Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 16

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 16

Latihan sederhana

Here's something I really like about the participants in this debate: Grab a copy of a magazine published somewhere in the English-speaking world outside of America - music magazines, maybe, or fashion magazines or men's magazines. Look at the picture inside. I can guarantee you that you'll find a fair use image in it - it may include, almost certainly some publicity photos, maybe some screenshots.

What's more, I can tell you that there is not much handwringing in the magazine when they include the pictures. There is no editor, seeing that publicity photos are included in the layout, saying, "Do you think we'll get away with this? Are we going to be sued this time and maybe miss the magazine? Are we being critical or just identifying? Maybe we should use photos this is what I take in concert with my phone instead. "In the real world, there is a kind of fair use that is literally taken for granted - no one gives a moment's thought about whether they are legitimate.

Nothing says that taking the original image does not work. But to do something like the screenshot of Seinfeld's much-humiliated episode also worked. There's a page I've created that refers to a number of books, and other editors come in, scanning a lot of covers, formatting them and making the page look a million times better. I will include links, but given the overwhelming fanaticism of the use of anti-fair on this page, I do not believe that calling for that attention will not result in discarded pages.

Copyright law does not depend on format - both are the same across platforms. Nareek 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with respecting our contributors' efforts. If someone donates a high quality essay, they spend weeks to fully ignore the NPOV, it will be removed without hesitation. Your final statement is just completely wrong. ed g2s or talk 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For what do you mean? I'm thinking of test four Supreme Court factors for fair use, which does not mention the platform. Nareek 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be under the nature of the working part. Fire 12:39, February 4, 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 16

Suggestions about image resolution

I appreciate whoever is here can advise on the image resolution here, because the page seems to have fairly low traffic. thanks. Carcharoth 13:54, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions received. thanks. Carcharoth 14:06, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a valid problem here, because the term "thumbnail" certainly does not (IMHO) correspond to many images of fair use here on Wikipedia. Of course the 400 × 600 pixel image can not be called "thumbnail" or "low resolution" of computer standards from about 10 years ago. I still have a computer that has maximum resolution 640x480 pixels... so this says the image that fills the entire screen is low resolution here?

I do not think this is justified. OK, if you're using a monitor with a resolution of 6000x8000 pixels, it's probably "low resolution" compared to some of the other very high resolution images you might use.

When used for "critical comments," the standard is basically a thumbnail size image used when the reason for fair use is the only justification for inclusion. To make comparisons, Google Images uses a maximum resolution of about 150 x 150 pixels.

I propose this to change to max 400px if any, 300px still looks too small

As for 72 x 72, it's small. Soxrock 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

72x72 refers to the resolution, not the size. 72x72 pixes/inch resolution common to web format, 300x300 is common for print. Even having a 150x150 px/inch image is not required, since we are digital, 72x72 is enough. 400px is useless, because someone should see the image directly to see the increased size. The point of an image (fair use) is to give a general idea of ​​the image, not allowing them to use it or see every detail. If they want more information, they can see the source. - MECU ? talk 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mecu, I do not believe that "resolution" or "pixel per inch" images are relevant to what we are talking about here. That number only plays a role when printing images and acts more as a configuration setting for printing and graphics software. On the web, only 2 important numbers are the height and width in pixels. "Resolution" is not used either. I place "resolution" in quotation marks because the same word is used interchangeably for different things (image height and width, number of pixels per inch for printed image) and I think that's what is confusing.

I tried to raise the issue before max-width image for fair use and I suggested 400px width.-- Jeff 15:46, February 6, 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I think what I'm saying is Soxrock just misunderstood. I know you know the difference. - Jeff 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

48 hour policy

Do we really implement this anywhere? ed g2s o talk 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

no.Geni 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my question is actually 'why?' ed g2s o talk 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is difficult to apply in this system. Not possible but not really worth the extra effort. Geni 15:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how that can happen... please explain. ed g2s o talk 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

we currently have a lot of cats that produce the items listed for removal after 7 days have passed. splitting the cats would be a pain and given backlogs might not make much of a difference. Geni 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This will not require the division of categories - categories defined by when the image should be deleted. If we only adjust the tag to add 2 days instead of 7 days, the change will be smooth. ed g2s o talk 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Many things marked changeable usable usage are uploaded before the cut off date. Geni 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then create a rfu2 template. Since the categories are automatically filled in, I still do not see how that would cause a problem. ed g2s o talk 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, with some exceptions, and we're very contradictory. WP: CSDs generally allow seven days, as do various tags like {{fair Used Usage}}. WP page image section: CSD is based on the premise of a fair, open-ended fair removal (eg No source, no reason, etc...). He said little or nothing about insufficient/inadequate claims. But WP: FUC explains, any failure requires removal of 48 hours. WP: FUC even requests the removal of instant unused fair use. It seems that different people are editing WP: FUC and WP: CSD. Both pages of this policy should be made consistent, and then all the "fair use issues" tags need to be updated as they should. --Rob 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy was brought months ago - so it's time we did something. No source/no license image should also be subject to this, but there is no reason why {{orfud}}, {{rfu}} and {{nrd}} can not be fixed immediately. ed g2s o talk 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A large number of images that received the tag were uploaded before the cutoff point. Geni 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A full-hand template has been updated, as well as WP: CSD, to reflect a 48 hour deadline, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. - Ned Scott 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfect timing, this user will expire at 48 hour notice. Messages like this work almost every time I use it, IIRC. The problem is most users do not realize that they can provide this deadline, etc. - Ned Scott 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Libby0-2.jpg and Cynthia_watros0-2.jpg have now passed their 48th period. - Ned Scott 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See Image: Jdokic.jpg for the {{rfu2}} exam. ed g2s o talk 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Clarification

