Wikiversity talk:License tags

License tagging is a problem. This is evidenced by the 2000+ unlicensed files we received last year based on current upload instructions. I've had some initial discussions with User:Abd on this issue, as well as a recent discussion with User:Marshallsumter in the Colloquium. This discussion is intended to bring all interested parties together and find consensus on a solution.

Note that there are really two different issues here. One is what images should be here vs. at Commons. I'm not looking to go there. If a file is properly tagged, we can figure out where it goes eventually and there's no loss of content one way or the other.

What I am seeking to accomplish at this point is some systematic changes in the upload page and/or an abuse filter that ensures that all uploaded files are tagged when they are uploaded. If we know a tag is required, there is no benefit in allowing users to upload files untagged.

Most of the text on the Special:Upload page can be modified. It's just a MediaWiki page that custodians can edit. Likewise, the list of license choices at the bottom of the Upload page is another MediaWiki page that can be edited. I think the list can be shortened significantly to reduce confusion. Do we really need support for Creative Commons 2.0 licenses? Can some of the other options be simplified or eliminated?

The other option would be to turn on the Upload Wizard, which is currently in use on Wikipedia and provides a much better upload interface. Unfortunately, I've had an open request at Request_custodian_action on this for a month and a half without any response.

Suggestions?

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Special:Upload says "You must select one of the Licensing options at the bottom of this page." As I recall, there were no options at the bottom of the page.

Okay, File:Silly goose.svg. I clicked on that and was taken the Upload File dialog. There is no list of options at the bottom of the page, or anywhere. Okay, I see the problem. Once one has pointed to a file for upload, then the options appear. But the big bold notice that you must select an option appears first. So that was the first thing I looked for. Not finding it, I was bollixed. So too will be a certain number of users. So when I did pick a file for upload, then an option box appears. It doesn't look like a list of options. But clicking on it does then show the list of options. Again, some users will be bollixed. Instructions need to be explicit, and in the sequence they are to be followed.

Looking at the options, remember, many users will start with "None selected." I pressed the upload button, and a no-permission Fair Use option was selected for me. The file name was changed from "File:My Little Pony G4 logo.svg" to "Silly_goose.svg." I will need to modify the page to give the proper license info from Wikipedia. I am also moving the file to File:MLP logo.svg. None of this process gives me much confidence.

The list of options includes several that are basically the same. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Arrgh. No move option for Files. Unanticipated. Requesting deletion. I'll do this later. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If we want to prepare for prohibiting users from uploading with no option selected, we need to make the choice of options crystal clear. We may have an option that does indeed tag the file for deletion, but the user will be told what must be explained to avoid deletion. The deletion should not be automatic. Files without a usage, and a fair use claim, may indeed be deleted quickly. To avoid that was the idea behind the generic resource page for temporary "fair use" as allowing students to temporarily have a file on-wiki with a fair use claim, without creating a long-term problem. I do worry about possible abuse, but that page, as I designed it, makes it easy to review the files in one place. If that gets too large, there can be subpages for specific projects that might use a lot of images. Or the project itself can have a resource page to hold those images for review.

The idea of the generic page was to tag all the files with a prod that would allow a semester of presence. So this can be incorporated in the upload procedure, one of the options would tag the file with a template that puts the file into maintenance categories for easy handling. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the image to File:My Little Pony G4 logo.svg. The first problem I encountered was in following the directions in the no license template to "Please place on this page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms." Okay, I put it there. Now what? What does "place [blah blah] on this page mean"? How? How do I "fill out" what is requested? To know what to do, I needed to look at the template itself and copy the template field format, then to fill it in.

I placed the Fair Use template on the image, which doesn't set up any rationale. Another template is needed for that, I think. What instructions we currently give for users is incorrect, they can do what it says and get nowhere. If they already know what to do, the instructions serve as a reminder, that's all. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Extension:UploadWizard
I asked the stewards over at Meta how we enable the mw:Extension:UploadWizard. We need to have community consensus and then file a bugzilla request. Please visit either Wikipedia:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or Commons:Special:UploadWizard and test the wizard feature to see if this resolves most of the problems we have with this user interface. I believe it does. If we can agree here, then we can move the discussion back to the Colloquium, post an announcement, whatever it takes to gather community consensus.

Thanks!

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I use the Upload Wizard at Commons every time and love it! Nearly all of the license options it offers at Commons are for photographers to skim around free use and make money selling their photographs. Normally my images for upload are Public Domain where possible, unless the source like Wikipedia states a specific creative commons license. Any figures or images I obtain from the scholarly literature I only upload here as fair use. I don't know if the Upload Wizard properly handles Fair Use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The documentation isn't specific, but I suspect that it will be customizable in some form similar to what we have now. It's also a no-lose option, because you can still use the built-in Special:Upload page if need be.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-commercial use licenses
Such as the license for File:6K6 pentode power amplifier.JPG, which is cc-by-nc-sa 2.0, which allows our use, but prohibits commercial use. By WMF policy, a "Non-free media usage rationale" is required. The template for this should tag the file for machine recognition. This is different from a Fair Use rationale. Fair Use rationales are required to support usage of copyrighted material, without permission. the cc-by-nc licenses grant us permission, which extends to noncommercial users, but to commercial re-users, who may or may not be able to claim Fair Use (it gets complex.) (It may be tricky for the copyright owner to claim loss when the image is being given away for noncommercial usage. But it's possible. I am not a copyright expert!)

