Wikipedia Diskussioun:EDP

Fair use, Bild-fräi fir all Wikipedia and NC files

The policy of WMF is very clear. Either the file is free or it has to live up to the local EDP. So all files on the Lëtzebuergesch Wikipedia should be free (allowing modifications, commercial use etc.) with the exception of Wikimedia logos and files that follow the EDP.

What brings me here is this Benotzer_Diskussioun:MGA73#Files_with_unusual_licence where we discussed when a non-free file should be deleted.

The English EDP is very clear: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". The Lëtzebuergesch EDP may not have the excact same wording.

The WFM resosution says

"Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."

As I read the WMF-resolution the part saying "or could be created" is highly relevant.

That leads to another question. What do we do with all the files that do not follow this policy? The WMF policy is very clear: "... all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted."

In my opinion it would be ok if all non-ok files are not deleted "today" but on the other hand it should not take years. It may be a good idea to do like on the English Wikipedia where files that are believed not to be ok are tagged and put in a category and if problem is not solved within 7 days the file is deleted. To me 15 days would also be ok. --MGA73 18:21, 1. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

The part or could be created is a bit of a problem, because it is subject to various interpretations, especially in the context of a large respectively a small wiki. For a large wiki, it would mean that no FU at all is allowed, because if there is an unfree photo then it means that somebody else could make a free one of the depicted object, scene or person or, e.g. in case of dead people, call the relatives of that person and obtain the authorisation to publish a photo of that dead person under a free licence. In theory all is possible and hence no FU for en-wiki! But what is possible for a small wiki? From whom of the few active members can be reasonably expected to find the phone number of full strangers, call those, get an appointment and then the authorisation to take photos? Who will within 15 days be able to take holidays on sunny days and travel the country just to take shots of chapels with sometimes unknown coordinates? Who knows in which museum or in which private collection he can find Minette or a Wäirauchschëffelchen in a quality usable at the wiki? Practice showed and still shows that only by chance some people had in the past the opportunity to take such pix. It is fully unclear whether in the future it is reasonable to expect such opportunity to come by again, keeping in mind that the opportunity has to show itself not to a given person but just to the less than a dozen very active members. That is the reason why so far the proof that an unfree photo could be replaced was definitely given when such free photo was available. Maybe if the coordinates of buildings are known then it can be expected that one day somebody passes again there and the "could be created" condition will be fulfilled also for those photos. But living and dead people who are not "public people", uncommon objects or events make me very seriously doubt that we could ever again have the opportunity to create new photos thereof. Hence, no problem for me to keep up the "could be created" principle, just it needs a viable interpretation, which we can then put as determined examples in our EDP. --Otets 00:57, 2. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is hard to give valid arguments for fair use in most cases. The reason for that i that Wikipedia is a place for free information and because fair use is using other peoples property without permission.

To me it is not relevant is the Wiki is big or small. A tourist from USA could take a good photo of a famous Lëtzebuergesch person visiting Australia and upload it it to Wikipedia og Flickr under a free license. So we should not see each Wikipedia as a separate unit but as a whole.

But I agree that it can take very long time before there is a free photo of every subject on Wikipedia. But WMF knew that when they desided that Wikipedia is a place for free information. They say fair use should only be used to "illustrate historically significant events" so they knew and accepted that many articles would have to be without a photo.

On en-wiki they have a template saying "We need a photo for this article. If you have one please upload it." I do not know if a similar exists on lb-wiki but there must be many users that read the articles on lb-wiki and if we could get some of them to share there photos then it is not just a few active users that has to do all the work. And it is possible to get museums to share there collections. --MGA73 06:02, 2. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

