Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/15

File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg
The following has been copied here from the page User talk:Shustov:

Please refer to WV:EDP items 6 and 8. "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder.", and "Media files containing copyrighted material that do not comply with the intent and spirit of this policy can be deleted by custodians at any time." Unfortunately, your refusal to indicate the copyright holder of these images has resulted in a situation that violates Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy regarding Fair Use files. The file has been deleted. You may request Undelete at WV:RFD. It will be up to the community to determine whether the file may be restored. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Vshustov is the copyright holder and author for the composite of the two images! Now, I'm sorry but you have offered no proof that Shustov is not the copyright holder of the individual images. The first image may have been a selfie, given to the user with permission implied or otherwise to use as the user wishes, or inherited. The same may be true for the second. You have to prove otherwise and you have not done so. Proof does not consist of stating sections of an EDP that never received any kind of consensus. Nor does it consist of arguments. Proof must be factual! In addition the user owns their own image, if they give permission to have their image photographed with the expressed or implied consent that ownership, including copyright of that photograph and negative or digitally stored image, is legally transferred to the person photographed, then they own the image and copyright. Please restore the image. This is not a matter for "You may request Undelete at WV:RFD." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Vshustov has stated that the user does own these two images and their respective copyrights. I've already performed a Google image search. The images were not found at that time, three days ago. My opinion as expressed above is that the image be restored. As a fellow custodian I can view/restore the image. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, no request for deletion (RFD) was ever made! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If the delete is controversial, then please restore it and lets to a proper RFD. I can't understand the situation properly to give my opinion because I can't see the image nor its history. However, as far as I understand the Wikimedia policies, it's up to the uploader to prove that s/he has permission to upload the image. It's not up to us to prove that the uploader didn't have permission. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily restored the image. Previous discussion can also be found on User talk:Shustov --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Vshustov has offered no proof that he is the copyright holder of the individual images. Instead, as with 125 other images that have already been removed from Wikiversity based on Request custodian action, he has consistently and explicitly avoided dozens of opportunities to properly document copyright ownership, despite multiple people attempting to work with him on both English and Russian Wikiversities. Perhaps more importantly for this discussion, he has continued to insist that he is the author and source of these images. Many of the images that were removed clearly showed that he was the subject of the images and mirrors in the images showed that someone else was controlling the camera and was therefore the author and source. The current combined image is consistent with the images that have already been removed.

User:Marshallsumter has attempted to bypass the copyright issue by claiming Fair Use of the file. While Fair Use might be applied in terms of licensing, it cannot be used to bypass WV:EDP item 6, which states, "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder.". In this case in particular, Shustov cannot claim that he does not know the source of the images. He was there when they were taken. Under WV:EDP item 8, "Media files containing copyrighted material that do not comply with the intent and spirit of this policy can be deleted by custodians at any time."

While not directly related to the current discussion, user Vshustov is using / abusing at least three accounts (User:Shustov, User:ShustovVal, and User:Vshustov) intended to bypass blocks on other wikis, and across the three accounts is already indefinitely blocked on 11 projects for related activities. See Special:CentralAuth/Shustov, Special:CentralAuth/ShustovVal, and Special:CentralAuth/Vshustov for more information.

The basis of everything we do at Wikiversity, and on Wikimedia wikis in general, is based on attribution. Everything we publish must attempt to give attribution to the original creator or author. Content that does not do this is routinely removed. Unless and until proper credit is provided for the images in this file, it does not belong at Wikiversity.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments!

As I've mentioned section 107 is an exemption from copyright which is also an exemption from copyright holders as a part of US copyright law. Our apparent EDP requires a violation of that law for fair use. To paraphrase WV:EDP item 8, any local policy within the USA that does not comply with the letter, intent and spirit of US copyright law which includes section 107 cannot be followed. To require such is a federal crime called duress. To institute such a policy may be the federal crime of usurpation. This same copyright law does not require Notice of copyright, author or creator. As I recall none of the 125 other images, were fair use, but free use, which in the USA is an exemption comparable to Public Domain with many special and restrictive limits. These are not included in this undeletion request. Transfer of copyright to the owner of an image is quite common including by a personal trainer that hands over an image with implied consent or uses the image owner's camera.

