Image talk:Pitch drop experiment.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dispute replaceable 1.1 Replicability of image 2 Old image option 3 Image should be kept until a replacement can be found 4 Trying to solve this situation 5 Other images 6 Discussed on the admins' noticeboard 7 Now have a reply from University of Queensland

[edit] Dispute replaceable

This is not practically replaceable for several reasons, which are quite clear if one reads the Pitch drop experiment article.

It would required access to a bell jar for many many years

"In 1930, the seal at the neck of the funnel was broken, allowing the pitch to start flowing. Large droplets form and fall over the period of about a decade. The eighth drop fell on 28 November 2000, allowing experimenters to calculate that the pitch has a viscosity approximately 100 billion times that of water."

That's a SEVENTY year experiment, a lifetimes worth of experiment. This is unlikely to be replicated any time soon by a wikipedian. The article further goes on to state that this is the longest running recorded experiment.

Please don't remove this image, it is irreplaceable and therefore justifies fair use. User A1 12:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying the experiment is repeatable. The photograph itself is replaceable because anyone with a camera could go the room at the University of Queensland where the bell jar is kept and take a picture of it. —Angr 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But no one has, so why not wait until someone does before we delete it? It's encyclopedic, we have permission, it fits the fair use rationale... I don't understand why this would be deleted without already having a replacement. Snoutwood 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Because fair use images are only allowed under very limited circumstances, such when it would be impossible for a replacement to be made. The fact that a replacement could be made already invalidates the fair use rationale, and Wikipedia policy already explicitly rules out using unfree images by permission. —Angr 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From the permission blurb on the page, it seems not unlikely that the image could be released cc-by if someone asks nicely and explains our weird image policies ("if you give us permission to use your image we will delete it") well enough. There should be no need to claim fair use on an image of this thing. Kusma (討論) 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

keep-And you think that they will let any one aproche a fragille,70 year old experiment????--Bootstrapping 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I do. Not unsupervised, perhaps, but that doesn't matter. There must be someone at Wikipedia who's a student or faculty member at U of Q who could go over to the building where the experiment is and ask if they can take a picture. The professor in charge will doubtless want to accompany them, but that doesn't mean they can't take the picture. —Angr 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight; we have permission to use this and we are going to delete it in the hopes that someone will go over to the room at the U of Q where this is operating and get a picture? We might wait years for this. We might have them refuse us since our politics are so arcane. I would ask that we hold off on deleting this until we can understand better why exactly you are deleting an image you have permission to use. --Filll 02:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well for starters, please read the contents of the {{Permission}} tag and this message from Jimbo. Basically "permission to use on Wikipedia" means the image is not usable by third parties, which directly conflicts with Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia. —Angr 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is only "replaceable" in the sense that I can probably get replace a fair-use image of the Queen Mother by digging up her mouldering corpse and taking a few snaps. UQ don't let any man off the street go near these experiments just to take photos. Lankiveil 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Additionally, the image is sort of pointless unless a large drop can be observed at the time. I'm not sure what the status is, but an image with no droplet is obviously not as effective as one with a large droplet. If there is currently no drop, and given the large amount of time that they take to fall, then this image is not practically replaceable at this time. Lankiveil 08:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

No, the image is "replaceable" in the same sense that a "fair use" image of Michelangelo's David is replaceable. You just have to go to where it is, take your own picture of it, and voilà. Graverobbing is illegal; walking into university buildings isn't. As for the "requirement" that a large drop be visible, that's just grasping at straws. —Angr 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replicability of image

It would probably be possible to get another picture of the experiment, but the question is whether we could get one which "adequately conveys the same information". This picture is of the experiment as it was shortly before the last drop fell, which was in 2000 (the drops take, on average, nearly 9 years to fall, but the last one to fall before 2000 was 1988), and as such, shows the drop hanging very low.

We must consider what information the image conveys. The experiment measures the flow of pitch, which appears to be a solid but is actually a very slow moving liquid. This image shows the experiment apparently looking highly like a liquid, so any replacement would have to show the experiment in a similar state to truly convey the same information. Now, someone may be able to obtain a free image of the experiment, but it won't necessarily be a replacement. --bainer (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old image option

If the experiment has been going for 70 years, would this mean that any Aussie photos taken near the start would be public domain by now? Andjam 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image should be kept until a replacement can be found