Can someone clarify this sentence for me:

From WP: FU # Photo publicity

" Fair use on Wikipedia is valid only if it is impossible to replace a publicity image with a free image "

Does this mean fair usage does not apply when Free drawing is available on Wikipedia or does that mean it's unfair when there's a free Picture on the Internet? semper fi - Moe 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that means when it's impossible to create a free image. Geni 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So we removed the Fair Usage image based on the fact that nobody made a free alternative not ? semper fi - Moe 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they do thanks /Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We deleted an inappropriate image on the basis that it will be possible to create a free one.Geni 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks a bit silly to me. All that makes it seem like encouraging people to buy a camera and do it alone. Why remove a Fair Usage username when the free one is not available then . semper fi - Moe 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you almost think our mission is to produce free content or something. Jkelly 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We encourage people to contribute their own content. If you allow professional shooting, people will be less likely to replace it with lower (but free) image quality. In addition, Fair Use should only be a compromise for situations where we have no alternative - not as a substitute for free content that has not been created. ed g2s o talk 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

In the image of fair use and the GFDL license

I have been thinking more about this issue, after the above discussion under some headers, and I believe that the problem of whether fair use images in GFDL articles violate GFDL licenses is really not a problem, since the images are not actually "in" articles. The markup language of the article is the relevant "document" licensed under the GFDL; the end result we see as a formatted and combined image is how the Wikipedia website and our web browser process the instructions provided by that markup. Image tags only tell your browser to "fetch and display images with this name here," but this does not include or define the content of the image itself within the markup. Tags are only bookmarks with no fixed content or internally-defined content, and so whether the pointer points to a point at a given time to the GFDL image name, fair use image or copyright infringement image is completely independent of the article markup and is therefore not relevant to the licensing for the markup. This is also why we can consider the text of markup and images on Wikipedia only as "aggregate" (because the term is used in the GFDL license text) rather than part of the same document.

Does this make sense? Postdate 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No - the image database is part of the release. Do you think if we include copyrighted text via template, we'll be fine? ed g2s o talk 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We've included copyrighted text in line with other GFDL text , in quote and paraphrase form, for reasons of fair use and we're fine. Soo, what do you mean? Did you suggest we remove it? - Jeff 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, each image and each article are separately licensed, whether GFDL, CC, or whatever. There is no such thing as "release the image database." Unless I'm confused by what you mean... And actually, yes, I think the text that only appears in the article because the template tag is not part of the article for the purpose of the article's GFDL license, because it works the same way as the image tag - to pointing to external content and telling the browser "show content from this other document in the same browser window when you read this tag." What other documents it is and how or not licensed is not at all determined by the markup link for it. Please also note that I'm not talking about any existing legal justifications or legal licenses to upload images or text connected to Wikipedia at all. My only point is that mentioning their name in the markup can not free them as part of the article license or inhibit the license of the article. Postdate 4:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation makes sense, but at the same time there are so many loopholes. I believe this is a one-hour job for lawyers to convince other judges. For example, if the text refers to the image in such a way that the text becomes incomprehensible if the image is not there, which sounds more than just aggregation. A good shyster might turn it into a bad catch-22 - if it's fair use, then it should be important to the text and therefore violate the GFDL, but if it's just collected, then it's not a fair use. As I said before, we're just a free-content-rich ideologue away from the big turmoil - praying that John Gilmore does not take WP edits... Stan 2:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this undermines fair use because images are very important for article semantic content (which is relevant to fair use), but not for markup instructions. The browser will do something with an image tag instruction regardless of what image is actually uploaded by that name and even if there is a no image with that name. Postdate 4:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I find extreme irony in this regard, since I strongly disagree with Jimbo's attitude about fair use on Wikipedia... But that the pages on Wikipedia are aggregates and separate licensed items are the positions of the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimbo itself. Wikipedia: Verbatim_copying # Fig.

