CZ Talk:Images/Archive 1

From Citizendium
< CZ Talk:Images
Revision as of 17:50, 12 January 2008 by imported>Hayford Peirce (→‎Licensing: WP image restored -- Wiki-war?)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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?

  1. Free, if possible
  2. Permission to use copyrighted material over fair use, if possible
  3. 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)

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to that question too. --Larry Sanger 11:54, 16 September 2007 (CDT)


Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

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?
A question was raised above about fair use and I can't find where it's yet been addressed. TIA -- luke 02:00, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
I replied on your talk page Luke.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:19, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

About authority over image policy questions

Here are some general principles and relevant facts. Many of these are obvious. I just wanted to point them out.

  1. Stephen Ewen is the presumptive leader of a Media Assets Workgroup. This is the case because (1) he's applied for the job (and the only one), (2) he has taken an enormous amount of time working out mostly if not wholly sensible media policies, (3) he has personally uploaded and gotten permissions for enormous amounts of media content, and (4) he's described a fairly reasonable Media Assets Workgroup, even if we might disagree on a few points (I don't know for sure).
  2. The responsibility for CZ content rests in the hands of the Editorial Council, as a general rule.
  3. Consequently, the Media Assets Workgroup, if it is to exist, must be a working committee of the Editorial Council.
  4. The responsibility for CZ legal policies rests in my hands and that of the Executive Committee, due to issues of legal liability.
  5. Where legal policies are unclear, or where my opinion is that there is no legal question at issue, I am content to let the Editorial Council debate and decide the matter. Even when there is a legal question at issue, I'll ask for advice from the Council and indeed from the community as a whole.
  6. Constables have the authority to enforce, not to establish, only certain points of image policy, just as they have the authority to enforce only certain points of article policy. In both cases, the Constabulary may enforce really obvious violations of policy.
  7. Steve, when formulating or enforcing image policy, is acting as presumptive leader of the Media Assets Workgroup, not as a constable. Due to typical division of power concerns, he must resign from the Constabulary once he joins the MAW officially.
  8. Richard Jensen has some authority over image policy and enforcement in the History Workgroup, because he is both an editor and a member of the Editorial Council.
  9. Neither Steve nor Richard has adequate authority over these issues to single-handedly establish what our policy shall be. By design, I don't even have such authority.
  10. If Steve and Richard disagree either about what our policy should be, or how it should be interpreted in some particular case, since we don't yet have a well-established dispute resolution mechanism, they should (1) approach me to settle the issue provisionally, and then (2) ask the Editorial Council to vote on the issue.
  11. Particularly in a strongly collaborative wiki project, like this one, it is crucial that anyone wielding any sort of authority be open to civil debate. This requires, among other things, that people who engage in such debate behave professionally, and that they make efforts to demonstrate that they understand what the other side is saying, even if they disagree.
  12. Moreover, it is crucial that persons who formulate policy--as I have been doing, and as Steve has done for our media policy--go out of their way to seek comments on the policy, and to respond to those comments sensitively and with full attention.

--Larry Sanger 13:08, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Larry's points. Richard Jensen 13:16, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

2. The responsibility for CZ content rests in the hands of the Editorial Council, as a general rule.

At this point, however, it has serious legitimacy issues that I suggest is behind the question, "where are all the authors?". The EC has no balance to their power, except the EIC. The power that workgroups have is ZERO in relation to the EC. The power authors have is ZERO, as well. The EC may micromanage the project, as their powers are not delimited.

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.''

3. Consequently, the Media Assets Workgroup, if it is to exist, must be a working committee of the Editorial Council.

This is, of course, admitting that the MAW may be micromanaged. Nothing works when micromanaged. The MAW must be a workgroup on par as any other workgroup, with responsibility over content: how media is displayed on media pages (the upload pages) and within articles by way of credit lines.

4. The responsibility for CZ legal policies rests in my hands and that of the Executive Committee, due to issues of legal liability.

A crucial issue that needs settling is if CZ will be a publisher of content or a mere service provider in vein as provided for the Digital Millennium Act. Since none of this is defined, and if push comes to shove, an offended party can go after anyone with proximity to the issue: Larry, EC members, uploaders of media content, me as a de facto media person, and constables are all fully fair game. For I think obviously wise reasons, I have been operating under the safe assumption that CZ will be viewed as a publisher for both media able to be re-used and media content in its articles (think PLoS). If it is to be settled and stated within its public legal disclaimers that CZ is a mere service provider (think Wikipedia and YouTube or Internet Forums), then there can be considerable media anarchy, given rapid response to removing offending media when it is brought to an official designee of CZ. If it is to be a mere service provider, unconcerned about people's ability to peruse CZ for media to reuse, I hereby scrap the proposal for the MAW altogether. I say that sincerely, as it honestly just won't be needed.

