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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

---

• (Ta bu shi da yu (talk • contribs)

---

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Powers misused 1.3 Applicable policies 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this statement 2 Response 2.1 Jimbo's email 3 Outside view by Mike Halterman 4 Outside view by Uninvited Company 5 Outside view by Zocky 6 Outside view by Jeff 7 Outside view by Gmaxwell 8 View: Time-Warner's letter on using the images from their cover gallery 9 View: Another admin should take care of Time Magazine fair use issue 10 Outside view by Quadell 11 Outside view by Steve Summit 12 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

[edit] Description

User:Ta bu shi da yu has been deleting hundreds of images used as "fair use" outside of process. While his editorial judgement in removing the images from the articles is not in dispute in this RfC, he has chosen to speedy delete the images, when there are already several methods of deleting images that are not really fair use, and in the absence of any legal threat. The Foundation's lawyer has previously stated that when in doubt as to whether something is a copyvio, it should be deleted, via the normal copyvio process (emphasis mine). While I think that Ta bu shi da yu's heart is in the right place, I feel there is an abuse of process that needs to be discussed.

[edit] Powers misused

• Deletion (log):

1. Lots; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=Delete&user=Ta_bu_shi_da_yu

[edit] Applicable policies

• Deletion policy

1. User has been speedy-deleting images tagged with appropriate fair use tags on the basis of "blatant copyvio". Presence of a proper "fair use" tag, correctly applied according to the standards on the tag itself, and well-within the standards laid out at Wikipedia:Fair use, should not be considered "blatant copyvio", and not speedy-deleted, but rather listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Currently there are no criteria listed at WP:CSD for allegedly copyvio images.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. See User talk:Ta bu shi da yu

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Uris 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Travb 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC) I got a message from Time magazine stating that the use of the covers falls within fair use. As Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) wrote: "If Time-Warner felt we were misusing their covers, they would issue a "cease and desist" letter to the Wikimedia Foundation." This is simply the case of one well intentioned but misguided wikiuser, who has no legal understanding of fair use or copyright, playing volunteer copyright cop.

   Nice try, but no cigar. Did you point to any of the articles with no source, that were not thumbnail images and that were not being used to detail aspects of the TIME article or cover? I suspect that you would have got a very different answer. May I suggest that it is not myself who doesn't understand fair use, but yourself. Also, we are all volunteers here. I find your "well intentioned but misguided wikiuser, who has no legal understanding of fair use or copyright, playing volunteer cop" to be an ad hominem attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Not if there is a legal issue we don't. What happens if the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep our "fair use" images? Should we then abide by this consensus, even though it exposes us to legal liability? I don't think so. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   There is no legal liability. Read Google v. Perfect 10: If Time-Warner felt we were misusing their covers, they would issue a "cease and desist" letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. If we choose to ignore a C&D, then we would have legal liability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   You seem to be saying we should not be proactive when it comes to removing copyright violations. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   What legal liablity? You are dealing with potentional legal liability that may never happen. You are speculating. You are creating a fallacious slippery slope. When there was all of this discussion going on (which never involved the Wikipedia community as a whole), none of the admins even bothered to contact Time magazine. I decided to contact Time myself, and the representative had no problems with us using those cover photos. To my knowledge, not one of the administration has contacted Time magazine, even after my e-mail. Have you contacted them Ta bu shi da yu? Lets take your hypothetical court case, lets say Time magazine sues Wikipedia, don't you think this e-mail from Time will be evidence that a Time magazine representive gave us an okay? And please lets not talk about ad hominem attacks. I did not call you a "punk", as you have on my talk page. I quote your words: "Go ahead punk Report me. Almost none of those images are lower resolution. I'm not going to put Wikipedia at risk, no matter that you say you are a lawyer or not." That attitude, of acting with imputiny, a "I don't give a shit what you say" is the reason why so many people are angry at your heavy-handed tactics. My comments were not ad hominem attacks. I only expressed my legitamate concern here for your knowledge, or lack of knowledge of copyright law. Copyright is the central issue here, isn't it? I know this is difficult to grasp, but Wikipedia will survive and flourish just fine without your paternilistic, midguided "protection". I have asked repeatedly to see the conversations which decided this policy--and no one has presented them...I will ask you again Ta bu shi da yu, where is the policy? Where on wikipedia does it specifically say that select Time magazine covers which Ta bu shi da yu decides are not fair use? I have repeatly asked you, and several other admins, and no one has ever presented these converstations or the new policy Travb 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

   I have already answered this question numerous times. Stop asking it if you can't be bothered to read! Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Fastfission 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC). If there are problems with our fair use policies and procedures, they should be changed, not circumvented. User's response that we should take it up with Jimbo Wales is, I think, a bit out of order, given that to my knowledge Jimbo has not yet granted him the ability to circumvent our pre-existing policies on deletion and fair use. If it turns out that authority has been granted, it would be nice to see evidence of this, and we could change policy accordingly.
5. Kwh 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)(See below) Agree substantially with Fastfission. "Kicking it upstairs" is not a valid response in the face of direct questions regarding conduct. I respect TBSDY but his conduct could be construed as avoiding questions because he wishes to elevate his POV on the issue even above consensus. If there is a "clear and present danger" of legal liability to the project due to {{TIME}} fair use, then the Foundation should just do a database query and delete all {{TIME}} images; less contentious and saves work.

