I get the gist of the concern here and agree abuse of photos of individuals is Not Cool™. I think we can agree that most folks don't want to make it easy to use pictures of people in ways that are undesirable to the person in said photo.
What's not clear to me is the focus of this proposal. Is it in building an easy way for editors to add a photo of themselves, and make that image appear frequently throughout the site (reaffirming that "Hey, you're talking to a person here!")? Or is it to make it so images used as profile pictures (in this proposed improved interface, or currently) can be uploaded under a more restrictive license? Both? :)
I use the same image across multiple sites/services that allow/encourage people to add a photo. Anyone can grab a photo from any of the locations, legally or not, and use it in ways that I would not personally approve of. I don't see how the licensing of the image would prevent jerks from using it in a harassing manner.
After all that blathering, I guess what I'm asking the submitter is, can you help to clarify the focus? How would these changes discourage harassment?
The primary idea is to fix the licensing, so that malicious users cannot legally use profile photos for "any purpose" including purposes which may be considered harassment.
A secondary goal is to encourage user profile photos, as I believe having more photos of users creates a friendlier social environment. The first step towards that is to fix the inappropriate licensing requirements, so that's the primary focus. Hope that clarifies. Pengo (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I have to say that the solution to the problem seems to me to be don't upload photos of yourself. If you upload a photo of yourself anonymous harassers will be able to use it how they wish. Even if this is not legal, they will do it and there is little or nothing you can do about it. What are you going to do? Take them to court and sue for copyright infringement? Even if you can find out their names, it would take months, if not years, to resolve in court. It will cost $1,000s in lawyer fees, and the remedy will perhaps be a few $100s in damages. It doesn't seem to have an effective legal solution, so changing the legal wording would probably only mislead the photo uploaders. Smallbones (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
now User talk:Smallbones, you know very well the problem is photos taken in public places without permission, and uploaded to commons. photos have been used to harass, and out people. waiting for the WMF to legally enforce misuse of personalty rights. could be a long time. Slowking4 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but I have some comments and concerns based on my experience as a photographer based in the USA. I am not a lawyer, and I claim no expertise on the laws covering photography of living people (or anything else) in other countries.
When I started contributing photos to Wikimedia Commons, I too was concerned when I learned about the "any purpose, even commercially" clause of the Creative Commons license. I normally upload to Flickr under a non-commercial CC license. But my concern was not so much people making a profit off of my work, rather that the photos could be (mis)used in a way that implied that the people in the photos endorsed an organization or political cause that they did not.
From my understanding, however - and again this applies specifically to the USA - unless they have signed a model release, the subject of the photo has the right not to have their image used commercially without their consent. And even if they did sign a model release, they have the right not to have their image used in a grossly demeaning or defamatory way.
From my experience, ignorance of copyright and other laws governing digital content is widespread, and people determined to harass will not concern themselves with rights and licensing terms anyway. I was involved in a case where an editor downloaded a photo that I had taken of a living person, uploaded it to Commons as their own, and edited and captioned it in a way that so grossly violated BLP guidelines the edits were oversighted (hidden). They claimed that since the photo was on the web site of the organization the person headed, it was up for grabs.
Again, I agree with the spirit of this proposal and the concerns expressed within. I'm just not sure how much changing the licensing terms of profile photos will deter harassment. Funcrunch (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The harasser might not care about copyright, but their hosting service might. It's easier to send a takedown notice based on copyright infringement than based on personality rights alone (which vary from country to country). If I recall correctly, even Commons has ignored personality rights when people have requested for images of themselves be removed. I don't know if the proposed change will be the "most effective" way to combat harassment, but it's a very easy way to help reduce the possibility of disaster where a user has little or no recourse to protect their image. —Pengo (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, commons used to do more "courtesy deletions", but is becoming "do not tell us to delete it" - a DMCA takedown is necessary, since the WMF or commons cannot be relied upon. Slowking4 (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, personality rights vary from region to region, so may not apply. Besides, why require users to resort to this avenue to defend their image when they should never have been made to give the rights in the first place? Pengo (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to upload photos as "fair use" on Wikipedia, but not on Commons. It might help a bit to do it this way. The fair use police on en-WP would have to be dealt with, but if there are dozens of people supporting you you likely could do make any necessary rule changes. I still don't think it would prevent any harassers from using the photos. There should definitely be a warning to potential uploaders that this would be pretty weak protection. Smallbones (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i have no confidence the "fair use police" would agree to fair use of living people, and no confidence commons would delete based on subject complaint. time to get out the no photos lanyard. Slowking4 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Special criterion of "avatar image" for non free use images[edit]
I suggest one way to implement it is just to add a new criterion to the "non free use rationale template" of "user avatar" and the images are hosted on the individual project as is already the case for other non free images there. That would be technically easy to do, and it is more a matter of whether the decision to do this is acceptable.
