Wikiversity talk:Uploading files

Policy for uploaded files that lack the needed source/copyright/licensing information

The section of the page "Exemption Doctrine Policy" is already policy. Back in October 2007 there was some discussion of a need for the Wikiversity community to decide on ways to deal with uploaded files that lack the needed source/copyright/licensing information. This issue has again become a matter of discussion. I propose that the Wikiversity community decide on the wording of the templates that are mentioned in the page section "Deleting media files" and that this section also become official policy. As a start, I've tried formalizing the "Template:Nld process" from the bot's user page. After the community agrees on the wording of the wording of Template:Nld and Template:Image copyright then these templates can be added to pages. In addition, we need to make sure that the drop-down menu for selecting licenses is adequate and that we have a complete and convenient list of available licensing templates (make sure that Wikiversity:License tags is complete). I also think we need a process for helping Wikiversity participants when none of the available templates is appropriate for a particular file. --JWS 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Waiting period

Is there a waiting period for editors with new accounts? --Una Smith 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can upload files four days after account creation. --JWSchmidt 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating the EDP

Pursuant to Foundation level policy, all projects that utilize fair use content must have an Exemption Doctrine Policy or EDP. I am proposing the following changes to this document.

Fair Use Review

Replace 4 with: "Requests from copyright holders that copyrighted content be removed from Wikiversity are honored. Whenever a copyright holder disputes the rationale for fair use, the rationale will be reviewed by a impartial custodian to verify that the fair use doctrine is actually applicable to the content so utilized."

Machine-Readable Format

Add 8: "Content used under the fair use doctrine must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users. The specific rationale used must also be in a machine-readable format. People who understand what 'machine-readable format' means and how to put something into 'machine-readable format' should help with this task."

Geoff Plourde 19:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions and discussion

"reviewed by a impartial custodian to verify that the fair use doctrine is actually applicable" <-- Why is this a job specifically for Custodians? What does "identified in a machine-readable format" and "be in a machine-readable format" mean? --JWSchmidt 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I worded it as custodian, since those are the people formally charged with maintenance of Wikiversity. I am open to changing the wording, what do you suggest instead? With regards to machine readable, it's a standard requirement from the WMF Licensing Policy. I believe that machine readable means a standardized template that indicates clearly that the content is being used under the Fair Use Doctrine and the specific rationale for such content. Geoff Plourde 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"formally charged with maintenance of Wikiversity" <-- Geoff Plourde, please link to the page where Custodians are "charged with maintenance of Wikiversity". How does anyone "verify that the fair use doctrine is actually applicable"? Is performing such verification an example of "maintenance of Wikiversity"? How are Custodians qualified to "verify that the fair use doctrine is actually applicable"? "a standardized template that indicates clearly that the content is being used under the Fair Use Doctrine" <-- is Template:Fairuse an example of such a template? "the specific rationale for such content" <-- is that a second template? Is it reasonable to require Wikiversity community members to use such templates, for the convenience of machines, when most wiki editors will not know how to find or use the templates? --JWSchmidt 00:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The second template would appear to meet the machine readable format requirements for the rationale, while the first template clearly demonstrates that the image is being used under fair use.With regards to the proposal for 4, how would you prefer it be worded? Geoff Plourde 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote #4 the way it is now because I think that decisions about fair use are are up to the person who makes the claim and I don't think it is fair to make anyone else take responsibility for a fair use claim. I think any request to terminate a fair use claim at Wikiversity should be automatically honored. Geoff Plourde, why did you fail to respond to some of the questions I asked, above? I find it particularly troubling that Wikiversity community members don't have fair use as an option in the drop-down list at file upload. --JWSchmidt 04:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to locate a policy basis for my reasoning, therefore I will not continue with those arguments. The problem I foresee/foresaw with the current wording is that it allows for the summary deletion of fair use content just because the content owner is opposed to its usage. My proposal was designed to provide a means whereby an allegation of an improper rationale would be reviewed by an impartial third party to provide a safeguard for both the rights to utilize fair use and the rights of the copyright holder. I don't know about the reasoning why fair use is not in the upload form, as I didn't develop that form. Will you support the addition of 8? This would bring us into compliance with WMF policy. Geoff Plourde 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer something like:

8: "Content used under the fair use doctrine can be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users. The specific rationale used can also be put into a machine-readable format. People who understand what 'machine-readable format' means and how to put something into 'machine-readable format' should help with this task."

I like the wording, but it doesn't appear to comply with the Foundation requirements, which indicate that content must be identified, not can be identified. Geoff Plourde 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Related review of work by Marshallsumter

See user talk:Marshallsumter for a discussion of the suitability of his articles which are composed largely of sentence-length quotes from a variety of sources. That usage seems to test a number of points of the EDP. –SJ+> 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not relevant here. That is content created by Marshallsumter. The page is about uploaded files. Sentence-length quotes will probably not stray out of "fair use," by copyright law, depending on many factors. This is not about "uploading files." It's about content that users may create here, wherein they quote other published material (with or without attribution, but my understanding is that Marshall attributes what he's quoting).

