File talk:MOS 6502.jpg

Image copyright

note: see here for the image in question on Wikimedia commons, and here for my original citation of this image.

I don't see what the problem was with the way I cited this image's copyright. I clearly stated this file was uploaded originally to Wikimedia commons, and that it was licensed under the GFDL 1.2. The person who uploaded this file explicitly stated that images uploaded to Wikimedia commons were under this license. Why would I have had to go find this image somewhere else on the web and make another statement about his licensing conditions? He released the file under the GFDL on Wikimedia. If, for example he released the image into the public domain and then elsewhere on his personal site he had a different license, he still released that other image into the public domain --Eric M Gearhart 03:45, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

The first place we have to start is that you are simply incorrect in stating "If, for example he released the image into the public domain and then elsewhere on his personal site he had a different license, he still released that other image into the public domain". This is simply not true. An image Z cannot be licensed as X at Y and licensed as T at P. So, for example, I cannot release an image under a creative commons license in 2002 and then release it as a fully copyrighted all rights reserved image in 2003. I have already legally given up my rights in 2002 by my act of releasing as a CC at that time. HOWEVER, I can take it the other way. I can give up more rights to an image but I cannot take them back.

The second place we have to start out is in the assumption that a great, great many images uploaded to WP and the WM Commons have simply fraudulent copyright data. Have a look at just the ones WP is wondering about, one of those "deep recesses" of WP that not many people even know about. This fraud is facilitated easily because "CrazyDude" or some other pseudonymous uploader lacks fear of being found out. I am certainly not surprised.

The third place we have to start out at is that images uploaded there are not actually very "free" because of what I just mentioned, and also because of the fact that real re-users of the images cannot safely use them unless they can verify the status of the image with a real-named person. You will not find a magazine, for example, or any reputable publication, using the free images uploaded there unless' they can connect them to a real person going by their real name. CZ follows that model because it is the only legally safe thing to do beyond outright barring all images from a tainted source.

So that is some background. In short, the question is "who is he?" And we don't just "Assume Good Faith".

The image at WM Commons says the photographer is "Dirk Oppelt" and cites the source of the image as http://www.cpu-collection.de/?l0=i&i=1944. HOWEVER, that image page says the image is copyrighted, which is contradicted by BOTH the supposed release under the GFDL and text at his site! So the image has three contradictory statements about its copyright status! Have a look. That is a huge red flag for fraud.

Another red flag is in the history of the image -- its uploader -- a pseudonymous person by "Morkork". That's another red flag for fraud. Still another is there is no permissions page connected to the images talk.

So it requires investigation.

At Morkork's user talk page, we find that a real-named admin brought up the same basic issue I just described. Check it out. So after being confronted with the matter, "Morkork" says he changed the licensing info for that image, which is viewable here underneath his real-name, Dirk Oppelt. In other words, he has one time retained many rights to the image, and at a later time gave them up, the day he uploaded it to WM Commons under the GFDL.

In this case, piecing all this together was possible. Regrettably, this is the sort of stuff we must do. To me, it is a sad commentary on WP ever creating such an anonymous system in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, a great many of those images are really "free" after all.

Stephen Ewen 04:30, 12 April 2007 (CDT)