   ?!? not all TIME images are copyright violations. Some are being used legitimately. I have not deleted those images. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   What is the difference between the ones you did and did not delete? Numerous people have asked you this numerous times, and you seem unable to distinguish the characteristics of those you did delete from those you did not. Uris 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   The ones I deleted were being used to illustrate the subject in the article, with no discussion of the TIME cover or associated TIME piece in the Wikipedia article. They also had no fair use rationale and more than a few had no source. The ones with no rationale but that looked like they might be legit I listed on IFD. Of the few that had fair use criteria, were used to illustrate the TIME cover or article and which listed fair use criteria I have left alone. Sound reasonable? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   It would have been reasonable by me, if you had been upfront about it from the beginning, or used edit summaries to justify it. Since you have admitted to speedy-deleting at least one legitimately used fair use cover that had to be re-uploaded, your odd behavior is certainly very questionable. Uris 13:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   There is nothing odd about my behaviour. We had a clear issue with TIME images. Have a look at a few critics sites and you'll quickly realise that they picked up on our current copyright violation situation. Each one of those images that I deleted (with one exception) was a clear copyright violation. I performed a perfectly normal, and absolutely essential, administrative action when I deleted those images. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Almost everyone would disagree that what you did was "normal" since it circumvented all existing rules and processes and relies on a missing secret email from Jimbo Wales as justification. Uris 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I have the support of the vast majority of administrators on this site. If you don't believe me, ask at WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

6. The way I see it, the rules and procedures of wikipedia exist for when Ignore All Rules caused more problems with a situation than it fixed and Being Bold has stepped on one too many toes (or you know it will in advance) Rules are there to ignore them until we need them, and use them when we must or know it would be best. Mass speedy deletion of images tagged as fair use as "blatant copyvio" without any due process is the sort of things our rules exist to regulate. With evidence brought to light that Time magazine agrees with fair use of thumbnail images of covers, there really is no reason to delete these images, especially since deleting an image is much harder to undo than simply reverting a page edit, or even undeleting a deleted article. If there was a legitimate spectre of legal action, such as Time Magazine (or other relevant copyright holders) taking issue with an image on wikipedia, the need for immediate action would be clear, but without it, it's well intentioned but overzealous copyright policing. --Wingsandsword 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Jkatzen 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) In many cases I think that there is an implicit connection between the Time cover and the subject of the article that would satisfy either Fair Use or Time's general license for use of its images. Given this, going through the normal processes would give the article authors a chance to alter their article to better reference the image. Unfortunately, the benefit of the doubt rarely seems to have been given to the editors, and so they're left with no option to write in such a better reference or chance to find a different image. It just seems like it's such a rushed purge, especially for something in which there are differences in opinion on *definitions*.
8. In my particular situation, I had posted a 1967 cover of Time to illustrate the article 12th Street riot. The cover depicts blacks as looters while white people are depicted as community leaders, firefighters and police officers. The jpg file is 46 kb, barely large enough so you can see the racial differences. The Time article exemplified this attitude and was used to illustrate this perception within the media and was discussed in the article. While Ta bu shi da yu eventually acknowledge that the photo was on-point, it was only after excoriating me on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 25 (in violation of WP:CIVIL that he decided to read the article. Although the fair use was eventually conceded, Ta bu shi da yu still stated that the resolution at 46 kb was still too high and that the item should be deleted. I asked him how, if 46 kb is "too high," why was it that he had not tagged other Time photos I pointed out were well over 100 kb resolution. I asked specifically what the "bright line" on photo size is so that I could rely upon in the event there was another Time cover appropriate to the topic. So far, I have not gotten a response to either inquiry. I understand that Wikipedia needs to keep its own self-protection paramount, but the way to do this should not be for someone to arbitrarily identify and delete items that are permitted by fair use. From a review of his talk page, Ta bu shi da yu -- who I understand lives in Oceania -- has had verbal wrangles with U.S. attorneys where Ta bu shi da yu claims they don't know what they are talking about. I am a U.S. attorney myself and I represent a large newspaper chain where fair use issues come up all the time. I am not reckless in the least bit about posting images that fall outside those parameters. My hope is that Ta bu shi da yu will somehow be limited in performing these edits since it is unclear that he even knows what he is doing. Jtmichcock 18:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   The image is still too large. We need thumbnails. Talk soon, except to say one thing: I didn't delete that image summarily. I took it to IFD. You can't have a go at me for this. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   I am impressed, Ta bu shi da yu seems to know the exact legal dimension of what a thumbnail should be, when the entire US legal community does not. The Appelate court in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation did not define what size thumbnail should be, I quote the info on wikipedia: It appears that US search engines may use thumbnails of images (size limits not determined). I would be interested how Ta bu shi da yu decided that 46kb is too large, what case law is he relying on? Once again, Ta bu shi da yu says: I took it to the IFD, and we should just trust him. Where is this converstation between Ta bu shi da yu and the IFD? What size did the IFD decide on, or is Ta bu shi da yu just using his own judgement to decide? This case between Jtmichcock and Ta bu shi da yu shows an excellent example of how Ta bu shi da yu deals with criticism. Ta bu shi da yu is proven wrong, and instead of admitting he is wrong, and apologizing, he attacks the user, using a different tactic, stating this time, the image is to big. I thought admins were supposed to be more level headed and not so quick to anger. AGAIN: I have asked repeatedly to see the conversations which decided this policy--and no one has presented them...I will ask you again Ta bu shi da yu, where is the policy? Where on wikipedia does it specifically say that select Time magazine covers which Ta bu shi da yu decides are not fair use? I have repeatly asked you, and several other admins, and no one has ever presented these converstations or the new policyTravb 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

   I have already answered this question numerous times. Stop asking it if you can't be bothered to read. Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

9. Stan 02:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC). While the goal is admirable, the method is poor, especially considering that people are in the middle of engaging the magazine in coming up with something mutually acceptable, which would be a huge win and settle things. Instead of engaging the participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, who have been working on these issues for some time, TBSDY has chosen to act on his idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules. While in some cases he has acted correctly, it's setting a bad precedent; what's to stop him deciding tomorrow that logos or album covers are evil and deleting hundreds or thousands of them? What's to stop me from deciding that commons's stricter rules on PDness are better than en:'s, and running a bot to delete every image that falls short? Part of the trustworthiness we claim for admins is that they act thoughtfully rather than hastily, and this mass speedy deletion just doesn't look like thoughtful behavior.