Marshall has blanked all the pages in his user space, to address concerns pending review of the content for possible copyright issues, and he's working on the pages in mainspace. We will need to look at specific items, not vague generalities. For example, above, Sj says that usage seems to test a number of points of the EDP, but no specific usage is cited, nor any specific point in the EDP. I am working with Marshall to ensure that his content satisfies requirements. --Abd 20:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to EDP

I propose to add the following to the EDP:

Exceptions

1. A user may upload personal photos for use on their user page, asserting ownership of the copyright (or permission of the copyright holder, who should be specified if not the user). They may reserve rights as to further publication of these photos.

This is a narrow exception to the general EDP policy, intended to apply only to the use of personal photos on the user page. Please review this, and if it needs work, please improve it. There is an educational purpose in this: building community. That community is really irrelevant to the issue of free publication that is the goal of WMF policy on restricted media. While it's possible to carve out other exceptions to the general policy, there should be a clear need.

Some users have placed a fair use tag on their own photos. That may have been an error, since what they may actually have been doing was reserving republication, not claiming fair use, or they may have misunderstood the whole issue, I'm not a mindreader.

If, however, the photos belonged to someone else, they should have given the name of the copyright holder and asserted permission, and/or asserting fair use. In this case the "educational purpose" would be the building of an educational community, through encouraging personal relationships. But that's complicated: the exception above is intended to be a clear and simple case, and if additional exceptions are needed, we can propose and agree on them.

None of this is intended to allow any illegal content. --Abd 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't support this. Photos of individual users are readily replaceable with free-use media, especially given that they can upload an alternative free-use picture of themselves, so it won't meet the requirements of the board resolution. There's no great need to allow this, and certainly not enough of a need to be in violation of the board resolution. - Bilby 15:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please address the specific issue. A user wants to -- in the present case was actually instructed to as part of a course -- put a photo of themselves on their user page. Suppose that the user does not wish to license any photo of themselves for free reproduction. There is no violation of any board resolution here, that's clear to me as to legality and the full language of the resolution. That resolution allows us to make limited exceptions. This is clearly a very limited exception. --Abd 17:42, 18 October 2011

Ok, as to the specific issue - generally courses would expect students to act within the requirements of Wikiversity, as that would be part of the value of using Wikiversity. In those cases, students would be expected to read the policies and upload photos based on those policies. In cases where courses require someone to do something against Wikiversity's policy, should this arise, then those courses are in the wrong, and need to be asked to change their requirements in order to meet Wikiversity's policies. - Bilby 22:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So look at the present situation. An instructor apparently instructed students to put a personal photo on their user page. This raises an issue which has obviously not been considered. It's really outside what the Foundation policy and our own EDP were designed to address. Then the course is completed, and presumably students are graded. I just saw one of the students, whose image was challenged, blank her user page. Did she do this because she wanted the image to be invisible, or did she do this because she felt intimidated? I don't know.

What I do know is that this is probably unnecessary. The purpose of the Foundation policy is one thing. This is really outside that, and the issue of users personal photos being on their user pages is about our community, what we want to encourage within the community. Those photos have little or no value as to republishable content. Bottom line, do we want to encourage users, or allow an instructor to encourage users, to put a personal photo on their user page; I'd assume that the instructor requested this to create a human presence, which is, all by itself, an educational purpose. Must the images then be permitted for republication outside the original context? That's the issue here. We may wish to consider broader exceptions, but that's not what's being proposed. And I'm seeing what looks like some strong opposition, apparently mostly from non-educators. Why? How does this opposition benefit Wikiversity? --Abd 16:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with people putting up a personal photo. They can do that all they like. I also have no problem with people being encouraged to add photos, so long as they are also encouraged to do so within policy. I do have a problem with adding a photo when it is against policy. I also have a problem with trying to change policy to allow for what amounts to an almost non-existent problem, if problem it is, but you can make that attempt all you like. As an aside, for privacy reasons I would be uncomfortable with a course that required students to share their photos online in a public space - it's not my concern, but I wouldn't bend over backwards to allow it to happen. - Bilby 16:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby, the comment reveals a great deal. We are talking here about writing policy. If the only problem with an image is that it is "against policy," then that is completely irrelevant to the issue of what policy should be. I have an issue as well with such a photo requirement, but that is really up to the instructor, the students, and the school, and the instructor might allow students to, for example, upload any image, a picture of themselves being merely a suggestion. However, what about a request, a suggestion, and the teacher pointing out that they can restrict usage of the image to their user page only? That's what's being proposed here. What I'm seeing is a worshipping of policy, as if policy were paramount. That's entirely contrary to the basic wiki vision, where "policy" is merely strong precedent. What is paramount, within the necessity of protecting the site owner legally or against frequent takedown notices, which is not at issue here, is improving the project. --Abd 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you are seeing, perhaps you should read the various comments as to why uploading these images are a problem? I don't see any value in repeating the same arguments. Short of a statement from the WMF that this is acceptable under the Board's licensing requirements, I'm unwilling to support this change. If there is such a statement then there is room for discussion. - Bilby 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is totally backwards, cart before the horse. The WMF has authorized us to develop our own EDP, full stop. It makes certain suggestions about that EDP, but the language was carefully crafted to make none of them absolute, because the Board is aware of the dangers of inflexible policy. You are free to take your interpretation of the Board resolution as binding you, personally, but I'm not bound by your interpretation, nor is the Wikiversity community. Are you here to serve this community or something outside, not participating here? This is not about or against the WMF, it is about how users sometimes serve their own ideas instead of the community. The WMF is fully capable of protecting itself, it doesn't need you, personally, to protect the wikis, it needs communities, and really, it needs strong ones, or it has a mess on its hands. No individual can long handle an active wiki.