This isn't some fair use picture of a d-list celebrity that is frankly telling us nothing - those are the type of fair use images that should be being deleted (and there are still plenty of them). This image is a worthy demonstration of an experiment in a scientific and educational article - and these points are in addition to the fact that "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia.". Thus this image should not be deleted until a replacement can be found - in the fields of "fair use fighting" there are many many more images that should go before something as useful as this. Why should informative articles like Pitch drop experiment be stripped of a single (and highly informative - some may even argue necessary) FU image when The Simpsons have 9 plastered all over the page - and the "because they can't be replaced with anything else" line isn't going to cut it - 1 still would be enough to convey the Simpsons characters - 9 is just a joke - especially if an image like this one finally gets deleted. SFC9394 10:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The only issue here is whether or not the image could be replaced by a free image. The fact that it's used in scientific articles rather than popular culture articles is irrelevant. The fact that the copyright holder has given us permission to use the image is also irrelevant. The fact that other articles also need to be relieved of their replaceable fair-use images is also irrelevant. —Angr 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair says Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information in this experiement the last two drops were in 2000 and 1988 thats one every 12 years the next time this could be photograpphed with the same impact would not be for a few more years. Therefore the fact that the copyright holder has granted permission for the image to be used is very relevant, as fair use doesnt apply for this image. The image is copyrighted but used here under license for the article Pitch drop experiment. Any person wishing to used the image else where would have to contact the copyright holder for permission. That said if/when a free image was to be found then the image should be removed and deleted. Gnangarra 13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If no fair use argument can be made for the image and it's being used only by permission, then it must be deleted. It is longstanding Wikipedia policy that images that are not freely licensed must be usable under the conditions of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Note how {{Withpermission}} states that permission must be accompanied by a fair use tag, and that all fair use tags require a fair use rationale. Wikipedia never uses images only by permission. We use images either under a fair-use claim (in which case we don't need anyone's permission) or under a free license. —Angr 13:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair does not state that it "must be impossible to recreate" it states "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" in this case no free equivalent is available nor could it be created that would adequately give the same information. Well it could be but that would take 70 years to get to the same point in time as this image or we wait til next drop some time in the next 2 to 6 years based on the timing of the previous one and assuming someone is able and willing to provide the image under a free license. Gnangarra 14:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a perfectly legitimate fair use claim can be made surrounding this image, in that it would be very difficult to get another image that also has the drop. I heartily dispute your above statement that needing the drop is grasping at straws; rather, a dynamic image, such as the drop provides, conveys the intent and structure of the experiment much more adequately than could be seen without. Snoutwood 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra, my understanding is that permission isn't sufficient because, since we're a GFDL entity, our materials must be usable by others; thus, permission for us only doesn't cut it. I could be wrong, though: Angr, you seem more knowledgeable about this than I, can you correct or corroborate this understanding? Snoutwood 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Permission for us only doesn't cut it. We need permission for anyone at all to use it for any purpose, though it is acceptable to set the condition that the source be attributed, and it's acceptable to set the condition that any derivatives also be licensed the same way (copyleft). —Angr 08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to solve this situation

We know that a web cam is set up for viewing the experiment or has been set up. An image from this web cam could be grabbed and posted on the Wikipedia page. However, the quality of the picture obtained this way is unlikely to show the features of the current threatened picture.

Also, as stated above, it might take a long time before the experiment shows the features that the threatened picture does.

This same picture can be found on several other sites as well, as a google search will show. It is not clear if they all have permission, or are copied from the University of Queensland website or from Wikipedia or some other site.

One could write to the U of Queensland and try to secure broader permission or different permission. To this end I have sent an email to executive assistant to the head of the Department of Physics at the University of Queensland:

M. Robinson:

I and some others apparently have a limited permission to use a photo of your pitch drop experiment on our web page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

This has caused some difficulty with some elements wanting to delete the photo since our permission is only of a limited nature. I am hoping that if our permission is clarified or broadened, we might be able to make the case that the photo should be retained.

The value to the University of Queenland to having this photo on our website is that Wikipedia is heavily visited. This serves to publicize the University of Queensland Physics Department, directing attention to your department by fellow physicist, prospective students, funding sources etc. It also serves a useful pedagogic purpose, which I believe was the original desire of Professor Thomas Parnell.

I look forward to hearing from you,

R. Stevens, PhD--Filll 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The web cam image would still be copyrighted, so it would also require fair use, since the current image is more significant, better quality and used with permission the web cam image would not alter the current situation. By being used with permission of the copyright holder there isnt a concern about legal action against the foundation or the uploader provided we meet the usage criteria as required. Gnangarra 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The web cam image might be under different copyright rules. I do not know. It is more trouble to research that issue than just take action.

I thought rather than argue about it, it would be easier just to write to the copyright holder (I presume U of Q is the copyright holder since they have a similar if not identical photo on their website).

Also, if we follow the Millenium Copyright Act instead of Wikipedia policy, we are allowed to use the image until such time as the copyright holder complains. I believe there are international treaties associated with this however I do not know if Australia was a signatory to any of these. --Filll 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia might be safe underthe DMCA but Deglr6328 would not be. In any case wikipedia is meant to be free not "stuff no one has gotten round to complaining about yet".Geni 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia's policy is intentionally much stricter than any one country's laws, and images that violate policy have to be deleted, even if they don't violate laws. Filll, perhaps if you could explain the terms of the GFDL and/or the Creative Commons Licenses CC-BY and CC-BY-SA to Dr. Robinson we could get a clear answer. The main points are that the image has to be licensed in such a way as to permit commercial use and derivatives. —Angr 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Um no wikipedia policiy is significantly less strick than say UK law.Geni 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we will see if I get a response from M. Robinson. If they respond, I will make the situation more clear and see if we can get the appropriate level of permission.--Filll 19:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know about Wikipedia:Example requests for permission? You may find some helpful wordings there. FreplySpang 13:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other images

