User talk:Elcobbola/Archive6

Image reviews

I will be traveling, so this decision will probably fall to Raul, but without image reviewers, it is what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC

Hi. I would like to ask your opinion on this image: File:LTG F.L.Hagenbeck Feb 2008.png. I removed the image of LTG Hagenbeck that was in question because there didn't seem to be agreement that it was PD. The above image is a low-resolution capture from the local post newspaper, dated 22 Feb 2008. The link to the source is provided as well. There is no author credited in the newspaper, so it is attributed to the Public Affairs Office. Do you think that this meets the PD criteria and can put this dispute to rest? I apologize for my ignorance, I'm still learning. Also, even for a rookie such as myself, I can see that this FAC has gotten nasty and personal at times. For that, I'm truly sorry. Thanks for your feedback when you get the chance.  Ahodges7   ^talk 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my comment on Sandy's page? Either of those images would resolve this issue. File:LTG F.L.Hagenbeck Feb 2008.png is not sufficiently supported; the source does not assert an author, so "USMA Public Affairs Office" is speculative. The PA office may indeed be the author, but verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Эlcobbola _talk 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I did see your comment. Thanks for going out of your way to try to find a solution to the impasse. However, what do you think of this photo? File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg It is from Defenselink.mil and is credited to a DoD photographer. Its a high-quality image and I see no reason to crop the SecDef out of it, either. Should be no issue being PD I would think? Thanks.  Ahodges7   ^talk 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Please let me know if the images in this article meets all wiki-criteria.

Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally no longer doing article reviews. I took a look this time around but, going forward, I'm probably only going to answer questions on specific images or more general copyright concepts.

• File:Stalwarts.jpg - I'm concerned about the reliability of the source. Who is "Churumuri" can we confirm that the quoted note from T.S. Nagarajan is genuine?
• File:KRWIII.JPG - This is a photograph of a painting (a derivative work). There is no information on the image summary page or the Flickr page about the author of the painting itself (who would have rights to the work, not the photographer thereof). Although the subject (Maharaja Krishnaraja Wodeyar) may have died in 1868, this painting was not necessarily made during his lifetime (as a somewhat silly example of the concept, people are still painting pictures of Elvis, so his death date of 1977 isn't germane to the copyright term of those paintings). The PD claim for this image is, therefore, not supported. Additionally, the uploader's summary comments (e.g. those regarding "busy bodies") are inappropriate, especially for media to be used in featured content, and should be redacted.
• File:Nanjaraja delavai.jpg and File:Chikkadevaraja.jpg - these are certainly PD in India, but we need to confirm they are PD in the US as well. The {{PD-art}} tag is generally for pre-1923 works (these are from 1943), so a tag such as {{PD-US-1996}} would be appropriate if the conditions therein are met.

Good luck at FAC. Эlcobbola _talk 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut (BB-18)

Ec, I'm struggling to catch up after more than two weeks away. I thought (could be completely wrong) that I saw a discussion of the copyright issues raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Connecticut (BB-18) somewhere, just before I left. Now I can't find anything. Can you give me any pointers? All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, there was an extended discussion at WT:DYK (now archived at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 40#USS Connecticut (BB-18)). Is that what you were thinking of? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps also pertinent: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Copyright problem or harassment? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sandy; did Bellhalla answer your question? I only took a cursory glance at this when it popped up on Awadewit's talk page a week or so ago. As I haven't read the DANFS or the article, I'm not really in a position to know whether the concerns have merit. I did note on Awadewit's talk, however, that there would be a copyright issue (separate and distinct from notions of plagiarism) if public domain text is being represented as copyrighted (i.e. GFDL, the license under which Wikipedia articles are published). Such misrepresentation would be copyfraud. Again, this is hypothetical as far as I'm concerned, as I don't know how text sourced to the DANFS, if any, is being represented. Эlcobbola _talk 15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review at FLC

I conducted an image review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni, but the nominator has said that I was over the top, and too strict and nitpicky. I know you've done image reviews at FAC, and I was wondering if you would be able to visit and perhaps comment. Was I too strict? Does correct license tagging on Commons matter for article purposes, or should it be kept a separate thing?