   It is because the users involved in Wikiproject fair use have been ignoring these problems for some time that we have come to this. WikiProject Fair Use has demonstrated almost no interest in removing violations. The project is primarily concerned with producing justification for our currently existing uses. --Gmaxwell 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

   Imagine that, not everybody has the same opinion as you. Who needs consensus when you can just declare it a failure? Stan 13:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, fancy that. Tell it to a judge ruling on copyright violations. I doubt he'll care about our consensus to keep copyrighted images. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

10. Speedy deletion is the wrong way to go. Stifle 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I invite all editors to discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if they feel that I have been unfair in my deletions. I welcome the RFC because it might make known the issue of fair use licensing being abused on images. This RFC might even encourage other admins to delete fair use images if fair use is being abused. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Ta bu shi da yu 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Too much text is deleted with a mistaken complaint of "copyvio"; while too little effort is going into adequate justification for why a specific image used in a specific way in a specific article qualifies as fair use. Further, the total-sum of use of materials from a single source across multiple articles and their consequences on future possible revenue sources for the copyright holders is inadequately considered. WAS 4.250 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
3. I was online when Ta bu shi da yu approached me for help. I helped him to get in touch with those arbitrators who were then available, and with Jimbo Wales who later showed up. He did the right thing. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
4. SqueakBox 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's email

Here is Jimbo's email, I have finally secured permission to reproduce it. Some of you are going to be eating your words, you've given me that much grief about it! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> Mailed-By: wikia.com
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@wikipedia.org>
Cc: ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com, Tony Sidaway 
Date: Feb 19, 2006 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] ta_bu_shi_da_yu believes over 200 Time magazine covers pose a serious liability and bad PR
         threat

I'd like to see a bulk AfD on these things.  And if the answer is wrong,
then I'll personally delete them anyway and use this as a good example
of what's broken about AfD.


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

I thought AfD was where Wikipedians discuss whether articles should be deleted. What am I missing? Uris 16:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony asked ArbCom + Jimbo because we discussed this privately and I had private concerns. There is nothing wrong with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? this edit was removed! by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your original claim was that you couldn't show this to us because someone showed it you from arbcom. But in this version, Jimmy Wales is directly CCing you. Which story is correct? Anyone can type up some text and make a claim. The Nigerian oil minister used to write me every week, although he has since died and now his widow needs my help. How about showing us Jimmy Wales IP address from the header. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I got a copy of it too. You can see that and I can confirm that it came during an email dialog that is still ongoing. --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough for you huh? What's it going to take? A personal email from Jimbo Wales himself? Maybe you'll then say his account was hacked and it isn't the real Jimbo Wales. The point is that I don't have direct access to ArbCom! The other issue is that when you do a direct reply on on gmail it sends to the original sender (Jimbo) and the ArbCom and to Tony Sideaway. Sheesh! Go and bloody well ask Jimbo Wales if that's the level of detail you want. This might seem rude, but I'm at the end of my tether with you on this issue. I'm not jumping through any more hoops for you. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eating our words? It says to go to AfD with them first (presumably he means WP:CP, which handles fair use disputes). It does not say speedy them (something not allowed under WP:CSD at all); at the most it says that as a last resort Jimbo—not you, not another administrator—will delete them himself. So I don't think that gets you off the hook in the slightest, sorry, and I'm a bit disappointed that after all of that hulabaloo about how the e-mail gave you these powers it just turns out that you didn't read it very carefully. --Fastfission 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please answer this: How would Jimbo's second goal ("use this as a good example of what's broken about AfD.") be served by TBSDY's course of action? KWH 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• It would be perfectly fine and within process to put every TIME cover through WP:CP (presumably Jimbo is not up-to-date on the names of the various pages). In fact, I think every fair use image should get an extra round of scrutiny, by at least two persons. I don't think admins should be unilaterally making the call, nobody's judgement is consistently that good. Stan 02:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  These deletions are trivial to undo, so it isn't like we can't take the risk of mistakes. That the problem with these images has been widely known for months at least is pretty much proof that the normal process is too burdensome and has prevented the resolution of the issue. --Gmaxwell 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  If image deletions have become trivial to undo, that fact should be advertised a little more widely perhaps? I didn't know that, and I work on images almost every day. For that matter, the first complaint I saw about TIME covers was TBSDY posting to the fair use project just yesterday. I'm also looking over the fair use project and don't see much discussion quantifying an adequately efficient process (compare the untagged images discussion), so it's hard to know whether to wet one's pants in fear or curl up into a fetal position. :-) (For that matter, do we even have a consensus on what "resolution of the issue" looks like? Always good to agree on the goal...) Stan 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am shocked and dismayed, not so much by the bringing of this RfC, but by the gratuitous assumptions of bad faith that resulted from Ta bu shi da yu's statement, backed up by me, that he sought and obtained authorization for these necessary deletions of a large number of copyright-infringing material that had no fair use justification. These false, baseless and malicious accusations have no remained on the wiki but have been made repeatedly by one individual on wikien-l. This must stop. It is such corrosive suspicion, and not necessary and authorized actions taken to defend us against liability and bad public relations, that destroys communities. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  So what are you doing to restore the community then? I can tell you that phrasing like "gratuitous assumptions" and "malicious accusations" makes me want to walk away from all this, not spend my days grinding through the thousands of images that need better handling. Stan 18:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mike Halterman

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

This RFC is just pure poppycock. Making sure these fair uses were correct was something that needed to be done, and I'm frankly shocked that people are so opposed to something that's trying to make Wikipedia better. Sometimes rigid, to-the-letter "chains of process" need to be discarded in favor of being bold and using common sense.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Mike H. That's hot 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
2. MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Chick Bowen 22:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
5. --Doc ^ask? 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
6. --Measure 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Comments like