In addition and even if it does not exist, the GFDL makes it very clear and clear in section 7 of the aggregate allowance. WP: GFDL section 7.-- Jeff 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not try to be funny with copyright laws. The most common result when an amateur tries to take final action around copyright law is that they are only required more. --Carnildo 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Before the anti-just brigade usage was too excited about this - let's remember that the Wikipedia logo is copyright and yet referred by HTML we send to every browser. If you take this interpretation then there is no Wikipedia page that can pass the GFDL rules. SteveBaker 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

QED. Played well, Steve.-- Jeff 2:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There are certian elements of certian licensing that have no understandable element for the moment (do not read the free art license will only upset you).Geni 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not buy arguments that Wikipedia pages are presented with text and images as independent entities. The image links and , including external links, are presented as an integrated whole. On the other hand, I will call the whole article, including images, text, and other media including audio clips, movies, anamated images and more probably related to at least the philosophy of the concept of aggregate work.

However, and here's my point about fair use and GFDL still apply, you can only distribute aggregate work under the terms of the GFDL. If any part of the aggregation violates the GFDL, it must be removed from the entire collection. Or essentially on Wikipedia, you may not include images of fair use (or text in this case) that will not be allowed under the terms of the GFDL. In particular, justification of fair use for non-commercial and educational activities is specifically excluded explicitly because of GFDL, as you can not redistribute aggregate work under the GFDL if it is included. This does not change the license terms of the drawings, but discontinues its use and will therefore have a very strong justification for the removal of this project. Fair use in particular will only be a copyright infringement if the only justification is an educational application.

If in an exhausting job something does not work with GFDL, it should be eliminated.

I know there is an alternative philosophy here on Wikipedia which will show that perhaps the licensing of images is completely independent of the text, and the only real concern here is if the image is legal at all on Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia image is under this philosophy a work that is completely separate, and can be viewed without context to Wikipedia articles. I do not know how you can justify fair use under this kind of thinking, because such independent imagery is only a copyright infringement, but that is a separate issue.

This philosophy encourages Wikipedia contributors to push the boundaries of fair use to the end, and gives us the current situation that we have today. I believe that fair use on Wikipedia is too much, and I know I'm not alone here. At the same time it seems as if people who try to reduce fair use have the only substantial argument that fair use should be eliminated altogether. And there are a large number of Wikipedia users (and even more common Wikimedia users) who feel this is the best option.

For myself, I want to strike further between what is currently accepted and those who will only kill all fair use. I insist that fair-use content can (and should) be used in conjunction with GFDL'd content, but the number of situations where this is done is substantially and very limited in part by the GFDL itself. In addition, as with official policy issues on Wikipedia, the number of applications and scope of fair use should be substantially reduced from anything that may be allowed under the GFDL provisions. We should not ride the doctrine of fair use, but rather use a much smaller group of fair use images that will be allowed in almost every country, and for en.wikipedia in particular it should be something that almost every English speaking country will find acceptable in the same situation. In this case I am just trying to suggest that as a first step the GFDL becomes the main limiting factor and to kill, for once and for all, any notion that the nonprofit status of the Wikimedia Foundation is used as a reason to be fair. use.

There are many categories of fair use images that I'm not comfortable with, and I've asked for their removal. But that's for another fight on another thread. Maybe I'm really wrong here, but I do not feel comfortable trying to insert some pictures when it seems to me that they are just copyright infringement. --Robert Horning 16:29, February 6, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Use fair images that violate Rule # 9 on the user page

Suppose we have users who place fair use images on their pages. If they refuse to remove it, of course, we can remove it for them. But what do we do with users who insist on recovering images? Is there a warning template I should use? Will (talk - contribs) 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very obvious policy violation (and they are very likely to infringe on the copyright of the original image as well) - so this should be a problem for the admin to handle. This person needs to get a series of official warnings - then live blocking/blocking. I will accept it through the Wikipedia dispute settlement system. You will win easily. SteveBaker 05:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I regularly remove fair usage from user pages and I have no complaints in a long time (some even thank me..). No need to ask first when the policy is very clear. ed g2s o talk 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Photo publicity, redux

I think it's time to revive the old argument because I have new tactics in my crusade here. I found a high-quality gold mine, which we will never use on Wikipedia thanks to people who are anti-fair use, from the Coca-Cola website. Let me see. Everything is super high quality and this is the kind of photo I debate to include on Wikipedia.

As many people have argued, much more fluent than I have, publicity photos are ours to use and we should not hesitate to use these great resources, perhaps even at their highest resolution. The most frustrating thing is something I just realized recently. Arguments about their ability to replace inherently defective; we will never have an unfair product image (good, modern). Under copyright law, the original copyright holder has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works from their copyrighted goods (packaging, design of goods, etc. Anything, especially since items do not require copyright notice to be copyrighted). This makes photos of copyrighted products , even those you take on your stupid camera phone, unauthorized derivatives and therefore are not eligible for release under what license anyway or into the public domain.

I spent the time today marking a bunch of photos to be removed because they are amateur photographs of copyrighted soda cans and unlicensed bottles under GFDL or released into PD. Of all the people who complain about removing things , Chowbok chooses to get everything on the grill.

Source of the article : Wikipedia