Category talk:Wikipedia files with unknown source
Stupid question (maybe)
What does it take for an image to no longer be considered to have "no source". Is it enough to add a compatable copyright tag (like {{coatofarms}} or {{film-screenshot}}, or do we need to know exactly where and how the image was obtained for it no longer to be eligable for speedy deletion under Critera 4 (tagged as no source for more than 7 days)? Just curious because a lot of images here could probably be re-tagged under some form of "fair use", but finding the exact source is near impossible. Just wondering if I should bother re-tagging images listed here or just nominate anyting that's been tagged for more than 7 days for speedy almost regardles? --Sherool 16:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are no stupid questions :D. If you know the source of the image, then just re-tag and list the source where it came from. While the exact source is very good, something that looks similar to it can be ok. But if there are some images that you cannot retag or cannot find the source for, just put them up for speedy deletion. Zach (Sound Off) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure that exactly answers it, at least, it wasn't clear. I am not sure. I have been removing no source if it is something obviously a screenshot / logo or the like. Maybe this is incorrect but it seems to make sense to me. I've been adding "adding copryight tag -- removing no source -- if I shouldn't have removed no source please notify me". It seems to me that the logo itself is fairuse in any form and that no source has exclusive right to it.... however, I don't know about copyright law and it might not be intuitive to me. gren グレン 20:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep in mind. You can't claim fair use without a source, nor can something be cc-by or GFDL. You may be able to retag something PD with no source, but pretty much everything else inherently requires one. Superm401 | Talk 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- So if someome upload the Windows logo but doesn't say where he got it from it can't be fair use? Is there no room for "common sense" in this I mean a logo is a logo, does it matter if it was a screenshot from windows, downloaded from a online newspater or taken off the Windows site? I mean sure, you have to say who's logo it is, but beyond that? What about screenshots, I mean if I say what game or movie it's from does it matter if the uploader did the screen capture himself or if it was downloaded from a gaming site or photographed off the screen? --Sherool 23:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- If it's the Windows logo the source is obviously some Microsoft publication. That's close enough. I would just add that myself if I saw it with a no-source tag. If it's a a screenshot, it does matter who takes it. If it's the uploader, the only copyright issue is whether it's a fair use of the game's copyright. Otherwise, we have to worry about whether it's a fair use of the web-site's copyright in the (possibly illegal) deriviative work. Superm401 | Talk 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I believe you can claim fair use with out a source. If our use of the image is fair use, it does not require the permission of the copyright holder, so it does not matter if we know the source or not. I cannot find any codified law or case law that says you have to know the copyright holder to claim fair use. If someone knows of some, please point me in that direction. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's criteria requires a source, regardless of the legal requirements. See Jimbo's new WP:CSD policy additions (I4).--Duk 03:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I believe you can claim fair use with out a source. If our use of the image is fair use, it does not require the permission of the copyright holder, so it does not matter if we know the source or not. I cannot find any codified law or case law that says you have to know the copyright holder to claim fair use. If someone knows of some, please point me in that direction. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I read the last WP:CSD done by Jimbo Wales and there is no requirement that Wikipedia requires a source. Images with unknown source can be speedy deleted but if their is a good fair use claim we should be able to use the image, otherwise, every album cover, DVD cover, poster, etc. should be deleted because we are not 100% sure who the copyright holder; maybe it's the distributor, maybe it's a major studio or maybe it's a smaller production company. The proper reasearch has not been done. --13:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, you can't. Fair use criteria consider how much of an overall work is copied, the effect of the infringement on the overall work's value, and what type of work the original was. Wikipedia can not know any of that if no source is provided. Superm401 | Talk 12:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Still, the source is not a requirement, it