I know an image needs a FUR if it is not GFDL or Creative Commons licensed or in the public domain, but when an image is said to be in the public domain, does that need to be verified or can it be assumed by, for example, the age or career of the subject in the photo?

This was my first image review, so if I was wrong, I'd like to know for future purposes. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthewedwards, for lack of time and wanting to respond to you without unreasonable delay, I haven't looked at every image or every bullet point. Generally, however, your review appears quite thorough and the concerns seem legitimate. I'm happy to do a "full review" and/or find sources or replacements (where possible) if that's indeed a road folks want to go down, but I would need some time and, therefore, might not be within the term of the FLC. That said, some general points to answer your questions and address some comments at the FLC:

• Images, as content, are governed by WP:V. Verifiablity, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. The images may well be PD (intuitively and in actuality), but we need a source to confirm that is the case. To use File:Albert Abraham Michelson2.jpg as an example: we would never allow data in a featured article/list to be sourced to dead links. Why would that be ok for an image? Further, the statement of "The photo is well over 70 years old" implicitly means the uploader was calculating 70 years from creation, not the author's death. The latter is the criterion. Who is the author? When did s/he die? We need a proper source to determine this.
• Commons, like Wikipedia, is a volunteer project to which anyone may contribute. Being hosted on the Commons does not mean a license is valid, does not mean an image is free and does not protect an image from scrutiny at FLC. The featured list criteria and en.wiki policy do not consider where an image is hosted. An image used in an en.wiki article needs to meet en.wiki policy regardless of the technical location on the servers.
• There are works from the American Civil War that are still under copyright. There are circumstances (rare, though they may be) in which civil war era works have been first published after 1.1.1923 and had the appropriate copyright notice(s) and renewals. Remember also that, before revised, copyright law allowed indefinite copyright duration on unpublished works.
• Hosting on a .mil, .gov, etc. absolutely does not mean an image is a work of the federal government. The government is allowed to host and own copyrighted material. In the free dispatch, I used the FTC complaint against Movieland as an example. The report contains screenshots of Movieland software. The federal government, as an entity subject to US law, may employ fair use. See also this template deletion as an example of the huge mess this assumption can create. Additionally, "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." [1] We need a functional link to determine authorship; merely being .gov or .mil is not good enough.
• AGF, in the sense it is currently being used at the FLC, does not apply to image licensing. AGF is not ACC ("Assume Copyright Competence"). Many people take screenshots of copyrighted software and then upload those images under free licenses. Obviously, such derivatives cannot be freely licensed. This doesn't mean the uploaders are trying to damage the project (the actual meaning of AGF), merely that they were not aware of certain copyright concepts. AGF is, consequently, not an excuse to ignore the necessity of proper sourcing. Эlcobbola _talk 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I just spent a few minutes addressing the first few of Matthewedwards' concerns.

• File:Navyacademylogo.jpg is now sourced and has author and date information (and higher resolution, to boot).
• I couldn't find the Michelson image just yet, but I did find and upload File:Albert Michelson.png which would seem to be a reasonable replacement until when/if the other can be properly sourced. (There is also the already-existing File:Albert Abraham Michelson 1918.jpg which is verifiably sourced and visually superior.)
• Found and uploaded File:William Harwar Parker.png, which is either the original or derivative of File:WilliamHParkerCSN.jpg, and establishes PD for the latter (I actually like the version I found more).