• Just noticed this deletion summary [1] "13. Sep 2005, 22:23 Cornischong deleted "Fichier:OulKieChou.JPG" ‎ (Noncommercial images are non-free. They are absolutely forbidden in all Wikimedia projects. This has always been the policy and will always be the policy. They should be deleted promptly.--Jimbo Wales 21:31, 13 September 2005)" --MGA73 08:02, 2. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people famous in Luxembourg would not even get an article on en-wiki for being not relevant enough. And honestly, I can't imagine Lex Roth travelling to Australia and I can even less imagine a US citizen recognize him there. All this is in a small Lux context not realistic. A restrictive interpretation of what could in theory be possible in a different context but isn't reasonable to assume in the given context would just have as result to remove photos which in practice can never be replaced by free ones. I do not see why to proceed with prior deletions, except maybe for buildings whose coordinates are known to everybody, because there it is indeed possible to go there and make own photos. We have no template, but a page with a list of required photos - success rather limited or nil.

That was ironic from Cornischong. As a protest reaction he deleted dozens and dozens of free GFDL photos. And Jimbos idea was not approved by any board and hence not binding. --Otets 12:51, 2. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

One thing: You take out photos of past events where you know very well that never ever a free photo can replace those. And you take also out photos of still active users, whom you could have easily contacted to discuss the subject - knowing that photo actions go unnoticed by most users. Please, for the future, refrain from taking out photos of people, except if you can (and do) replace them by free photos from Commons (I'd be better I'd go today to make some photos instead of losing time searching in Commons). And generally it would be better to discuss with a vote every concerned photo. --Otets 13:55, 2. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know all active users were informed about the NC-files etc. but I guess someone was forgotten since you wrote the notice above. Sorry about that.

As for how to delete I think there is no need to discuss files with a NC-license etc. they are not allowed by WMF resolution. Only the fair use files needs discussion and so far the only fair use files I have deleted or nominated for deletion is unused files. --MGA73 20:03, 4. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to say: If any of the files shows a historic event and meets the fair use requirements then the license could of course be changed to fair use. --MGA73 20:59, 4. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

NC was very widespread at this wiki, therefore it was decided to contact the uploaders in order to get a licence change and were no response was given due to inactivity of the concerned user, let the pix in place until a replacement was found. But actually I meant user Fliedermaus, not myself. Personally I have only NC photos which are not meant to be included in articles, all others have been relicenced recently. On the "Peloton vun der 3. Etapp vum Tour de France 2006" photo I tried retagging FU, like you suggested, let's see if that will trigger any discussion by other users, otherwise it's a good idea. --Otets 00:17, 6. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

My Luxembourgish is very bad but as I understand Benotzer_Diskussioun:Fliedermaus#The_L-word then Fliedermaus was informed that NC-files should be relicensed. Sorry if I did not understand that correctly. --MGA73 12:43, 8. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents' worth of comments

So far, we have made good progress in cleaning up our image repository, by copying to Commons everything "commonsable" (still progressing) so to leave here only the "exceptions". As regards the exceptions, images with no licence have to be deleted (mostly done), the others are getting an appropriate licence (if not possible, they will have to go). Some work will still be to assess all the "Fair Use" pictures and provide them with a solid FU-rationale which "can fly". My hope would be that by the end of the year, we have - at last - a 'clean' picture situation, and new pictures will mostly be uploaded to Commons from the beginning.

So far so good. Reading the above discussion, I realise that Otet's translation of the EDP omits the sentence "or could be created". I agree with MGA73 that this is, least to say, "problematic". Even if I understand that it is sad to delete a few (not more than a dozen or so) of portraits of living people because there can be a picture made and uploaded at any time, I am convinced we should have watertight rules. Trying to make up exceptions (the small wiki argument is quite far-fetched, "pulled by the hair", as we would say) which will be contested later on anyway and then lead to new discussions just adding more work and lead nowhere. If we had had already stricter rules years ago, as I had called for many times, these pictures would not have been uploaded with "strange" licences ("free for all wikis" or similar) in the first place anyway.

This being said, there are indeed many portraits missing; I try to work on a "Please help adding a picture here"-template for the "faceless" articles. That might have more impact than fruitless discussions.

I shall also check the whole EDP translation here to make sure it corresponds to the english original.

