Wikipedia talk:Licensing for community images

I would propose extending this just a bit. If a mirror replicates user pages (as some mirrors do)user page images should also be permitted to be included. And If a user who has a phot on his or her user page has an article written about him or her, the image should be usagele in that article. I created a template Template:Limited Use-person for this exact purpose, but it was deleted here for not confioming with current policy. That template included the wording:

This image of a person ({{{1}}}) is copyrighted. The holder of the copyright hereby licences the use of this work by Wikipedia, and by all reusers of wikipedia content, commercial or non-commercial, provided that: 1) the copyright notice is retained; 2) the only reusers to whom the licence runs are those in substantial compliance with wikipedia's general licence terms; 3) this picture is used only to illustrate the contributions of the subject, {{{1}}}, to wikipedia (as on a user page), or to illustrate any article about the subject, or in which the subject is significantly refered to; 4) any reuser must allow any other user to use this picture on exactly the same terms."

DES ^(talk) 17:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the template should require that the image can be used in an article about the person. That requirement would take away a good deal of privacy; see also Raul654's argument in the "Rationale" section. if When I become famous you can ask me if you can use the image in the article about me, and I will probably provide the image in some form. Forcing volunteer contributors to donate images is bad form.

On mirrors, I don't think the mirrors should be propagating the user pages in the first place, and therefore the images for the user pages are not needed either. We can just remove the images from the image dumps, or require the mirrors to remove them before they use the image dump (I am not going to sue a mirror for forgetting to remove my image). Thue | talk 18:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are released under the GFDL like everything else in Wikipedia. That includes the images on them. Mirrors can mirror them, and they're allowed to do so. There are not and should not be degrees of user-contributed content here. One fine point from above: when you become famous, we will use either a PD image of you, or claim fair use, because "with permission" images are speedies. Until you're famous, we don't honestly need a picture of you at all. -Splash^talk 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't see how it can make any difference to you or anyone else what license the image on my user page uses, and why you are so eager to have it deleted. If my image not being under the GFDL had any influence on the goal of building a free as in speach encyclopedia then I could understand it, but it don't. As we allow images to be uploaded for user pages we may as well allow the images to be restricted. Yes, I am aware that my image may be usable under fair use anyway. Thue | talk 16:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first part of what Splash said, though not the second. I don't think there's any problem having pictures of users on WP. But if people post pictures, they must licence them under GFDL like everything else that is contributed to WP. The only exception to the GFDL rule is the use of "fair use" images, which is strictly limited, and rightly so. There is no distinction made between edits to namespaces, they all must be GFDL. --bainer (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a policy creation proposal, so the aim is to change existing policy. You quote existing policy, but there is no requirement for policy proposals to be supported by the current policies. This proposal is to create an exception to existing policy, for what I believe are good reasons. Thue | talk 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blanket use of the GFDL is more than just an ordinary policy, it is absolutely non-negotiable. --bainer (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem with speaking in absolutes - someone is always willing to find an exception that makes you look the fool. In point of fact, the GFDL is *not* blanket. We allowed uploads of files not licensed under the GFDL, but licensed under creative commons linceses; or BSD liceneses; 'etc. Raul654 08:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because those licences happen to be compatible in certain ways with the GFDL that are necessary for our purposes. So other free licences are ok, but only if they don't restrict commercial use, if they allow display only on Wikipedia, and so on. For example, we allow cc-by (requiring attribution), but we don't allow cc-nc (restricting to non-commercial use). Other licences are only allowed to the extent that they are the same as GFDL. --bainer (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal will be ok by this definition, as it will not restrict commercial use of the encyclopedia, for the very simple reason that the images will not be in the encyclopedia, but only on community pages like user pages. Thue | talk 08:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrights policy makes no distinction between the namespaces: all contributions must be GFDL (or equivalent free licence). While it is possible to download a dump of the main namespace alone, it is also possible to download the whole encyclopaedia, and users should be entitled to assume that the whole of WP is GFDL, and nothing more should need to be done to "filter out" unusable content. Voluntarily choosing to compromise the GFDL status of WP is a bad idea, in my opinion. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this one bit.[edit]

If you want a page about yourself that you can control that way ... build an external homepage and link to it from your Wikipedia user page. The principle of the project is about free content. If you have content that you don't want to be free ... don't put it on Wikipedia. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of this project is to create a free encyclopedia. Making the proposed exception to the free content rule for content not in the encyclopedia will not interfere with that goal. Thue | talk 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it doesn't interfere with the goal? This "filtering" you speak of is a phantom. At the very least it will require one of the following, or some combination:

Developer time to create a tool to remove such images from image dumps
Processing time to analyze and sanitize each image dump
Significant burden on reusers to find some way to filter out these images

Is developer time unlimited? Does creating more burden for downstream users not impede our goal?