I am not attempting to bypass the copyright issue. US copyright law section 107, is an exemption from copyright. This means here at Wikiversity where we are the only educational, teaching, and research .org of the WMF, when declaring fair use, copyright is not an issue, neither is authorship nor creatorship nor source! Notice of source, copyright, authorship, and creatorship are not required by US copyright law, as such they are not an issue nor can they be! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this legal interpretation, but it has nothing to do with the discussion opened here. This is an RFD undelete discussion regarding a file that was deleted consistent with WV:EDP. If you would like to create a Community Review regarding the Exemption Doctrine Policy, please feel free to do so. But as the EDP stands, tagging the file as Fair Use immediately both indicated that there are no other rights to use the file, and the creator / copyright owner was not credited for his or her efforts. It was deleted accordingly. Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is a statement of the law, not an interpretation! WV:EDP contains illegal conditions. It has never been approved by any kind of consensus so it does not stand because one user put a policy check mark on it. Per recommendation of WMF-legal, not the EDP, we supply source and author/creator as a courtesy so any book publisher, for example, who is interested in using the image knows whom to contact. For the composite created by Shustov, these were courteously and voluntarily supplied; hence, the request that the image remain undeleted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just FYI but since about August 2011 some 3500 fair use files have been uploaded over about seven years per the courtesy approach indifferent to WV:EDP by many different users. Only two requested take downs have been performed, a third was removed as commercial exploitation once a source was found either closer to the copyright holder, or was the copyright holder. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I was asked by MarshallSumter if I could comment on this matter, although I've avoided doing so until I've had some time to think this through. I'm not a specialist in US law and I make no guarantees but as I understand it, the two particular issues here are attribution and permission. To begin with, although the file seems to have been created by combining two existing photos, this action does not create a new copyright. The copyright of each of the two photos is separate and is automatically attached to the photographer unless there is something to change that. It would be simpler to say that the camera button being clicked is the deciding factor. However, it is a much broader question of creative input i.e. who took the photos, why was each photo taken (the context), and how was each photo taken (the setting, the camera angle, the pose of the subject etc)? With the answers to these questions, we can potentially work out the solution to the problem. From the  it is clear that Vshustov is licensing the work. What is not clear is whether this claim of authorship is for both photos? I could understand if there was a timer involved or Vshustov and the photographer collaborated to the extent that they could be deemed joint authors. However, this information is not available as yet. Can we be confident that Vshustov is the sole author of both photos? I'm sorry if I've missed it but I haven't seen any other declaration by Vshustov. This then brings me to the permission issue, which assumes that the CC license does not apply and instead we are focussing on fair use. It should be highlighted that above and beyond the WV:EDP is the WMF Licensing Policy, which states at no.4 that "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale." As it stands, the file currently has a file summary and a fair use tag but does not have an accompanying Non-free media rationale. This must be provided to avoid deletion, and although it is perfectly fine for another user (e.g. Marshallsumter) to add this, please note this also requires copyright information i.e. who is the copyright holder. The only solution I can see is for Vshustov to explain the circumstances of both photos e.g. was there another person holding the camera, and who made the creative decisions etc. Now this might seem harsh but it provides a simple route to keeping the photo because, for example, if we can construe two people as working together to create the photos then we can consider the existence of an implied license. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! None that you have asked for are required by US copyright law section 107! Exemption to copyright means everything associated with copyright is not needed as long as the conditions stated in the section are met. Here's an exact copy. There are many case law examples, if you're interested I can put the links here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I just uploaded a file under fair use. Here's what the template states: "Author - The original creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who had ownership rights." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think what you are referring to is the Information template i.e. as seen at Special:Upload. What I was referring to is Fairuse, which specifically states that it "must be accompanied by a Non-free media rationale justifying the assertion of fair use." That is a different template altogether and one that it seems is not being used on the majority of fair use files. I think it is not sufficient to have the Information and Fairuse templates; those files need the specific template to show why the fair use applies. I would also point out that Fair use links to the WMF policy, which is what the Wikiversity EDP should be based on. As it stands I think the majority of fair use files quite probably do https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Non-free_media_rationale&hidelinks=1 because they've not got an actual rationale. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I included the template author because it includes "the last person who had ownership rights." Shustov has declared own regarding each image and the composite. The burden of proof that he doesn't own them is not on him.

Actually, although US copyright law, especially section 107, does not require a rationale, especially on an education, teaching, and research .org such as this, one is included with many of the more recent files I've uploaded. Take a look at in edit mode. The Non-free media rationale has been used on maybe a dozen fair use files. WMF-legal is aware these constructs do not conform with US copyright law especially section 107 and must do so. Hence the courtesy request. Here's another File:226460 1741296692137 1230276335 31498746 2031224 n.jpg. It's a personal photo on a user page. But, no hidden rationale, its history will indicate what was going on.

