Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

take this up with Jimbo and the Board

I am disapointed that instead of engaging in the discussion and replying to many, many comments on his talk page, Ta bu shi da yu boilerplate responce seem to be 'take this up with Jimbo and the Board'. This looks like 'let's scare them with big names, and maybe they'll drop the issue'. Now, I assume good faith and so I don't think this was the primary reason why Ta bu shi da yu adopted this responce - but I'd like to hear from him his own reason for doing so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a Board issue. Deleting copyright violations might be, but the exact way in which that is done (speedy deletion versus other processes) is up to the community to make policies and procedures about. Take it up with CSD, not the Board. Angela. 23:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. Might I point out that it will be the board who will have to deal with legal issues if someone sues Wikimedia for copyright violations. Inaction from the board on this issue could be detrimental to Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a policy against copyright violations. I'm saying the exact way those are handled and whether they're discussed for 7 days before being deleted doesn't need to be a Board decision (unless we've had an actual DMCA notice, in which case the policy wouldn't apply and they'd be deleted instantly). Angela. 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to discuss clear copyright violations and misuse of fair use? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't need to be discussed, then the policies ought to reflect that, but CSD doesn't currently allow speedy deletion of fair use images. I'm saying the community should change that, not the Board. Don't confuse the fact I don't want this to be a Board decision with the idea that I don't want the policy to exist. Angela. 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, have taken your advise and made an amendment to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment. I am no policy maven, whether this is the right/wrong way of proposing the amendment I don't know. If I could get your assistance on making this happen, that would be great. Thanks Angela! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Who decided that this was suddenly now the case? You? Obviously, these images were not "clear" copyright violations or they would have been gone long ago without incident. Many of them had been up, on popular articles, with no controversy, since 2003. Uris 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Almost none of those images were compliant. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost none were compliant? That means you speedy-deleted at least some that were compliant... Uris 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true. I deleted one image inappropriately which was promptly reuploaded. I think you should bare in mind that none of my deletions are undoable. I also note that it was one image in several hundred I have so far deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So one. That you know about. So far. Why do I get the feeling that you are likely to have made more mistakes? Now it is more obvious than ever: speedy-deleting this many images was pretty stupid. Uris 13:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not engaging you in debate any more. I've told you that they didn't have fair use rationales, I told you they weren't used correctly in articles. You can see ALL of those things for yourself (yes, you can ask an admin to undelete any of the image description pages to check it out). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of work you've created for me if I were to do that one by one. Uris 14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No more work than if I'd listed each one on IFD. You asked how you could check my decisions were correct. Here's a way of telling. You asked for it, now you say it's too much work. Which is it? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is more work than IFD, unless everyone is an admin. I, for one, am not and have no desire to be! Also, I said that's a lot of work, not "too much" work. Please read more carefully. Uris 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind what that I'm about to say below, as this appears to be mostly about how this was done I'd also like a slightly more expository response from the big fish. Was there some emregancy, or was the suspicion that the normal methods wouldn't work, or was it just "this is obvious, let's not stuff around"? He's not known (to me at least) as a rouge, and of course gets the benefit of the doubt, but "talking is hot" as some have said. - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is so hot. Mike H. That's hot 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Desired outcome

Err, what is it? Just a nice concise explanation of how we're defining the "success conditions" for this RfC, please.
brenneman^{T}{L} 23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In my view, a succesful RFC will kick off action on enforcing tighter fair use rationale enforcement. I would propose that a more restrictive policy that enforces the exist Wikipedia:Fair use criteria be started. Something along the lines of the non-commercial and commercial image deletion edicts that Jimbo gave. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming he was not asking for the desired outcome of the "accused". Another desired outcome may be that Ta bu shi da yu be reprimanded in some way for ignoring the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times over, or perhaps just to serve as a warning to other self-appointed vigilantes to read the rules of Wikipedia before deleting everything in sight (and also to use "Edit summary" as a chance to provide rationale to users who find that many articles are suddenly deprecated). Uris 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. RfC isn't to reprimand people. Discussion about Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment would be a far more useful outcome. Angela. 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR could just as easily justify Willy on Wheels; but as for the RfC, it is serving out its purpose, for me. It'll be interested to see, however, if Jimbo Wales comes to TBSDY's aid with the cloak-and-dagger email, since TBSDY referred all questioning to him... or if TBSDY is in fact all alone here. Uris on Wheels 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Citeing WP:IAR justifies nothing. Probably the reason people tend not to do so any more.Geni 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Uploading fair use images and not complying with Wikipedia:Fair use criteria also justifies nothing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So who is the judge of when this has occurred? You, a sole judge and jury, deleting what you see fit without any reasoning given? How can anyone tell if you were right or wrong in each deletion, when we can't see the images nor why you deleted them? Uris 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have told you: all the images I deleted had no fair use rationale, most had no source and almost all were being used to illustrate an article. All of these things are things you can see, or if you need to get an admin to show you. Check the deletion log, pick any image and ask an admin to temporarily undelete the image description page. This is you can see for yourself. Now it's my turn to question you. What gives uploaders the right to upload other people's copyrighted work? This could be seen, and in most jurisdictions actually is, a form of theft. Why do you think that Wikipedia actually wants fair use images? We don't, in fact, we only tolerate them if nothing else will do. I strongly suggest you look at Wikipedia's aims and objectives again. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you are speaking for all Wikipedians as "we" but you have shown no willingness to follow Wikipedia's accepted rules or processes. That's kinda funny. :) Uris 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, go away troll. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... no, you! Uris 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Private communications with Jimbo Wales