I agree with those who say: Our primary purpose is to create a free encyclopedia. Community-building is always secondary, in service of this goal. Community-building does not require hosting pictures of our users and/or their families on this site. Really, it doesn't. A user who is so convinced that a snapshot of his/her likeness is something critically important to the encyclopedia can weigh the options: Is it important enough to release the image under a free license? If not, perhaps the image can be hosted somewhere else. Somehow I imagine the encyclopedia can get by without it. --Tabor 19:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the images licensed in this way will be tagged with the same template. Anybody competent enough to be thinking about creating a Wikipedia mirror will be able to create a database query to delete all images tagged with this license very easily. (I program php and databases for a living) Thue | talk 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess what you are saying is that it's OK to impose the additional burden, because you really need to have a picture of yourself under a non-free license on your userpage. I guess where we disagree is in the value judgement. Personally I see the alleged need of adding non-free portraits of users to be so tangential to the project's mission that any additional burden on reuse is not justified. But in any case, since it is so easy to accomplish, perhaps you will add it as a utility in the MediaWiki code base to minimize the impact on reusers. --Tabor 23:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an unreasonable request, and I meant it when I said it was easy, so yes I will do so before putting the proposal to the vote :). Thue | talk 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean totally reworking the way Wikipedia works and it is unworkable and I am strongly against this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally? If it were implemented, all that's needed is an official recognition of the policy and tag, and for users to add it to affiliated images. Unless I'm missing something here. — TheKMan^talk 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not...[edit]

{{fairusein|User:Foo}}?

I admit, it would be very odd to refuse to license your own work to WP, but potentially it could be done...pfctdayelise 14:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a way to do it, but it is basically a hack. I was hoping for a "cleaner" solution. But non-free userpage images would be very similar in most ways to fairuse images, which we already allow. Thue | talk 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before with respect to user text contributions—see the case of User:Pioneer-12. He wanted his text on talk pages to not be GFDL-licensed; this was not well-received, and has resulted in his indefinite ban unless and until he withdraws this requirement. He suggested that his use of the text–duplicated from his own external blog–was fair use.

'Fair use' is a legal defense against an accusation of copyright infringement. That is, it permits the legal infringement of copyright under certain narrow conditions. In the case of images for which an editor holds the copyright, I don't see how a 'fair use' argument would work. The uploader in such a case has the legal right to distribute the copyrighted work; no infringement is taking place. I don't think it's possible to 'have one's cake and eat it, too' by trying to infringe one's own copyright. Instead we're looking for a way to circumvent (or modify) the terms, conditions, and policies of Wikipedia with respect to image uploads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Proposed Policy[edit]

I was pointed to this page while discussing on Template_talk:User_firefox, which regards the usage of the Firefox logo in userboxes (where specific permission was granted by Mozilla, but the image was removed anyway). It seems like Wikipedia policy and bureaucracy is going against the wishes of all parties involved (including the copyright holder). Seems like this page has been abandoned for a while, and I thought I should ask, what is the future of this proposed policy? — TheKMan^talk 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this question, and wish to express my support (in principle) for this policy proposal.

ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising concern[edit]

User:Thue, you wrote in your proposed policy, "Free licenses are obviously very permissive, and if I upload a picture of myself under such a license, then it means that I among other things allow the image to be used in adverticements such as banner ads." However, I'm not convinced that this is true. Copyright law is one thing, but there are also laws which prohibit companies from using someone's name or likeness in a manner that implies they are endorsing a particular product or belief. Just because I have a GFDL picture of you doesn't mean that I can Photoshop a cigarette into your mouth for a Marlboro advertisement, or Photoshop you into a Gestapo uniform on a political leaflet; that could expose me to criminal or civil penalties. —Psychonaut 07:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they just included a small text down in the corner which said "The model in this ad do not necessarily have the views expressed by the ad", then I think they would be within the the rights granted in the GFDL to use my picture in their ads. Thue | talk 10:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that solves that problem, then. —Psychonaut 06:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Thue | talk 09:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion in progress[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Community pictures. Carcharoth 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]