Just FYI WMF has many projects and Wikiversity is only one and a lot smaller than Wikipedia, Commons or Wiktionary. When the Board of Directors composed their policy statement as to fair use, they were likely thinking mostly about Wikipedia. WMF considers Wikipedia an educational .org, but I don't think Wikipedia does. Hence, all the rules not required for fair use. Book publishers, both commercial and Wikipedia, want to reduce their due diligence costs and they want to know why an image/file should be in their book. The rationale is supposed to fill that need. The US government isn't going to prosecute Wikiversity for conforming with the letter and spirit of section 107. It might if we try to force our contributors to violate section 107. But not if we voluntarily do so as a courtesy, but definitely not a requirement. I hope this helps! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Commons. Let them deal with it there. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 06:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! Commons as you know does not except Fair Use and did not accept the 125 free use files per Dave's description above so this file would likely share the same fate as free use. Commons will readily delete any Public Domain file if they become aware of any non-US government contributor for which they have not receive a written assurance they agreed to the PD designation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This would not be a tenable solution. The user is already blocked on Commons under all three usernames mentioned above. Any attempt to move this user's uploads to Commons might be deemed to be an attempt to circumvent those blocks, even if innocently done by a third party. Seeing as there is a considerable dispute at the moment, this file would not be appropriate for Commons, especially because Commons does not accept fair use. There is a solution to this dispute, but it must be found here rather than another wiki. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, Green Giant: Wikiversity is a quite adequate field to promote unique experimental resources. Let Commons block itself, if they want to! By the way, the Russian Wikiversity keeps the above resources untouched; see, e.g.: https://ru.wikiversity.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5. Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * just in case it wasn't noticeable, I'm a Commons admin and one of the two main reasons I've invested so much time here is that I see a lot of files transferred from other wikis that end up being deleted (including by myself). I disagree with some of the principles on Commons (probably less than a tenth of the rules and guidelines) but unlike some of my fellow Commons admins I seek a solution in which I go to other wikis and see what they are doing and why. I would love to move all the free-licensed files to Commons but I can see obstacles that would prevent some (not all) from being kept on Commons. My hope is to make the transfer process easier by tackling the problems here rather than Commons, where some Wikiversitians clearly appear to be uncomfortable. To get back on topic, it would make things a lot simpler if you could give us a little bit of information about the photos e.g. why they were taken? I've read Rejuvenation and I can understand the last paragraph that talks about the file. Maybe it needs a little more explanation (perhaps even to match the requirements in the law highlighted by . However, I think it would be useful to know the idea behind the photos. Was the younger photo taken for an event or some other purpose? Did you stand there at age 18 and decide you would do the same photo many years down the line (I'm asking this seriously and not as an amusing point)? Or, was it that you were writing the page about rejuvenation and thought it would be a good idea to do a second photo ie when did you decide to combine the two photos? Did you simply ask someone to press the button when you said so or were they guiding you on how to pose? Did it take just one photo or were there many "takes"? If you can tell us this, it would make it easier to pinpoint you as the author of the work and it would mean the CC License would be valid. I don't want to drag Commons logic into this debate but these are the sort of things that would make me (as an admin) more amenable to keeping a file on Commons. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Green Giant, for your attention to my matter. So, let's go. 1) My younger photo was taken by me at 1955 in Odessa Artistic College (Ukraine) were I was posing, to earn some money, to future artists. All my poses were offered by me. One of the days, I took the photo of myself for my girlfriend of that time who lived in another city while I had absolutely no idea of Rejuvenation. 2) Some two weeks ago, my son sent me the digitized copy of the younger photo. 3) When I looked at it, I decided that it would be curious to take a similar picture of myself in, approximately, the same pose now to compare both of them. 4) When I did it, I decided to combine the images together under the name "The same man at 18 and 80 years old" and upload the file to Wikiversity for further use where appropriate. That's it. Yours, Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The simplest way to resolve this dispute seems to be that if Vshustov/Shustov can satisfy Dave Braunschweig that he personally took both photos; then all the 'fair use' arguments etc would fall away. There seems to be a factual dispute, along the lines identified by Green Giant, but Shustov has not yet fully answered Green Giant's questions. Shustov seems to say that he took both photos personally, but Dave seems to say that he couldn't possibly have done so because he is in the photo: if he is in the photo then who is pressing the button on the camera? In 2017 it is plausible that a person can take a photo of themselves, e.g. by setting a timer on the camera. Is it plausible that in 1955 a person took a photo of themselves? Perhaps Shustov could clarify: did he press the button on the camera in 1955, or did an artist or some other person press the button? Alternatively, if an artist pressed the button, was there some understanding between the artist and Shustov that Shustov would own the copyright to the photo? Perhaps the artist granted Shustov a royalty-free licence to use the photo however he saw fit, including publishing it, in which case Shushtov might just need to specify the name of the artist (or write 'unknown artist in Odessa in 1955') as the copyright holder, in order to alleviate Dave's concern that we are currently not attributing copyright to the copyright holder. On the factual claims made by Shustov so far, it is likely that the photo is permissible on Wikiversity because either (1) Shustov is the copyright holder, (2) Shustov has a licence from the copyright holder which would permit Shustov to use it on Wikiversity, or (3) the use on Wikiversity is 'fair use'. But before we can make that conclusion, it is important that Shustov clarify precisely who took the 1955 photo. (This is my first comment so please let me know if I'm doing something wrong procedurally. I don't know how to do paragraph breaks on a talk page but then it seems nobody else does either.) --Pat Conheady (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I have no intention to "satisfy" Dave Braunschweig: it is not my hobby, sorry! 2) My understanding of the combined photos is quite different, namely: I, with the help of God, created the body No1 and No2 (it's much more difficult than to press any camera button, by the way!), choosed my body poses, founded positions of cameras, made the command to shoot, developed the photos, processed them into one combined image and uploaded the file into Wikiversity under the name "The same man at 18 and 80 years old". The result is unique: nobody in the world can present anything of the kind !!! 3) All the rest has been explained by Marshallsumter above. Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! On the right is a fair use image of the first Leica to have an internal self-timer, probably made between 1941 to 1944. This answers "Is it plausible that in 1955 a person took a photo of themselves?". Wikiversity already qualifies for fair use so it's not a matter for consensus by US copyright law whether the composite or the two individual images can be here! All that remains to be legally decided is whether the copyright holder wishes us to take down the image and Vshustov has indicated it's okay here. As I read the above Green Giant is deciding whether this image can go on Commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Vshustov has indicated that he was not the photographer and refuses to credit the source. The image cannot remain as own, because it is not the contributor's own work. A claim of Fair Use violates the EDP. While I don't agree with Marshallsumter's perspective regarding legal standing of the EDP, even that is currently irrelevant. This is an RFD discussion, not a community review of the EDP. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Definition of the noun photographer, according to Wiktionary: "One who takes photographs, typically as an occupation." I has NEVER indicated that I "was not the photographer" of my photos used in the file "The same man at 18 and 80 years old" (see above). Sorry, Dave Braunschweig, you deceive us here. By the way, what mean your words "This is an RFD discussion, not a community review of the EDP"? Is it about Marshallsumter? - Thanks, Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a small point. For all the photographs I've taken professionally, I developed the negatives and printed the positives. For images shot non-professionally, the negatives and requested prints were produced commercially. Vshustov's phrase "made the command to shoot" could also mean "set the timer". The point is the photographer develops the negatives, not the model, unless ownership of the exposed film has been transferred! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the further information. It is clear to me now that you didn't take the photo in the sense that you didn't press the button on the camera, but you probably do either own the copyright or have a licence from the person who does own the copyright. Just to clarify, do you know the name of the person who pressed the button on the camera in 1955 and the person who did so in the more recent photo? If you can identify that person or persons then this will go some way to resolve at least one of Dave's concerns. If you don't know their name then perhaps just state their occupation and what city they were in when the photo was taken, e.g. "artist in Odessa in 1955". --Pat Conheady (discuss • contribs) 02:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * About Dave Braunschweig's concerns. 1) Photo of 1955. "You are a photographer, not an artist" - there was such a derogatory expression at that time. Therefore, it was usually not allowed to bring cameras to the Odessa Art College. For me, an exception was made. During the break, I gave my camera to one of the students (I do not remember his name), put him in the right place, while I myself took the pose, in which I had previously been drawn, and gave the command to press the button. 2) Photo of 2017.  I fixed the camera in the needed position, set the timer, put myself, approximately, in the same pose with the same attire as in 1955, and received another image. Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I was invited to enter this conversation by Dave Braunschweig. After reading through all this, my impression is first that we need to come to a conclusion, and second, that I side with deletion.  My opinion is based on the following arguments:
 * The "letter of the law" seems to be on the side of deletion (though I am no expert).
 * The arguments presented here against deletion seem too convoluted for me to follow.
 * I see no harm in deleting. While the image is impressive I don't see anybody planning to use it for educational purposes.  Also, the image is already on ru.wikiversity.org at https://ru.wikiversity.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5 .  And, there are plenty of other wikis where it could go. See, for example,  https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Miraheze.
 * There might be harm in keeping it on Wikiversity. With all the wikifarms cropping up, Wikiversity has the special privilege of being affiliated with Wikimedia and Wikiversity.  We don't want to risk losing that.