Other than that, I agree too.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:36, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, I too agree with Larry's points. Concerning Steve's reply, some things can be mentioned. Regarding (2), the balance between editors and authors will be a central and important part of CZ's growth: we are short of both active authors and editors. How does this relate to the legitimacy of the Editorial Council? On a separate point, I do not find it acceptable that there is a veiled attack upon individual members of the Council. Whoever it is, it seems to have nothing to do with actual wrong-doing -- hence the character attack.
point (3). If the MAW were a discipline workgroup, it would be subject to the Ed. Council. According to you, Steve, it should be independent concerning issues of media content and related editorial policy. Therefore, you are proposing that it should NOT be subject to the Ed. Council, but be autonomous.
point (4) These are important legal issues,but you mention only US law. As far as most of use are concerned, we need a secure legal framework that will be usable across most of tbe world. I wonder, in practice, whether there will really be much difference in outcome between the two legal forms. I ask the question in relative ignorance, because I think it needs to be addressed as well as looking at the distinction between legal forms for CZ.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:43, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
Just a quick reply to point four, am busy with other stuff....since CZ servers are in the U.S., in the state of Illinois, that is principle. We have to follow U.K. law, Japanese law, what have you, in what media is hosted and how it is used, however.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:06, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

LMS replies (this is getting hard to follow on the page): I thank you all for your agreement, but I didn't ask for it.  :-)

2. The responsibility for CZ content rests in the hands of the Editorial Council, as a general rule.
At this point, however, it has serious legitimacy issues that I suggest is behind the question, "where are all the authors?". The EC has no balance to their power, except the EIC. The power that workgroups have is ZERO in relation to the EC. The power authors have is ZERO, as well. The EC may micromanage the project, as their powers are not delimited.

LMS replies: I think we have a nice balance of editors and authors. We need more of both.  :-) Also, Steve, there will be author representatives (or, so I will strongly argue) in the Council. The fact that there isn't yet is merely a function of where this change resides in my personal work queue. In the meantime, there is an offer on the table for you to leave the Constabulary and become the Lead Media Assets guy; at least, I'll support you and we'll see whether the Council wants to vote on your appointment. I doubt they will. And then you will be on the Council. This offer and the earlier observation essentially undercuts the strength of your argument. It seems you're saying that you don't respect the authority of the Council because it will not have the likes of you as a member. But it can, as far as I'm concerned. So what's the problem?

Also, the power that authors have is very far from zero right now. That's because this community already does operate as an informal democracy of sorts. They can in fact get after editors, make proposals, and raise issues, which then require large-scale community voting and other intervention (e.g., mine).

3. Consequently, the Media Assets Workgroup, if it is to exist, must be a working committee of the Editorial Council.
This is, of course, admitting that the MAW may be micromanaged. Nothing works when micromanaged. The MAW must be a workgroup on par as any other workgroup, with responsibility over content: how media is displayed on media pages (the upload pages) and within articles by way of credit lines.

LMS replies: Your point about micromanagement seems incorrect, unless you want to say that since every subcommittee of every body can perforce be micromanaged, it may be; but just because it can be it does not follow that it may be (the rules might prohibit certain bits of micromanagement), or that it will be. And as Martin says, the discipline workgroups are themselves subject to Council oversight. Are you saying then that the MAW should have a sort of authority actually superior not only to discipline workgroups? Sorry, that ain't gonna happen.

4. The responsibility for CZ legal policies rests in my hands and that of the Executive Committee, due to issues of legal liability.
A crucial issue that needs settling is if CZ will be a publisher of content or a mere service provider in vein as provided for the Digital Millennium Act. Since none of this is defined, and if push comes to shove, an offended party can go after anyone with proximity to the issue: Larry, EC members, uploaders of media content, me as a de facto media person, and constables are all fully fair game. For I think obviously wise reasons, I have been operating under the safe assumption that CZ will be viewed as a publisher for both media able to be re-used and media content in its articles (think PLoS). If it is to be settled and stated within its public legal disclaimers that CZ is a mere service provider (think Wikipedia and YouTube or Internet Forums), then there can be considerable media anarchy, given rapid response to removing offending media when it is brought to an official designee of CZ. If it is to be a mere service provider, unconcerned about people's ability to peruse CZ for media to reuse, I hereby scrap the proposal for the MAW altogether. I say that sincerely, as it honestly just won't be needed.

LMS replies: Well, I don't like to be mealy-mouthed as I'm sure you all know, but I'd like to avoid making a pronouncement on the "crucial issue" you raise. You have indeed been acting according to longstanding CZ policy in elaborating a cautious approach to copyright issues. While I might be wrong, I doubt that someone becomes a service provider merely by declaring himself to be such, anyway, no matter what Wikipedia et al. pretend. Anyway, I merely reiterate my point: on issues of legal liability, the Executive Committee (and whatever legal counsel we might eventually employ) will settle live legal questions (in consultation with the community, or at least all relevant parties, of course). But if I am not concerned about some particular legal question, I'll be happy to steer relatively clear of the issue. --Larry Sanger 21:45, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

