I'm shocked, no outraged that slimVirgin has been removing these tags, surely that's Crum375's job? Is Crum slacking or something? Buck up Crum, Slim needs ya.

Why doesn't she become an admin on Commons?

Apparently she wants to upload pictures to en-wiki already uploaded to commons - because animal rights pictures sometimes get deleted, which she considers as part of an evil agenda on commons' part. Amazing.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags just caught my eye. Best quote, though, had nothing to do with images;

That's actually the one reasonable thing she's doing here - There's no agenda as far as I know, but Commons has a history of (what seems to outsiders as) moving the goalposts on what's considered acceptable licenses and PD-status. There really should be a better process for notifying interested people who don't check commons when there's a deletion discussion, so they can take action to upload it on their own wiki (as PD-US or fair use if acceptable under the local wiki's rules) when/if it gets deleted.

RHMED will not last long before a block, given the other thread about him started by Filll a while ago. All these transgressions etc add up.

Filll seems to be becoming my self-appointed arch enemy lately, popping up these days in various forums after I post there and responding with a diatribe about how I'm unhealthily obsessed with BADSITES.

Commons will email you changes to your watchlist. There's a little box in preferences. If you're just watching "images relevant to you", it works perfect-like.

This whole fuss about SV's images has been stupid and avoidable - if Kelly believed SV's really been making up image rationales, the images should have been taken to wp:Images for deletion, rather than used as drama tools.

This is a prime candidate of a copyrighted picture illegally pulled off a private site. The owner has not released this image or others for free use. --Shuki 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a "private" site, whatever that means? It's a community/political website, and I can't imagine the people who run it would object at all to our use of it; on the contrary, if anything. I can e-mail them to check. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then to avoid problems, please attain their permission and don't lie that ther's no way to obtain it. Since when are assumptions an excuse for pulling images of personal sites? --Shuki 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, I think it does have modest commercial value since it is actually a nice photo. Don't see how it represents Gush Katif though...--Shuki 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How many of these images did she upload with the assumption that the copyright holders wouldn't mind?

While there may be some small differences between the Wikis, I would think that ultimately all of the Wikis will be bound by the same legal requirements.

Actually, while all Wikis (being hosted in Florida) are subject to Florida and US federal law, Commons also abides by the law of the country where the image was uploaded (if known).

THey are on PUI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pos...e_images#June_7

(SV is getting burniated there for false licensing claims too)

...and why should there be that difference? The only difference I can see is that Commons might not be able to claim fair use for having a picture in a repository as opposed to being referenced in an article.

It's not the country where the image was uploaded, it's the country where the image was _created_ - the idea is to make sure that images are free for _anyone_ to use (an image that is public-domain in the US may not be public-domain in the country of origin, because the US has some copyright exemptions that are more liberal than those some other countries have)

That makes sense - and of course should be the same criteria across all projects.

There certainly is no consistency. I'm pretty sure Commons doesn't allow Fair Use images (a concept not recognised in English copyright law) whereas there are huge numbers of {{fairuse}} ones on WP. Also, US law regards virtually anything published (produced?) before 1923 as Public Domain whereas European law requires 70 years from death, so a photo published in 1920 by an English person who lived to 1950, say, would be OK in the US but not here.

Well, aren't you? Here you are, writing in and reading a BADSITE. You bad boy. You dirty, dirty, FILTHY boy...

There certainly is no consistency. I'm pretty sure Commons doesn't allow Fair Use images (a concept not recognised in English copyright law) whereas there are huge numbers of {{fairuse}} ones on WP. Also, US law regards virtually anything published (produced?) before 1923 as Public Domain whereas European law requires 70 years from death, so a photo published in 1920 by an English person who lived to 1950, say, would be OK in the US but not here.

Why do you think it's a "private" site, whatever that means? It's a community/political website, and I can't imagine the people who run it would object at all to our use of it; on the contrary, if anything. I can e-mail them to check. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not entirely sure, I thought English Law does have a fair use exception - you are allowed to use quotes and so on for the purposes of criticism and review.

I suspect the difference comes in interpretation. The album cover issue would be an example. In UK law, showing a low resolution cover picture while discussing the album art itself may be permissible - though I would not be certain of that. In the US it is clearly considered a reasonable interpretation. What is not reasonable is having the cover purely to illustrate the article, because then you are not involving the cover itself in the review and I thought that might be an issue on both sides of the pond. The difference being say the iconic Dark Side of the Moon cover discussed in the article of the album vs say an early Beach Boys cover.

It doesn't matter anyway, since I doubt the record companies care. In fact, given the past incidents of astroturfing new bands by ips from major record labels, I'd gather they probably like it. Anyway, it makes sense to include pictures of album and book covers in their respective articles, so I don't mind it. The copyright paranoia perpetuated by some quarters is annoying, however.

@ burniated! Is that a new word? It's also funny to me, even if it's not a real word, which I believe it is not, I understood it! So, you may have created a new word! lol

When Rolling Stone reviews albums, they show the cover. Are they breaking copyright?

...

Clearly the water gets muddied with reviews, as most publishers want the free advertising.

...

Oooh err Mrs.