 * As I already stated, I think it's time to vote, since I don't see any sign that any of us is likely to change our positions. Yours truly --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A FEW QUESTIONS to Guy vandegrift opinions.
 * I have no questions neither to your opinion No1, where you said "I am no expert", nor to that No2, which reads "The arguments ... seem too convoluted for me to follow."
 * My question is about this statement: "While the image is impressive I don't see anybody planning to use it for educational purposes." Namely, whom did you ask about this?
 * My another question is about this statement: "We don't want to risk losing that." Namely, who are "We" and what kind of "loosing" you are talking about?

Sincerely, Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Guy vandegrift for your comments! Just FYI, but the letter and spirit of US copyright law, especially section 107 is on the side of . Here's what it states on our Main Page: "Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning. We invite teachers, students, and researchers to join us in creating open educational resources and collaborative learning communities." The law is literal, if you read research and education, then any image uploaded here qualifies for fair use unless it violates another US law. If it's unused we delete it after appropriate review. If an apparent copyright holder requests we take down their alleged image, the image stays if after review we do not agree they are the copyright holder or owner. Rejuvenation is an educational resource that uses the image, so it can stay. US law no longer requires notice of copyright which includes naming the copyright holder, or owner. Also, there may be more harm to the WMF or Wikimedia by deleting the image. I am sorry you find that "The arguments presented here against deletion seem too convoluted for me to follow." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You both make valid points, but I need more clarity. A good example of an argument I can't follow is that since Wikiversity is devoted to education, "any image uploaded here qualifies for fair use unless.."). Does that mean any organization that claims to be devoted to education can copy anything it wants?  As I said, I am no expert, but copyright law must be more complicated than that. Regarding my comment that nobody is using the photo, why does it need to be on Wikiversity if nobody is planning to use it?  If there is no compelling reason for it to be here, and at least two experienced administrator-types say it doesn't belong, why not just put on another wiki?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a site that does not qualify for fair use even though it uses the word education: Nature Education and here's why "This Site (including but not limited to software, files, graphics and data found on the Site) is the property of and owned by Nature Education or its licensors and is protected by copyright, trademark and other laws of the United States and other countries. Unless otherwise expressly stated with respect to particular material on the Site, you may display and electronically copy, download and print hard copy versions of any material contained on the site that is expressly designated as © Nature Education for your personal and noncommercial use provided you do not modify or delete any copyright, trademark or other proprietary notice that appears on the material you copy, download or print." and it's a .com. And the image is already in use here! I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do stand corrected regarding the images use on Wikiversity; it is entirely appropriate and useful on Aging. Personally, I don't like copyright laws very much.  But I'm not an anarchist.  So now, the only reason to not allow this high quality educational image is legal.  We need to consult someone who knows copyright law.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's is a conversation that may or may not be helpful, but I hope so: Fair Use need for rationale on Wikiversity. At the end are two websites with extensive examples of fair use case law. Feel free to read through all of them. I have. The gist is that no fair use case where images are uploaded such as here has ever been lost. But, book publishers or .coms using fair use images to make a profit or make money constitute all the losing cases. EDPs would not have altered those decisions! They have to perform their own due diligence! All would have been better off finding the owners or copyright holders themselves and simply asking for written permission to use the image! I hope this helps! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just FYI but voluntary compliance with our EDP has already been agreed to by Vshustov. That was included when I put the image as fair use with permission! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically, this is an undelete discussion rather than a delete discussion. The community must find support to keep the image rather than support to delete it. It was already deleted according to the WV:EDP, and was only undeleted for discussion, not for keeping. A neutral finding or lack of agreement would be a deletion.

I encourage you to take a step back and reread the legal advice provided in T126418. Do not read your own commentary, only the comments from WMF Legal. There is nothing in the responses that invalidates the Wikiversity EDP. Instead, it specifically supports the EDP and encourages us to enforce it by adding rationale to all claims of Fair Use. This is also necessary to comply with wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, as noted by Green Giant. You are doing no favors to Vshustov or the image by continuing to argue for Fair Use here. The only reason this became an immediate deletion is because of the inappropriate application of Fair Use, and unless the copyright ownership issue was resolved, the image could not remain either way.