We will proceed with the development of full consensus on EDP policy, you may participate or not. You'll have plenty of opportunity, along the way. Support what you like. --Abd 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The WMF resolution explicitly uses photos of living people under fair use as an example of a practice that isn't acceptable. I propose instead to add "Photographs of living people do not qualify under this exemption". -- darklama  16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Darklama. This is not about "fair use." It is about permitted use. The WMF policy is not contemplating a user putting a photograph of themselves on their user page. I'm noticing that in citing the WMF resolution, parts of it are omitted. For example, it does not say, simply, "living people." It says "almost all portraits of living notable individuals." We are not talking in the present case about "notable" individuals and even that allows for exception, i.e., "almost all."

Notice: "limited exception" is unrestricted in scope, other than being "limited." It's obvious that one could write exceptions that would defeat the purpose of the WMF resolution, even if limited. The argument here is essentially irrelevant. We are free to write our own EDP. If what we want, as a community, were somehow to conflict with what the EDP prohibits, we'd have a conflict, but it might be trivially resolved, and we won't know that unless we try. I'm suggesting that we write the EDP with three assumptions:

1. We do want to promote free, reusable content. (the goal of the WMF resolution)
2. We also want to facilitate the best possible content and community here.
3. We are free to make an EDP that fits our needs as a community. This is important because we are going to be the users who enforce the EDP.
4. If the WMF considers our EDP unacceptable, we will negotiate something that is mutually acceptable.

I suspect that some others involved may want something different. Perhaps they want us to write our EDP to follow what they believe the WMF wants, assuming that a resolution more than four years old is binding and that no exceptions may be made. Yet the resolution explicitly allows us to make exceptions. What is being proposed here does not conflict with the resolution, if the reading is careful. --Abd 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So the issue here is only this: do we want to allow users to upload photographs of themselves, for usage on their user page, without requiring them to therefore release that photo for all usage, everywhere, for unknown purposes? And, further, do we want to enforce a restriction that prohibits this, given the possible discontent and labor involved? --Abd 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think resolutions are binding and continue to be binding regardless of age, unless superseded by another resolution. I disagree that what we want is the only issue. Why do you think the board used living people as an example of what isn't allowed, if the board intended to allow projects to have exemptions for non notable living people and most notable living people? -- darklama  18:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, Darklama, but I have served on nonprofit boards and I've studied common law. The board did not intend to have exemptions for non-notable living people because they did not consider the contingency and possible utility, that's what I assume, and the reason for that is obvious. Let me turn around what you've said. If they intended the prohibition to apply to non-notable living people, why did they limit it by stating "notable." And why did they even further limit it by stating "almost all," which implies there are exceptions. And why did they allow the individual wikis to set their own EDP? And why did they limit the application of the entire section by specifically allowing "limited exceptions" that were unspecified?

I'll tell you why. Because this was written by a lawyer who knew that overspecifying it would eliminate flexibility and damage the relationship between the Board and the individual wiki communities. That language, which you have been neglecting, assuming you understood the resolution, was there for a reason.

