Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals

General Removal without a message on the talk page

I have not been involved with During's removal of fair use. However I would like to comment that the first person who removed a fair use image from may page and what I would sugest to all people Policing Fair use.

That user (Ed) did not leave a message on the talk page. It is Suggested that you leave a message on the talk page, however that user claims it would take too long to leave a message. I think it is wrong to not even leave a notice on the users talk page. This User is Constantly being harassed by Everyone because he refuses to take the Initiative and Explain himself up front.

If you are removing fair use images from user space the user should be informed not to put anymore on their user space and they should be notified of where the their image was removed so that they can start to look for a replacement. Although our subspace is not ours we have some personal connection to it and we want to feel some level of control over what happens to it. Maybe not what we want but at least a notice so we know what is going on there.

It would be great if a user who removes a fair use image find a replacement. That way the person can say “I’m sorry I had to remove the fair use image but Wikipedia content has to be available under a free noncommercial license so others can replicate our work and I tried to find a replacement image, I’m sorry” Instead off “you are the 100th Fair use image I removed today and I don’t have time to Explain myself to Everybody. I don’t care about you”.

I think it should be required that if a users is removing the same image from multiple pages that they attempt to find a replacement and switch the images instead of removing the images and having each individual user find the replacement themselves. However I Feel is should Definitely be Policy to Require a message on the talk page of a user for edits to that user space. I was not informed the first time so it set my interactions with the Fair use remover off on the wrong foot. I think we should make a level 0 Good Faith Warning template Informing users abut the reasons behind the fair use policy such as described on Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies.

From my experience with somebody Else that user removes fair use images according to policy but never explains the policy to anybody so a portion of the pages he edits has a huge backlash of confused editors who are told that the user has time to remove fair use but not respond to the people he removes fair use from. I had to find out about the fair use policy rational by myself. It makes since but if a user can’t explain it write they will have to waste a lot of time dealing with angry editors. Another issue is this user is coastally being criticized so he/other admits protecting him are out of patience and very quick to assume bad faith and block editors who are simply asking for and explaining along with the disruptive ones.

Please make a level0 good fait template and require the Fair use Police to Drop it on the User’s talk page. If the user has fair use images They probably don’t know they are not allowed to and a simple note would have them remove it themselves. I actually thing you guys should only leave the note and let them remove the images themselves.

When I dial with vandalism I leave a warning on their talk page and I check their contributions to undo other vandalism. I even go into the talk page history to make sure they have not been warned before. Many Wikipedia’s start out assuming that Copyrighted work isn’t allowed to be uploaded so as long as you don’ upload the image your good. It isn’t like you are Reproducing the work. The work has already been placed on the Wiki. Because of this Misunderstand we need to be careful to assume these are Good faith editors and we need to

PS I Wrote thi wole latter Right now Specifically for this talk page. This Is not a Copy Past Boilerplate message. I took the time to leave a personalized letter. Please bother to leave the time to leave some mesae. By not leaving a message on a talk page you are belong Uncivil and Baid Faith. It is a Direct Violation of WP:Bite.

I have not Interacted with this user at hand but I feel this comment applies to Everybody removing Fair use images without leaving a message.--E-Bod 21:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace has a lot of templates about uploading Copyrighted images however not a single on one misusing fair use images.--E-Bod 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To place a message on a user's talk page would double the effort required to remove fair use image violations as there would be one edit for the removal, another for the talk page message. I leave a detailed edit summary showing the policy that covers the removal, and linking to a highly detailed page. Interstingly, that page addresses why finding a replacement is not done. If I were to have to find a replacement for every image I removed, the time cost to remove such images would be enormous.
I fully recognize that it would be nice to have a message left on the user's talk page. But, the reality is it is too time consuming to do so when you're doing dozens of these removals. It takes enough time as it is to remove them. I have long felt that a more optimal solution would be to have a bot take care of these removals as a bot could do the removals and place a notification without incurring the human-time cost of doing so. I've made inquiries to get a bot made for this purpose to no avail as yet.
As a compromise measure to this, I monitor removals that I make. If I find a user reverts the removals, then I undo the reversion and then communicate directly with the user. Since the number of reversions is very small compared to the overall effort, this keeps efficiency high while keeping Wikipedia in compliance with copyright law.
In sum, for the forseeable future I don't see a strong enough justification to double my effort to perform the same task. --Durin 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DS1953