User:Pat Conheady has a stronger legal background than I do, but it would seem as though the copyright issue has been resolved. Copyright ownership was effectively passed by agreement to Vshustov when the camera was passed back to him. However, the image notes must clearly describe how this came to pass. A claim of own is still invalid, and still would be subject to deletion.

With the additional information provided, would the image qualify for transfer to Commons, or are there other extenuating circumstances that make further consideration at Wikiversity necessary?

This is a public warning that if you ever waste our time like this again with inaccurate, invalid licensing information, refusal to describe accurate background or circumstances for copyright ownership, or pretty much any other Behaviors that have a net negative effect on Wikiversity, you will be blocked per Blocking policy.

Someone who wants the image to remain at Wikiversity or Commons needs to provide accurate Information based on the discussion here. Removing the claim of Fair Use and providing accurate source and license information would remove the EDP violation, and effectively render the discussion moot.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ON OFFENSIVE WARNING of me by Dave Braunschweig posted above.
 * When in my response dated 19:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC), I accused you in deception, there was a proof of it: I has NEVER indicated that I "was not the photographer" of my photos used in the file "The same man at 18 and 80 years old".
 * However, your offensive warning above provides no proof of its credibility.
 * Due to foregoing, I request your immediate apology.

Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why people on Wikiversity and Commons care so much about copyright law. But they do care, and we are too busy to try to understand why. Dave is a good person and he means well. Maybe he is right about the need to be legally careful, maybe he is not. The entire Wikimedia culture is obsessed with copyright, but maybe they have a reason. Who cares? Who knows? But from my years on WP/WV/Commons, I know that culture will never change. --Гай вандегрифт (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Русский человек, пожалуйста, не обижайтесь!


 * This is only a working hypothesis: keeping conformance with any version of an EDP voluntary may reduce the likelihood of involvement in a law suit whereas requiring conformance will increase it. Voluntary acts are more likely to be covered by the "Good Samaritan Act". So far I have found no law review or case law that supports a compulsory EDP (or words to that effect) with respect to fair use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mu301 posted: any "fair use" at Wikiversity must conform to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy . If that is true, then I doubt we have the pull to get them to change their minds.  But if you want to try, you have my full support.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support! As I understand the history, the WMF Board of Directors made this a command policy in 2007 apparently without checking the legal ramifications. But, more on this in a different format. I have voluntarily put the apparently relevant text into the image file and saved it as the designated free use license chosen by Vshustov. Comments, questions, and criticisms are welcome there or here! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Marshallsumter's text correction in the image file but want to provide some more details, namely:
 * Following up my slogan "Do not pretend you know better, do better!", I, disregarding all the prominent scientific theories of rejuvenation, have developed my own practical way of physical exercising and successfully applied it on myself! The educational value of my experience is obvious and it is nothing to do with the speculations on who should be pressing a camera button.
 * By the way, the occasional student, who pressed the button of my camera in 1955, was, approximately, of my age. Therefore, he may be, unfortunately, dead now because the life expectancy in Ukraine does not exceed 66 years these days.
 * My best! Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any resource documentation that this is the same person? The pictures appear to be in a different scale. It might be differences in poses but the bone structures do not appear to be the same. Also, the younger man looks older than 18 years of age. This needs a disclaimer or more references. As it is I can accept that these are of the same person.

RAYLEIGH22 (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! There are some subtle differences between the images. The individual on the right owns both the negative from the first and the digital recording of the second. Unfortunately, adding some 60 years to the individual on the left will cause some small changes in bone structures. I have a picture of myself in my twenties that bares this out. Thank you also for "As it is I can accept that these are of the same person." There's more information in the Summary section for the file. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to RAYLEIGH22's doubts:
 * The pictures are, in general, in the same scale but some proportions are really distorted due to the difference in angles of cameras projections.
 * The younger man body may look older than 18 years of age, probably, because of the bloated veins of the right leg below the knee (as a result of the long standing in a still position).
 * However, if you compare both bodies hands or feet, especially, their fingers and toes, you may find out: they are surprisingly identical which means those persons are the same.
 * Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 05:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If I understand Dave Braunschweig's last comment correctly, we all now agree that there is no copyright impediment. All that remains is to make sure Vshustov's relationship with the photos is stated correctly in the metadata on the file (and that we don't lose our tempers with each other). But please let me know if I've misunderstood anything. Marshallsumter made some changes to the metadata, and I've made a further change based on Dave's comment that own is not strictly correct due to the involvement of the student pressing the button in 1955. I hope I look that good at age 80, but I didn't look that good at age 18 so I don't like my chances! --Pat Conheady (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your added comment after own is okay here but may prevent the image going to Commons. Vshustov owns the negative and possession is often referred to as 90 % of the law. Also, in the USA, everyone is presumed innocent (AGF) of alleged wrong doing unless proven guilty. Do you believe we followed that here? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Though I gave you my consent, Marshallsumter, with all your changes in the file Summary, I would prefer, if it's possible, to avoid mentioning there my identity as the subject of both photos. Thanks a lot! Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll bring some sections of the summary here and suggest some modifications. Let me know if any of these respect your request appropriately. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Source: Own work by Shustov., with the help of a student in 1955 whose name is not known." to


