User talk:Susanlesch/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Susanlesch/Archive_24.

Please do not edit this archive.

Archived from Media copyright questions

Contents 1 Fair use of government photo 1.1 Comments on dispute 2 Image:Sharon_Sayles_Belton-cropped.jpg 3 Help with an editor who is removing and tagging copyrighted images for deletion

[edit] Fair use of government photo

Hello. This note is regarding a message from User:Mecu about Image:Sharon Sayles Belton.jpg which he or she tagged "Replaceable fair use". I have added "Replaceable fair use disputed" and a talk page. The image is believed to be an official government portrait posted on an official government Web site, later removed when the official was voted out of office. Can you tell me please if this will be allowed? Please reply either here or on the image talk page (and not on my talk page). I know a little about fair use and this seems to be a good case, although I am not a lawyer. Thanks for your time. -Susanlesch 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because the image appeared on an official government website that doesn't mean we can use it here. Only works actually created, and not merely used under some license, by the Federal government is public domain. It is generally not true that state and local government-created works are PD, so we can't assume we can use this freely even if we knew for a fact that it was owned by a governmental body of some kind.

However, I think in this case that we are not dealing with a case of a replaceable image, as we would be for a local politician still in office. If the person depicted is no longer a public figure, in my view it's not really reasonable to say that the image is replaceable. We can't go around stalking private persons with cameras, after all. You should therefore add to the rationale that this is no longer a public figure and is not available for a new photograph to be made. This should remove any concerns.

It was, IMO, rather curt for that user to have simply placed the notice without describing his reasons for doing so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response which I archived so it can be linked from the image talk page for future reference. Do I need to wait for an administrator or may I remove the tags based on the review here? A rating for one article and couple of edits in two articles are on hold pending resolution of this question. No hard feelings Mecu and thanks again for your time. -Susanlesch 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. It would have just been nice to contact me regarding this discussion. I've made some comments on the image talk page. --MECU≈talk 20:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• MECU, I don't know who you are or why you oppose this photo. This discussion was initiated by the instructions in the tag you added to the image. The subject is pictured in her role as mayor of Minneapolis a position she lost in 2001. How do you propose to replace this image? -Susanlesch 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to consolidate this discussion, and I believe the appropriate plate is on the image talk page. I will make all my future comments there, as I request anyone else interested in this matter should also. I have copied Susanlesch's comments to the image talk page. --MECU≈talk 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• To whom it may concern, the above response is in opposition to my comment on the image talk page, directing the discussion here. I am going to tag the image for speedy delete. The party who tagged the image is unknown to me and I have no time for arguments. Thank you. -Susanlesch 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I attempted and failed to contact subject. Reuploaded a smaller cropped copy and added a longer rationale. -Susanlesch 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Archived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Sharon_Sayles_Belton.jpg

[edit] Comments on dispute

As noted in the upload notes, the original image appears to be an official government photograph made when the subject was mayor of Minneapolis.

Your comments? -Susanlesch 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As the instructions on the tag say to do, this note was posted to Media copyright questions. -Susanlesch 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the article: "Sayles Belton soon took a position at the University of Minnesota. She is a Senior Fellow at the Roy Wilkins Center for Human Relations and Social Justice, which is part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs." Being an employee in some capacity at the University of Minnesota should make her easy to locate, where she likely has a regular or public schedule where an image could be taken. In about 1 minute I found this page which gives email information which could be used to contact her requesting a free image. I don't buy that this isn't replaceable because she's not in the "public eye" anymore. --MECU≈talk 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Above comment is no longer in context, sorry to say. Reply from me is at the aboe Media copyright question link. -Susanlesch 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied by Mecu from Media copyright questions)"::::*MECU, I don't know who you are or why you oppose this photo. This discussion was initiated by the instructions in the tag you added to the image. The subject is pictured in her role as mayor of Minneapolis a position she lost in 2001. How do you propose to replace this image? -Susanlesch 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)" (end copied text)

I don't know who you are either, but we're both Wikipedia editors and your comment could be interpreted as offensive. Please remain civil in this discussion and focus on the issues. I am opposed to this photo because I believe it violates the fair use policy, specifically #1 "replaceable". I believe an replaceable free image that could portray the same thing as this image. Your comment is that it was a "promotional" photo from her time as Mayor. While critical to her notability, I don't think she has likely changed much (see the bio I found at U of Minn) in the 6 years since then. Thus, a free image, even if taken now, could portray the article subject. Wikipedia has long held that it is not the responsibility of the challenging editor to replace or suggest how to replace a replaceable image. Even still, I have suggested several methods above. --MECU≈talk 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Archiving from User talk:Susanlesch

[edit] Image:Sharon_Sayles_Belton-cropped.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sharon_Sayles_Belton-cropped.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Archiving from image page

See also previous discussion on this identical image at Image talk:Sharon Sayles Belton.jpg (talk page should have been preserved as discussion, but was deleted by db-author CSD) and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of government photo.