   ...I am re-uploading images unless given a reason why the standard TIME COVER tag no longer is usable on Wikipedia.

   and

   If you can find [this image], I'll upload it myself - it's cleary fair use to illustrate the person the article is about.

   illustrate the confusion of some editors regarding the doctrine of fair use (in general, and on Wikipedia). We needed someone like TBSDY–who seems to have a firm grasp of the issue–to take decisive and reasonable action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   It could also demonstrate that TBDSY did not have a keen understanding of what is fair use and what is not. It would help if he had used "edit summaries" to give users some sort of criteria he was using because the deletions seem more or less random to a great many people. Why should we all blindly assume that TBDSY has a "firm grasp" as you seem to assume? Uris 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   It's certainly better than your own understanding of fair use, that's for sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   The only thing "for sure" is that for most of this discussion, as during the purges, you neglected to list any criteria that you used. I, on the other hand, have not taken a position about it either way other than asking for explanations and/or edit summaries of each deletion before I feel confident that each image involved in the mass purge did not belong. Also note that I was not the uploader of 99% of them. If all the uploaders (hundreds of 'em) did not understand fair use, they need to be invited into a discussion about their images before speedy-deleting everything in sight. Uris 13:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   ...Except that it doesn't demonstrate that. This is one of those cases where the legal, copyright issue is pretty clear, and has a right side and a wrong side. Whether TBSDY's decision to work outside of the (non-functional) process was correct can be debated, but his understanding of the copyright issue was spot on. If you would like to use images under a fair use argument, it behooves you to read Wikipedia:Fair use. It's linked to from the {{TIME}} template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   How do you know? Did you read his edit summaries for explanations? Because they don't exist. Or maybe you're just trusting that he probably was spot on because you think he's a cool guy. Did you look at each image he deleted and approve? If you weren't looking over his shoulder, you don't know what he did. (Neither do I, which is the issue.) Uris 13:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   I hold my opinion based on several factors. I've seen TBSDY on Wikipedia for quite a long time, and know that his judgment is generally sound. He has been made an admin, which suggests a reasonable portion of the community has reached the same conclusion at least once in the past. Most of the opposition to his actions seems to be based on process concerns rather than the question of fair use. Finally, the statements made regarding fair use by some of his opponents–including you, Uris–seem to show a lack of understanding of how fair use works. In other words, the fact that TBSDY has shown good judgement in the past, and that his opponents on the interpretation of fair use are incorrect in their understanding of the law, leads me to conclude that TBSDY was almost certainly correct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Well, your "almost certainly" was proven wrong. TBSDY speedy-deleted at least one image that has already been re-uploaded. Furthermore, if he had been absolutely correct, which is now proven to not be the case, his actions were alienating and his edit summaries, or lack thereof, were inadequate. Uris 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Let's put this to bed shall we? I speedied the image on the Kargil War article as the image was illustrating the topic and not, in fact, discussing the TIME article. It still isn't (I have since changed the caption to correct this issue). By all rights, that image should not be on that article. So I deleted it. Then User:Idleguy reuploaded it, made a note on my talk page and provided an appropriate fair use rationale. I have only just now changed the caption to mention the TIME article. My deletion was entirely appropriate. As you can see, however, once the image was reuploaded it was then given an appropriate fair use criteria (well, sort of. It's still not in the right format - but it's close enough for the time being). I would suggest to you, Uris, that this is not a good example to ping me on as I was well within my rights to delete that image. I'd also suggest that you didn't actually know which image I deleted, and in fact just jumped on my comments above without doing any research. May I suggest you be more careful in future and/or assume good faith? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   I am assuming good faith, afterall I don't think you made these mistakes on purpose. I do think, however, that "your actions were alienating and your edit summaries, or lack thereof, were inadequate". And no, I'm not going to research everything you do or pick up after you... the images I personally am interested in can not be researched without undeletion because there was no justification in your edit summaries. So please try not to create so much work for other editors in the future, and please try to not alienate hundreds of people from Wikipedia. Now that you have had this experience, you can learn from it. Uris 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Can you not read? That was not a mistake! I remain unapologetic for my admin actions. I will continue to work towards ridding Wikipedia of fair use images that are really copyright violations. If that alienates a few editors, well, I am sorry about that. But then, those editors shouldn't be uploading copyrighted images and claiming they can use them under some non-existent and magical "fair use" banner. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   It's not a few, it is hundreds. Also, next time you may want to pay more attention to Wikipedia's rules and processes, which you seem to have a clear disdain for. Just a suggestion. Oh, and speaking of "non-existent" and "magical"... found that secret email from Jimbo Wales yet? Uris 15:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   So I should pay attention to the rules and processes when the image uploaders are not? I don't think so. And if, as you say, hundreds of editors are upset, then this is unfortunate. Unfortunate that the culture on Wikipedia is so ingrained that we have people uploading images that are copyright violations and who get upset when their copyright violating images are deleted. As for the email, I still haven't been given permission to reproduce it. If you are that concerned, feel free to email User:Jimbo Wales from the "email this user option. Or you could always post a message to his talk page. Jimbo Wales is not a monster. I'm sure he'd be delighted to set you straight. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Now you're implying that I think Jimbo Wales is a monster? Absolutely bizarre. Uris 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   You haven't bothered contacting Jimbo directly yet? Absolutely bizarre, considering you want to know whether I am telling the truth. But of course, I have now produced the email (see above). I believe you owe me an apology. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   I never questioned that Jimbo had emailed you, the only thing that has changed is that the "missing cloak-and-dagger email from Jimbo Wales" is now a not-missing cloak-and-dagger email from Jimbo Wales. Having now seen it, the version you described appears to be non-existant and magical, as what you finally posted doesn't appear to be quite what you said (i.e., I question that he ever instructed or gave permission to you for the speedy-deletion of anything). Furthermore, stand by my correct assertion that your actions were (and are) alienating to editors and your edit summaries, or lack thereof, were inadequate. You are a hindrance and a liability to the continued growth of Wikipedia. If you'd like to apologize for your actions, I'm open to it. Uris♥ 17:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   I got the distinct impression you didn't believe me. I'm sorry if my actions are alienating to editors (you are a good editor, I just definitely disagree with your understanding of fair use). I am not a hindrance and a liability to the continued growth of Wikipedia, and I don't appreciate you saying this. The hindrance and liability to the growth of Wikipedia is the amount of fair use images, which is preventing people from easily reusing our material. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

8. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Blunt but true. --Gmaxwell 07:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
10. TBSDY is firmly in the right here... ALKIVAR™ 09:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
11. David | Talk 10:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
12. --bainer (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Trödel•talk 11:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
15. --kingboyk 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
16. SqueakBox 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Uninvited Company

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I note that there is no effective process for deleting purportedly fair use material even where the claim is dubious at best. Weak fair use claims sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images are usually kept, and the process on either page is burdensome for the person requesting deletion. I have long believed that Wikipedia has needed a more restrictive fair use image policy, and the Time Magazine covers have been a particular sore spot for me as well. It is difficult to imagine a more egregious perversion of fair use doctrine than the repurposing of Time Magazine covers as illustrations for the subject of each week's cover story. As Jimbo himself has noted, we do not "vote" on whether or not it is appropriate to keep copyright violations. They've got to go. Ta bu shi da yu's boldness in dealing with this unfortunate situation is to be applauded and should serve as an example to others.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
2. MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Chick Bowen 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Taxman ^Talk 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Since when were we the fair use encyclopedia?
5. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Joke 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Copyright law isn't established by a consensus of Wikipedians.
7. jacoplane 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
8. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
9. --Martyman-(talk) 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Mark^{your words} 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Alphax ^τεχ 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
14. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
15. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-28 05:04Z
16. Thanks UninvitedCompany, you hit the important points and saved me the trouble of producing a succinct argument. You couldn't be more right. --Gmaxwell 07:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Carnildo 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
18. David | Talk 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Rhobite 14:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Wish this hadn't been necessary, but we are pushing the limits of fair use.
20. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Any doubt of fair use should mean deletion.
21. --bainer (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
23. We need a quick way of deleting bogusly-tagged "fair use" material, a way where the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep it, and a way which can deal with multiple instances at once. Posting each of dozens or hundreds of similar images individually at WP:IFD or WP:CP or WP:PUI is too cumbersome for everyone. (See WP:AN for a similar case not involving images.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
24. -- Arwel (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Trödel•talk 11:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Johnleemk | Talk 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) YES. Wikipedia:Fair use review is trying to take a whack at this now.
27. We jump up and down about unattributed use of our content, and yet Wikipedia is a mess of copyvios. This user tried to do something about it. kingboyk 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
28. SqueakBox 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Zocky

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Bogus fair use is one of our major problems, and one that should be dealt with. But, we have ways of doing things, including deleting images. These "processes" that some people seem to deplore so much were introduced because editing was too stressful without them - there are too many of us to agree on everything and it's simply better if things we disagree on are discussed before they are done. The process also has the advantage of making controversial decisions less personal, and thus less likely to produce disputes like this.

My advice to Ta Bu Shi Da Yu is either to follow the existing guidelines and procedures, or to get them changed. If Jimbo has indeed authorized this, I'm sure that he can be persuaded to add the appropriate line of text to the appropriate guideline, so that we all know what's going on.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Zocky | picture popups 01:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   People should not be uploading fair use images, unless of course they can't avoid it. It's all spelled out in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I don't know how much clearer we could be about this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, people should not be doing what they are doing, but the fact that they are, doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Zocky | picture popups 05:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   This argument is insane! I don't just do whatever I want. I haven't deleted a single free image, nor have I been POV-pushing, unfairly blocking people or locking up pages. I've rarely misused the rollback button. I have removed images that are, quite frankly, copyright violations. So I don't do whatever I like. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2. brenneman^{T}{L} 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Nice to see an outside view that's a bit more nuanced.
3. Uris 04:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Simply make the rules clear so that everyone can know the bounds and don't rely on cloak-and-dagger tactics like alleged private emails between Jimbo and TBSDY (that have yet to be produced) to authorize large-scale disruptive changes.

   The rules are clear. Yet again, I refer editors to Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   So how do we know if you followed the fair use guidelines or not, without descriptive edit summaries? Uris 13:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   The edit summaries were perfectly descriptive. With regards to the deletions, 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 so you can see for yourself. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Nope. The edit summaries were "Sorry, this isn't fair use" which describes nothing. Uris 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   Not to point out the obvious, but it describes quite succintly (in a short edit summary) that the image in use is not fair use. Any curious member of the public could review our fair use policy to determine why this is. What did you want? An essay on each talk page? No way: there are too many copyright violations. I'd be here all year! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   'all the images I deleted had no fair use rationale, most had no source and almost all were being used to illustrate an article'. I am sorry but this is a blatant falsehood. Within the last 12 hours you (TBSDY) deleted the Time image from the article about Artur Rodziński which specifically mentioned his appearance on the Time cover as a highlight of his career and linked to the cover story at time.com. This fact was included as a fair use rationale on the image page (which you seem to have deleted) at Image:Rodzinski time.jpg. Now maybe even this rationale is not adequate justification for fair use -- but don't pretend that you have carefully deleted only those images that had no fair use statement. Grover cleveland 17:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   The article didn't state that "[the] artist appearing on cover of Time is a significant event in his biography and is mentioned in the article Artur Rodziński."! And merely a source does not make an appropriate fair use rationale. That wasn't a fair use rationale, that was a source and a description of what the image does masquerading as a fair use rationale! Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not quite sure what TBSDY meant to say in his/her last comment, but the article explicitly did (and still does) mention Rodziński's appearance on Time's cover, and the fair use rationale on the image page explicitly mentioned this fact, until it was deleted by TBSDY. I guess that rationale wasn't enough for TBSDY -- but what rationale would be? Despite being asked this question a thousand times, TBSDY has yet to point to any Time image that (s)he found legitimate. Grover cleveland 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   Patently false. I have responded to this accusation below. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Travb 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC) As per Uris. When any organization starts to say "trust us, we have your best interest in mind", be very worried. I have yet to see any definate policy, just the repeated "trust us" from the admin, and ignored messages to Jimbo Wales.