 * "Source: Own work by Shustov., specifically the negative, with the help of a student in 1955 whose name is not known." What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Author: Shustov: 1) Photo of 1955 taken by permission at the Odessa Art College (Ukraine). During the break, I gave my camera to one of the students (I do not remember his name), put him in the right place, while I myself took the pose, in which I had previously been drawn, and gave the command to press the button. 2) Photo of 2017. I fixed the camera in the needed position, set the timer, put myself, approximately, in the same pose with the same attire as in 1955, and received another image. I chose my body poses, founded positions of cameras, made the command to shoot, developed the photos, processed them into one combined image and uploaded the file." to


 * "Author: Shustov: 1) Photo of 1955 taken by permission at the Odessa Art College (Ukraine). During the break, I gave my camera to one of the students (I do not remember his name), put him in the right place, the model took the pose, in which he had previously been drawn, and I gave the command to press the button. 2) Photo of 2017. I fixed the camera in the needed position, set the timer, put the model, approximately, in the same pose with the same attire as in 1955, and received another image. I chose the model's body poses, founded positions of cameras, made the command to shoot, developed the photos, processed them into one combined image and uploaded the file." What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's, Marshallsumter, try this:
 * Source: Own work by Shustov, with the help of one of the available students whose name is not preserved (it was 1955!).
 * Author: Shustov: 1) Photo of 1955 was taken by permission at the Odessa Art College (Ukraine). During the break, Shustov gave his camera to one of the students, put him in the right place with the right direction of the camera, then the model took the pose in which it previously was drawn, and, finally, Shustov gave the command to press the button. 2) Photo of 2017. Shustov fixed the camera in the needed position, set the timer, took, approximately, the same pose with the same attire as in 1955, and received another image. In both 1955 and 2017, Shustov chose the model's body poses, positions of cameras, made the command to shoot, developed the photos, processed them into one combined image and uploaded the file."
 * Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's okay with me! I'll add them to the image and let's see if anyone objects. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Cool! Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation policies
I don't see anywhere in this thread a reference to The Wikimedia Foundation's general policy that all content should carry a Free Content License, nor their policy that allows each Wikimedia project to develop its own Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Wikipedia and Wikinews have developed such policies. If Wikiversity has such a policy, it should ask the Wikimedia Foundation to mention that in their discussion of this issue under n:Resolution:Licensing policy.

This is serious. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently blocked Wikipedia in Turkey, and there are people with money and power all over the world would like to destroy the Wikimedia Foundation. Big money interests in the US have worked to discredit fact checkers including investigative journalists, university professors and Wikimedian.

Copyright law in the U.S. is so complicated it invites SLAPP lawsuits, as documented by Lawrence Lessig in his book, Free Culture For example, Lawyers for MP3 and Venture Capitalists who funded Napster were forced to settle with huge losses, not on the merits of their cases, but merely because their opponents in the lawsuits had the financial resources to continue the lawsuit indefinitely, forcing the supporters of MP3 and Napster to spend money on legal defense far beyond their means with no hope of recovering their expenses even if they won. Similarly, Philip Morris successfully forced ABC to cancel airing of a special on tobacco, in which they had already invested half a million dollars, showing that "for a paltry $10 million or $20 million in legal fees … you can effectively silence the criticism".

We should work assiduously to avoid giving them a pretext for a SLAPP lawsuit.

The folks at Wikimedia Commons have forced me to do substantially more work than I thought necessary to establish ownership of photos given to me for the purpose of releasing them on Wikimedia Commons under the standard CC BY-SA 4.0 license. I've followed their lead, because they know copyright law better than I do, and the consequences of getting it wrong are too great to contemplate.

Earlier this year I wrote to a prof in a named chair at one of the world's top dozen universities, asking if their data and images could be made available under an open license like CC BY-SA 4.0, so I could make those images available via Wikimedia Commons. I received a reply saying their team would discuss this during the summer, and I could expect to hear back later this year.

Some of those copyrighted images could make the difference between descriptive text that is easily overlooked and a message jumping off the page at the reader. I will not give up on this, but I also will not jeopardize the future of the Wikimedia Foundation by playing games with their rules.

For the particular image being discussed here, if my understanding of the above is correct, Vshustov can reasonably claim that he owns those images:
 * 1) For the first image, he controlled all the creative aspects.  While he did NOT push the button on the camera, the person who did was following Vshustov's instructions and could therefore not claim ownership of the copyright.
 * 2) For the second image, Vshustov pushed a button to start a timer, then got in front of the camera when the photo was actually taken.
 * 3) And he made the composition.

If all three of these points are correct, then I recommend he upload the image(s) to Wikimedia Commons, saying he owns the images and is releasing them under CC BY-SA 4.0. If later, the unknown person who pushed the button to take that first photo sees it and wants to sue, s/he can go after Vshustov but not the Wikimedia Foundation. That's not likely to happen, because the button-pusher would know that such a lawsuit would hardly be worth pursuing. If, on the other hand, the aforementioned button-pusher wanted to close down the Wikimedia Foundation, they'd have a greater chance of succeeding with a "fair use" claim than if Vshustov claimed ownership, in my judgment -- succeeding in the sense of seriously injuring and possibly killing the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I'm not an attorney.

Later as a separate project, people with Wikiversity could discuss creating their own Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) acceptable to The Wikimedia Foundation. However, given my current understanding, I would oppose creating such an exemption. It's a lot of work and not worth the additional risks.