just makes using the image under fair use a riskier proposition. I believe tagging the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act disclaimer on the image could help --Nv8200p (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- We can, because we can assume. The law states that material published before 19XX needed to have copyrights regranted yearly, no? And that material published in the U.S. before 192X (?) is free from copyright restrictions. So a photo from the 1920s or earlier = likely to be PD. And for photos from the 1940s and 1950s goes following: If it is of rather low quality, is fairly unknown (e.g. not of professional photo of King Kong), I assume it has little commercial value for the owner by itself (which is the main criteria for fair use), which would make it eligible for fair use. Fred-Chess 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, just trying to figure out what consitutes a source. Is it enough for me to add "This is a screenshot from a Transformers episode" for example, or do we need the actual uploader to describe in detail how he obtained the picture. If it's the later I fear a lot if not most uploaders have misunderstood the rules, most people when asked about the source of theyr pictures just say "it's a screenshot from [whatever]", or "it's the cover of [some album]". If that's not enough we need to seriously clearify the rules for sourcing of images, and possebly delete about 99% of the stuff tagged as fair use screesnhots, posters and covers at the moment... --Sherool 10:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Obviously ridiculous to require everything to have a source, and just creating additional work for us who have to re-upload the logos, coat of arms, etc. Fred-Chess 21:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, this also can go towards WP:CITE. If we have to cite key information in articles, we should have to cite where the photos we use came from. Zach (Sound Off) 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand and I'm going to start putting sources with everything, even generic album covers. However, my main worry is that a lot of album covers / logos / things that are obviously fair use no matter their source will get deleted because they have no source. I think a policy of something like any of these types uploaded after Septmeber 25 with no source will be deleted. Buy, I think we need time to source or re-upload many of the old fair use images rather than have them deleted. gren グレン 06:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Everyone has seven days from when the no-source template is added. Superm401 | Talk 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand and I'm going to start putting sources with everything, even generic album covers. However, my main worry is that a lot of album covers / logos / things that are obviously fair use no matter their source will get deleted because they have no source. I think a policy of something like any of these types uploaded after Septmeber 25 with no source will be deleted. Buy, I think we need time to source or re-upload many of the old fair use images rather than have them deleted. gren グレン 06:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Subcategory images with notified uploaders
We should make a subcategory for images whose uploaders had been notified of their images status. There should be a corresponding {{no source notified}}. All uploaders should have been notified when the tag was placed but not all were. Uploaders deserve fair warning, even if it's just a request that they tag their images. Non-admins like me can go through the main category, notify uploaders, and then change the template. It could be a corrollary of the untagged images project. What do people, especially admins (because of their deletion powers), think? Superm401 | Talk 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be happy if you want to do that. THe depressing thing is that, as you said, this was already supposed to have happened. But doing it again can't hurt. (Although, I will continue deleting images in the main category until the warned category has something in it, though.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Does this "no source - notified" category exist yet? And what about having subcategories for date notified? Then it would be very simple for the speedy deleters to deal with the images in the categories for > 7 days ago. -- LiniShu 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete candidates
These images of Hulk Hogan were uploaded by User:Iamsk3 in July 2005. They are all copyrighted.
- Image:1hogan1979.jpg, Image:1hoganawa.jpg, Image:1hoganjapan.jpg, Image:1hogan1989.jpg, Image:1hoganbundy.jpg, Image:1hoganwcw.jpg, Image:1hoganhhh.jpg, Image:1hoganfamily.jpg, Image:1mramerica.jpg, Image:1hoganandre.jpg, Image:1hoganrip.jpg, Image:1hoganbundy.jpg.
//Fred-Chess 11:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think I got them all. If not, just let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
No source = Uncertain copyright status?