A board resolution is not binding on anyone, unless they are legally obligated to follow it. The resolution does create certain assumptions about WMF support for certain actions, but the WMF may decline to enforce their own resolution, so who is bound? In any case, that resolution is not a problem. It allows what is proposed here. If they did not intend to allow us to make exceptions, why did they authorize exceptions? --Abd 18:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WMF resolutions are binding. The Wikimedia Foundation allows non-free images in a very limited number of circumstances. The issue with the proposal is that the image is only licensed to be used on Wikiversity, and thus any company which produced an attributed mirror of Wikiversity would be committing a copyright violation. --Simone 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to ask Maggie Dennis, the WMF Community liason, to comment on whether this exception is possible. --Simone 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've stated on the Colloquium why I think asking that question is putting the cart before the horse. There is no sense asking the board if there is no community position here wanting to allow such files; I'm operating on a weak inference from actual practice, from what has been very spotty enforcement. That inference could be misleading. My goal here is for actual practice and policy to be the same. The Wikimedia Foundation "allows" what it actually allows. What it said about what it allows, more than four years ago, may be different than what the Board actually cares about. If the resolution is binding, who is bound and how? --Abd 22:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Abd, let's see what the WMF say. --Simone 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but answers depend on questions. Waste of time at this point, Simone. We also may have someone else who has made an inquiry about the recent issues, and who got back an answer which I would expect and fully understand.[1] My guess is that the question referred to copyright violation; users often present these licensing issues as "copyvio," even though no violation of copyright is involved. "Fair use" is not copyright violation, by definition. If it's a violation, it's not "fair use." Further, "de minimus" copying is also not copyright violation. And the issue here is actually licensed use, not fair use, per se, though some users claimed "fair use" for their uploads. That's all a product of poor documentation and interface. I suppose it's not surprising to see all this confusion, when you depend on a general user body, not trained in copyright law, to enforce license issues. If you look around, it's all laid out, but who reads all that material, such as m:Copyright paranoia?

The true issue here is not "copyvio" but the goal of "free content," which is being placed, by some, as a higher value than educational purpose. "Free content" (i.e., to dispel an easy misconception) is content which may be sold, and the kind of content we are talking about is content that can be freely read (and downloaded) by anyone, but not necessarily sold without permission. --Abd 01:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's inquiry was about why non-free images aren't allowed on Commons, as far as I can tell, but looking at Geoff's response, it seems clear that we can't change our EDP like this at all, simply because allowing users to have non-free profile pictures isn't a "transformative" use of non-free images, especially when they can have free images instead. There are also, as I stated, issues with Wikiversity's status as a free commercial resource (i.e. one which can be copied and redistributed under CC-BY-SA). --Simone 09:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious why non-free images are not allowed, at least not in Commons mainspace. Commons is intrinsically a site for "common" usage, thus usage must be independent of context. Fair use requires context. Two points:

• The proposal here is only about user pages, and could be narrowed to photographs of the user uploaded by the user, for usage only on their user page. Is it our intention to create a "free commercial resource" with copies of all our user pages with all photos?
• There is no way that Wikiversity mainspace can be "copied and restributed" in toto as a "free commercial resource," because there will be fair use content. The only dispute is over how much such content there will be. But we are looking, here, at a very narrow usage: personal photos on user pages. Your interpretation of the response, Simone, is creative. Transformative, even.

There is no question for me that the board resolution permits us to write our EDP with "limited exceptions," and what is proposed here is definitely a very limited exception, and that exception does not defeat the purpose of the board resolution. I consider the risk that the board would reject our EDP over this issue to be about zero. The question here is what we want on this matter, not what this or that user imagines the board will accept. This is all preparatory discussion, so that the issues become clear. I'd appreciate more focus on the very specific suggested exception. --Abd 16:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer either, Abd, and I cannot figure out how you made the "obvious" assumption of what the board did or did not consider. Maybe the board assumed all projects have or should have notability requirements. I think "almost all" means they considered there to be "minimal" or "limited" exceptions where the use of non-free photographs of notable people might be appropriate. I think that language is there to emphasis and reiterate the importance of avoiding non-free works as much as possible. -- darklama  20:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how I made it, but I made an inference based on my experience and understanding of nonprofit boards and the law and the whole operation of the WMF. So what? It's right or it's wrong, and it's all irrelevant to determining what we want as a community, and what we want does not, if we have any sense, depend on what the WMF will allow. --Abd 22:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure what we want doesn't depend on what the WMF will allow, if we are fine with the consequences of ignoring what the WMF will allow. Do you think shutdown threats help to serve the Wikiversity community? History has shown that shutdown threats are what happens when someone from the WMF decides there is a problem at Wikiversity. I think that history shows we need to do more than just hope for the best. I think at times we need to ask questions and learn more about WMF expectations in order to best serve the Wikiversity community. I think Simone taking the initiative to ask the community liaison for input on this is one solution. Do you have any other solutions that might help to avoid fallout? -- darklama  19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There will be no shutdown threat. Don't you think that the WMF would tell us what they want before they threaten shutdown? Shutdown threats did not come from the WMF. One threat came as a threat to discuss shutdown from a certain highly place user who was irritated and possibly angry. He clarified that he wasn't representing the WMF.

The problem with asking the community liason is that the actual proposal is not at all settled.