The person deleting the Time (magazine) thunbnails claims he has a private communication from Jimbo Wales authorizing him to make the deletions. The Wikimedia foundation does not communicate policy to individuals by email. It delivers policy decisions through the Wikimedia Foundation protected namespace. Any claims of private communications are absurd. Anyway, the battle is already over, the images have already been deleted. In image deletion policy the deleter always wins, since the images and their position in Wikipedia are not always preserved or are difficult to establish again using the Waybackmachine or other archives. A deletion takes a few seconds, restoration takes minutes, if the image was lucky enough to archived. It was a very clever, and powerful power grab. They must have Karl Rove as their advisor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If the board, ArbCom or Jimbo Wales feels I have been unreasonable or abusing my admin powers, they are welcome to desysop me. I would hope they won't. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some sort of evidence that you have been instructed to circumvent our existing policies? If you had an e-mail that said, "Our fair use policy is all buggered up, feel free to ignore it," I'd be completely satisfied with your appeals to external authority. --Fastfission 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If ArbCom or Jimbo gives me permission to republish the email, I will. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked either of them for permission? Uris 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And they said you can't post the email? Or have none of them responded to you? Uris 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Noone has responded yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What good is a cut and pasted email? How would anyone prove it was, or was not, a forgery? That's why the Wikimedia Foundation places policy decisions in their protected namespace. No one can get an account in their namespace without a vote from the board. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

An ArbCom member can confirm it. Though I don't know what that will prove, if you look at WP:RFAr you will see that they have already confirmed it and have rejected the request for arbitration against myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If he provides an e-mail, it would be his hide on the line if he forged it, so I think simple self-interest would be enough to prevent that as a likely option. --Fastfission 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, a little issue like my honour would prevent me from doing this, along with the fact that I am not a dishonest person would be nice. I think my reputation and past actions on this site would prove this. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should just assume good faith. Angela. 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you say that recognizing the supreme irony inherent. Jkatzen 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't, perhaps you could help us understand? ... If you're claiming that TBSDY is failing to assume good faith, you're off the mark: it's no failure to assume good fath to accept that people don't understand or accept copyright and are making mistakes. TBSDY knows that people are not intending to crap up the project, we're not talking about him banning anyone, but he also knows that he can't allow it to be crapped up.--Gmaxwell 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I mention it because he explicitly at one point said that an editor's good faith was irrelevant when deciding fair use (which is, incidentally, inconsistent with how courts tend to view it). Jkatzen 09:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because when someone makes a fair use claim we disagree with it isn't because we are failing to assume good faith, it is because we believe they intend well but have made a mistake. Will you next claim that TBSDY might have made a mistake and that he didn't actually talk to Jimbo? It's an entirely differen't matter. A court would indeed care about intentions, but a process in which an ignorant person created a violation, a Wikipedia administrator pointed out the violation, and then we voted to keep the violation "because it is low risk" and actually kept it, would not be viewed as anything but willful infringement. This is the sort of outcome that we get from our normal process that was bypassed here.--Gmaxwell 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Do you really think a court of law will take into account an editors good faith motives for uploading a copyrighted image? I think you miss the point here: for legal matters we don't assume good faith. For all other matters, we try very hard to. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A court will consider intentions in handing out the damages, but that would easily be offset by our negligence which would be easy to demonstrate. Also, the intended use is a consideration, i.e. if you intend to publish part of a work for a purpose of the sort fair use is intended to permit but you mistakingly included enough, through no great negligence, to replace the orignal work in the market place, it would be hard to call your action overly damning... but thats not really what we're discussing here, the basic use here... using the copyrighted works to illustrate articles which are not about the copyrighted work itself, isn't anywhere close to a permitted use. --Gmaxwell 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

