Mmcbr
Joined 7 December 2013
Latest comment: 1 month ago by B-bot in topic Orphaned non-free image File:Simon Théodore.png
Welcome!
edit
Welcome!
Hello, Mmcbr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.
Did you know that ...
- ...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
- ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
- ...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
- ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
- ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process – at least until you get the hang of things?
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Introduction
- Manual of Style
Non-free rationale for File:Simon Théodore.png
edit
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Simon Théodore.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you ask about the copyright status of this file at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because if the photo was really taken in 1905 and first published around that same time, there's a really good chance the it has already entered into the public domain and wouldn't need to be treated as non-free content. If the photo is in the public domain, it's better off being hosted by Wikimedia Commons than Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I got the picture from the Society on the condition that I would only publish the clip. So, even though it probably could be in the public domain, I have the feeling I would be overstepping the courtesy they gave to me. Mmcbr (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever agreement you entered into with the Society is between you and the Society; Wikipedia is only concerned about the copyright status of the file and whether it needs to be licensed as non-free content. In order to verify that, more information needs to be provided about the provenance of the file. If the file is within the public domain, then there's no reason for it to be licensed as non-free and trying to do so would essentially be equivalent to copyfraud; moreover, trying to do so could lead to the file's deletion. I can understand you wanting to maintain a good reationship with the Society, but again that's an issue between you and it. If you're really worried about this, you might want to consider requesting the deletion of the file per WP:G7. For waht its worth, if you do a Google image search of "Théodore Simon" various images show up. For example, this seems to be the same person; so, if there are any other images out there that are within the public domain for one reason or another, no non-free one would be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand this, but you will see that this picture is 30 years after the work on the intelligence scale, when Simon was much younger. I've added more information about why I am convinced that fair use is indicated here (mostly for teaching purposes), but if Wikipedia decides there is a problem, that is your decision. I am willing to give further answers to specific questions but, as you say, I am fairly new to this and unfortunately do not have lots of spare time to spend on it (this is already eating into the few holidays I have). Mmcbr (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair use and non-free content aren't equivalent when it comes to Wikipedia as explained here, and it's Wikipedia's non-free content use policy that matters. Do you know whether this is also an image of Simon because if it is then it would him at a much younger age. Anyway, I've asked a Wikipedia administrator to take a look at the file. One of the things about non-free content is that there needs to be some way of verify that the image has been published per non-free content use criterion #4 and WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion. Do you know whether this particular image has been published in print or online prior to you uploading it to Wikipedia? If you can provide such information, it could help in sorting out the image's provenance. This doesn't need to be resolved right at this moment so enjoy your holidays; it will, however, need to be resolved at some point, and establishing that the file satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy ultimately falls upon you as the file's uploader. If the file can't be found anywhere published in print or online, then it's very hard to verify its copyright status one way or the other, which means it might be hard to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. The picture you are referring to is Wilhelm Wundt. Believe me, there is no other picture of Simon around the time he co-developed the intelligence scale (except for an unflattering one here: https://binet.hypotheses.org/). This is why I contacted the Society whether they had a photo I could distribute. I guess I could ask them whether the photo can be fully free content, but I will not have an answer before their next meeting, which is unlikely to be before the end of the year, after which I'd may no longer be interested in the topic :-). Best Mmcbr (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the other image. However, please understand that Wikipedia's non-free content use policy require freely licensed or public domain content to be used whenever possible instead of non-free content. So, from Wikipedia's point of view, a less than flattering public domain image is preferable to a better non-free one as long as the public domain image is capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free. If this wasn't the case, pretty much every Wikipedia article about a person would have a non-free image being used in the main infobox instead of a poorer quality free image or even no image at all. Anyway, there are several different images on binet