There always have been exceptions though. Notably, you can do low resolution images of book covers, because there is no free alternative to illustrate an article about a book.The Colour of Magic (cover art). Similarly also for historical images that can't be replaced by free images e.g. this image for Felix Baumgartner's jump from space. There are many non free images in wikipedia.
I suggest
Add another non free fair use rationale for "user avatar".
To make it clear that it is not an essential part of wikipedia, add a global setting "show avatars of other users".
You only see them if you are another user and choose to show avatars.
You have to be logged in to see the avatars - that way the general public won't see these non free images even if they go to the talk pages and user pages.
Data dumps won't have them.
Avatar images are permitted to be non free for understandable reasons. As a clear example, as it is now, someone could use my image in an advertising campaign that I might not approve of. I might have some way to stop them - but it would be much easier to stop something like that if my photo didn't have a CC by SA license. They probably wouldn't even attempt it in that case. So, if a user, for understandable reasons, doesn't want to release their photograph for CC by SA, then there is no free alternative.
You can add a full size avatar to any of your user pages in your user space, with a maximum of one avatar per page.
A miniature version of your avatars can be included in your signature (this needs new programming probably) with some maximum size - but your signature must also include sufficient text as well so that you can be recognized without your avatar.
These are the only two permitted uses of avatars on wikipedia.
Non free avatar images must be reasonably low res, say, maximum of 500 by 500 pixels (numbers here to be decided) for the user page and smaller versions (say 60 by 60, again to be decided) for signatures.
Making them only visible to logged in users would provide an element of protection - the images would not turn up in Google image searches, or when browsing wikipedia, so e.g. spammers looking for an image for a fake facebook account or similar probably would find them elsewhere.
They won't serve any educational value. But they will make wikipedia talk pages more modern as just about all modern discussion pages, forums, etc have avatars nowadays - and also will make it feel a more friendly place to modern users who are used to avatars.
Oppose Wikipedia is a free-content project, and use of nonfree content in userspace has long been something that's been strictly enforced against. This would be weak protection anyway. Someone who is concerned about the use of a photo of themself on their userpage should refrain from using such a photo altogether; we should not give them a false sense of security. Nor should we weaken the free content requirements; we use nonfree content only for overriding educational value when there is no alternative. User photos do not serve for educational value, or really any value. This would be especially unacceptable to force on projects which do not allow any nonfree content at all. If you want to use a photo on Wikipedia, you must release it under a free license. If you'd prefer not to, by all means don't, and don't use the photo. There is no rule requiring users to have such photos on their user page, and many choose not to. Seraphimblade (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why is it we restrict "fair use" from user photos on user pages? user concerns about misuse of photos are real, and have real-world consequences. is there any legal or moral justification, for ideological purity upon an altar of harrassed users? is it live free or die? Slowking4 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody forces to upload the image. It's their own decision and it's their choice to take the consequences. — regards, Revi03:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ There always have been exceptions though. Such as book covers and historical events. I wrote a long reply here but then realized I'd already added a section about the idea above, and better just to edit it. So have done that, see updated version of: #Special criterion of "avatar image" for non free use images
They don't serve any educational value. But they make wikipedia talk pages more modern as just about all modern discussion pages, forums, etc have avatars nowadays - and also makes it feel more friendly. Robert Walker (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People don't have to use a selfie as an "avatar". In addition to my own photo on my user page (which I didn't mind a bit releasing under a free license, the image has no real value), I also use a public domain photo of Albert Einstein and a free licensed drawing of a rainbow flag. On my talk page, I have a public domain drawing of an angel with a sword that someone many years ago pointed out fits my username. If they're uncomfortable and fear harassment from having a photo of themselves on their user page, that photo's copyright status won't change that. It would, if anything, give them a false sense of security. There are plenty of free images they could choose to use as an "avatar" instead. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But most people will just re-use an avatar that they use everywhere on the web already. So it's not adding any extra level of risk for them. If wikipedia was pioneering the user of avatars it would be different, but this is more a case of fitting in with how everyone else does it. For many people the main issue would be that you have to give permission for commercial use of your photo for something you haven't given permission for, permission to use it, also to adapt it as they like, distort it, add things to it etc. They've probably never had to do that with their avatar picture anywhere else on the web. Permitting a non free license for your avatar photo would change that significantly. After all there is a reason why people add non free licenses to photographs - this is very common - it does have some effect. And many people prefer their avatar to be their own photo. I do. Your solution will work for some editors I'm sure, but others will find it just doesn't work for them. Robert Walker (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are though. Wikipedia is the common heritage of mankind. This includes metadata such as edit histories, talk pages and user pages. People must be free to download full Wikipedia dumps for any purpose.[1][2][3] Metadata are integral to the transparency and resulting success of Wikipedia because they document how it came about. User pages are a tool for making Wikipedia, not dating. Don’t put anything sensitive there. Be a rational robot. You will be assimilated. It is technically possible to include your private pictures in the Bitcoin block chain. But you wouldn’t do it, would you? You see, Wikipedia is similar. – 6birc (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC) in response to Robertinventor on the main page[reply]
i look forward to your metadata cleanup at commons. user pages are a vast wasteland, given the harassment, nobody goes there anymore. why shouldn't users have broad control over their images? is it you know better? Slowking4 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@6birc: Oh I see. However if the images are just avatars, they don't impact in any way on these copies or data dumps except that they will leave out the avatar images from user pages (and signatures too if we can have them there). So I don't see why they'd be a problem for this "common heritage" especially as we already have other non free images on wikipedia. E.g. images of unique non repeatable events that can never be replaced by free images, at least until they go out of copyright, and book covers.
Then if we can find a way to include the image in user signatures, it just means the data dump has a modified signature without the image - require that there is some text in the signature and that it can't be just an image, that should sort that.
To make this really clear, I'd like to suggest a global display setting to choose whether you want to see your own and others avatars on wikipedia. That shows it is optional and also makes it easy for someone to do a dump without any avatars in it, by just switching off that switch. And this is an option only for logged in users so most readers of wikipedia never see the avatars.
The reason for doing the avatars is just to make wikipedia a friendlier place, now that we are all so used to having avatars. It's old fashioned to not have any kind of an avatar in conversations anyway, I can't think of any other place I engage in conversations online without an avatar. Wikipedia was leading edge when it was invented, but it's showing it's age a bit in various ways and this is one of them. It would help to make wikipedia talk pages a bit more modern in appearance as well as more friendly.
↑Data dumps: “The Wikimedia Foundation is requesting help to ensure that as many copies as possible are available of all Wikimedia database dumps.”
↑W:WP:DD: “Wikipedia offers free copies of all available content to interested users. These databases can be used for mirroring, personal use, informal backups, offline use or database queries.” Although, admittedly: “Images and other files are available under different terms, as detailed on their description pages.”
Setting bad precedent in favour of copyright and intellectual property[edit]
Moved from the front page
Can I un-endorse this idea, or I guess, put my name up in opposition? One of wikipedia's strengths is the undermining of copyright and intellectual property rights, by setting a precedent of opposition to the custom of having everything copyrighted. BrxBrx (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BrxBrx, generally this page is reserved for support and you use the discussion page for negative comments. If you'd like to expand on your comments there, especially on why you're opposed to non-copyleft licensing in this specific case rather than invoking a slippery slope argument, I'd be happy to hear it on the talk page. —Pengo (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the idea of wikipedia as only useful as a stalking horse for the ip system, is not the vision of wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Slowking4 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tomorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.