Images are often easy to fix; it just takes some elbow grease - certainly better than nominators and reviewers bickering; that's the atmosphere that drives people away from the review process. Work together to fix issues (even if they seem minor) or find alternatives. The encyclopedia will be better off for it. Эlcobbola _talk 16:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I've edited the article to include the replacement images you found, and yes, we should be making an attempt to fix them rather than arguing about it. I'm about to make a start on that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did this, too. I won't do anymore so we don't end up stepping on each other's toes or duplicating work. Thanks, by the way, for that thorough review. List articles can be dreadfully long and it's always good to see folks commenting - and judiciously so - on images. Эlcobbola _talk 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell and File:ManWithThistledownHair.jpg

I'm working on the article about Jonathan Strange and would like to include an illustration from the novel. So far, the only commentary on the illustrations I have been able to find is this: "Shadows fill the illustrations by Portia Rosenberg, as apt as Edward Gorey's for Dickens' 'Bleak House'." Let me know what you think of the fair use rationale I've provided for the image linked above. I cannot fairly evaluate my own rationale here. I really want to include a sample illustration in this article, but I have a sinking feeling that this rationale is not strong enough. I need an objective evaluator. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The rationale reads like one that ought to be used in an article on Portia Rosenberg. We may well see the style of the illustration, but the rationale does not articulate relevance to the novel itself. The caption in the article, alternatively, actually relates the illustration to the novel (the illustrations "reflect the haunting tone [that gives the book much of its ... atmosphere]"). Supplementing/expanding the rationale with the caption and elaboration of the purpose (e.g. the presence of this image serves to convey understanding of the novel's tone/tenor/atmosphere in a way that the article [text] could not) would certainly strengthen the rationale - in my eyes, anyway. Эlcobbola _talk 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PD-FL Gov template

I'm working on improving Rosewood massacre to what I hope will be FA quality. I have some questions about two images in the article: File:Rosewood Florida rc12409.jpg and File:Rosewood Florida rc12408.jpg. The Florida Memory Collection says both of these were taken January 4, 1923. I'm fairly sure that means they're PD. I tagged them with Template:PD-FLGov, not knowing what else to use, though. I'm asking for a peek at the tags to make sure they're FA-ready. If that is not the right template, I can try to go with something else. They are the only images taken attributed to the incident at Rosewood, and it would be sad indeed to lose them.

On a completely unrelated issue, I would like to keep File:Storm at Shark River in Everglades.jpg in Everglades if it ever goes to FAC, and re-insert it into Geography and ecology of the Everglades. Can I use the PD FL Gov template, since I got it from the same source? --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, creation on 4. January 1923 would mean the images were not published prior to 1. January 1923. That being the case, we would need to identify whether they were published with a copyright notice and, if so, whether the registration was renewed. Template:PD-FLGov would be appropriate only if the images are works by the government of the State of Florida (the template's current form is false by way of omission - contrast with the [very necessary] first sentence of the Commons version). Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see an author indicated at the source; how do we know this is a FL government work? The site's disclaimer page says "some of the images may be protected by copyright", so we can't really assume all images of PD and/or works of the FL government.

File:Storm at Shark River in Everglades.jpg is in the same boat; we would need to confirm it is indeed the work of the FL government to apply Template:PD-FLGov. I couldn't check the source (i.e. author), as project ID C660498 didn't generate any hits. Is it really a federal work? Эlcobbola _talk 14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Shark River image: the site is down for a moment. I was just there this morning stealing images from them. As memory serves, the image detail page lists the photo as being taken by/for the Department of Commerce. When I uploaded the image at first, I assumed it was the US Department of Commerce, as a tourist photo. Logically, however, it seems that it was probably the Florida Department of Commerce for the same reason.