.hypotheses .org, and it's not clear which one you're referring to. If, however, one of those images is of Simon and is also within the public domain than that's the image relevant policy is going to allow to be used. Moreover, if it's a choice between two non-free images, then relevant policy tells use to use the one whose provenance can be more easily verified over one whose provenance is not as clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) - OK, I'll leave this up to your side. The picture I was referring to is the first one on the website, where you see both Simon (on the left) and Binet (on the right). Do I understand correctly that the issues would be solved if the society publishes the picture I uploaded on their website? That is something specific I could propose to them. Mmcbr (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being able to find the image you uploaded posted somewhere online or in print would help verify its provenance, but whether the Society is able to claim copyright ownership over is a different matter that depend lrgely on when the image was first published, who took the photo, when it was taken and where it was taken. It still wouldn't be allowed to be used as non-free content if it or any other image of Simon was shown to be within the public domain. So, actually the image you replaced for being blurry (File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg) is going to be preferred per relevant Wikipedia policy to the non-free one you uploaded or any other non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I asked about the file previously being used (File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg) in the article at c:COM:VPC#Théodore Simon photos and it seems the file is within the public domain according to a Commons administrator. So, even though you might feel it's not as good of an image as the one you uploaded, no non-free image is going to be allowed in this case per WP:FREER. Of course, it's still possible that the one you uploaded is also within the public domain. If that's the case, the file you uploaded could be relicensed and reuploaded or moved to Commons. Until that can be sorted out, though, a non-free file can't really be used per relevant Wikipedia policy.When I replaced the non-free file you uploaded, it became orphaned non-free use. In about five days or so, it will be deleted as such per speedy deletion criterion F5 unless a valid non-free use can be found for it in at least one article. Being "deleted" doesn't mean the file is gone forever, though; it's still on Wikipedia's servers and can easily be restored if its licensing eventually gets sorted out. Anyway, a bot will probably post a notification related to this here on your user talk page in a day or so. Now, if you disagree with my assessment and feel the non-free use of this file can be justified in this case, you can start a discussion about it at WP:FFD to see whether you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of keeping and using the file. There are instructions given on the FFD as to how to start an FFD discussion. Before doing so though, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in file deletion discussions because it explains some of the reasons why files often end up deleted and how FFD discussions tend to be reviewed by administrators. Another option to all of this would be to simply see whether the Binet-Simon Society is willing to give its WP:CONSENT for either this photo or another photo of Simon and agree to release it under an acceptable free license. This only really works though if the BSS is claiming copyright ownership over the photo and its claim is considered valid. If the photos are already within the public domain, then its's because they either never were or no longer are eligible for copyright protection. Trying to claim copyright ownership over them would be essentially copyfraud and is probably not a wise thing to do. In most cases, such claims are ignored by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you want to read about a real world example of this, take a look at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am not going to pursue this at this time. After the summer I will contact the Binet-Simon Society and see what preference they have. Mmcbr (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I asked about the file previously being used (File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg) in the article at c:COM:VPC#Théodore Simon photos and it seems the file is within the public domain according to a Commons administrator. So, even though you might feel it's not as good of an image as the one you uploaded, no non-free image is going to be allowed in this case per WP:FREER. Of course, it's still possible that the one you uploaded is also within the public domain. If that's the case, the file you uploaded could be relicensed and reuploaded or moved to Commons. Until that can be sorted out, though, a non-free file can't really be used per relevant Wikipedia policy.When I replaced the non-free file you uploaded, it became orphaned non-free use. In about five days or so, it will be deleted as such per speedy deletion criterion F5 unless a valid non-free use can be found for it in at least one article. Being "deleted" doesn't mean the file is gone forever, though; it's still on Wikipedia's servers and can easily be restored if its licensing eventually gets sorted out. Anyway, a bot will probably post a notification related to this here on your user talk page in a day or so. Now, if you disagree with my assessment and feel the non-free use of this file can be justified in this case, you can start a discussion about it at WP:FFD to see whether you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of keeping and using the file. There are instructions given on the FFD as to how to start an FFD discussion. Before doing so though, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in file deletion discussions because it explains some of the reasons why files often end up deleted and how FFD discussions tend to be reviewed by administrators. Another option to all of this would be to simply see whether the Binet-Simon Society is willing to give its WP:CONSENT for either this photo or another photo of Simon and agree to release it under an acceptable free license. This only really works though if the BSS is claiming copyright ownership over the photo and its claim is considered valid. If the photos are already within the public domain, then its's because