DS1953 is, in my view, correct, as far as the statement goes. It does come down to a question of efficiency versus courtesy and we do ask people to be courteous wherever possible. But DS1953's view doesn't go far enough, it doesn't directly put the question in the form I think appropriate: "Does the benefit of the additional courtesy that direct notification would entail outweigh the cost?" I have given that question some considerable thought and I came down on the "no, it does not outweigh the cost" side. Note that Durin, in this edit [1] and the one directly above it on the page, DID explain in some depth what he did in removing images. But he did so for reasons that (in my view, although I am not a mind reader) went beyond simple courtesy, he did it to come to grips with a user apparently showing some intransigience about the matter. He didn't have to but in this case hopefully the benefit outweighs the cost. So I won't be endorsing DS1953's view even though it is correct, as far as it goes. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closurfe

Durin is, I think, closing this, and I think that's reasonable. I suggest that a link to it be included on one of the pages he links to in the edit summary of removals so that those concerned can see that the way he does things does in fact have widespread support. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see "widespread support?" In the fact that most people don't care? That most people aren't aware of the issue? Or that most people haven't had their user space "violated?" Bustter 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have "violated" more than 400 userpages, with just a small handful of complaints. As to widespread support, it doesn't really matter. Whether it is supported here or not, copyright law does apply. --Durin 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Closely

"I consider copyright violations to be one of the most serious threats facing the very existence of Wikipedia. There are droves of lawyers who spend their entire lives pursuing individuals and organizations for copyright and trademark infringement, even without seeking monetary damages."

Among the signs that this editor is suffering from a form of hysteria is his highly agitated mode of expression, which is acutely hyperbolic. Yet the writer seems wholly unaware of this.

Does "one of the most serious threats facing the very existence of Wikipedia" really express more than "a serious threat for Wikipedia?"

More about the writer, perhaps, but no more about the "fair use" issues involved.

"Droves of lawyers who spend their entire lives?" Really? No time for meals, perhaps a walk through the park? Marriage, perhaps a family? Again, hyperbole, and about the state of the writer, not any objective situation.

Yes, what he is doing is within the rules. But I also understand why what he's been doing could be very irritating, as the rules do err on the side of caution (for good reason, of course).

Acting within the rules is not all that is necessary for a just and happy Wiki.

IF copyright issues were indeed a "clear and present danger" to WikiProjects, then some rude and ruthless methods of dealing with questionable fair use would be justified, and thanks to the rules that err on th side of caution, such methods would be legitimate.

But "martial law" is not for all seasons. The Wiki is not "Under Siege" by copyright lawyers, and it is very hard to imagine that copyright lawyers, other than those employed by reference publishers, would ever see any economic interest un crushing the Wiki's fair use rights. And reference publishers wouldn't dare attack the Wiki on "fair use" grounds, as they are in a glass house where fair use rules are concerned.

Some guy who, in ignorance, puts a CD cover on his user page [not a violation of fair use statutes, but a violation of Wiki policy] is not a Fifth Columnist, is not about to cause the demise of the Wiki, and does not deserve to be treated with less than courtesy.

Judging from how this guy phrases himself, I would guess that very little courtesy was seen by anyone. It's what they call passive aggression. "I'M not being a dick, this is so the Wiki has some slim chance of survival," using his siege mentality as an excuse to violate other people's "virtual space." The Wiki is not a web host, I know...but people have a "nesting instinct," and it does not pay to cross that line for trivialities. Bustter 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of hysteria is a personal attack. You may wish to review WP:NPA. Beginning with that assertion is not a way to engage me in conversation on these points. You are welcome to your opinions. --Durin 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know you. I have had zero contact with you. My comments were based solely on your words. The title, "read closely," points that up. Bustter 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, you are welcome to your opinions. I have no desire to debate you on the merits of the points you raise when you begin with a personal attack and continue it at various points through your posting here. --Durin 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your agitated mode of expression and use of hyperbole in an RFC are not matters of opinion. Whether I am justified in seeing these as an indication of an hysterical siege mentality, or not, is indeed a matter of opinion, but this is not ad hominem. I gave my reasons for this interpretation of affairs. I am sure many people experienced your editing of their user space as "personal attack," that does not mean they were correct. Don't create an RFC if you do not want commentary on it. Bustter 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]