File talk:Monkey3.jpg

This talk page contains discussion pertinent to the deletion of File:Monkey3.jpg, and has been preserved as an archive. It should not be speedily deleted. Do not edit the contents of the deletion discussion.

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

The discussion below is about a deleted local image depicting a monkey in a cage, not about the Commons image with the same name.

Hi Idleguy,

I reverted your change because I don't understand how you can object to the fair-tag here. It's precisely meant to cover this kind of scenario, and I've left more details as to why on your talk page. I also didn't understand your edit summary: "fair use is for one or two images at best under the right circumstances. it does not mean downloading entire images from a copyrighted site." Any clarification would be appreciated. The image is from BUAV. They have no problem with the images being used. That's why they put them on their site. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can persuade them to release it under PD or GFDL, I would gladly welcome it. Any other use is still violation and noticing that you've uploaded lots of these images, I think the line has to be drawn. Just because someone puts it on their site doens't mean they are happy to let others copy from them. Is there any explicit statement saying they have released it under public domain or something similar? Until then, i'm sorry these images are going. Actually you can check out that I've been responsible for deleting more than 100 copyvio articles and images of various fields, just in case you are doubting my intentions. Idleguy 07:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do the images have to be released as PD or under GFDL? You still haven't said why they're not covered by fair use. The copyright owners know that Wikipedia is using them, and are fine with it, so how can you say they are copyright violations? What kind of image does count as fair use, in your view, if not these? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've answered in your talk page. Idleguy 09:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Could we dicuss this here, please, as others may want to join in, and that's what this page is for. You didn't address any of the issues I raised. If the copyright holder knows that this is being used, and is fine with it, how can it be a violation? And why do you believe it doesn't count as fair use? It has no commercial value, there is no other way of obtaining a photograph of a macaque in a lab, and it is being used for educational purposes. It fits the fair-use criteria exactly, I believe. Please say clearly why you feel it does not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

First things first, how do I know that the copyright holder has allowed use an image's in wikipedia or in any other site? Instead of saying that "he knows", I suggest you get a written proof for the images that you claim so. Even if you did gain permission from them, it would still be liable to be deleted, only under a different tag as {{permission} is not accepted in Wikipedia.

I didn't say I'd had sought permission. I said they are aware of the use and have expressed no objections. I am claiming fair use, not permission. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your images are not ALL macaques in a lab, but some on personalities and so on. Claiming fair use for everything from monkeys to men is a blatant misuse of this fair use law, especially since you've not addressed the fact that NONE of your images are deprecated and a good amount were taken from websites that don't specify PD or GFDL.

But WHY do you think they don't count as fair use? You keep saying they don't without explaining why not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, I see that you've indulged in reverting to your sanitised version that deletes tags. As posted on your message page it's a case of Avoidant vandalism. The way it stands now, you are afraid of this issue coming out in the open in wikipedia, where the community will decide the fate of these "fair use" images. Anymore reverts, I'm gonna call in mediation, cuz I'm sick of arguing.

Please do. I think you're being extremely aggressive, and deleting a lot of my work, for no reason that I can see. I would very much appreciate someone else being involved in this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Noncommercial use is invariably fair" is a misconception as per fair use regulations. You seem to be making that mistake.

I have never said that. I have said: the images have no commercial value, they are being used to illustrate articles in a way that's educative, that we are an educational site, and that there is no other way to obtain the images. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A logo or stamp or DVD cover are solid cases of fair use, since there is NO alternative to the original. photos of personalities - which form a good % of ur uploaded images - are not easily fair use (mugshots given for promo are different and are fair use). So don't try to get away with saying all your images are on macaques as they are not. Even a chimp behind bars is such a common sight in zoos, you'd expect a free one instead of a fair use image.

No, this is an image of a macaque in a lab, not just behind bars. Big difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You can make a few exceptions, like I've made in some of your images, but exceptions don't make the rule. Idleguy 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm posting this here so we can refer to it if necessary:

U.S. Copyright Law, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107

Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Two points. One, I think Idleguy is quite right that if you are confident BUAV want this photo distributed, they could release it under GFDL, and it wouldn't harm to ask. Two, the "fair use" provision of the copyright act is much abused here. Whether Wikipedia is "educational" under the meaning of the act is something you probably wouldn't want to test in court, particularly because Wikipedia is available for commercial use. It's a very bad idea to use copyright images if any alternative is possible. I'm not sure that degraded quality has anything to do with it. If a picture's commercial value was diminished by its use alone, it wouldn't matter that it was degraded.

Personally, I feel reliance on the "fair use" doctrine is misguided in a lot of cases, and should not rely on your personal confidence that Wikipedia would not be sued. It should only be applied where there can be general confidence, so that when you are long gone, this image will still be here, its rationale solid and unchallengeable. Having said that, I think Idleguy should accept that these images are not particularly problematic. It fits the purpose of the BUAV for them to be published here and they would not likely have a problem with their being used in a commercial setting either. He should also accept that Slim might be misguided, but she's working in good faith on the encyclopaedia, and doesn't deserve to be treated with anything less than the civility that a colleague in that task deserves.

I think you need to be cautioned also, Slim, that people who are working in good faith to improve the encyclopaedia are not obstructing your work if they disagree with you. I direct you to the provision that clearly states that your work can be mercilessly edited. A proprietorial attitude to writing, images or any other material here is not appropriate. Please also try not to attack other editors for asking you to provide explanations of what you have done. In particular, be prepared to give full rationales for the use of pictures under fair use, because this is a sensitive issue at the moment. Do it even if you don't quite understand why. You spend an inordinate amount of time on WP, so five minutes writing out why you feel a picture can be used fairly and without breach of copyright wouldn't harm. Grace Note 07:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this image: It deeply saddens me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.23.18 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)