I have no idea of the publication history of the Rosewood images. They may have been published in newspapers on January 5 or the first week of January 1923. I am not sure. The news reporting at the time was very unreliable about this incident. I will be going to the library to look at newspapers for January 1923, because there needs to be a section on how the event was reported at the time. After January 1923, however, the event dropped out of consciousness. The images may have been taken and kept somewhere, only to resurface in 1982 or 1993. Am I going to have to wrangle these images in terms of historical importance? It could be done. --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism Dispatch

I was hoping for last week ... then this week ... now maybe next week for Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism; any chance of interesting you in pitching in to finish it up? There's a full talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I will do my best. I haven't followed up because I'm hosting Russians and they're keeping me rather occupied. If anything, I will probably do inline comments, as the dispatch's current style is somewhat conversational (e.g. "We should...") and my overly starch writing would likely not integrate all that well. Эlcobbola _talk 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism may still need more on foreign language plagiarism ... I think you wrote something to me once that you may have in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I recall a discussion about copyright and related concepts (e.g. derivative works) applying to text as well as images. I think the example was that an unauthorized translation of Harry Potter between, say, English and German, would be a copyright violation despite the mechanical translation and whatever creative/unique linguistic choices or interpretations the translator may have contributed. Obviously, the fundamental concept is the same from a plagiarism perspective: one's original thoughts/information/etc. need to receive attribution regardless of the language in which they are expressed. My thought would be that language could be addressed with a small addition to the "Inconsistent language" bullet in the "Spotting plagiarism" section. Does that seem reasonable, or were you interested in something more detailed? Эlcobbola _talk 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That would do it (the Dispatch is already running on the long side). Thank you !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to state that it was good to see you roaming about recently. Don't be a stranger! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. It's quite a challenge to stay away when Wikipedia articles pop up every bloody time I Google something. ;P Эlcobbola _talk 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you better stick around. I have plenty of image stuff that I need you for. If I ever run out, I'll be sure to find more just to force you to stick around. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Original image reversed"

Hi, Elc; thank you so much for the work on the Dispatch! Is this a good idea? I seem to recall some past discussion about this, but don't remember where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, can I interest you in looking at the image kerfuffle at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murray Chotiner? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm abusing :) There's a sticky image discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I opine tomorrow or will that be too late? I just popped in to explain something to the Russians and got the orange bar. Эlcobbola _talk 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem ... Chotiner and the newspaper are still open, Karanacs will look at them on Tuesday, and I already promoted the bird, but just need to know if reversing images like that is OK. Thank you for the help !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGE is pretty clear: “images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between [the need to face inwards and stagger left to right] … unless there is a clear advantage to the reader”. I recall seeing more detailed discussions in the past, but am not sure where. In this case, I suppose I don’t see the clear advantage. Ultimately, it’s an issue of misrepresentation and the MOS takes a position with which I generally agree. That said, it's possible this may not be an issue with images of non-human species (as opposed to humans, artwork, etc. which just seem to look “off” when certain aesthetics are altered). Perhaps someone familiar with the physiology of birds would be in a better position to comment as to whether the reversals cause a material misrepresentation. Эlcobbola _talk 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Elc; sorry to have you hauled you into so many sticky ones :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper

Thank you for your input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper. I have left you a question about implementing your suggestions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it; thanks for fixing that for me! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nassau class battleship

If you have a chance, could you weigh in here? The debate is over the LoC and their "no known restrictions" clause (that tricky phrase). :) If you don't want to wade into the morass, I will understand. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I won't wade in there. OTHERSTUFF and strawman arguments abound and I'm not interested in playing games. A template's existence for X amount of time or use by Y amount of images means nothing. Even featured images uploaded by CUs go down and even license templates used by hundreds/thousands of images go down. Time, purported "vetting" and distribution are not reasonable excuses in this or any such debate.

