Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Remaining non-free use images


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete all; Logos pending.  Cbrown1023   talk   23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've closed the rest of this vote given the lack of consensus reached in leaving it open. Perhaps the issue should be revisited at some point. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Remaining non-free use images
Rather than pick off the remaining non-free images on Wikiquote individually, as we've been doing, I thought I'd just nominate the whole remaining bunch. For those who aren't familiar with Wikiquote image policy, two years ago we decided to avoid the problems with image copyrights by forcing all images to be uploaded or migrated to Wikimedia Commons, which has a "no fair-use" policy. All of its images must be released under a free license like GFDL or Creative Commons. We have been gradually deleting legacy images that do not cite such a license and/or have been migrated. Here are all of the remaining images on Wikiquote: I suggest we delete all, with the possible exception of the wiki logos (if we can add appropriate license statements to them). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced images apparently violating copyright, no WP versions:
 * Image:Allinthefamily bts.jpg — All in the Family on-set picture
 * Image:Mi poster.jpg — Monsters, Inc. movie poster
 * Image:OTV.jpg (WP image deleted long ago) — On the Verge book cover
 * Image:Reneetwoface.png — Gotham Central comic strip panel
 * Image:Pic17.jpg — April Winchell photo; claimed fair use; no specific source (link to website is generic)
 * Sourced images from copryrighted works:
 * Image:Devo Freedom of Choice.jpg (WP image) — Devo album cover; claimed fair use; WP image is properly fair-use tagged
 * Image:Sublime 40 Oz. to Freedom.jpg (WP image) — Sublime album cover; claimed fair use; WP image is properly fair-use tagged
 * Image:Vonnegut.jpg (no WP image) — Kurt Vonnegut photo; claimed fair use of image from website copyrighted by "Kurt Vonnegut & Origami Express LLC"
 * Unsourced images with inadequate fair-use claims also on Wikipedia:
 * Image:JeanPaulSartre.jpg (WP image) — Jean-Paul Sartre photo; non-existent template here; "non-free unsure" template on WP
 * Image:Ratumara.jpg (WP image) — Kamisese Mara photo; uploader admitted he doesn't know its origin
 * User images:
 * Image:Mystique User Picture.jpg (WP image) — User:Mystique photo; no source, no license; user no longer active on Wikiquote or Wikipedia; an 18-month-old request to add a formal license tag to WP image has gone unanswered, nor have recent requests for licenses on other uploaded WP images received responses
 * Wikimedia images needing free license statements:
 * Image:Wiki.png — Wikiquote's official logo, created by User:Neolux
 * Image:Wikiquote.png — w:User:Arvindn's unused variation on Neolux's Wikiquote logo
 * Image:Logo134BrackettsJUL2c-150.png — Kalki's cool but unused Wikipedia logo
 * Vote closes: 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Bear in mind I am a Commons admin so would say that but I do think it anyway -- Herby talk thyme 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — It is regrettable that we will be losing images of Vonnegut and Sartre, which we might continue to use as fair-use, but it is probably best to remove them all at this point, use only Wikimedia Commons images, and eliminate potential confusion. ~ Kalki 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not happy about fair use.--Cato 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's best to put a definite solution to fair use, and make clear only Commons material is acceptable. The FU problem has proven to grow beyond control, thus making itself nearly impossible to eradicate, if not addressed in a decisive way. Phaed r i e l  - 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all the Wikiquote logo is on the commons anyway. I think it best to get rid of such images per the discussion two years ago. Will {{sup|{talk)}} 02:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I brought this issue at WQ:VP and Jeff Q answered there. As Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, claiming fair use on copyrighted images is unlikely, so in addition to stopping new uploads right here, remaining fair use images should no longer be hosted here. English Wikipedia still accepts fair use images if good rationales are given.--Jusjih 09:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all I'm no expert in American copyrights, but Jusjih is probably right.--Poetlister 12:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete all. I looked through each one and each one does not belong here per current image policy. Good idea to remove the rest of these non-free images as a group and be done with the task. The wiki logo images are not needed here, I think. FloNight 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 00:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete them all, except the logos if they can be licensed properly. Users who want more information on the topics of the fair use images can always refer to the English Wikipedia. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete them all, except the logos if they can be licensed properly. I love historical things generally, and it is obvious those three graphics are their own works, we can be tolerant to decide their fates? --Aphaia 08:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. ~ UDScott 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Like Aphaia, I'd like to keep the historical stuff, but we need the license statements. Of the owners of the four relevant images (three logos and a user image):
 * Kalki says his logo already exists at Meta and isn't concerned about it being here, but he might add a license if we talk him into it.