See OCILLA. I find these legal arguments to be spurious. KWH 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to look at that, but I don't know that it gets us any further. To maintain the safe harbor, there has to be no "actual knowledge" of infringing. Well, that begs the same question that pervades this entire line of investigation: is it infringing, and who defines that, absence a court ruling? Jkatzen 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What Jkatzen said. Wikipedia is actually screwed under OCILLA if we drag our feet when copyright violations are brought to our attention—by any party. Then we've got our own internal fair use policy that explicitly states that we shouldn't be using cover shots for "...identification without critical commentary". Failing to enforce our own internal policies with respect to copyrighted material is another strike against us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Then our lovely article on OCILLA should be clarified, as it states that "The clear removal of the need to make such error-prone decisions in the very complex provisions of fair use may be one of the gains of OSPs from this law", "Actual knowledge [emph. added] is not an opinion about infringement i.e. "I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site, therefore it is infringing"", and "If the designated agent receives a notification which substantially complies with the notification requirements, the OSP now has actual knowledge [emph. added] and must expeditiously disable access to the work."

Also of interest under Interpretation of the law is "It is also useful to remember that … [the CDA] … protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties … Even if a removal is found not to be "expeditious" … and the so-called "safe harbor" … is lost, in many cases the ISP may still be protected."

If there's a qualified legal opinion that speaks for the Foundation, I'd accept that outright, as the Foundation is the one primarily accepting the risk. But until then, this is all "armchair fair use wikilawyering" as GMaxwell described (myself included). KWH 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies

In looking up the applicable policies, it occurred to me that the only speediable copyvio on WP:CSD is that of articles, and specifically not images. I think that makes it pretty clear that the current approach is simply completely out of bounds, but I'm interested in what others think. I have to admit I'm not very sympathetic to the "we must act, and not think or deliberate!" approach since deliberating seems to have worked to create these policies in the first place, and I haven't seen any evidence in this case of it failing (WP:FU was almost totally rewritten not too many months ago to clarify a number of important points, for example, and additional CSD criteria have been added when necessary). I also think that when used as anything but a last resort it really trivializes the efforts of users who actually do try and come up with good policies in an open and transparent fashion (such as with WP:WPFU). --Fastfission 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We have over 130,000 images on en which are tagged as 'fair use'. A small but significant random sampling suggests that a majory may be violations. Users who attempt to clean up violations are attacked on two sides, one by article editors who are upset that we've taken their favorite illustrations, and on the other side by our armchair fairuse wikilawyers who think we should be spending all our time making up excuses for inexcusable acts. Your process has failed. Get over it, and stop trying to get in the way of users who are making a real difference. --Gmaxwell 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! *gasps* over 130,000 images? Bloody hell! We are in so much shit. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll stick OrphanBot on it immediately. At its normal rate of operation, and assuming that new unlicensed images are being uploaded at a rate of around 40 an hour, the last images should be removed 27 days from now. --Carnildo 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we cool it down a bit? You're an armchair fairuse wikilawyer too, only with a different POV and more overwrought. KWH 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's quite right to be concerned. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an effective process for deleting purportedly fair use material

Orphan it and kill after 7 days.Geni 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No. This is no different from orphaning and deleting the image directly. Plus that really would be seen as disruptive, and in fact worse than my action. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. People then have 7 days to object. If they do you discuss the image with them. If they are wrong and fail to get a clue then is the time to get heavy. For some reason when I do this no one sees it at dissruptive. There are other advantages such as the way it allows you to seamlessly deal with the issue of an image being used on multiple pages sometimes correctly sometimes incorrectly.Geni 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The process is broken Geni. If people object the images are kept. Almost Always. I've tagged over 20,000 images as orphaned fair use. More than 99% the the 3500ish objected taggings still exist. People have objected, and will continue to object, over these TIME covers. TBSDY's removal takes away the only good illustration a lot of articles have. The only aspect of our process that works is for images that no one cares about. --Gmaxwell 08:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So? We know how to deal with people who object.Geni 10:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats my point, we don't. I agree.. it looks like we do, but we don't. We can engage them in one on one debate, we win but each cases is days of frustration. It doesn't scale... we hardly have enough resources to deal with the copyright problems when there are no objections, much less when each one becomes a court case. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Principles are difficult. KWH 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Such as the principles of being a Free content encyclopedia and the principle of not violating copyright law? :) --Gmaxwell 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Very much so. That's why I'm interested in talking it out. It's obvious at this point that TBSDY is resolute in his task and opinion, so the purpose in talking it out is to help to better reconcile these principles. (Whether it is my understanding which needs to be modified or others) KWH 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there's irony. You want due process, but heaven forbid an editor should object! We know how to deal with them. What exactly does that mean, anyway? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No the editor is free to object. The problem is when they are wrong repeatedly. Editors can normaly be talked round. If not find another admin to delete the thing and deal with the problem of the user reuploading if it happens. I'm always happy to explain copyright to people if asked (as long as as it isn't a complex issue).Geni 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the objective criterion for deleting a Time magazine cover

If the deleter can tell what is a violation, others should be able to also. Can he explain his criteria so everyone can look at the same image and see his decision making process. It don't want it to be like truthiness: something you feel in your gut. It should be objective. Why was the cover image of Glenn Curtiss deleted and the image of Stalin kept?