This is a situation I've mentioned before as being a conflict between "the real world" and what's "good enough" for Wikipedia. In "the real world", you are absolutely correct. The LoC's wording, in this case, is vague/elusive enough to preclude an absolute determination. Usually the LoC will provide dates and authorship information so we aren't stuck with just "no known restrictions". The unfortunate reality, however, is that Wikipedia and the Commons operate with the participation of people who typically lack legal sophistication (e.g. critical reading skills) and/or have not grasped the project's proprietary value of verifiability over truth. This image is, in all likelihood, public domain. The "no known restrictions" is indeed a guarded "we're 99,999 percent sure it's public domain". That's not good enough for me, but I suspect that to be very much a minority opinion. This aspect of image reviewing is far more vexing than the personal attacks. Эlcobbola _talk 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you love being in the minority? I have built a little home there. Awadewit (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

John L. Helm

File:CSMorehead.jpg is used in the above article, but according to the editor, the historical society where he/she got the image lists the author and date as unknown. I'm assuming images with unknown copyright status should be removed? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Эlcobbola _talk 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Asperger

Abusing again :) This one is making people crazy, so I'd like to have the opinion of the best, if you have time. Why can't it be used at Hans Asperger? User_talk:Colin#Fair-use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an implication that this image has been discussed elsewhere, too? Is there part of the story I'm missing?

Without knowing the back story, NFCC#10A does indeed require that we attribute the copyright holder. The importance of giving proper credit aside (and that is quite important per, among others, the quite timely plagiarism dispatch), this also assists us in determining the market role of the image. If, for example, the AP were found to hold the copyright to this image (not that they would in this case, but you see why we need to know to make a legitimate determination), our use could interfere with the market role (see NFCC#2 and the discussion in the non-free dispatch). That said, it's not that a non-free image can't be used to illustrate Hans Asperger, it's that such a non-free image needs to attribute a copyright holder. If you need a replacement image, I've found at least two Asperger images that list the copyright holder. Эlcobbola _talk 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Elc. I haven't followed the entire discussion, just noted it constantly popping up everywhere on my watchlist. I do think Eubulides would really appreciate a new image, if you have one. I'll ping him to have a look here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The part of the story you are missing, is whether it is fair use to use this (or similar) non-free image in Asperger syndrome. See this version of the article for usage and Talk:Asperger syndrome#Asperger photo for discussion. The in/out status of the image has become an edit-skirmish and it would be good to have a neutral opinion. Colin°^Talk 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

When the topic of an Asperger image came up at Autism I attempted to address it by uploading File:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg, a non-free image of Asperger of known provenance that listed the copyright holder. It was a good image: it showed Asperger at work psychologically-testing a child at about the time he was discovering autism. However, that image was almost immediately deleted, using the argument that a photo of the co-discoverer of autism testing a child in 1940 does not provide significant understanding of the history of autism. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. "I've found at least two Asperger images that list the copyright holder." Could you give URLs for those here? If they're better than what I've found, I'd rather use one of those. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my delayed response. I'm afraid the computer on which I had them bookmarked is now several thousand miles from me removed. I'll see whether I can have them emailed or, if not, I'll dig them up again. They aren't terribly spectacular and I suspect, as you mention you have attributable photos, they may be duplicates (although mine are from German sources, as I presumed English-speaking editors may not have consulted them). Эlcobbola _talk 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

elcobbola, the image in question got deleted. I have proposed a change at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content that I would very much like your considered response on. I fully understand that knowledge of the copyright holder is often vital, particularly when judging #2, but am proposing that it is not, in itself, a requirement. In other words, if #2 can be judged without it (such as for a picture that clearly has no market value or a picture that is clearly not produced by an photo agency such as an album or book cover) then mandating the need for a copyright holder is an unnecessary barrier. And if #2 requires it for a particular photo, then that part of #10a is redundant. It also appears that wikipedians tend to make unverified assumptions such as that the copyright is held by the artist or that it is held by the publisher (an assumption supported by some of the copyright templates). Colin°^Talk 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm not interested in polls. There's no legitimate, considered discussion to be had once that road has been taken. If you're curious to know my thoughts just for grins, they are long-winded and as follows:

I understand, to a degree, your concerns, but I ultimately don't agree with the underlying reasoning presented. OTHERSTUFF arguments are unpersuasive. That other images fail to follow this criterion is a consequence of ignorance of the policy and not indicative - as is sometimes the case when policy and practice diverge - of poor policy. There is also an issue somewhat similar to what was referenced in my comments below. While there is indeed no legal mandate for fair use to attribute copyright holders, I believe it would be ethically questionable not to do so. Attribution is not only basic courtesy, it is a core value of our own free content license.