• On the contrary, the complete discussion is archived at User_talk:Susanlesch/Archive_24. -Susanlesch 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Archiving from Village Pump (assistance)

[edit] Help with an editor who is removing and tagging copyrighted images for deletion

Hello. It is possible I am mistaken and I need your help. A user has selectively removed specfic copyrighted photos of famous Minneapolitans and trademarked professional sports team logos from Minneapolis, Minnesota. The user also removed the names of thirteen persons. Removal reasons are in the edit log (and not the talk page where the list of Minneapolitans is a current discussion). This is the same user who has tagged one specific photo I uploaded as replaceable twice. Is this person authorized and encouraged to do so? May I revert his edits? Is wholesale removal of visual material occurring Wikipedia-wide?

"remove gallery of fair use sports logos which are decorative, please see WP:FU for the restrictions on using fair use images in Wikipedia" and "remove fair use images from gallery, also removed Ventura as it is likely not free and probably fair use, please see WP:FU for restrictions on using fair use images @WP."

Regarding the logos, quoting Wikipedia Logos Guidelines "This does not mean, however, that one person may veto a consensus on the use of the logo, unless that person is the owner of the logo." By my reading of the guidelines, they are used in Minneapolis, Minnesota: Sports

• To illustrate the organization
• In a postitive setting
• Near neutral text
• In the article about the city that supports the teams
• Non promotional, non decorative use
• Accurate and high quality