By the way, I'm the author of books, patents, published technical papers, and I've chafed under US copyright practices for decades. I agree with US constitutional scholar Lawrence Lessig: Current US copyright law is unconstitutional, though the US Supreme Court disagreed with him. For more on my approach to these issues, see Winning the War on Terror. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See WV:EDP for the Wikiversity Exemption Doctrine Policy. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Has anyone attempted to get the Wikimedia Foundation to add a link on m:Resolution:Licensing policy to WV:EDP?  Such a link would have made it easier for me to find.
 * I see now that the second sentence in this section reads, "Please refer to WV:EDP items 6 and 8." I obviously missed that.
 * Is my analysis above correct that you own these images?
 * What are the chances that the person who actually pushed the button on the camera per your instructions would (a) see the photo, (b) have some documentation that s/he has a claim to the photo, and (c) be sufficiently upset to try to take you to court for failing to acknowledge their contribution?
 * Could you please try to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, indicating that it's your own work? I would not mention the person who actually pushed the button on the camera following your instructions, because that seems like an irrelevant detail.  In my experience, posting something to Wikimedia Commons has been very easy for anything I claim as my own work and difficult but not impossible otherwise.  As I indicated above and in Winning the War on Terror, people with power often try to denigrate fact checkers whom they cannot control.  DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is already a link on m:Resolution:Licensing policy to WV:EDP. It is labeled "Uploading files". Note that Shustov is blocked from Commons based on a long history of copyright violations, misuse of multiple user accounts, and abusive/disruptive conduct. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Shustov is clearly an energetic guy, but he needs to learn to be a team player.
 * I would expect that Wikimedia Commons would have procedures for working with someone with a long history of copyright violations, as long as they seem willing to learn and abide by the rules. By analogy, "w:Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits" discusses cases where certain IP addresses have been blocked for hours or days, because of blatant violations of Wikimedia policy -- but not necessarily permanently.
 * If he is not able to work with Wikimedia Commons, then it I think we may open a door to a lawsuit that we cannot afford if we allow him to circumvent the procedures on Wikimedia Commons. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, tell me, Dave Braunschweig:
 * Whose copyrights I have ever violated?
 * What means "misuse of multiple user accounts"?
 * What means "abusive/disruptive conduct"?
 * Wouldn't it be better if we finish discussing of "File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg" first and only then start with your allegations on my unhappy past relations with Wikimedia Commons?
 * Thanks, Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Commons:User talk:Shustov, Commons:User talk:ShustovVal, and Commons:User talk:Vshustov. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't send me away. Please, answer my above questions in simple English. Thanks, Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sending you away. I'm encouraging you to read your own history and learn from it. After reading the history, please tell us whose copyrights were violated, how the Wikimedia community defines misuse of multiple accounts, and what types of conduct are identified as abusive or disruptive. It is important that you learn from this history so you can avoid repeating it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I will help you to answer my questions:
 * I have violated nobody's copyrights. Nobody's!
 * My "misuse of multiple user accounts"? Never!
 * No "abusive/disruptive conduct" on my part. None!
 * Anyway, let's finish discussing of "File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg" first!
 * Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't this topic closed already? I'm sorry everybody, but this conversation has gotten so long that I don't know where people stand. I have two questions:
 * If person A hands a camera to person B and therefore "controls" the shot, can person A claim ownership pending an objection from person B?
 * Am I correct in understanding the position of those who want to undelete? This position, as I understand it, is that Vshustov is person A in one image, an that the other image was a selfie. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright ownership of photographs is relatively simple. The one who presses the button owns the copyright. The only exceptions are a full-time employee hired to take photographs for the employer or an written agreement that the work is "work for hire". Simply hiring a photographer does not make the work "for hire". See http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/ for more information. So, the answer to Question 1 is no. Controlling the shot isn't relevant. Owning the camera isn't relevant. Person A may have a non-exclusive license to use the image based on implicit or explicit agreement, but does not own the copyright, and Person A cannot claim the image as their own work.

I agree with your understanding of Question 2. As documented right now, the information on the file unnecessarily documents the situation in which the image was taken, and still incorrectly claims that it is Shustov's own work. The correct labeling would be something like "Left image taken by anonymous fellow art student, used with permission. Right image taken by Shustov using a camera timer. Images combined by Shustov."

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me summarize this by posing four questions to those who believe the image should be allowed to stay on Wikiversity:
 * Does anybody dispute the validity of the following statement as to the nature of US copyright law? (see http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/)
 * Does anybody dispute that the conversation at T126418 instructs us not to allow a photo taken under the present circumstances?
 * Does anybody agree that T126418 instructs us not to allow the photo, but wish to argue that we are at liberty to ignore them?
 * Does anybody who feels that the answer to the first three questions is "NO", propose that we change the official policy?


 * Please if at all possible, pick one and only one of these four points for further discussion. If the only choice is #4, I suggest we (temporarily) redelete and proceed to change the rules on an appropriate talk page (not here!).  I have no idea whether we should change the official policy, but I certainly wish we could. These copyright issues are a pain in the arse--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me add that I agree with Guy vandegrift's "Isn't this topic closed already?" and Dave Braunschweig's "Left image taken by anonymous fellow art student, used with permission. Right image taken by Shustov using a camera timer. Images combined by Shustov." if Vshustov agrees for this composite image to be free use. Regarding the four questions: (1) "yes", the attorney uses the word "generally", that means 51 % to ≤ 98 % of the time, but not all the time, (2) T126418 is about fair use whereas the current state of the image is free use so "yes I dispute it", (3) although not all of my answers are "no", for fair use or free use we probably are at liberty to ignore them, (4) yes, we should make EDP compliance voluntary. I hope this helps! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where the current discussion is regarding "free use", the EDP has been discussed on several talk pages. Here's one Community Review/Exemption Doctrine Policy. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's another Wikiversity talk:Exemption Doctrine Policy‎. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being so sloppy and muddleheaded with important technical issues, but is there a consensus that "image taken by anonymous fellow art student, used with permission" makes this image permissible on Wikiversity? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would change your above clip a little bit for this one: "image taken by anonymous fellow art student 62 years ago, used with permission". --Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the 'source' on the image to 'Left image taken by anonymous fellow art student in 1955, used with permission. Right image taken by Shustov using a camera timer. Images combined by Shustov' which I think reflects the consensus in this discussion. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything.Pat Conheady (discuss


 * Do we really need to repeat in Source the information which is provided already in Author of the image? -- Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the phrase in the Source: "used with permission" is an acceptable legal expression to indicate the student who pushed the bottom voluntarily transferred ownership of the exposed film back to you. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No problems! --Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikiversity, but I believe that the image should be deleted. It seems very simple to make; just take a collage creator, and 2 pictures, and then you have that image. I do not see any proof of rejuvination.