A search on Flickr revealed the following images: [1] [2] [3]. These two photographers could also be sent a request for permission. --Oden 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links. At the very least they prove that ordinary people can take pictures of the experiment. —Angr 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussed on the admins' noticeboard

I jut noticed that this was dicussed on WP:AN at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fair Use image - reproduction: here's the link for posterity. Snoutwood 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now have a reply from University of Queensland

I just recieved the reply to my request above for permission:

Your recent message to UQ Physics found its way to me, as the Custodian of the Pitch Drop Experiment. There is no way in which I would want to see the present image deleted from the Wikipedia page. So long as the indicated acknowledgment is given, I am happy for that image to be 'used' by anyone with a legitimate interest in the experiment. Would you therefore please spell out for me now the form of words that need to be used to ensure that the image remains on the Wikipedia page, and then will continue to be available for use by interested persons.

John Mainstone

Professor J S Mainstone OAM

School of Physical Sciences : Physics

The University of Queensland Q 4072

and

Adjunct Professor, ACU National

I will now consult the forms or maybe one of you could help me if it is too confusing. I want to see if we can get this permission business straightened out.--Filll 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok now I have looked at the page on Wikipedia about permission. It is not at all clear to me what we need to do now. What next?--Filll 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll, I've emailed you a message you could sign and send on to Prof. Mainstone. It's based on the "Casual" note at WP:BRP, with the gush about "what a great website" trimmed out and the specifics of the Pitch Drop Exp. added in. The key concept is to (1) get him a link to the GFDL and (2) get him to assent to the GFDL. FreplySpang 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And/or a Creative Commons license, which is much better for images. The GFDL has some onerous restrictions like requiring the whole text of the license to accompany any publication. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, good point. FreplySpang 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So which is better? What do I do? I hope I got it by email. I will check. I am pretty clueless about email from Wikipedia I have to admit.--Filll 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5. In addition to better terms, the Creative Commons licenses have these nice simplified deeds. With the permission, this can be tagged on the Licensing part of the page with {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. An e-mail sent to permission-en@wikimedia.org from the copyright holder stating that he releases this image under this license would also be wise. He could also dually license it under {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} which has essentially the same terms for altering and distribution the image. The only issue he might have is that these license do not limit the people who can use the image to only those "interested in the experiment". —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Creative Commons license is probably better. I sent you (Filll) another version of the same email, replacing the GFDL with the appropriate wording and link for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. (I hope email's okay - I didn't think it was a good idea to clog up this page with a whole sample email message. Let me know if you don't get the email soon.) In my experience, the permissions folks are happy to get forwards of emails granting permssion. If Prof. Mainstone replies to Filll, then Filll can forward to the Wikimedia Permissions address. FreplySpang 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I sent the second one. Hopefully this works. It is awfully confusing and complicated. It really does not have to be this complicated. We make it far more complicated than it needs to be I think.--Filll 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can actually combine GFDL with CC-by-2.5 with gives the free usage and entails the necessary attribution requirements. Gnangarra 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do. I sent it already. Getting permission is far too complicated and unpleasant. This procedure should be made as simple and easy to use as possible. Wikipedia has produced another very ugly solution to a problem.--Filll 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the message was sent 3 times by the software (I swear I only pressed send once). Or at least that is what my "Sent" box shows. Two within a minute so that I can believe. The 3rd was hours later, which I do not understand at all. Hopefully it did not or will not offend him. I have my fingers crossed.--Filll 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the permission has been sent to the Wikimedia e-mail address, it will eventually be processed. There is a backlog there. —Centrx→talk • 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to send it to me, as the email that was suggested here by FreplySpang. However it had a couple of links in it, which I did not follow, which might have suggested writing to a Wikipedia email address. I can also believe that with preparations for Christimas and exams and grading etc that he might not get to the email for a bit.--Filll 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that we now have our permission. See? Much easier to get permission than to argue about it. And definitely a University that needs to attract students and funding would want to give permission. It is part of the University mission to spread information and to engage in public service anyway, both of which are satisfied by Wikipedia.--Filll 03:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that the permission not be for Wikipedia only, or for noncommercial use only. Permission has to be for anyone to use it for any purpose, including commercial ones. —Angr 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The best solution might be to suggest a license which is compatible with Wikipedia, such as {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} or any of the compatible Creative Commons licenses (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). Any license which does not allow for commercial and/or derivative work is considered an unfree image.

A image under a free license should also be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons where it can be shared across multiple projects (use the template {{NowCommons}} after uploading the image).--Oden 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of this? —Centrx→talk • 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The status is, we have our permission.--Filll 15:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Our permission" isn't good enough. If downstream users don't also have permission via a free license like GFDL or CC-BY(-SA), the image isn't free and can't be used on Wikipedia, since it could be replaced by a free image. —Angr 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that he had sent directly to WP the appropriate permission. He might have replied back to me but I did not check to be honest. I hate to write him again and bug him. If he did not give the appropriate permission, we can write him again.--Filll 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see it there. It could be there, but if it includes the words "Pitch drop", "drop experiment", or "Mainstone", it does not appear to be. —Centrx→talk • 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)