we have fair use photos of common cars, or easily available items of food, which is just silly. We want free images of these things, and removing unfree images of them increases the likelihood that free images will be created. (Some of the discussions linked below contain further elaboration on this topic.)

What I assume people are talking about when they refer to recent policy changes is this edit to the fair use policy page. As explained here, those who discussed and inserted that language seem to have regarded it as a clarification of existing policy, not a change--and it was, in fact, bringing that page in line with the intent evident in the fair use criteria. Its result of course, has been a substantial increase in enforcement of things like FUC #1. As part of that process, Quadell created the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag to create a dedicated system for dealing with these cases. I think this was a good idea; it extended the discussion period before deletion to seven days, which is a good idea for a tag where it would be quite possible for something like a concept car to be mistakenly tagged, and it's best to ensure that the uploader has time to respond. It also creates a dedicated system to handle the very large volume of images that are being processed in this way.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I had to go digging around for a fair amount of this stuff just now myself, and I don't think that most people have seen the whole thing pieced together. Cheers, --Robth^Talk 15:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found a little more here WP:VPP#Deletion_of_promotional_photos, and noticed that JYolkowski seems to have wrote FUC #1 [3] [4] so I might ask him about this. I'm of the mind that these things that require so many edits (especially deletions) really need to be discussed thoroughly, so thanks for your explanation. DVD+ R/W 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And a suggestion, it might be a good idea to have posted beforehand on the AN or VP so that many people know what is going on. Something like, 'we want to delete thousands of images, here's why....' Maybe you did though. DVD+ R/W 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:JoePane aka User:Joepane has been uploading dozens of copyrighted photos, and knowingly and maliciously tagging them as his "own work." Could you please see to it that this user is blocked? Jagvar 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the congrats. :-) I'll use the mop/flamethrower responsibly. Best regards.--Húsönd 20:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you for the message on my talk page. I was just looking at Category:Images with unknown source, and wondering just what to do with images that have no source information but do list a GFDL-self license. While AGF would be cause for leaving such images I have seen GFDL-self abused. Any advice you could give me would be appreciated. -- Donald Albury 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, thanks for the nice looking advice on my talk page. -- Lost^(talk) 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just noticed that you deleted the photo on Milton Friedman. Just curious, what was wrong with it? You can answer here, I'll watch your talk page AdamSmithee 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I (think I) got it. In the meantime I found out about Flickr and found this. How can I tell if it is free? If it is, can I crop friedman out of it, and how? Hope you can help with the questions. AdamSmithee 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not free, unfortunately. You can tell because of the little "all rights reserved" sign. But I sent the photographer an e-mail that said the following:

If she agrees, then it's a free image. If not, we'll have to keep searching. Thanks for looking! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironic update: Mr. Friedman died today. As such, the photo now passes all our fair use requirements. I have restored it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More like a tragic update. May he rest in peace AdamSmithee 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded the now-free photo of Milton Friedman, which is great. My question is whether you used the large version of the original photo to crop Friedman? As, otherwise, we could easily obtain a higher quality pic from the higher res photo AdamSmithee 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did use the highest-resolution photo available on Flickr. It is pretty low res, though. I'll e-mail the photographer and ask her if she has a higher res copy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not :-(. However, this is good enough in the end AdamSmithee 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this deletion. You had your facts wrong on that one, but since you unilaterally went ahead and deleted it ... well ... too bad you didn't open it up for comment. --evrik ^(talk) 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the case, I endorse this deletion. No serious case for non-replaceability was raised, and Quadell's action was entirely appropriate. --Robth^Talk 04:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• it's too bad the rest of us can't look at the page to evaluate the argument. --evrik ^(talk) 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect you were fully aware of the discussion's contents, given that you were involved throughout it, but I have undeleted the talk page on the off chance that anyone wants to examine the case. --Robth^Talk 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yup, i know what was said, but since I'm not an admin i couldn't look at the deleted image. Now, since my last posting I contacted Ray Suarez and asked about the use of the image. I have the emails from the Newshour discussing the use of this image and giving permission for Wikipedia to use it. I haven't written about this prior because their seems to be no response to my last posting. I was waiting for a response, but there was none. This is why I found the deletion of the image to be surprising.--evrik ^(talk) 16:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 Thanks for the links and clear explanation! Very useful and appreciated, and I will be helping out.