I've just proposed a moratorium on the Colloquium. The moratorium legitimizes, for a short time, the defacto situation that has existed for years, with sporadic and erratic enforcement of the EDP policy. If the WMF was going to shut is down for permitting, for a short time, "non-free content" in certain narrow circumstances, when there is plenty of non-free content which has been sitting around for years, surely they'd have made noises by now.

I'm a parent, and I'll tell you what I want from my kids. I want them to tell me what they want, whether I will permit it or not. If what they want is not allowable by me, I'll tell them, and then we will try to negotiate something that will satisfy both of us. I did this with my first set of five kids, who are all adults now, most with kids of their own, and they have all been successful in life, more so than me, in at least some ways. They ask for what they want, then if they can't get it, they negotiate. What's happening here is that some don't want us to ask for what we want. But there is nothing wrong with asking for what we want, it's part of standard business practice. Sure, you don't ask for the moon. Not literally, anyway. It's common, in fact, to ask for what will completely satisfy you. Why not?

I believe that what will be proposed requires no change in board policy. The existing Resolution on non-free content is sufficiently flexible to allow us to determine our own policy, within reason, and that's all that will be proposed. So asking the Board if they will permit some change, without some actual change being credibly proposed, would probably be asking them to say, "No, we can't consent to that." I wouldn't consent to it! But a specific proposal, that considers my needs and concerns, and if I knew that this is what the community wanted, I might very well agree to. My kids had to learn -- some kids have trouble with this -- that if I say "No," it actually doesn't mean No. It means I'm not ready to say Yes, that's all. My older kids all got this. My 10-year old has pretty much gotten it. My 8-year-old, no. She believes that when her mom says No, that's the end, and she may react as if it's the end of the world, she is doomed to unhappiness forever. In fact, her mom changes her mind all the time, when given sufficient cause.

We need to determine our own community consensus, and not prejudice it by what we think the WMF will accept. We might be surprised. If we don't ask, we'll never know. Some aspects of this will likely be difficult, but the difficulty won't come from the WMF, it's because we really need to address some basic questions that we have avoided for years, such as the purpose of Wikiversity and how it connects with what the WMF seems to be proposing as paramount: maximum exclusion of non-free content, obviously at some expense of user labor and/or educational quality. The goal of free content is good, the question is whether or not it is more important than quality and facilitating user contributions and satisfaction. We can still fully satisfy the Board resolution, my opinion. We just need to understand our place and responsibility and act with integrity. Life lessons, eh? --Abd 20:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the WMF would likely warn the community and threaten to shutdown Wikiversity in the same breath because of what has happened here in the past. I think a child that decided to do something on their own that the parents considered to have been done in poor judgment would lead to a stern warning and/or a long lecture by the parents, and the parents would suspend their child's allowance, cancel a child's favorite activity, ground their child, or take some other action that would drive the point home that there are consequences for what they did. The license resolution mentions that "The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it." I think the thing to do is request assistance from the Foundation after working out what you want to discuss with the WMF. I think the current approach of just changing the EDP is a bad one, in the same way as the child just doing it can be. -- darklama  13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people seem to be afraid of a "shutdown" threat. The WMF has never threatened to shut down Wikiversity. Period. Jimbo made a wild comment once, that implied he was going to discuss closing. It was just dicta.

I am a parent, I have seven children and six grandchildren, and the suggested response is not that of a skilled parent, it would likely be one of a dysfunctional parent, who only knows how to influence behavior through punishment. Which, long term, doesn't work. We may change our EDP, there is no doubt about that. If we change it in a way that offends the WMF, it may change it back in a flash, with force behind that. My position is that we should determine what we want, not what we think they will allow. A sane parent expects (and teaches) a child to ask for what they want, not only what they imagine the parent will grant. Then, depending on circumstances, they negotiate. And, by the way, we are not children, at least I'm not.

It does seem we agree, however. We should work out what we want to discuss with them. And we may request and certainly should allow WMF participation in our process. What I've started in the Assembly discussion is linkage to prior discussions of the issue, I've barely begun that. --Abd 22:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think input from the Foundation about desired changes should happen before Wikiversity's EDP is changed. I doubt a sane parent would tell a young child to feel free to do whatever they want to do all the time without discussion. Changing Wikiversity's EDP without discussion and input from the Foundation is what you proposed to do. -- darklama  22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WMF response