I realize you seek only to remove the mandate, not discourage or dissuade attribution. My observation has been, however, that Wikipedians will largely do only the minimum required (i.e. if the copyright holder is not a mandate, they will not bother). There is a very good reason IAR exists. If there are cases where an unattributable non-free image is truly needed to improve encyclopedia, IAR can be enacted without the need to water down an otherwise meaningful and appropriate policy criterion. This is a criterion we should be enforcing, not relaxing to avoid inconvenience. Frankly, comments to the affect of "no one would know the copyright holder" or "we can't determine whether a media company or artist holds the copyright" are nonsense when the people making them haven't even tried. Mere internet searches are not adequate; phones and post still exist. To use the Asperger image as an example, I have to wonder whether any genuine attempt outside of an internet search was made. Was the United States Copyright Office contacted? Was the Austrian Copyright Office (it's part of the Bundesministerium für Justiz) contacted ? Was the University of Vienna contacted? (This, of course, ignores that Eubulides and I already found attributable alternatives). Inquiries don't have to be successful, but there needs to be an effort. Changing the criterion will, in practice and despite your good intentions, reduce quality and diligence, among others. Эlcobbola _talk 14:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually very disappointed it turned into a poll-format and this was not my intention. I have been trying to get those registering an oppose to discuss because I'm genuinely interested in thoughtful arguments against. And those registering a support by just saying "irrelevant to fair use" disappoint me also because that's clearly not the case. The thoughtful and informed feedback I've got from you and Jkelly have been more influential on me than the discussion on the policy talk page. I'm really not sure what to do now.

In my experience, IAR doesn't seem to apply to image deletion discussions. To some extent, I have sympathy with this: there are rules that are either legal requirements or foundation decisions and they aren't up for discussion on each an every AfD. But image copyright also seems to excite passions on both sides of the argument to the extent that sides become polarised and unyielding. However, my experience with images isn't extensive so perhaps you can reassure me it does get enacted at times. I felt the Asperger image was an example of an image that (to me) didn't have any commercial value because it was really awful. So did it matter we didn't know the copyright holder? If I thought a bit of IAR common sense could be relied on at image AfD then I'd drop the proposal in an instant.

I'm fully with you on the issue of attribution as a core value. But copyright isn't quite the same as saying who created the work. On the back of my CDs and books, it lists artists, photographers (or libraries), and designers. I think they all deserve mention but perhaps none of them has the copyright, which is with the publisher or the design studio. I think it is wrong that our FU templates don't have parameters or examples to encourage this information and make the situation worse by pretending to meet 10a by vaguely saying something about copyright owners. When you review images for FA, would you accept the "probably the publisher or artist" as a response to 10a? Is that fair attribution?

You are right we didn't try harder with Asperger.

Should I be persuaded that the copyright holder be mandated, I'd actually prefer the 10a wording were tightened as it current makes lazy wikipedians just try to get away with citing their source and not bother with the harder bit. Something like:

Identify the source of the material, attribute the artists involved and specify the the copyright holder.

What do you think? I shall sleep on it. Colin°^Talk 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The unfortunate truth is that common sense is anything but common. Although, truthfully, common sense concerns regarding that particular deletion should probably be mitigated by the existence of attributable replacements that could fulfill the same purpose (illustration of Asperger) while simultaneously complying with NFCC#10 (i.e. we had an attributable image, why weren't we using it?) Cases involving images that have no such alternatives are an entirely different matter, of course.