they either never were or no longer are eligible for copyright protection. Trying to claim copyright ownership over them would be essentially copyfraud and is probably not a wise thing to do. In most cases, such claims are ignored by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you want to read about a real world example of this, take a look at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being able to find the image you uploaded posted somewhere online or in print would help verify its provenance, but whether the Society is able to claim copyright ownership over is a different matter that depend lrgely on when the image was first published, who took the photo, when it was taken and where it was taken. It still wouldn't be allowed to be used as non-free content if it or any other image of Simon was shown to be within the public domain. So, actually the image you replaced for being blurry (File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg) is going to be preferred per relevant Wikipedia policy to the non-free one you uploaded or any other non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll leave this up to your side. The picture I was referring to is the first one on the website, where you see both Simon (on the left) and Binet (on the right). Do I understand correctly that the issues would be solved if the society publishes the picture I uploaded on their website? That is something specific I could propose to them. Mmcbr (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the other image. However, please understand that Wikipedia's non-free content use policy require freely licensed or public domain content to be used whenever possible instead of non-free content. So, from Wikipedia's point of view, a less than flattering public domain image is preferable to a better non-free one as long as the public domain image is capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free. If this wasn't the case, pretty much every Wikipedia article about a person would have a non-free image being used in the main infobox instead of a poorer quality free image or even no image at all. Anyway, there are several different images on binet
- Thank you for your help. The picture you are referring to is Wilhelm Wundt. Believe me, there is no other picture of Simon around the time he co-developed the intelligence scale (except for an unflattering one here: https://binet.hypotheses.org/). This is why I contacted the Society whether they had a photo I could distribute. I guess I could ask them whether the photo can be fully free content, but I will not have an answer before their next meeting, which is unlikely to be before the end of the year, after which I'd may no longer be interested in the topic :-). Best Mmcbr (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair use and non-free content aren't equivalent when it comes to Wikipedia as explained here, and it's Wikipedia's non-free content use policy that matters. Do you know whether this is also an image of Simon because if it is then it would him at a much younger age. Anyway, I've asked a Wikipedia administrator to take a look at the file. One of the things about non-free content is that there needs to be some way of verify that the image has been published per non-free content use criterion #4 and WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion. Do you know whether this particular image has been published in print or online prior to you uploading it to Wikipedia? If you can provide such information, it could help in sorting out the image's provenance. This doesn't need to be resolved right at this moment so enjoy your holidays; it will, however, need to be resolved at some point, and establishing that the file satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy ultimately falls upon you as the file's uploader. If the file can't be found anywhere published in print or online, then it's very hard to verify its copyright status one way or the other, which means it might be hard to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand this, but you will see that this picture is 30 years after the work on the intelligence scale, when Simon was much younger. I've added more information about why I am convinced that fair use is indicated here (mostly for teaching purposes), but if Wikipedia decides there is a problem, that is your decision. I am willing to give further answers to specific questions but, as you say, I am fairly new to this and unfortunately do not have lots of spare time to spend on it (this is already eating into the few holidays I have). Mmcbr (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever agreement you entered into with the Society is between you and the Society; Wikipedia is only concerned about the copyright status of the file and whether it needs to be licensed as non-free content. In order to verify that, more information needs to be provided about the provenance of the file. If the file is within the public domain, then there's no reason for it to be licensed as non-free and trying to do so would essentially be equivalent to copyfraud; moreover, trying to do so could lead to the file's deletion. I can understand you wanting to maintain a good reationship with the Society, but again that's an issue between you and it. If you're really worried about this, you might want to consider requesting the deletion of the file per WP:G7. For waht its worth, if you do a Google image search of "Théodore Simon" various images show up. For example, this seems to be the same person; so, if there are any other images out there that are within the public domain for one reason or another, no non-free one would be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I got the picture from the Society on the condition that I would only publish the clip. So, even though it probably could be in the public domain, I have the feeling I would be overstepping the courtesy they gave to me. Mmcbr (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Simon Théodore.png
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Simon Théodore.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