The legal team don't believe your proposed ammendment to our EDP is possible - see Confirmation from WMF, and they suggest that users should use other free images if they don't like the idea of releasing pictures of themselves onto the internet. As such, any further discussion of this specific proposal is redundant. Simone 20:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote at the time was that we didn't have a proposal ready to make to the WMF, so what they said in response to an indirect question is simply not relevant. And I worry about about people implying that issues should not be discussed. Where is that coming from? I'm beginning to suspect that there is more to this "free use" thing than meets the eye. After all, it's a tacked-on goal, not the basic mission as understood by most of the community. It's paradoxical: it really means "commercial use," since the difference between free use and fair use, in practice, is that the latter might not apply to commercial use, whereas nonprofits are safer, a profit-making re-use might incur liability if there is a licensing problem. "Free use," then, really boils down to harnessing the user communities to make commercial re-use easier. We, as volunteers, are being asked to do the extra work to find "free use" images, when fair use would accomplish the educational purposes. Why? --Abd 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I asked them whether there would be any possibility of users having non-free images of themselves in their userspace, and they said no. What's so complicated about that ? Free use is better, because it requires less documentation and there are no potential legal issues with it. --Simone 12:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Simone, the problem is that this question was presented in a way that did not consider the reasons why one might want to allow such images. That's what this community can and should consider. Asking the WMF to respond to an unformed idea is asking for an unformed response. It means nothing except to establish what we already knew as a general operating principle. As a user, I can tell you that satisfying the licensing requirements in uploads is far less than obvious. What would be simpler, in fact, would be a default licensing, as is already used with text. Legally, there is no difference as to licensing from text and images. Free use is better from one point of view, but not necessarily from the user's point of view. The question is actually quite complex, not simple as you imagine, and that's why we need careful process to review this, and that's why an Assembly process has been opened for this. I'd thought you retired from Wikiversity, but you are fully welcome to return and to participate in the Assembly process, just register as a member and dive in. See the registration page linked from WV:Assembly for how to register. (There is a reason to have a defined membership of the Assembly, it's necessary for purposes that will become obvious later on. But registration is open to all registered users. Comments by IP are possible, on Assembly Talk pages.) --Abd 17:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Abd, answer my response in one sentence, and then I might read it. --Simone 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure: Garbage in, garbage out, so how about you register for the Wikiversity:Assembly and make sure your point of view is represented in Assembly reports? --Abd 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The assembly is a waste of time, and I'm not interested in editing productively here. --Simone 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your open honesty. It's refreshing. I'll keep your stated intentions in mind. --Abd 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

About the WMF response

I had objected to taking this question to the WMF before we had local consensus, precisely because I did not expect that someone likely hostile to the proposal would present it fairly effectively. The issue that was involved, then, was about user space. Our EDP prohibits user space Fair Use, but students and other participants often prepare material in user space. Further, it is questionable whether or not we wish to encourage re-use of User space. It is, in fact, bizarre that Fair Use is allowed in mainspace, where the content that a re-user would most want to be free exists, but prohibited in user space, which a re-user would very likely not reproduce. For example, books being for-profit published from Wikipedia content don't include material from user space!

Wikiversity is not like the other WMF wikis, which are focused on content. I.e., the goal of Wikipedia is the creation of encyclopedic content. Our goal here is not only the creation of content, i.e., "educational resources," but also "learning by doing," the process itself, and participation in it, is important here.

I am not proposing at this time that we ask the WMF to change the policy, but we may assert our own EDP. There were concerns expressed above that the WMF would shut down Wikiversity if we created an EDP that was in some way contradictory to the resolution. That would only occur if (1) The contradiction was real and serious, (2) our community insisted on it, (3) the WMF did not wish to negotiate with us, and (4) they were not willing to take action to handle license issues here. Essentially, this isn't going to happen. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair use files

If anyone is interested, a list of files that currently do not have fair use rationales is at: Wikiversity:Uploading files/Fair use audit. They are categorised based on type and use. I figure that there might be some discussion on what to do with these, hence the list. A number of these files are currently unsourced, which is worrying given that in most cases they do not seem to be the product of the uploader. There's also a general concern about what counts as replacable images, and media which is being used on userpage drafts or userpage assignment tasks.

All other fair use images have been checked, and either had the license corrected (many were of OS software, or were uncopyrightable), had a fair use rationale added where it was obvious that such could be done, or where nominated for deletion where the files were unused. The remaining files may be perfectly viable - they just weren't sufficiently obvious cases either way that I felt I should make a call without raising them here. - Bilby 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have a look at a few of them, and I'll give a second opinion where I feel it's needed. In cases where the file should be deleted, it's probably less hassle to use Template:Bad Fairuse and delete after a week if no action is taken by the uploader. --Simone 09:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:Iya logo.jpg seems to be an appropriate fair use file with an appropriate rationale. I've clarified the claim of fair use slightly.
• File:Agape.jpg doesn't seem to be being used appropriately, so I've notified the uploader and tagged with Template:Bad Fairuse. Same for File:AWFschool.png

