CZ Talk:Images/Archive 1
Fair use category needed
We need a "Fair use" category. I suggest we adopt the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed 2003) guidelines in ch 4 section 4.74-4.84. Note that Wiki limits its usefulness by rejecting fair use images. They have an odd reason for doing this (to protect future for-profit repackagers who do not currently exist). Our goal should be to emulate the academic world fair use practices, which maximize the benefits to the republic of letters.
- Thanks, Richard. Please do continue to voice helpful things concerning the direction CZ should take in this matter. My own current thinking on the matter: 1) free licenses, first, of course, the freer the better; failing this 2) use by permission, even if copyright all rights reserved; failing this 3) fair use. I am thinking it is preferable for CZ to use "fair use" images instead by permission whenever possible, and let re-users deal with the fair use matter concerning those same images. All subject to change as things get actually hammered out! —–Stephen Ewen 02:19, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- I've watched Wiki get into a terrible bind because it wants to be totally "free." (Free that is for all possible downstream users--people in strange lands who do not yet exist.) That means Wiki editors are NOT free to use the fair use provisions. That's one important reason i've switched to CZ. Richard Jensen 04:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
And believe you me, I watched the same mess and wish to avoid it! But what do you think about this notion I am talking about?
- Free, if possible
- Permission to use copyrighted material over fair use, if possible
- Fair use, if unavoidable
Then we'd allow downstream users to make their own decisions about the by-permission images. This idea does not ban fair use, allows you to choose a considerably better by-permission image over a "free" one, but says you should first start your efforts at the level of free. One little article where free was not possible, yet where fair use has been completely avoided for by-permission, is BSD Daemon. Click all the images and look at the permission page.
Stephen Ewen 11:15, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Stephen. I agree with your scheme. Most of my work is on history articles where items are over 30 years old and permissions are impossible to get. Richard Jensen 15:44, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
The process of forwarding a "fair use" policy will look more like 1) formulating a policy; 2) having one or preferably several lawyers review it, 3) revising it; 4) posting it. Please do not unilaterally change policies that are legal in nature. Please do continue to offer input, however! Stephen Ewen 04:08, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
- This is NOT A POLICY. It's a code for fair use images. I recommend we adopt the Chicago Manual of Style policies --used by many university pressesand journals. Richard Jensen 22:13, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Note on copyright when uploading
I suggest we should place a note on the copyright not only in this help page, but directly in the page that opens when one uploads the image. Something like a list of licenses, among which the contributor can choose, or just a copy of this help appearing in the "upload file" procedure. I would do it myself... but I don't know how!
--Nereo Preto 02:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- Only techs can edit that. I had them edit it some weeks ago. See Special:Upload. —–Stephen Ewen 02:09, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
To read about libre licenses
Stephen Ewen 20:20, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
copied from WP?
This help page has many WP-exclusive references like "commons (Wikimedia Commons), is it copied from there? Yi Zhe Wu 18:58, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
Rule making
No author can impose his own rules on the CZ community. The Forum discussion unanimously rejected "goodwill" arguments especially in the case of google. In cases of dispute the editorial board makes policy, of course. Richard Jensen 00:53, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
- There you go, yet still again, following your pattern of creating a straw man, and then drastically yet confidently overstating your case, which pattern could be cited voluminously across wikis. All two of you
rejectedhaughtily dismissed it without argument, one of you while all but telling another contributor who dared to try enter the discussion to "sit down and shut up, I outrank you". Just like the EC would not micromanage the History Workgroup, neither would it micromanage the Media Assets Workgroup. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:18, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
- one person can't set the rules--we had a dfiscussion of this on the forums, and we have an editorial board to set rules. Richard Jensen 01:37, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
- Again, all you are doing is providing proof that you are viewing things through the wrong end of the binoculars and using language that creates straw men and inflames. This is about creating a CZ:Media Assets Workgroup who will have provenance over its area of expertise. That's a lot bigger than any one man. The Media Assets Workgroup will have purveyance over how media selected by other workgroups is displayed (that aspect of media "content")--that's the proposal, among other things--just like like the history workgroup has purveyance over history material. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:43, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
- Unanimously seems to be overstating the case, but perhaps there is room for a little compromise on both sides? Certainly it was wrong to lock out someone on the basis of such a disagreement. With great power comes great responsibility etc etc. Seems to be recognized now. And courtesy is to be treasured in a collaborative project. Courtesy is surely what this disagreement is about, in its origin?