   I have already pointed out that this doesn't say much. Firstly, the OK was to allow thumbnails (half these images are not what I would count as thumbnails), and to help illustrate the TIME piece itself. Note the text: "Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." Most of those images don't have a "reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." Please read the response more carefully! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   I read that message and found the response to be subject to interpretation without knowing the phrasing of the question. It seems to say you can use a "reasonable text excerpt" with a link back to TIME, or a thumbnail cover with a link back to TIME. But you're still not being helpful and saying "this needs to be a smaller resolution" or "this needs to have a better fair use justification", even though you must obviously be making these judgements to engage in deletion. It's not that far removed from nixing text from an article and stating in edit summary "See Policies and guidelines." KWH 06:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Grover cleveland 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I think that a lot of the bad feeling generated by the Time issue would be resolved if TBSDY could give editors some clear guidelines about what TBSDY perceives as fair use of Time cover images. If TBSDY believes that all use of Time cover images is illegal (except perhaps for those illustrating the article on Time magazine), then (s)he should come out and say this explicitly. Otherwise, TBSDY should point to a single Time cover image that in his/her opinion is legal. This would give the rest of us a lot more peace of mind. Pointing to the fair use guidelines isn't enough, since it isn't clear how TBSDY is applying them.

   User:Rossrs not only correctly tagged and provided a fair use rationale for Image:VivienLeighTimeMagazine1939.jpg, but he added relevant text into the article. In fact, I was so impressed I sent him a complimentary message. You know, I shouldn't have to actually tell people why I'm deleting the images: we already have already written numerous policies on fair use! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks! I have reinserted the Time image for Artur Rodzinski with a fair use justification that I find indistinguishable from the one for Vivien Leigh that you praised. Please check it if you like, and let me know if you think it's OK. Grover cleveland 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   Close, but no cigar. If you want to see a proper use of fair use, see Image:MKDE server.png. I should note, at this point, that I am going to have to review all my image uploads that are tagged as fair use to make sure I have applied the same criteria. If I haven't: out they go, unless I can show that the image really is fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

   So what's the difference between Image:TimeMagazineRodzinski.jpg and Image:VivienLeighTimeMagazine1939.jpg? Please don't just say "close, but no cigar" -- it's infuriating when you make judgments like that without justifying them. Grover cleveland 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

6. KWH 01:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Jeff

TBSDY is helping The Project by skipping unnecessarily cumbersome process. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. 'Nuff Said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we should all remember that IAR should be read in conjunction with "don't be a dick." This is not a comment against TBSDY, who I found to be civil in my interactions with him over the issue, but a general comment. I must confess that I found his actions a little odd though. --Gurubrahma 05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• --Gmaxwell 07:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Gmaxwell

The misuse of magazine cover art on Wikipedia is an egregious violation of copyright law. Companies like TIME spend a considerable amount of money to produce the striking and insightful artwork they use to illustrate their discussions of current events. In our haste to improve the quality of our coverage we have been taking the high quality works of media outlets such as TIME with little to no consideration of the legal or ethical implications of our actions. In a very real sense Wikipedia is in direct competition with other forms of modern media. Our taking is, as a result, a form of freeloading on the competition. It is not merely a copyright violation, it is clearly unethical. It can not be tolerated.

The goal of this project is to create a Free content encyclopedia. Which photographers here produce works which compete with the very best that TIME has to offer? The misuse of these covers as article illustrations (rather than as analysis material inside articles discussing the copyrighted works themselves) discourages people from creating and submitting freely licensed content. It can not be tolerated.

The problematic nature of this use has been previously discussed and has been well known [1]. Many of the editors who declare themselves to our projects as authorities on dealing with fair use have not been dealing with fair use; instead, they have been spending their energy producing justifications for our violations (as we see here[2] [3]) and procedures which are overly burdensome and overly dependent on consensus. Consensus fails us on copyright because too many of our users are far more concerned with assembling high quality content than they are with having Free content, and too few of them have the skills required to make their own high quality illustrations. The process for cleaning up obvious violations like this is too time-consuming, too painful, and too ineffective. This is proven by the fact that these images are only being cleaned up now. Harmful process can not be tolerated.

TBSDY's actions may or may not have been in direct violation of our process. However, doing the right thing is always justified. Full stop.

--Gmaxwell 07:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The second paragraph above borders on the absurd. TIME covers are not used because they are great photography (although they are). They are used because they serve to illustrate historical events and personalities that our editors will never get close enough to take a GFDL image of. When was the last time you got up close and personal with Woodrow Wilson or the Kargil War? Do you plan to at some point in the future? I have contributed 50 public domain photographs to Wikipedia and have not been discouraged in the least by the use of TIME covers. Uris 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For many historic figures there exist public domain photos which we should be using rather than time covers. Can you site an example of a no-longer-living historic figure or event where no PD photos exist and where TBSDY has removed the time covers? ... I can speak factually on your last point: it has certainly discouraged me. --Gmaxwell 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I can cite many examples (for starters: Robert R. Young, Harry F. Byrd, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr.)... conversely, you say that "factually" you have been discouraged from contributing... can you cite an example of a photo that you were going to take, but saw that a TIME cover was already being used to demonstrate it? I just can't conceive that you, or anyone, has had the opportunity to take a similar photograph to virtually all of the TIME covers that had been used. Uris I♥NY 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I think I've found a public domain image of Harry F. Byrd afterall. Uris I♥NY 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