Now, a question. On the speedy delete page for graphics, I'm finding some graphics that are in non-replace fair use but are tagged for speedy deletion because their license is Wikipedia-only. Yet if they were just straight-out copyrighted and used without permission (for fair use, and if non-replacable) they would not be speedied. This seems odd. What's one to do in a case like this - delete it nonetheless, change the tag, or what? Thanks, Herostratus 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. A Wikipedia-only license (or a non-commercial license, for that matter) should be treated exactly the same as a fair use claim. Images should not be speedied if a good "fair use" claim could be made. Instead they should have a {{Non-free fair use in}} tag added, and a fair use rationale. However, if the image would obviously not pass our fair-use policy (like a map or a drawing that could be remade), then there's no point in making a fair use claim. In general, a mistagged image shouldn't be deleted (but retagged instead) if it could pass under a different tag. Thanks for helping out! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. (Maybe you could be in chage of Munich-related photos)? Kingjeff 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Martinp23 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will proceed with care when using these tools, and hopefully will not disappoint fellow editors and administrators with the decisions I take. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You recently deleted Image:RezaPahlaviII.jpg with the reason: "Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 5 November 2006." However, the image was properly tagged as publicity photograph and no free image can be found right now. ♠ SG →Talk 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct. Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean someone should dig up the Shah's skeleton and take a digital photo of it? That might be difficult, though not impossible. Perhaps it could make for an interesting project for this year's group of Skull and Bones initiates. Badagnani 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The image in question was of Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, who is alive and visible without the assistance of shovels. Please check your facts before making pithy comments of this sort. --Robth^Talk 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's confusing how you pick and set the right copyright flags/tags. I obtained the written permission of the copyright owner to put the image on wikipedia. I don't know how to set that from the options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojl (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, having permission to use the image on Wikipedia isn't enough. Because Wikipedia is free and open content, we try to only use images which are also "free", in the sense that anyone can use them for any reason. If the copyright-holder will allow anyone to use the photo for any reason -- including modifying it and using it for commercial purposes -- then we can use it. But if not, then we can't use it, even if we have permission to use it specifically on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the situation with Image talk:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg, Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg and User_talk:PageantUpdater#Vanessa_Marie_Semrow. I feel I was tricked by an underhand move and I'm not happy with the behavious of Abu Badali in the slightest. I know that comment borders on a breach of AGF but I'm very unhappy with what he is insinuating. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look over it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Rosetta Stone was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may wish to post them at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns. -- Jreferee 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the comments made already. Rebecca is Rebecca. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a whole bunch of replaceable fair use images uploaded by Badagnani, fair use disputed, the uploader is claiming pretty vociferously that the images are allowable. Partly to placate him, give him his day in court so to speak, and partly to make sure I'm doing the right thing, I opened an RfC on the matter, here: User talk:Herostratus/Image RfC. Herostratus 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be an image copyright guru (or at least an image copyright guru-in-training), so I thought I would ask you my question about Image:IMG 0887.jpg. From User talk:Wknight94:

By the way, not to have copyright paranoia, but does having copyrighted logos on the car pictured in Image:IMG 0887.jpg invalidate its public domain designation added by the photo creator?

Perhaps it is not a problem, as I see there are many images, like Image:Snickers wrapped.jpg, that are billed as free to use. But it appears any image with so much as an eñe of the Wikipedia logo gets a {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} template. So, I'm not entirely sure. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question, and one I have an answer for. There are two issues here. One is that logos generally aren't copyrightable; they are trademarked instead, and trademark law is a separate bit of law than copyright law. (Some logos are copyrighted as well, but most aren't.) Anyway, Wikipedia seems to treat trademarked images the same as copyrighted images, so let's pretend the logos are copyrighted.

So lets say there is some copyrighted material whose copyright is held by Person X. And let's say you take a photo of a scene that includes this material. You hold the copyright to that photo, not Person X; but since Person X holds the copyright to the material, you can't reproduce your own work without Person X's permission (or without making a fair use claim.) You see, your photo is both an original work (which makes it copyrightable by you), and a derivative work (which is why you can't reproduce it freely). If you were to, say, take a photo of each page of the latest Harry Potter book and try to publish them as a bunch of your own photographs, you would get sued. You would own the copyright to the photos, but that wouldn't matter; you would still be publishing derivative works of copyrighted material.

In the case of the Snickers photo, for instance, however, the author (User:SCEhardt) could presumably defend the use of the copyrighted wrapper as a fair use. That would be SCEhardt making a fair use claim, not Wikipedia. The photo itself is public domain, since the author released it as such. Wikipedia only needs to be concerned with the copyright status of the photo itself (which is PD), and not the status of the material in the photograph, unless there's reason to suspect that the photographer's fair use claim would fail.