The author of a work ("artists, photographers ... , and designers") receives the initial copyright, so cases where "non-authors" hold the copyrights are going to be the result of a voluntary transfer of rights or the work having been produced as a "work for hire". That being the case, I'm not so much concerned with requiring attribution of anyone but the copyright holder, as, generally speaking, the author and copyright holder could only be different entities with the author's knowledge and consent. Although, indeed, it would still be "nice" to credit them. It seems the underlying question is the extent to which one ought to be required to investigate or to which one may make assumptions (e.g. whether a copyright notice on a CD is referring the the music, liner notes, cover graphics or all of the above). That's really a question on which the greater community would have to opine. A good way to begin to address the latter, however, might be to take inspiration from the common law concept of reasonable person: what entity would a reasonable person acting in good faith (that's "real life" good faith, which has precious little to do with WP:AGF) be expected to attribute?

Images, like text, are subject to content standards (codified, for example, as NFCC#5); "probably the publisher or artist" is, of course, as inappropriate as any other OR. The axiom of "Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion" needs to be a guiding measure for attribution. It does, however, lead to ethical conundrums and (unintentional) copyfraud. For example, the MOBA article is, in all likelihood, loaded with copyright violations. We have an OTRS ticket in which the museum explicitly states it holds copyright (verifiability is satisfied) to works of art that have been fished out rubbish. Physical property rights are not the same as intellectual property rights. Without formal release by the author, merely owning a painting does not allow the museum to rightfully claim the copyright (truth is not satisfied). Эlcobbola _talk 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Colin that IAR did not work for the Asperger image, and I have my doubts that it would work even for images for which we have good provenance. For example, consider this image of Asperger published by WDR as part of a 2006 Quarks&Co presentation. Does WDR hold the copyright? The image has a "Quarks&Co" tattoo, so an editor might presume WDR (or some company that does business with WDR) has a copyright interest. However, the image caption says "Rechte Dr. Maria Asperger-Felder" so another editor might presume Asperger-Felder has the rights to the image, although it's hard to say whether it's copyright or moral right. Plausibly, the photograph was taken by a University of Vienna Hospital employee in the 1940s; if so, whether the true original copyright holder of that photo was the University of Vienna, the 1940s employee, Asperger, or Asperger-Felder, I suspect nobody really knows—and if we want to find out, it will take a considerable sum of money and a court case in Austria to decide, an expenditure of resources all out of proportion to the importance of the copyright question here. I'm afraid that this sort of situation is quite common for non-free historical images, and that the strict reading of WFCC 10a that is currently being enforced effectively means that no such image can be used. Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold. Indeed, of a hospital employee, Quarks&Co, Maria Asperger-Felder or some other party, any could be the actual holder (truth). What we have, however, is a reliable source that explicitly attributes the rights (Rechte) to Maria Asperger-Felder (verifiablty). We don't need to speculate about the meaning of the watermark in the presence of that explicit statement. In the absence of non-speculative evidence to the contrary, I don't have any concerns regarding the morality of attributing Maria Asperger-Felder. I am, again, drawing somewhat on the spirit of the reasonable person test. Эlcobbola _talk 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for your help in preparing the plagiarism dispatch. As usual, your careful and clear thinking were immensely valuable. Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I deserve this, as I was only able to contribute the most inconsequential of copy editing and general talk page whining. Thank you, nonetheless. ;) At least I have some solace that my concerns were ultimately minor in comparison to the current discussions of the dispatch. There seems an unfortunate mindset on Wikipedia (and in the real world, I suppose) that merely being legal is somehow analogous to being ethical. Just because something can be done does not mean that it ought to be done. Copying PD text may not have legal ramifications, but it does have ethical ones. I suspect some of the folks commenting negatively on the dispatch have not grasped that there is an intellectual responsibility above and beyond the responsibility to be lawful. The need to be honest, forthright and respectful of the work of others is not limited to students or academia ("I am not your student claiming it was my work"). And I'm off my soapbox... MfG, Эlcobbola _talk 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised by some of the arguments being made, there, frankly. Have you seen the latest - that plagiarism doesn't really matter, in the end? Eh? Awadewit (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound files

So, I'm looking to start uploading some classical music to Wikipedia. However, the minute I started looking into the copyright issues, I became confused. What is going on with the "sound recording" situation? Do you have some helpful links? Some sage advice (other than "run away, run away")? Awadewit (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify "'sound recording' situation"? Do you mean fixing performances into a tangible medium, or?