 * Neolux hasn't edited here or at WP for months, and doesn't have a registered email address in either place.
 * Arvindn is active at WP and might be cajoled into providing a license.
 * Mystique has long been inactive here and on WP, but her WP user page points to an active blog where we might ask her about this.
 * I'm too busy with other stuff to volunteer to chase down these licenses, but if someone wants to try it, I'd be willing to extend the vote. I'd rather not except these images when closing this discussion because we've done that before ("Lots and lots of logos", "Orphaned images"), and we tend to forget to finish the job after the VfD is over. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Image:Wiki.png will not be deleted, it is our current logo and logos stay at that filename.  Cbrown1023   talk   16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Our logo is stored on upload.wikimedia.org. This is merely an unlicensed copy of it. But we ought to be able to obtain a license for it, else Wikimedia is violating its own policies, n'est-ce pas?. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean that is the location where it is stored, whether we upload the one from Commons in its place or not. There will always be an image in that location.  Furthermore, upload.wikimedia.org is over-written by changes to the local filename... i.e. if I change Image:Booger on commons, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Image:Booger will be changed as well.  I really could care less whether the original is deleted or not. :)  Cbrown1023    talk   21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cbrown1023, I'm not following your ambiguous use of the word "that" in the above posts. This is what I see in the various image histories:
 * Neolux uploaded "Image:Ncwikiquote2trans.png" locally on 25 August 2004. (This can only be observed by sysops; see below.) I'll call this "A" for convenience.
 * Tim Starling copied it to "Image:Wiki.png" on 20 September 2004, no explanation of why. This will be "B".
 * You copied "A" to Commons on 19 February 2007, citing Neolux as author, and added a commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia license tag to it. I'll call this "C".
 * You then deleted "A" (the original) as a tranwikied image. Since "C" is on Commons and has the same image name, "C" now appears in Wikiquote automatically as if it were the old "A", but only C's history is shown to non-sysops.
 * Based on this, I assume you did not mean that "Wiki.png will not be deleted", as you literally said, but rather that the logo that appears on each of our pages will not be deleted if we choose to delete "Wiki.png" because the new "original" that is cached by upload.wikimedia.org is actually "C", which is safe on Commons and properly licensed (more or less). Sorry to be so nitpicky, but it can be very confusing even to experienced editors (let alone the general readership) when discussing how images are handled between projects, so I think we need to be clear about which copies of images we're referring to. I also apologize for allowing some of this to become confusing by not being more specific during the "Orphaned images" discussion. The original problem with Neolux's image was that no proper source was ever provided, and it still hasn't been. (The Commons copy claims "en:Wikiquote" as the source, but this is not possible, as images are only uploaded to wikis, not created there. Furthermore, its "description page" link is circular, as the en:WQ copy is now coming from Commons.) Technically, Wikiquote, through you, is now asserting that it owns the logo, even though the original uploader (Neolux) never explained where it came from. I assume that they created it, but I was hoping that somewhere along the way that someone who could reasonably claim to know would add an explicit ownership assertion with justification. (Just citing an "author" is not sufficient. Wikipedia, for example, is replete with people who claim to be the "author" of images they merely copied from elsewhere. The logo's authorship assertion currently rests entirely on the reputation of a user who is no longer available to answer questions, and we seem to have no one who is willing to vouch for this person by adding a proper source description for them.) I'm dismayed about how Wikimedia seems to fail its own licensing requirements for some of its legacy material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we really assumes that the WMF would be so stupid as to do something such as what you are talking about? I think not, furthermore, there are things that went on behind the scenes that we dont' know about.  I am sure there were some notes about the fact that the lgoo submissions must all be licensed under Wikimedia.  Cbrown1023    talk   17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they're stupid. I'm saying they're not particularly thorough or consistent. There should be nothing "behind the scenes" where licensing and sourcing is concerned. Even while there is a major drive to rid Wikimedia of as much improperly sourced and licensed material as possible, some basic copyrighted elements important to the operation of of Wikimedia have not undergone the same rigor we are requiring for other material. If this were not the case, there would be an explicit assertion that Neolux created "Image:Ncwikiquote2trans.png", in order to differentiate his being merely labelled as "author" from all the other editors who claim authorship without saying specifically why (e.g., "I created this original work with GIMP", "I took this picture with my Nikon Coolpix L10"). Any claim that this is not necessary is doing exactly what I'm complaining about — relying on reputation known to people who can't be bothered to put their names (or at least their usernames) on the line by adding such an assertion. I wouldn't care if Jimmy Wales himself told me we shouldn't worry about this. If he knows about the situation, I would ask him to edit the image description page to assert that Neolux created it. License requirements must be followed by everyone equally, or we really are acting like a cabal. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate arguing with you... you're always right! Did you realize that I skepped over the other things you said because you were right. /me sighs... what I meant originally was that I thought our logo was stored at Wiki.png on en.wikiquote, meaning that we need to keep the logo there locally.  Everything else you said, unfortunately, is, like always, absolutely correct.  But my point still stands, we need to ask the right people the copyright status of the image (bickering here won't help).  Either that or get a new logo, which would really suck.  Cbrown1023    talk  
 * Jeff: Because of the licensong bit on the bottom of all the pages, can't we assume that it is at licensed under the GFDL?  Cbrown1023   talk   20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. If I upload an Associated Press photographer's image of Lindsay Lohan for our article and list myself as "author" because I uploaded it (a common problem in Wikimedia), it isn't legal just because our pages all say "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Ignoring the technicality of "All text" for the moment (I hope the WMF has that covered somehow), the license assertion is only valid for the image if I hold the copyright for it, and I most certainly don't. This is also why it's so important that we avoid excessive quoting for Wikiquote, and lifting large portions of text for Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that someone must make a claim that Wikimedia has the right to grant the license, typically by asserting ownership, which if true gives the creator an automatic copyright (in the U.S., at least). Someone could challenge this in court, of course, but we've done due diligence as long as we ensure that every image has both a source that makes this copyright clear and a license that is compatible with the project's GFDL. Besides uploader ownership, there are also "public domain" (no copyright exists, source should make clear why image is considered PD); "permission to reprint" (tricky but used in places, source gives pointer to owner for verification); etc. But Neolux's ownership of our logo is, I believe, what we are trying to confirm here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His meta page footer says: If anyone wants more clarification or has any other questions, feel free to email admin (at) neolux (dot) com (dot) au. ... How about mailing him your questions, guys? I assume, his reply will be "I designed the logo, the WMF owned it for now.", though. --Aphaia 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, Aphaia. I've just now emailed Neolux a request for explicit source and license statements. His Meta user page already includes a usable source statement ("I designed the logo for Wikiquote"), but to be legally copyrightable by the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe he needs to have a statement recorded somewhere that he has assigned his copyright for this image to WMF; otherwise how could they assert their standard logo copyright? If we don't resolve this before 20:00 UTC tomorrow, I'd like to extend the discussion. This might also provide time to chase down Arvindn's logo (which may also need a license from Brion Vibber, since he says he "tweaked" it). And we might still ask Kalki to preserve his colorful logo as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I could've sworn I e-mailed Neolux last time around, though.....  Cbrown1023   talk   22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial close I have partially closed this debate. The unresolved bits (the logos still stand under discussion).  (Although if we tally votes, they all ought to be deleted.)  The images exteded are posted below for the sake of clarity.  Cbrown1023    talk   23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia images needing free license statements:
 * Image:Wiki.png — Wikiquote's official logo, created by User:Neolux
 * Image:Wikiquote.png — w:User:Arvindn's unused variation on Neolux's Wikiquote logo
 * Image:Logo134BrackettsJUL2c-150.png — Kalki's cool but unused Wikipedia logo
 * Would these logos be considered copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation without GFDL licensing? Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., so the Wikipedia logo may not be freely usable outsite Wiki sites.--Jusjih 14:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is not a person, so it could not have created the logos. Each person who created each logo presumably must assign their copyright (automatically given in the U.S., at least) to WMF in order for the Foundation to assert any rights of its own. (Establishing "Wikimedia" as a trademark was surely a different legal process.) If the author releases the logo under a free license, WMF can't restrict it for its own use. I therefore deduce that each logo is required to have an assertion of who created it (not just who uploaded it) and a public assignment of their copyright to WMF, which exactly parallels our recent drive to require each Wikimedia image to have a creator (source) and a suitable license statement. Unless someone can provide a legally plausible counterargument to this, I think we Wikimedians have a responsibility to ensure that our logos have all their rights made clear. Otherwise we have no moral authority to hunt down and delete other problem images. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.