... and have uploaded it and placed it on his page. Uris I♥NY 20:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you're telling me that the US Government has no pictures of FDR? Wait a second... There is one on the freeking page. I've had photographs replaced by unfree ones, it's very discouraging... because you can't argue to keep the free one without some twit accusing you of just trying to protect your prefered images. Between that and the idiotic shed painting [4] on featured images, I've given up submitting artwork to Wikipedia until the situation improves. If you're going to continue to imply that I'm not being honest, I'll have another Wikipedian confirm my claim here. --Gmaxwell 21:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. who, if you bother to click the link, actually has no image on his page. He was on a TIME cover, but that was deleted by Ta bu shi da yu. Same with Robert R. Young. Can you find public domain images of either of these historical figures? Because I can't. Uris I♥NY 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

(comment added after edit conflict with Uris) A minor note of clarification—Uris was referring to FDR Jr., not FDR. Still, I would be very surprised if the National Archives or the Roosevelt Presidential library didn't have public domain images of Jr., given that he was a decorated WWII naval officer, a Representative in Congress, and the son of a President.

Based on the timestamps of the comments above, finding a free image of Harry F. Byrd seemed to take about seven minutes. Who knows—for FDR Jr. someone might actually have to physically visit a library somewhere. To suggest flatly that no public domain images of FDR Jr. exist seems a tad hasty. Saying "we're too lazy to dig through the National Archives" is not a valid fair use argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like that is going to be true for all government figures. Robert R. Young may never have a photo again though... but what can ya do. Also, the previous comments about the Kargil War image, I don't think those type of historical events are likely be found in the National Archives either. If only Time Warner would let us know what their interpretation of Fair Use is, since the covers are their images (i.e. not Ta bu shi da yu's). Uris I♥NY 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to kibitz, I think that it's unlikely that any person famous enough to be on the cover of TIME will not have any other available pictures. There are lots of photographs in the world - and lots of potential donors to contact, like family members who would be more than happy to contribute. I see TIME covers as supplementary for cases of special interest. Stan 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

PD FRD Jr. photos at [5], maybe [6] [7] and [8]. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zscout... the image you are most sure about I am fairly certain is copyright © 1984 University of Houston Press (or possibly another school in Texas) or an author who published a book by that press, but I can't find reference to that now, although I'm pretty sure I did two days ago when looking at the same image. The other three images... well... thanks! I was unable to find any of the three. Uris I♥NY 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Yup. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Spot on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Bingo. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
4. jacoplane 14:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Frankly, its pretty questionable whether any fair use of this sort is worth it. Very few pictures add so much to the quality of the encyclopedia as to make up for what they cost it in freedom of distribution.
6. Justinc 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I am glad we are attempting to move again towards producing a free encyclopaedia. I stopped working on fair use a while back because there seemed to be no way to get any sunstantial amount of this stuff deleted.
7. Strongly agree. We can't take the attitude that just because an article wants an image, just because good images are hard to get, we can fall back on using someone else's work "because it was just sitting there", and excuse ourselves by slapping a "fair use" tag on it. Saying "fair use" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for copyright violations; fair use provisions must be carefully and responsibly applied in order to be valid. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View: Time-Warner's letter on using the images from their cover gallery

The letter received from the Time magazine archivist should be considered the legal basis for using the Time magazine gallery of covers until otherwise notified by Time Magazine, Time-Warner, or any other legal entity representing any of the above businesses. The template:TIME should contain the exact wording in the letter, and no other interpretations.

Note: This is the third letter from Bonnie and in each letter she has only required that you "link back to a page at time.com". She has placed no other restrictions on usage at all. This constitutes "blanket coverage" for using Time covers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: No it shouldn't. For one, it's not at all clear that they understand our use but far more importantly: This is Wikipedia the Free encyclopedia and we do not accept with-permission images. We will only use an image if either it is available under a free license or has a strong justification of fair use. If someone wants to give us permission too, thats fine, but if we can't use the content under fair use then we will not use the content with permission. If someone really wants to be a hero they could get TIME to agree to release this art under the GFDL or CC-BY-2.0, this would be a true win for our project. ... I don't at all think that it is likely, but if anyone secures a free license grant of any large number of high quality, high resolution images, such as TIME's collection of cover art it would be a wonderful thing. --Gmaxwell 22:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Linking back to the original image is required for every image that orginates from the web. This is not a legal restriction by Time, it is Wikipedia policy. I think at this point you are arguing just for the sake of argument and you are using circular reasoning. If you have any futher questions they should be directed to Time magazine, not here. The legal issue should now be settled. The issue would only change is Wikipedia chooses to make a print edition like the one issued in Germany. We now have the the legal information from Perfect 10 v. Google and three letters from Time magazine. I have emailed the legal department, and the webmaster and asked them to print a specific Wikipedia usage statement on their website, but I do not know if they will. Now about that possibly forged letter from Jim Wales that was the basis for all this deletion ... who was responsible for that? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Absolutely correct. That is the professional way to act, which is why it isn't followed here. Instead we get Ta bu's legally ignorant boorish behaviour. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Travb 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Uris 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC) If anything, Wikipedia was already far too restrictive in its interpretation of fair use (relative to copyright holders like Time Warner). At the end of the day, would a company like Time Warner sue Wikipedia to take the images down? Of course not, for at least three reasons.
   1. It would be horrible publicity. What better way to make the world hate you than to sue a free encyclopedia?
   2. Time Warner has said many times over that we can use the images, with a link back to Time Warner.
   3. These covers were free advertising for Time magazine. Who wouldn't want that?

      Totally spurious comments.