This is certainly not true. Many old images that currently have no source are still Public Domain. To that end, I am working my way through the images in this category, removing the "no source" tag and adding PD to old images that are free to use due to age and unlikely to have a copyright holder. // Fred-Chess 11:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- In almost all cases it is. I'm suspicious, (but will not necessarily remove) a PD claim that doesn't have a source. The source is the only way we can verify the copyright. Superm401 | Talk 12:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is a template, but I am not sure what it is named, but you can tag the image that says it could be in the public ___domain, but we are not sure yet. My suggestion is tag it with that and then once we are done here, we just go through the PD images and take care of them. Zach (Sound Off) 13:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't! Tags are supposed to be unequivocally accurate. If you're not sure, don't tag it. Superm401 | Talk 15:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is {{fairold}}. // Fred-Chess 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't know the source, it's not fair use. {{Fairold}} is not an exception to that. Superm401 | Talk 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- So only use {{Fairold}} when we have a source but the image may/not be in the public ___domain? Zach (Sound Off) 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, for example, you may know who created the image and perhaps even when, but not when the image is published, which makes a difference. Superm401 | Talk 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't know the source, it's not fair use. {{Fairold}} is not an exception to that. Superm401 | Talk 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is {{fairold}}. // Fred-Chess 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't! Tags are supposed to be unequivocally accurate. If you're not sure, don't tag it. Superm401 | Talk 15:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is a template, but I am not sure what it is named, but you can tag the image that says it could be in the public ___domain, but we are not sure yet. My suggestion is tag it with that and then once we are done here, we just go through the PD images and take care of them. Zach (Sound Off) 13:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- To a degree you can almost guarantee that certain images are not copyrighted despite the fact that there are no sources. Take Image:Gogh4.jpg for example. Assume we didn't know where the painting came from. But since we know that Van Gogh died in 1890, it would be in the public ___domain. Publishing a picture wouldn't make a difference, would it? That would then mean that every publisher for Shakespeare must pay royalities. --Bash 05:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If a picture was created in 1890, but not published until 2005, it is under copyright until 2010. See Commons:Commons:Licensing#United States.
- In general, just because a picture looks old doesn't mean it is old. Without a source indicated, it's impossible to know that a picture is old enough to be public ___domain. dbenbenn | talk 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand you. I'm reading the Commons Licensing page, and it is really confusing. What does this line mean?
Works created but not published before January 1 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they where registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudononymous works) resp. 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first.
Doesn't that mean that a picture created in 1890 make it public ___domain since 1985? --Bash 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
How do I count the images in the category?
I use the pywikipedia framework. Specifically, the following code:
import wikipedia, catlib
q=catlib.Category(wikipedia.Site('en'), 'Images with unknown source').articles();print len(q)
That takes about 15 minutes or so to run on my machine (and dial up connection), and outputs the number of images in the category. Then I just add it to the page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- About how many times are you doing these checks? Once per week? Zach (Sound Off) 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly when I feel like it, or when someone asks me to, or for some other reason. No set schedule, at least so far. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I merged some of the "images in this category" history so the updates come at somewhat regular once-a-week intervals. Coffee 05:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Deletion suggestions
Please let me know if this is not the most appropriate place to post this.
Click here to see a user who uploaded four really unused images that can be speedied. // Fred-Chess 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's alright, we should get a heads up on one uploader just uploading unsourced images left and right; it's now a blockable offense. All photos were deleted and I blocked the user for their username. Zach (Sound Off) 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
uploader notification
I'm all for notifying the uploader especially if it's a recently uploaded image, however I think that it's rediculous that there are images from June that are untagged and we are expected to notify the uploader after they have had plenty of time to tag the image. I prefer just to use good faith when deciding whether or not to notify and I think the notice should probably be changed to reflect the option to do so. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Amen. Sure, we can do contacting on the recent stuff, but if it was months and months agom we should be able to fire away. I also wish that we do not have to remove the photos from the articles too. Zach (Sound Off) 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hello again... The thing is, how would a person know that his image would need a tag? If they did not put it on their watch page, they can't know that it got a "nosource" on it.