I started reading Wikipedia:Public domain#Sound recordings and almost despaired. I suppose I should make my despair more specific. I'll start with the state bit. Does each state really have different laws? Do I have to learn 50 different sets of laws or just Florida's laws? Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, copyright law varies from state to state. I don't know, however, how we would handle discrepancies (i.e. PD in one state, not in another). En.wiki generally takes the stance that only US copyright law need be considered given that the servers are in Florida. I doubt, however, that same logic would apply on a state level (i.e. servers are in Florida, so only Florida law needs to be considered). Practice indicates it would not; I have, for example, seen several debates regarding the interpretation of California law regarding Los Angeles county mug shots. Florida law, unlike California law, places works used for official purposes created by state entities into the PD (Template:PD-FLGov); it would be absurd to apply Florida's statutes to the works of non-federal government agencies in other states. This is a bad example because it deals with specific authorship (only applicable to Florida government entities), as opposed to copyright duration. I think, however, that the underlying idea that this would be, at best, unwise is correct. Эlcobbola _talk 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism

A request for comment has opened about promoting the proposal to guideline. As an author of the Signpost article cited in the discussion, you may wish to comment. Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism#RfC Durova^Charge! 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

AIG Bonuses

Hi, obviously WT:Plagiarism is not the right spot to debate, and I don't want to debate whether it's either fair or ethical for some people to be paid far far far far more than others. I just think there are some misconceptions out there on the AIG bonuses:

Usually, bonuses are based on a mix of individual performance and overall (corporate/division) performance. In fact, most of AIG's business is pretty damn solid, it's what made them such a respected name. Those people deserve their bonuses.

Where AIG went badly wrong was in writing credit default swaps (and some other stuff, but mostly that). The key thing about a CDS is that you don't actually have to hold the debt to buy a swap, you can just make a bet that some bond issue will default - so the total dollar value of swaps went far above the actual dollar debts it was bsaed on. That means that when the risk of a loan going into default rises just a bit, the value of the swap goes down a lot. And AIG was on the wrong side of the swaps, it was the party insuring against a default.

AIG is a primary insurer and has for a long time also been a reinsurer - and writing CDSs is just another kind of re-insurance, so it's no surprise they would be in the business. What became a surprise is just how far they plunged that one division into risks they didn't understand - i.e. the decisions of top management.

But a lot of the performance bonuses were paid to people who actually performed i.e. the people in the stable parts of AIG who did their jobs and wrote profitable lines of insurance. There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't get a bonus if they did their job well. Of course, the "corporate" part of the bonus goes to zero, but the "individual" part still gets paid. Right?

On the other hand, there is the issue of "retention" bonuses, essentially "if you haven't quit to go somewhere else in a year, I'll give you a million bucks" - and those are a bit of a fishbone, but you know what, that's why I stayed here for a year, so pay up please.

Those are the mechanics (as I see them). I still don't see ethical issues. Which particular person should have thought "my next action could threaten the Western economic order"? Which corporate executive should have thought "the economic imperatives to which I respond in the existing market framework will cause cascading defaults that will destroy the Western economic order"?

Those thoughts should have been had by the people paid to regulate the financial system. That's the first stop. It goes on from there, but it's not in the direction of the people doing the jobs they were hired for. There's much more blame.

Anyway, just my 75 cents worth! Regards. Franamax (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)