      1. The horrible publicity would all be Wikipedia's. What better way to make the world hate you than to steal the copyrighted property of others?
      2. Time Warner have not stated that. They have made a vague statement partially representing fair use: the email you refer to seems to me to be a copy and paste email template sent by someone who wasn't pointed to our TIME images category. Even then part of what they say is not satisfied: they say we can use a thumbnail image and have text and a source that refers back to the original article, something hardly any of the images have.
      3. Several things: like TIME needs free publicity. If TIME sued us they would get free publicity anyway. If your think your argument works, go out and sell TIME covers and ask them if they mind. After all, this would give them free publicity also. This whole argument, quite frankly, is possibly the most stupid I've heard on Wikipedia, and I've read some pretty dumb arguments. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"This whole argument, quite frankly, is possibly the most stupid I've heard on Wikipedia, and I've read some pretty dumb arguments." Check the history for my response to this, but I don't think it even deserves one!

1. When RIAA sued Napster users, who got the bad publicity? RIAA. Not that this is remotely similar, unless you think TIME wants to sell thumbnails of its covers? What makes you think that is even a remotely likely scenario?
2. Do you have a copy of all the communications posted here from TIME? As I understand it from what others post here, a link to the actual article is not necessary... only a link to TIME.
3. It's not free publicity, but free advertising. Perhaps you don't comprehend the difference, but Time Warner surely does. By the way, do you understand the difference between selling lifesize TIME covers and posting tiny thumbnails of them? It seems you don't!

Uris♥ 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View: Another admin should take care of Time Magazine fair use issue

First:

Ta bu shi da yu confrontational attitude has gotten a lot of wikiusers needlessly angry. I suggest another admin should take the role of enforcing wikipedia policy on Time Magazine covers, and Ta bu shi da yu should retire from this duty.

Second:

The other admin should take over the responsibilities of deciding fair use issues only after:

1) Time magazine is contacted with a Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission.

2) Definate policy is written for everyone to read about what exactly is fair use of Time magazine covers. (Preferably someone with intellectual property legal background, but this is not required)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Travb 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Jkatzen 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Grover cleveland 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Uris 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Jtmichcock 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
6. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
7. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Quadell

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Regardless of whether Ta bu's actions were correct or not, I think this shows clearly that we need an in-process way of dealing with images tagged as "fair use", where the claim is dubious. I'm not comfortable with a single admin making out-of-process decisions for hundreds of claims, but I'm also not comfortable with supposed "fair use" images sticking around indefinitely just because they're tagged. We need a way to deal with this that's less controversial than Ta bu's method.

I'm not comfortable with a single admin deciding whether a given use is "fair" or not. Admins make mistakes, and image-deletion is not reversable. There are a number of different ways to deal with this, but we need to implement some in-process way that is both fair and efficient.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Extraordinary Machine 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Mark^{your words} 19:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Joke 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC) YES. See Wikipedia:Fair use review, which has tried to get a project like this up and running (although now there's an argument with the Fair Use WikiProject about turf).
5. I would agree, having one admin decide is a bit sketchy. In the future, a second opinion should be sought before deletion. It is true that Wikimedia isn't under any risk of legal action for hosting the images, due to content-provider shield laws, and deletion is permanent. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Pretty much on target Stifle (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Steve Summit

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

There is an attitude that copying anything is okay. If you want a web page but aren't creative enough to write anything yourself, you can cut and paste text from someone else's web page. If you think Wikipedia articles look better with images and you find an article without one, you can find an image elsewhere on the net (or scan a copy of Time magazine) and upload the copied image. This usage is (so the attitude goes) automatically permissible under "fair use", since it seems perfectly fair to you.

It would be facile to compare this attitude to the ones prevalent in the P2P music-sharing community, but here on Wikipedia the motivation is often a bit more pure than that. "This article really needs an image", some well-intentioned editor thinks, "and I really want to add one. It would be really nice if I could take a picture myself, or find a public-domain one, but what if I can't? Since Wikipedia is free, and since it's such a really important project, it's obviously even more important that I be able to improve it by using this copyrighted image that I found, rather than to be too anal about respecting that image's original copyright."

But of course, as anyone who understands copyright knows, both of these attitudes are wrong. You can't just say "fair use" about any copyright that it's convenient for you to infringe; you can't misuse fair use provisions just because coming up with a public domain or otherwise GFDL-able image is inconvenient or impossible. And make no mistake: images on articles are nice, but if we have to choose between an article without an image, versus an article that improperly (or even questionably properly) uses a copyrighted image, our course of action is instantly clear: we do without an image.

However, the problem of questionably or improperly fair use images (and other material) on Wikipedia is only going to get worse. For one thing, as we get more and more editors who desperately want to contribute, it's inevitable that some of them will upload and use copyrighted images, blindly choosing "fair use" from the menu. Moreover, as Wikipedia gets higher and higher profile, it's more and more likely that some copyright holder will find one of their images on Wikipedia, and sue. In fact, this scenario is a virtual certainty: sooner or later, it will happen.

If and when Wikipedia does start getting complaints from copyright holders, a big part of its defense will be showing that it does not condone or tolerate copyright violations, that it has good polices for keeping them out and weeding them out, that those policies do get used, and that any aberrations (such as the one being complained about) are just that.

—Steve Summit (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC) I could not agree with Steven more.
2. wow talk about hitting the nail squarely on the head. ALKIVAR™ 11:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
3. --Martyman-(talk) 12:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
4. bainer (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Um, duh.
6. exactly Trödel•talk 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
7. excellent summary. Arwel (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Rich Farmbrough 00:27 10 March 2006 (UTC). A good reason they should be dealt with in process.
9. Agree. Ta bu shi da yu is doing a dirty job that nobody else wants to do, and that is impossible to get done via a slow, cumbersome process.--Bcrowell 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
10. esp the last two paragraphs. ×Meegs 23:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
11. SqueakBox 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Very, very much on target, especially the closing paragraph. Monicasdude 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.