• I support the work categorizing files, to prepare for possible deletion. What I do not support is going ahead with massive and disruptive deletions -- practically nothing irritates a user as much as seeing their work damaged -- until we have a community consensus supporting the relevant policy (which was never formally approved, and can only be considered policy because nobody took the policy tag off)and its application and process for review.
• Those who believe that this categorization work actually benefits the wiki are free to go ahead, and I support categorization, it will actually help the community make a better decision, seeing the kinds of actual situations which exist. If a community decision is made to approve the deletions, then, standing categories which have had time for review can be assumed to be authoritative and deletions can be fast and efficient. --Abd 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  Removing the policy tag presents its own issues. The license resolution requires all projects after a fixed date delete all non-free files if they don't have a exemption policy. I have renamed the template to {{no fairuse}}, and changed the tone in hopes of being more about what needs to be done like I did recently to {{no license}}. Both templates had said they should be substituted, when it is nld and nfu that should be substituted. I think no license and no fairuse are not machine readable when substituted and not substituting them is consistent with the practice at other projects. -- darklama  19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing the policy tag has not been proposed. The resolution seems to require that, but the communities are not employees of the WMF, the relationship is voluntary. I believe that categories are machine readable, as would be templates. That is, one could quickly search the database and find all occurences without human intervention. I believe that's the point. --Abd 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Permitted usage vs. Fair Use

Files that are copyrighted but where use on Wikiversity is permitted by the license (or explicit permission has been given, without extending that permission to other uses), I am calling "permitted use." An example is a file that was found from a web site, licensed on that site under cc-by-nc-sa 2.0 (Noncommercial). As a noncommercial re-user, we have permission to host that file. However, per WMF Resolution:Licensing policy, adopted in 2007, these files are not permitted unless they meet a locally defined Exemption Doctrine Policy:

"In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

Non-free content is not limited to Fair Use content. the CC license noted is not free content, as defined in a document cited: [2]. The noted license does not grant permission for commercial re-use. That's the "nc," i.e., non-commercial.

Our EDP implies that non-free content will be Fair Use content. I'm proposing we make our EDP more specific, there is copyrighted -- no permission granted! -- content for which we claim Fair Use, which would be subject to certain restrictions, such as resolution, etc. -- and content for which we merely claim permission.

Currently, the EDP has this language:

"Fair use content is only allowed in learning resources in the main Namespace and on media file description pages in the image namespace. If a media file containing copyrighted content is used, the image description page must contain a description of the intended educational use of the media file.

This says nothing about permitted content.

My proposal is that we develop an EDP that respects the goals of the WMF with regard to free content -- free content is a goal -- but that at the same time respects the educational purpose of Wikiversity. One of the ways to pursue both goals is to have clear tagging of files according to license. For any re-user, having machine-readable tags is important. Even for non-commercial re-users, there might be a license -- i.e., a specific permission -- that only allows specific usage here. This is not contemplated, but we did have an example of a file like that (it was deleted some time ago). Essentially, the apparent owner (or a user permitted by the owner) uploaded the file, a personal photo, on her user page. It is inconceivable to me that a re-user would care about this photo, so it would be enough that it could be tagged to be removed by a re-user, easily. All this should be clearly documented.

Instead of drafting an EDP that simply reflects what the WMF documents is considered to state -- people disagree about that, I suggest we develop our EDP to reflect

• What we want to fulfill the educational mission of Wikiversity
• What is practical and easy to maintain
• That fosters the free content goal
• Without placing an onerous burden on users and administrators.

And that, further, we develop easy to maintain procedure that makes rapid decisions about files, so that they don't sit around for years, with possible problems being only noticed, by accident, until after the user(s) working on a resource are long gone.

The Foundation Resolution does not require immediate deletion. We should, in fact, require immediate tagging. The EDP must be a "limited" exception to the requirement that content is free. The limitation may, my interpretation, allow short-term use, as an example, while prohibiting long-term use. "Short term" might be six months, enough for a school semester. We can handle this with proposed deletion tags, and other similar means.

If we don't create a policy we want, we will not get a policy we want! If our policy is not acceptable, the WMF will surely tell us. But if we consider the goals of the WMF, and if, through this process, we become more efficient in handling non-free content than we have been, I see no reason why the WMF would want to stop us. The existing situation is a mess! Non-free content is not necessarily machine-tagged. There has been no coherent review process.

I am creating a local copy of the Resolution for review and comment, at Wikiversity:Uploading files/Resolution:Licensing policy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I really like your statements and hope that I am at the correct position with my post while creating the Web Science lecture last fall We had many problems in the sense that a lot of educational resources are CC-BY-NC-SA e.g.: http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120329/srep00335/full/srep00335.html the pictures and text from this scientific article which we would like to discuss. I understand that I could upload the pictures here with a fair use policy. using the license tag from Wikiversity:License_tags But is this really what is also inteded by the other side? I realize that the content is already CC-BY-SA just the NC is missing which makes the content unfree in our defintion. But do I really have to switch over to FAIR USE here on wikiversity or is there any way of sating that the content is fair use but also CC-BY-SA-NC ?--Renepick (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity licensing policy should be simple

We have a current RFD on three files that were apparently uploaded by the author, for two of them, and he was co-author for the other (the other original author died in 1989). These files were uploaded using Template:PD-self, in 2009. Nothing in our upload procedure would warn the uploader that there might be a problem.