--Zinneke 09:25, 6. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

It is "easy" to check files without a license because the files are removed from the category once they are checked (as deleted or when a valid license is added). Same with NC and other "bad" licenses if we agree that they should be deleted.

But when it comes to fair use it is hard because the fair use category will contain both checked and unchecked files. There are no easy way to solve this "problem". We could mark all files that have been checked or we could mark all unchecked files and remove that mark once the file is checked.

You mention "a fair use rationale". I think that it would be a good idea if a fair use rationale template is a must on all fair use files. That way uploader (or whoever wants to help) has to give good arguments why the photo is needed. That way it is also possible to see which files have been checked (I asume that none or alt least very few of the excisting files has such a template).

So my suggestion is that fair use files are all tagged with a "This file needs a fair use rationale"-template. And then all files are checked one by one and a rationale is added instead of this template. If the file is no good it should be nominated for deletion and deleted within 7 or 15 days. In the future it is possible to make a list of fair use files without such a fair use rationale and they can be tagged or a rationale can be added. --MGA73 10:08, 6. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

I did not make a 1:1 translation of the en-wiki EDP, and this is also not required by the WMF resolution. Indeed, many wikis do not just copy and translate the solution adopted for the en-wiki, but just got there an inspiration which has then been adapted to the specific needs of that given wiki. This is alright, as long as the WMF resolution is respected. Hence, no need for us to include a 1:1 translation of the words "or could be created". I realise that we need to be more precise on this point, but I largely favour in this case to stick to the text of the WMF resolution: "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose", and to initiate a broad discussion what is reasonable in the present context. Indeed, we do not talk here about stars who are often seen in public situations, but about hardly known people leading mostly a private life to which no "strangers" have access. That is less a direct "small wiki" argument, but just the argument that we are facing here another kind of people, who would never get an article on en-wiki and whose case goes unnoticed and hence undiscussed. Which means that here we have the need to discuss a case which does not show up on en-wiki and for which there is no ready-made en-wiki solution. It's just us and the WMF resolution, which shall be applied, and thus it shall be discussed here under which circumstances one could reasonably expect to get a photo of these people within 1-2 years. --Otets 11:18, 6. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the WMF resolution is more important than the en-wiki EDP. Both the resolution and en-wiki EDP accepts that there may be cases where it is not possible to get free images of living people so I think we all agree about that.

If you (or someone) want to claim that it is not possible to get free files of living people then you (someone) have to have some good arguments (and add them on the file page).

To me it is important that the EDP makes it clear that fair use is not usable just because you could not find a free file on the Internet. The file has to be important for the article and it should be very hard or impossible to replace the file.

We have to find out what we do with the files that we think could be replaced. Do we keep them until someone uploads a free file or do we delete them now? Personally I think that all unfree files should be deleted now unless we/someone can present a good argument why the file is important and why it cannot be replaced. --MGA73 11:59, 6. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that past events, dead people, film posters, logos and 3D artworks are eligible for FU. On the other hand certainly not all living people are hard to be photographed. The Grand Duke for example can be seen often enough in the public to be sooner or later taken on a free picture. And indeed his photo is on Commons. But it has to be noticed that no lb-wiki user made any of the Commons shots of the Grand Duke. Which does not sound very promising for living people sometimes seen in the public but unknown to the non-Luxembourgers. So I checked the 79 articles of Luxembourg actors: 60 do not have a photo at all, 8 have a FU photo, 4 a photo with an uncomplete or unfree licence and only 7 have a free photo. This represents only 8,9% of all articles. A check on a sample of US actors showed 18% free photos and 1 FU of a living actor. As far as Luxembourg cyclists are concerned, 25% have a free photo, so here one could reasonably expect to get free photos and FU should be excluded for the active cyclists. Luxembourg authors have 16% free images, but this is mainly due to the fact that many old photos are used and about 1/3 comes from Cornischong who was specialised on this and does no longer contribute, so here we actually drop also to a poor effective rate. Well, one could go through all categories of people and then discuss and/or vote. I ignore why we are only 3 to currently participate in the discussion, maybe it's because some are not that familiar with English, so maybe we should continue in Luxembourgish.