Now, why does the Wikimedia Foundation claim copyright on derivative images of its logo? Well, legally, this is just a good idea on their part, even if it isn't necessarily accurate. If someone could show, in court, that Wikimedia was not aggressively defending their trademark, they could lose their trademark. (That's one way that trademark law differs from copyright law.) Even though you would hold the copyright to an image you create that reused a logo, and even though typefaces (such as enes) are not copyrightable at all, it's still important for their legal position for them to do everything possible to discourage violation of their trademarks.

I hope this rambling answer was helpful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it was very helpful. That makes sense. -- tariqabjotu 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Users Sebbeng and Irpen, unhappy with the replaceable fair use policy, have decided to go on a revenge kick and make life as difficult for me as possible. I hope you can weigh in on the new RfC they've filed, their latest move in a series of petty harrasments. Thanks! —Chowbok ☠ 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, I don't remember interracting with you in the past but please do not allow yourself to be misled by the complaint of the disgruntled editor. I would welcome anyone's contributions at the RfC but please study the issue carefully before acting. Thanks, --Irpen 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Quadell, I'm sorry I let you down on the translation of threshing-board from Spanish to English. A lot of personal things have happened since August, and when I checked back today to work on it again, I noticed you had nominated it for Spanish Translation of the Week. I'll contribute to the translation as best I can the rest of this week. Thanks. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't let me down at all. There are tons of edits I wish I had the time and motivation to make, and I certainly can't hold a lack of work against anyone! I'm just glad it's the STotW. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the image description page. 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting far too frustrated by a discussion at Image talk:Katherine Moennig.jpg over whether an in-character publicity shot is "replaceable" just because the actress is alive. I'd be amenable to a reasoned argument that the information the publicity shot provides that would be different from a candid shot would be minimal (a screenshot from the L Word would be preferable), but (I think) the objector is instead stating that as long as the "subject" is alive, any image will do in any context; it seems like he's completely reading the relevance of the image's informational content out of the RFU policy. I'd appreciate it if you could pop by and move things along somehow. I think I've given a pretty good explanation of my side, but as he persists I'm getting more and more pissed by his repetitive and conclusory stubbornness and condescension, and complete failure to respond to my explanations. (deep breath...) Cheers, Postdlf 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The position you take seems to indicate that as long as someone is alive, there is a possibility someone could take their picture and license it under GFDL - is that correct? That's absurd for starters as a blanket policy...are you suggesting Wikipedia GFDL papparazzi be formed? And what about the Wikipedia guideline for the use of publicity photos generally allowing their use? - persons such as yourself would seem to posit that guideline has been completely trashed. Am I missing something here? Tvccs 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "Wikipedia guideline for the use of publicity photos". --Abu Badali 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true. There is only our fair use policy. If you read the {{Promo}} tag, you'll see that it too requires that the image be non-replaceable. This policy has been around forever, although it has only been consistently enforced in the past few months. The Wikimedia Board, and Jimbo himself, have endorsed the policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And I see you are now following me and removing my tags unless I add additional material to the talk page without bothering to inform me you were doing so - more harassment. Tvccs 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell,

Thanks very much for your help with the image for David Hermance. I have gotten lost too often in trying to understand the proper tags to put in images. Your assertion is very clear and succinct!

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering why you didn't respond to any of my arguments on Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg in your reply there, when I noticed that you just posted the same message on several image talk pages without reference to the individual issues. Could you maybe explain to me why that image violates WP:FUC #1 in your opinion (with regard to the arguments I presented on said talk page)? --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm responding to the removal of my "fair use disputed" tag without comment on the Jamie Oliver page for similar reasons. Yes, I've read the links from your page, but still don't understand how you can argue that a member of the public could reasonably take a clear photograph of a celebrity without stalking them (which is a violation of several laws, just not copyright laws). If this is being discussed elsewhere, can you please direct me to the conversation? I have sent an email to Jamie's web crew in hopes that they can provide images with applicable permissions, but I still argue that it's a detriment to the articles not to have an image until permission can be granted or a celebrity hunted down. Thanks, Jmdustin 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "disputed" tag needs to go on the image page, not the article page. That's why Quadell removed it. I've added it to the image page for you; however, you'll need to go to Image talk:JamieOliver-SchoolDinners.jpg and make your argument there why it can't be replaced, or the disputed tag will be removed. Please leave a note on my talk page if you need any more help. —Chowbok ☠ 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)