[WikiEN-l] Re: Use of noncommercial-only images

Sat Apr 17 03:30:14 UTC 2004

What about a radio button set in the form that forces uses to choose
a particular license when uploaded?

Michael Snow said:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>Michael Snow wrote:
>>> We still need to get a system in place that requires people to
>>> provide
>>> source information when uploading images. For the types of uses
>>> for
>>> which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention
>>> requires
>>> that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair
>>> use if
>>> we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
>>
>>While it would be nice to have a "system" that's all database-happy,
>>wouldn't it be nearly as effective, and immediately possible, to
>>simply update the text of the upload page to ask people to give as
>>much detail as they possibly can as to the source of the upload?
>> They
>>can be warned that if they don't do so, there is a strong risk of
>>deletion.
>>
> It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For
> about
> the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are
> uploading
> an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text
> '{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the
> image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing
> the
> source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I
> can't.
>
> Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many
> images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source
> information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two
> fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields
> are
> called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most
> uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is.
> Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.
>
> Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are
> unlikely
> to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if
> they
> change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected
> to
> input information.
>
> We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that
> may
> not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if
> this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's
> not very effective against the joker who says his source is
> "df39rhjufuasl2".
>
>>And we should, again with an appropriate lead-time to allow people
>> to
>>try to fix existing problems without edit wars over deletion, just
>>start deleting stuff that doesn't have proper attribution.  (I'm not
>>asking people to start deleting stuff today, because a good-faith
>>effort to do the right thing all around will take a bit of time.)
>>
> I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go
> through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case
> somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale
> effort
> to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more
> aware of the need to provide attribution.
>
> But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so
> that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a
> separate
> field that requires source information.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>