- Maybe you will think that the upload form makes it clear. Unfortunetely it doesn't. I suspect that few new users know what "GFDL" means or what a free license is. The upload form also contains lots of various information of various kinds, totally intermixed. I don't think I ever read the entire page until right now. And just thinking of the top notice "You can also upload files under a free license (no fair use!) to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content which can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. Uploading your files to Commons is highly recommended.", implies that this something called "free license" would be required to be used in something called "wikimedia" -- makes no sense for newbies. I'm not surprised that people just upload images, and consider everthing on the upload form to be fineprint, i.e. the stuff you never read, because it is only intended to free the company from economical liability. // Fred-Chess 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the notices should be more clear but unless the system can be overhauled I think going through all the listings making sure that they're all notified and notify the uploaders who haven't been notified then seven days later you have to do it all over again for images where the notifier hasn't done anything about it. It presents a huge issue since if we were limited by that no image would ever get deleted due to the ridiculous complexity of it. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- And while some have gone through the no source category, I am also going through the "unsure/don't know" category and that is getting very filled up too. There is close to 400 photos there, but I am going to wipe most of them off our servers. Zach (Sound Off) 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the notices should be more clear but unless the system can be overhauled I think going through all the listings making sure that they're all notified and notify the uploaders who haven't been notified then seven days later you have to do it all over again for images where the notifier hasn't done anything about it. It presents a huge issue since if we were limited by that no image would ever get deleted due to the ridiculous complexity of it. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding clarify the upload page - There Is A Clear Simple Version available on the talk page, just waiting for sufficient consenus to get applied to the page. I'm going to try and drum up this support. Please go to MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Simple_version and express your support, if you feel so moved. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- It looks good, but if people still do get this, though we made it easier, then we admins should have to get very tough on this issue. I had to whack about 100 copyvio photos, and I plan to delete more very soon. Zach (Sound Off) 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
rewrite
I have rewritten a portion of this to make it clear that notifying the uploader is not required only strongly suggested, below is the original and the changed version:
Original:
Don't delete an image unless the uploader has been notified, and it's been at least 7 days since then. After informing the uploader, leave a dated note for other speedy deleters on the image page, to let them know you've done so.
Modified
Those working on this cleanup project should use good judgment when considering deletion. Placing the notice {{No source}} on the uploaders talk page is strongly recommended however admins should use good judgement as to whether notify upload or delete without notice.
Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- You mean {{subst:Image source|Image:ImageName.jpg}} --~~~~ not {{No source}} on the talk page right? --Sherool 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Notification bot
In a bot of pure brilliant usefulness User:AllyUnion has made a bot to do the notification, making life much easier. So the new categories Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified and Category:Images with unknown source - notified will start to fill up. Justinc 13:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, so far it seems to be dumping everyting from Category:Images with unknown source into Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified while Category:Images with unknown source - notified remains empty... Is this intentional? --Sherool 16:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe so. Luckily, it can be fixed without editing all the image pages again. The bot is properly moving {{no source}} to {{no source notified}} and {{no license}} to {{no license notified}}. The categorization is coming from the templates. The problem is that {{no source notified}} categorizes in Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified. Someone just needs to go in and change that categorization. I'd do it myself but it's protected and I'm not an admin. However, I am going to put Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified in Category:Images with unknown copyright status and Category:Images with unknown source - notified in to make the "notified" images easier to find. Hopefully, admins will go through these categories first, as Jesse has already agreed to do. On a related topic, Jesse, can you make that edit? Superm401 | Talk 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've done that. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe so. Luckily, it can be fixed without editing all the image pages again. The bot is properly moving {{no source}} to {{no source notified}} and {{no license}} to {{no license notified}}. The categorization is coming from the templates. The problem is that {{no source notified}} categorizes in Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified. Someone just needs to go in and change that categorization. I'd do it myself but it's protected and I'm not an admin. However, I am going to put Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified in Category:Images with unknown copyright status and Category:Images with unknown source - notified in to make the "notified" images easier to find. Hopefully, admins will go through these categories first, as Jesse has already agreed to do. On a related topic, Jesse, can you make that edit? Superm401 | Talk 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)