• Was it the image?
• Was it the wording in the text in the article?
• Was it the text stored with the image file?
• Was it the caption to the image in the article?

And why wasn't the text changed to what it needed to be, rather than deleting the image? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a very simple one to answer: it's been kept because there are over 200 images and I never got around to that image to make a decision on it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The key criterion for fair use is use. The tag on the image gives a fairly good idea of what may be allowed.Geni 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag is not adequate. It does not take into account all aspects of fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be imposible since we don't have time to get a court ruleing on every single case. Once we get people roughly following the tags we can start worrying about exact detail.Geni 04:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag, read strictly, isn't so bad. If it was I would have changed it months ago. It can easily be misread (see the thread on talk hurricane katrina I linked from my view), but read correctly it tells you that it's okay to use it when you are discussing the magazine... which is a pretty good starting point. The problem is that the misuse has run rampent, and dealing with them one at a time impossible, because each becomes a multiday long debate.--Gmaxwell 08:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not getting objective statements from you. Please explain what fair use of a Time cover is, or are you stating that they may only appear in the article called Time (magazine). Please write a set of rules, so we all can follow what you are using to delete some and not delete others. Show us one you kept and explain why it was kept. Then show us one you deleted and explain why it was deleted. So far you have just said it is not "fair use". That is one of theose truthiness things, that your feeling in your gut, not your brain. Give us a set of rules, or give us a flow chart that determines what can be used and what must be deleted, that everyone can use and get the same results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't mind removing unproperly used fair use, but in at least two cases from my watchlist images which were very important for the articles in question, clearly illustrating them and thus being fair use in them, were removed. Examples:

Lech Wałęsa on the cover of TIME, removed from his biography [1]

Józef Piłsudski on the cover of TIME, removed from his biopgraphy [2] and from May Coup article (the event which gained him international fame) [3].

Especially considering we got a permission from TIME to use those covers, I think that their removal has been quite improper.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that neither of the cases cited above represent fair use of the TIME image. The article text, in both cases, failed to refer to TIME's coverage of the individual or to the specific TIME image. Neither article, in fact, even discusses media coverage of the individuals in question. The photos aren't even necessary to illustrate the articles in question. There's certainly no argument that the TIME covers are (for example) the only extant images of the subjects. In both cases (Józef Piłsudski and Lech Wałęsa) we have free or public domain images already on the pages.

An image is not fair game for a fair use claim solely because it features the individual discussed in the article. It is precisely this sort of misunderstanding (or overly broad interpretation) of 'fair use' that causes Wikipedia problems. Unless the article contains critical commentary closely related to the image, we really shouldn't be using it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What people don't understand is that "commentary on something inside the image" != "commentary on the copyrighted work". We must be commenting on the actual copyrighted work itself, not something it contains. In most cases of fair use we actually comment about both, the work itself and its subject matter. When we only comment on the subject matter we are not engaging in something that would be found to be fair use. A test I've advocated on Wikipedia in the past is the replaceablity test: "Would our discussion suffer if you removed the copyrighted work in question and replaced it with some other work?". If the answer is no, then our fair use argument is likely weak at best. A great example of correct fair use in the context of Magazine covers is the vanity fair cover on Demi_Moore. An example of an invalid use is the covers on Front_engine_dragster, I could take a trip to a race track.. take a picture, replace them, and the article no only wouldn't suffer but it would likely be improved greatly by a more informative image taken with the intent of being an illustration for the article. --Gmaxwell 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Warner and their letter concerning fair use of thumbnails

The only requirement Time-Warner has placed on using their thumbnails, is that they have a link back to the Time magazine archive. Who wrote all the other rules? We are arguing over phantom details written by someone at Wikipedia. Time-Warner is aware of our use and has made no request for us to "cease and desist" using them. If they had an objection they would send a C&D the same way Perfect 10 did with Google. We would only have legal liability if we ignored their letter. And their is no financial liability since no profit has been made. Why are we ignoring Time-Warner's wishes and listening to someone from Wikipedia who is deciding how we can use Time magazine images? Listen to Time themselves or write to them yourselves. This is no longer an issue of "fair use" since Time has given us conditions for use. That is why there was a copyright template just for Time magazine. The exact content of the Time letter on usage should now be considered our contract with them, and nothing else. It should be pasted into the template, and a copy of the template forwarded to the Time archivist for approval. All this internal bickering serves no purpose. This is an issue between Time-Warner and Wikipedia and has been settled. Has anyone considered that Time-Warner is issuing generous conditions for use of their thumbnails because they consider it a form of free advertising to draw people to their website, and perhaps buy a subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)