If we decide for buildings to be deleted, I would for instance wait until autumn to give the current users a chance to wait for good weather and to replace those pictures. Keeping the unfree that long helps also to find out where the building is and where to position yourself for the best shot - without knowing this I could not have made that many photos at the beginning of June. --Otets 14:40, 6. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

As long as a Fair use photo is on an article I doubt that many users will notice that we need a (free) photo. I think the chances are better if the unfree photo is removed. I agree that a fair use photo could help other users in some cases but I doubt that it is a valid fair use reason.

I do not expect the cleanup to be ended in a few weeks. I noticed that you worked on logos. I think it is a good idea to go through the fair use category and look for "easy files". Logos should have a logo template, statues should have a 3D template, posters and covers should also have special templates. Buildings should also be rather easy becauser they are either replacable or they should have a 3D template. Once all "easy" files are fixed next step could be persons or whatever. I think it would be good to deside on a plan so we make sure all files are checked (adding a "check category", a special template or whatever fits lb-wiki best).

I think it is a good idea to continue in Luxembourgish. I would however be happy for a short summary in English if something comes up where you think it would be nice if I commented. --MGA73 07:18, 7. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

(ganz graff) Zesummefaassung vun deem uewendriwwer

Et geet hei ëm de Gebrauch vun der Fair-Use-Lizenz. D'WMF-Resolutioun, un déi sech all d'Wikien hale mussen, seet "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". An der englescher EDP gouf dat follgendermoossen ausgeluecht: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". Déi lëtzebuergesch Iwwersetzung huet eng aner Ausleeung vun der WMF-Resolutioun a léisst den Hallefsaz "oder geschaf ka ginn" ewech, erlaabt deemno, esou wéi se do steet, implizit esou laang FU - och vu Leit, déi liewen, vun deenen een theoretsch ouni Probleem e Bild kinnt maachen -, bis d'Illustratioun vum Sujet duerch e fräit Bild ersat ginn ass. Dës Interpretatioun gouf vum MGA a vu mär a Fro gestallt. Den Otets argumentéiert, et wier bei wéinege Mataarbechter schwiereg, u Fotoen ze kommen, an dofir soll een als Noutléisung FU erlaaben, bis eeben een eng fräi Foto maache kunnt, an esou bewisen huet datt et an deem Fall raisonabel war eng fräi Foto z'erwaarden. D'Géigenargumenter sinn, datt d'Justifikatioun mat engem "Mangel u Fotografen" schwiereg ass, well een au cas par cas "gutt Argumenter" muss hunn, ze justifiéeren, firwat een "op eng raisonnabel Aart a Weis" net erwaarde kann, e fräit Bild vun där Persoun ze hunn.

Eng weider Diskussioun geet drëms, wéi ee bei de FU-Biller de sougenannte "Rationale" (d'Argumenter, déi de Gebrauch justifiéiren) nokucken a méi detailléiere soll, a wéi ee markéiert, wat nogekuckt ass a wat net. Et gouf proposéiert, Schratt fir Schratt virzegoen (Logoen, dann historesch Biller, Statuen/Gebaier, Plakater/Covere vu Bicher, CDen, Filmer, etc.).--Zinneke 09:43, 8. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Ech wier frou, wa méi Leit wéi just 3 sech kéinnten dozou äusseren, wéi d'FU-Riichtlinnen ausgeluecht sollte ginn, fir dass mer ee fir allemol Kloerheet hunn. --Zinneke 10:13, 26. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

User galleries - is that allowed?

I noticed that some fair use images are used in a user gallery. One of the galleries is Benotzer:GilPe/gallery (info to Benotzer:GilPe for being used as an example). Per minimal use I don't think that is allowed. Non free files should only be used in articles. At leas that is how en.wiki does it. Could you please discuss and find out if it also apply here? --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 13:21, 19. Jan. 2020 (UTC)