Regarding photos of Minneapolitans before and after some are tagged fair use in the Minneapolis article. I am happy to come up with a list of reasons why the people who contribute to life in a city are relevant to its article if you think it would help. I will leave the user a note that I posted my questions here but am not willing to engage in a prolonged debate. Thank you. -Susanlesch 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe my actions were to being the use of these images with compliance with the fair use policy. It was not my intention to remove the names of these people from the article, I thought the names were duplicated above, but it appears that assumption was incorrect, and I shall restore those names into the list. But the sports logos were not appropriate usage in this article because the article is not about these teams, and their use is decorative. Further, the use of the fair use images that depict what these people look like is also not appropriate on this article, since it's not about them and the fact they are from Minneapolis is trivial and not a substantial addition to the article. I am not vetoing the consensus, I am upholding the consensus that fair use images should not be used in this manner. Reverting my edits (sans the people names) is not appropriate. And yes, a user may do this. Any user may do this. If I had a gallery of fair use images in my userspace, any user could remove them. --MECU≈talk 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is right. And he learned this lesson himself the hard way. In order to meet the criteria for the use of fair use images in an article, that image has to contribute significantly to the article. Having the logo of a sports team that plays in the city does not meet that qualification. That use is purely decorative. That policy also applies to all fair use images, including those of people. I also occassionaly sift through the mounds of fair use images to look for those that are orphaned or are being use where they aren't supposed to and it can be time consuming to notify the user every time you come across these instances. While it is best practice to do so, sometimes it is not done. In the future, if you have a dispute about an image being removed, please ask the person who removed it to comment on it before bringing it up here or somewhere else. If it then turns into a "prolonged debate," then feel free to bring it up elsewhere to get the input of outsiders. I worked with Mecu a lot and I know he would always be happy to explain his reasoning. On this issue, I do agree with him.--NMajdan•talk 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• An inclusive section on professional sports teams from one city is about those teams and in a context that gives them meaning. A list of people is less informative and less meaningful than a table showing photographs of real people of real notability. Neither use of visual images strikes me as decorative or out of sync with Wikipedia's rules for fair use of copyrights and trademarks. The article itself is illustrated completely in the spirit of using free images when they are available. I am not a lawyer and I do understand there is a long history of discussion. Sorry but unless someone can tell me that you folks are lawyers or administrators or authorized by lawyers or administrators I expect based on my reading of the Wikipedia fair use policy that I will be able to revert these edits. Thank you. -Susanlesch 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a lawyer or administrator on Wikipedia, in short, having credentials is meaningless. (for the record, I am not a lawyer or admin) Saying "Minneapolis has sports teams" is not about the sports teams, it's about Minneapolis. Having a picture of someone because they are merely "from <city>" is trivial. The fair use image is on their article (if they have one, if not then they probably shouldn't even have a fair use image on Wikipedia) if someone wants to see what they look like. Using a CD cover to depict The Andrew Sisters on this article is almost explicitly against the fair use policy (See counterexamples). The decorative use has been established and "galleries of fair use images" is explicitly not allowed. Again, you should not revert these edits. To NMajdan, Susanlesch likely brought the complaint here because of our history involving a fair use rationale dispute over a former mayor of Minneapolis image (which has been resurrected because she uploaded a similar (cropped) image), but I do agree that something like this shouldn't likely occur in places like this immediately, but that explains why we're here.--MECU≈talk 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The section for Sports in that article is four sentences long. The exact wording of fair use criteria #8 is: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The fair use logo do not contribute significantly and I don't know how you can argue they do. The same point gets across by using text. For instance, the use of the Minnesota Twins logo on the Minnesota Twins article is perfectly ok as the logo identifies the subject of the article. Or if there was a detailed section on the Twins in an article like "Sports in Minneapolis, Minnesota" then you might have an argument for the inclusion of the logo there as well. But having a section on this page called "Sports" then the logos does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I know of several Admins that would agree with me, so if that is the route you want to take, I don't think it would be an issue.--NMajdan•talk 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I will restore the article. I imagine you do this with the best of intentions as Mecu's User page and edit history are about policing images. Maybe you have a different reading based on discussions that I am sorry to say I do not find in the policy. In any case maybe it would help to repeat that this article is in discussion on its talk page in hopes of reducing the number of people listed and the number of images. I truly do hope that happens soon but as I said it is a new discussion. Take care and best wishes. -Susanlesch 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guarantee they will end up removed from the article but I don't wish to get into a revert war. I would still like to hear how you feel the images significantly contribute to the subject of the article.--NMajdan•talk 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that you revert your revert of my edits. You have been told not to revert with policy backing it. The "discussion" on the talk page cannot possible change the policy so that these logos and images would be valid to use in this article. Please revert your revert. --MECU≈talk 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The context is a brief list of which teams play there, what sport they play, and where they play it. unless there is a particular point you are making about the logos which ties them to the article on the city, then there is no Fair Use claim to be made, and they violate FUC#1 (the free adequate alternative to [badge][name] in this context is [name]). ed g2s • talk 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these images, and also all the "Fair Use" images being used to illustrate people. If there is any need for these images at all (they may fall under "replaceable fair use") it definitely isn't on an article about a city. ed g2s • talk 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• ed g2s (I see you are an administrator), I would have been more than happy to add inline fair use rationale HTML comments which I forgot if that is what you found to be a problem. I also see you have deleted all images under Famous Minneapolitans including all of the public domain images. I consider the matter closed but respectfully suggest that other outcomes were possible and might have benefited Wikipedia more. -Susanlesch 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fair Use images were never going to be allowed on that article. I possibility could've gone through the entire gallery and found the free ones, but the pressing matter of copyright violations is far more serious than a list missing a few decorative images. ed g2s • talk 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Is wholesale removal of visual material occurring Wikipedia-wide?" It sure is. I myself just recently eviscerated the article Brasilia. I have serious doubts whether this is a good thing, but that doesn't matter; what does matter is that it is Wikipedia policy. Herostratus 03:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why are the fairusein tags for multiple articles in the policy if they can't be used? {{Fairusein5|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article4|Article5}}-Susanlesch 08:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Who says they can't be used? And, just because they exist, doesn't mean they should be used. Just because your car can go 150 mph, doesn't give you permission to drive that fast. But, just because the speed limit is typically much less than 150 mph, doesn't mean there aren't places you can go to drive your car that fast (such as a speedway) --MECU≈talk 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Archiving from Image:Sharon_Sayles_Belton-cropped.jpg {{Replaceable fair use disputed|month=January|day=17|year=2007}} {{Replaceable fair use|month=January|day=17|year=2007}}

See also previous discussion on this identical image at Image talk:Sharon Sayles Belton.jpg (talk page should have been preserved as discussion, but was deleted by db-author CSD) and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of government photo.

• On the contrary, the complete discussion is archived at User_talk:Susanlesch/Archive_24. -Susanlesch 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sharon Sayles Belton

Rationale for fair use: Subject is pictured in a historically important role of the first female and first African-American mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Subject is no longer mayor so no new photo can be made. Attempt by uploader to contact subject for an alternate photo in January 2007 was unsuccessful. Image is a 166x197 part of a 166x249 small, low resolution copy of an original portrait for which no free alternative is known to exist.

Source: blogged copy. The 166x249 larger image is copied at tholt.com. The former mayor's directory at the City of Minneapolis Web site is access denied. The city police department annual report of the era uses a differently cropped version of the photo. {{fairusein2|Sharon Sayles Belton|Minneapolis, Minnesota}}