In one of the files, in the comments, the author, Alauc, explicitly claimed to be the co-author, Ante Lauc.

The problem appears may be that the material was first published elsewhere. The three cases are a little different:

• A book was published in 1977 by the uploader and the deceased co-author. What has been uploaded is a scanned copy. The original book appears to contain no copyright notice at all. The copyright situation is thus a can of worms. In some jurisdictions, such publication constituted a total surrender to the public domain. It used to be that way in the U.S., but copyright law became a confused mess here by something like 1970 or so (I was working in publication and we got bit by a change, work that had been in the public domain became covered by copyright.) If I were a commercial publisher, and had a need to use this work, I'd use it without hesitation, given the evidence available. However, Commons may decide differently, unless various technicalities are met, which may or may not be possible.

• A book was published in 1998 by the uploader, sole author. That book itself does contain reference to rights, it may be freely reproduced, but "without change" absent permission. (He more or less invites change and request for permission).

• A drawing was also published elsewhere, perhaps before here, it's not clear to me yet. There is no reservation of rights in the drawing. All this material appears to be hosted on academia.org, which has a non-commercial use site license.

Copyright law can get insanely complex. Are our custodians expected to be experts in copyright law? Will we vet users as expert?

I think that we need to cut the Gordian knot here. We have a procedure set up for users to upload images and files. We request certain information from them. If the information is provided, we may consider permission to host established, in the absence of clear evidence otherwise, and we may consider that content is either free or non-free. If it is non-free, there are some special restrictions, and, per WMF licensing policy, we might not be able to host the files.

Our business is education, and students in universities need to be able to work with materials. They may walk down to the university library and either read a book there or take it out. Under some conditions -- which would apply to all this material -- they may make a copy of the work, for study.

If we have a prima facie case for keeping the files, I suggest we keep them and avoid complex licensing discussions. We are not Commons. We are not a "repository of files for free re-use," though we do attempt to make our content either re-usable or tagged as not free.

If there is some possible defect in a license, it would be simple to tag the file as "possibly non-free." That would warn a commercial re-user that they may need to check permissions. Indeed, we might promptly tag all files with unclear permissions and unclear fair use rationales with this.

Otherwise the discussions required to address these issues can get completely out of hand. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To point out how complicated this can get: [3]. Before 1989, apparently, a work published in the United States without a notice of copyright was automatically in the public domain. The two-author book above was published in 1977. However it was published in then-Yugoslavia, if I'm correct. What was the law there, then? And how much time are we to put into researching these questions? In some cases, there may be no clear legal answer. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Identification of uploaded files with problems

The better suggestion is: you need to carefully review the information provided by the authors, totally understand what they had expressed and stated, and totally make senses of wiki-teams' regulations. After the negotiations and communications, you also need to carefully behave your actions. Any deletions, without careful investigations, would limited others' thinking and writing; meanwhile, cause the inconveniences of your own tasks. Wikiversity encourages the original creativities in universities' perspectives for educational freedom and equality; and encourages the academic voices on different levels from individual's. We would like to accept diverse 'channels voices for enriching our globalized civilizations. Therefore, if the formations and thinking patterns are of differentials with your own minds, please be merciful and apply a very careful research about the objects you would like to delete. -- Jason M. C., Han (discuss • contribs) 25 June 2016

Proper attribution to copyright holder

Point number 6 of this file upload resource states: "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder."

Above in the introduction is stated: "Wikiversity permits a limited amount of fair use content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately intended to respect United States fair use law."

If you check the exemption to copyright that is section 107, here no where stated will you find anything like or words to the effect "must be properly attributed to the copyright holder." This comment is in direct violation of the exemption to copyright that is section 107, which by sections 106, 106A, and 104, does not include "must be properly attributed to the copyright holder." or any words to this effect. Nor is it mentioned in any case law to be required for fair use!

Just FYI, the check mark for Wikiversity Policy was applied by User:Geoff Plourde who is no longer active on 5 August 2010. Point 6. was added without any consensus by User:Kaldari who is also no longer active on 22 September 2011. I was here then. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair use files on user pages

Point 7. States: "Fair use content is only allowed in learning resources in the main Namespace and on media file description pages in the image namespace. If a media file containing copyrighted content is used, the image description page must contain a description of the intended educational use of the media file."

"We need a community decision on whether Fair Use is allowed in user space or only in main space."

No community consensus ever occurred for point 7. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Point 7. was in the text before the check mark.