My sense is that our EDP for Fair Use images and for Permitted use images can and should be different. The EDP presently appears to prohibit usage in user space; the reasoning behind that is unclear, even if we are considering a Fair Use copyrighted image. If it's permitted for educational purpose in mainspace, why not in user space?

If an image is permitted on any page, and anyone can immediately determine where it is used. is it necessary for a Non-free media rationale to be provided for every usage? That requires extra steps that may easily, then, require additional maintenance later.

My opinion is that it is enough to tag the image as non-free. In general, we may assume that resources here, and including resources in user space, are here for educational purpose; the issue is whether or not that purpose is "significant." Once the file is hosted, it's available through our web site, and it may be found and downloaded from here.

With Fair Use images, there are issues like resolution, limited in order to leave substantial value with the copyright owner. However, with Permitted use images, that issue does not exist. The file is freely downloadable, the license permits that. It simply does not permit commercial usage.

This may be a complicated way of saying that we can set up simple templates, and simple process. We do not need to have complex justifications. We can assume good faith and allow usage of images in Wikiversity resources in mainspace based on a claim of educational purpose. Yes, it must, by policy, be a claim of necessity, but this only rises to the level of "the page is less educational without it." "Educational" includes subtleties such as attractive presentation.

(Educations who think only of dry material, "facts," alone, are generally poor educators.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So, be bold! Make a proposal.  What do we need first, a change in the EDP, or a tag to put on the files?  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first step is not the EDP. It is accurately tagging files. The first step in that is creating accurate tags. We need a Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license tag, and other similar licenses that provide us with permitted use as distinct from fair use, and templates, such as Template:cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 to go with it. Then we need Fair Use and Permitted Use templates, the requirements should be somewhat different.


 * I have the nagging feeling that the policies are set to coercively harness the volunteer base (that wants to create encylopedias and educational resources and processes, free to read and learn from, and to re-use for noncommercial purposes) to build content for commercial re-users, under the slogan of "free content." However, I will proceed on the assumption that the primary goal here is educational content and process, and that "free" is subordinate to that.


 * The policies want users to provide free content, unless it is not available. It then allows fair use. We could claim permitted use, and use, for example, a high-resolution original. Totally legal. But a commercial re-user might need to cut the resolution and claim Fair use. Now, say I'm working on some educational resource, and I find an nc-licensed file. It's high resolution. I don't know how to change the resolution, I don't have the tools or skills. What I'm coming to is that I should be able to upload the file and use it for educational purpose, here. It would be tagged as an nc-restricted file, and the non-free rationale would be simple: permitted use, for educational purpose. Anyone, later, can "improve" the page by substituting a version modified to meet fair use requirements. Such a modified file would, however, be (somewhat) less suitable for display. At that point there could be a discussion of which file to use as the current version.


 * The compromise here is to allow permitted use at least until an alternative is available for fair use. Regardless, files would be tagged with the appropriate and accurate license information. For Fair Use, the copyright owner need not be known. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-commercial use licenses
Such as the license for File:6K6 pentode power amplifier.JPG, which is cc-by-nc-sa 2.0, which allows our use, but prohibits commercial use. By WMF policy, a "Non-free media usage rationale" is required. The template for this should tag the file for machine recognition. This is different from a Fair Use rationale. Fair Use rationales are required to support usage of copyrighted material, without permission. the cc-by-nc licenses grant us permission, which extends to noncommercial users, but to commercial re-users, who may or may not be able to claim Fair Use (it gets complex.) (It may be tricky for the copyright owner to claim loss when the image is being given away for noncommercial usage. But it's possible. I am not a copyright expert!)

My sense is that our EDP for Fair Use images and for Permitted use images can and should be different. The EDP presently appears to prohibit usage in user space; the reasoning behind that is unclear, even if we are considering a Fair Use copyrighted image. If it's permitted for educational purpose in mainspace, why not in user space?

If an image is permitted on any page, and anyone can immediately determine where it is used. is it necessary for a Non-free media rationale to be provided for every usage? That requires extra steps that may easily, then, require additional maintenance later.

My opinion is that it is enough to tag the image as non-free. In general, we may assume that resources here, and including resources in user space, are here for educational purpose; the issue is whether or not that purpose is "significant." Once the file is hosted, it's available through our web site, and it may be found and downloaded from here.

With Fair Use images, there are issues like resolution, limited in order to leave substantial value with the copyright owner. However, with Permitted use images, that issue does not exist. The file is freely downloadable, the license permits that. It simply does not permit commercial usage.

This may be a complicated way of saying that we can set up simple templates, and simple process. We do not need to have complex justifications. We can assume good faith and allow usage of images in Wikiversity resources in mainspace based on a claim of educational purpose. Yes, it must, by policy, be a claim of necessity, but this only rises to the level of "the page is less educational without it." "Educational" includes subtleties such as attractive presentation.

(Educations who think only of dry material, "facts," alone, are generally poor educators.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on how Wikipedia handles the CC-by-nc licenses, I find a mess there. Wikipedia allows fair use with a rationale. However, this page says that CC-by-nc files should not be uploaded.

Looking over the Wikipedia pages on non-=free media, as w:Wikipedia:Non-free content, it appears to be assumed that non-free media will be under a fair use claim. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)