File size

There used to be a warning on the upload page saying that one shouldn't upload files bigger than 150 kb (it only appeared if the person was uploading something bigger than 150 kb). Because of this I was resizing the files I uploaded to Citizendium. Meanwhile, I see people are uploading full resolution files. Where do we stand right now on this? I'd like to know if I can start uploading full resolution or do I have to continue resizing?--José Leonardo Andrade 10:29, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm probably the sole violator of the file size recommendation/restriction. --Robert W King 12:29, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
Robert is not at all the only one--I routinely ignore the file size warning, and have even come behind people to upload higher resolution versions of their file. I'd like to see the size increased to 1.5 megs. Why? Because higher resolution images are best re-usable, when large. Especially if there is detail in the image like most of the ones at Islam, ignoring the file size warning is simply called for. José, I'd say just use your best judgment. Stephen Ewen 13:17, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Photos from Agência Brasil

A good source of free images is the website of Agência Brasil, a Brazilian news agency. All their files are published under Creative Commons License Attribution 2.5 Brazil [1]. Right now CZ's upload wizard does not offer the option for this licence, unlike Wikimedia Commons [2]. Are there any plans to create a template for Creative Commons License Attribution 2.5 Brazil? We already have pictures here taken from their website like this one (Image:535px-Uribe2896.jpeg) that could use a specific template--José Leonardo Andrade 09:52, 9 January 2008 (CST)

I don't want to oversimplify but I'm sure it can be done with a flick-of-the-wrist; we already have a deutch-CC license (I'm pretty sure we do at least!) and it should be relatively easy for Stephen to duplicate that for a Brasil-CC template. --Robert W King 10:04, 9 January 2008 (CST)
I just created Template:CC-by-2.5-br. Kjetil Ree 17:37, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks, Kjetil. But I ask myself, should the link to the text of the license point to Portuguese ([3]) or to the English translation (Wikimedia links to both [4])?--José Leonardo Andrade 04:37, 10 January 2008 (CST)

My opinion is that as an English project, the few people who encounter the image here but that can only read Portuguese will see the link at the English translation to the Portuguese version. So having both links is not really needed (and could clutter). But if you want to add it tastefully, sure, why not. Stephen Ewen 00:11, 11 January 2008 (CST)

important breakthrough from WP?

Yesterday I saw on my WP Watchlist that something had been added to the scanned cover I had inserted a long time ago for a secret-agent novel called The Interlopers, which I have also made into a CZ article. I figured that it was a notice saying that the image was going to be deleted, as WP has already done to dozens of images I've uploaded. I was surprised to see, however, that it was something completely different: a long justification of the continued "fair use" of this particular image. Here is the text:

Licensing

Non-free book cover Non-free use rationale | Description = Cover of The Interlopers (novel), by Donald Hamilton. 1969 edition copyright Fawcett World Library. | Source = Book cover scanned by image uploader. | Article = The Interlopers (novel) | Portion = Only the book's front cover is used. This image is only a small portion of the commercial product. | Low_resolution = The image is of sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original. Any copies made from this image would be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork. The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. | Purpose = This book cover is used as the primary means of visual identification of the book for informational and educational purposes. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. | Replaceability = As a book cover, this image is protected by copyright; any other image that shows the cover of the book would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary.

| other_information = Use of this image in the above article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

Well, I can't make it show up too well, so why don't you go here to take a look at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Interlop11.jpg

It would sure be nice if this turned out to be a valid argument! And that we could use it here at CZ -- I've love to put that image into my Interlopers article. Hayford Peirce 11:48, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Well, alas, I click on link to find that Wikipedia deleted the image.
That verbiage above is what Wikipedia requires for fair use images--it requires contributors write a detailed fair use rationale for each fair use image uploaded. I could bore you with the details of how that policy developed in the project early on at the urging of a certain New York-based Canadian-trained lawyer who was involved in WP at that time (he's a staunch Wikipedia critic nowadays), but I wont. I actually think requiring the rationale is superfluous, and I hope to help make that that play out as things develop.
My own position remains what is articulated in the three points above, here.
Stephen Ewen 00:59, 11 January 2008 (CST)
"I could bore you with the details of how that policy developed in the project early on at the urging of a certain New York-based Canadian-trained lawyer who was involved in WP at that time (he's a staunch Wikipedia critic nowadays), but I wont. "
Daniel Brandt? ;D --Robert W King 09:00, 11 January 2008 (CST)
Someone restored the image at WP -- maybe they're having a revert war. Here it is again, if you're still curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Interlop11.jpg Hayford Peirce 16:50, 12 January 2008 (CST)

Dual-licensing

I have another question. What do we do when people release their pictures under two licenses? Can we just pick one or should we put reference to the two licenses on the image page? For example, when I uploaded this picture Image:Tomb of Henry the Navigator.jpg, I chose the Creative Commons license, although the user had also released under the GNU FDL [5]--José Leonardo Andrade 10:02, 11 January 2008 (CST)

I see no reason not to mention both licenses. --Kjetil Ree 16:07, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ_Talk:Images/Archive_1&oldid=180360"