From the Source: ''Left image taken by anonymous fellow art student in 1955, used with permission. Right image taken by Shustov using a camera timer. '' This is not rejuvination, these are just people taking photos of themselves. Please. PokestarFan (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! And, for acknowledging that "these are just people taking photos of themselves.". That's what this discussion is about! The applicability of the image on the Rejuvenation page can be discussed on that page's "Discuss" page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary
2 keep, 6 keep with valid license information, 2 move to Commons, 1 delete. Closed based on consensus to keep with valid license information.
 * User:Marshallsumter - Keep
 * User:Sophivorus - it's up to the uploader to prove that s/he has permission to upload the image.
 * User:Green Giant - Vshustov must explain the circumstances of both photos so we can consider the existence of an implied license.
 * User:Michael Ten - Move to Commons.
 * User:Vshustov - Keep
 * User:Pat Conheady - It is clear to me now that you didn't take the photo in the sense that you didn't press the button on the camera, but you probably do either own the copyright or have a licence from the person who does own the copyright.
 * User:Guy vandegrift - Keep with valid license information.
 * User:Dave Braunschweig - Someone who wants the image to remain at Wikiversity or Commons needs to provide accurate Information based on the discussion here.
 * User:RAYLEIGH22 - This needs a disclaimer or more references.
 * User:DavidMCEddy - Upload to Commons.
 * User:PokestarFan - Delete

Vshustov Copyright Violations
The following files uploaded by User:Vshustov are improperly credited and/or licensed. The images are tagged as own work, but the user is the subject of the images, the user is not holding the camera, and the works are consistent with 125 other works already proven to be the work of a different photographer.
 * File:Posing at Artistic Collage.jpg
 * Suggestion for source: "Image taken by anonymous fellow art student in 1955, used with permission."
 * Suggestion for author: "Photo of 1955 was taken by permission at the Odessa Art College (Ukraine). During the break, Shustov gave his camera to one of the students, put him in the right place with the right direction of the camera, then the model took the pose in which it previously was drawn, and, finally, Shustov gave the command to press the button."


 * File:80-years old standing in a pool area.jpg
 * Suggestion for source: "Image taken by Shustov using a camera timer."
 * Suggestion for author: "Photo of 2017 Shustov fixed the camera in the needed position, set the timer, took, approximately, the same pose with the same attire as in 1955, and received another image."

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Senior stretching in gym.jpg


 * Where we are now? Why do we need those "125 other works" here? Have we finished with the file File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg already? --Vshustov (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We are at the same place we've always been. You have an extensive history of uploading files to Wikiversity that claim to be your own work, even when they are not, and even when there is clear proof that they are not. These three files continue that history. You must give credit to the copyright holder or these files will be deleted.


 * Regarding File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg, the discussion is ongoing. I will try to summarize above. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, so I might need someone to explain this to me slowly. Maybe I'm missing something. Here's what I can see. Vshustov is not an expert in copyright or Wikiversity metadata, and what he seems to do is he uploads images which he either owns the copyright to or has a licence to use on Wikiversity. There is no chance that the copyright holder (if in fact that isn't Vshustov) will be upset or sue anyone.

The issue is that Vshustov labels his images as own. If I understand the earlier discussion correctly, on Wikiversity it is regarded as important that we make the distinction between 'I pressed a button to take a photo' and 'I set everything up and, at my command, someone pressed a button to take the photo for me', and reserve own for the former.

So, there is no legal risk and no copyright issue, but Vshustov needs help to label his images in the right way. I anticipate that Marshallsumter would be happy to do that, since he's already jumped in and offered some suggested metadata. The probability that, after such assistance is provided, these three photos will need to be deleted is zero. What am I missing?

--Pat Conheady (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, copyright issues aren't limited to Wikiversity. As Guy mentioned, it is true of English-speaking Wikimedia projects in general, as evidenced by Vshustov and related accounts being blocked on most other English-speaking wikis for similar copyright violations. The only part that appears to be unique at Wikiversity is that many in the community are willing to ignore the requirements, and some are willing to fix the errors rather than ensure that participants learn from their mistakes.
 * The problem is that we don't yet have an effective method for this process to take place. Vshustov has, thus far, refused to comply with Terms of Use. As long as someone is willing to come to his rescue, he has no reason to change his approach. So, a simple requirement to document copyright ownership turns into 10,000 words of discussion and dozens of hours of volunteer labor by 11 people so far. I am hopeful that through this process we will find a way for files to be properly licensed that doesn't require quite so much effort.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand now your concern about the time it takes to 'clean up'. Even if, on a particular occasion, a suspected copyright violation turns out to be no problem, it still takes time to determine that. It will be good if we can help Shustov to understand the rules, get the existing files sorted out, and ensure that files uploaded in future are labelled correctly.

Do you understand why the changes to the metadata on the images are required?

--Pat Conheady (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)