The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF)22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT (WMF): I don't want a grant. I just want a response. I saw this Inspire Campaign was on Wikipedia banners every day for a month. This Idea has a large amount of public support and was second on the leaderboarders. Can we get a response from WMF? Pengo (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pengo: So, I agree with Ckoerner in the first section above that there's a lot to unpackage here in this proposal. There are a lot of things related to images, talk pages, and changes to project policy. I also want to be very up-front that -- as far as I know -- some of these changes are not matters that the WMF can unilaterally implement because they fall under or otherwise require local project consensus. Let me give you my first impressions of how to go about trying to implement these based on my read of the proposal. I'm not a legal professional nor a developer, but I can let you know how I think these things realistically could happen:
Uploading a profile image should be as easy as it is on any other normal Internet site where people communicate, such such as Twitter, StackExchange, Steam, Soundcloud, Google+, Ebay, or the Wikimedia Foundation's own Phabricator.
OK, so this is a primarily a development project, and one that would likely require a redesign of 1) how new accounts get created and 2) ee'd need some convention around where these images would be stored. Are they on the local project? Are they on commons? Are they someplace entirely new with a unique license? The redesign and the location of these images is something that the local community would need to support. The Editing team and Community Tech teams would be best to get in touch with about the viability of implementing these kinds of changes.
Default to a non-free license for such images. It is not the goal of WMF to create a free archive of user images.
The Terms of Use currently contains this language around images:
Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy, and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing. Also see the Wikimedia Commons Licensing Policy for more information on contributing non-text media to that Project.
The WMF Licensing Policy is here. I'm not in Legal, and I think a conversation with members of the Legal team would need to take place, but I think the portions relevant to this proposal are:
All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP (an Exception Doctrine Policy). Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
The changes you are advocating might be able to be done by either changing 1) local project policy (e.g. en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, or 2) the definition of EDPs in the Licensing Policy. May be good to develop language around a special case for the User: namespace. I am not sure what to do about images that folks choose to upload to Commons, as its fundamental purpose is to maintain images that are free to use for any reason.
Allow users to remove or re-license images of themselves which they have previously uploaded. Do not require an administrator or technical knowledge to carry out the action. Automatically suggest this action to users who appear to have uploaded photos of Wikipedians under the CC license where it is not an image used on a content page. Make it the policy of Commons to honour such requests and apologize for not previously having the option. Do not egregiously state that "Commons is under no obligation to honor uploader's requests", and don't require a "public review process" to remove or re-license such images.
This would require either a change in the local policy on Commons via consensus or a more sweeping change to the Terms of Use:
Except as consistent with your license, you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Wikimedia Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services.
...the latter of which would require a discussion with the Legal team.
Associate profile images with user names throughout the site (like every other modern website does)
There's some development needs here, and I imagine some new policy around what images are acceptable to use as profile images will be required as well. Depending on how this is implemented, readability of discussion pages may also need to be considered. (Flow may be somewhat better equipped to accommodate images while preserving a readable discussion structure). More importantly, it will also require community consensus via a project-wide RfC.
Reduce and simplify the restrictions on what content is allowed on user pages (throughout Wikimedia's sites).
This is a matter that is up to local communities to decide on. You could consider starting a larger discussion here on meta about what sorts of improvements to userspace policy could be established across projects, but local project consensus is the important decision at the end of the day.
Do not require the content of user pages to be licensed as creative commons
See above response to Default to a non-free license for such images.
After fixing the broken communication system that is "talk pages", include user icons on those.
Make Wikipedia less weird. It's seriously weird. I've been using this site for 12 years. I've uploaded around 200 images, including a couple which have been "Image of the day" on en.wikipedia.org, but I've never uploaded any of myself because my photo is not "free culture" for others to reuse and remix. And requiring it to be is just weird. Really weird. I have a photo of an ugly preserved fish on my user page instead because that photo is less weird than the licensing requirements I would have to agree to for a photo of myself. Seriously it's really really weird. Next time you do one of these surveys to find out how much more women hate editing Wikipedia this year than they did last year, ask if you can take their photo and allow anyone to use it for any purpose forever, including commercially, or if they think that's weird and inappropriate and potentially opens them up to harassment. I can tell you the answer. They're not going to say "Oh, that's ok, I'm sure the image will be partially protected by personality rights laws in some countries I visit." No, they'll say it's weird. Doesn't anyone employed by WMF find it weird that their photo is CC licensed for anyone to use, for any purpose, forever? Am I really the only one that finds this weird? It's weird. Stop being weird.
There's a lot I want to say about this comment, and I'd prefer to reply on it in my capacity as a volunteer, so I'm going to switch accounts and come back to this later this week.
Staff usually do not get directly involved in matters of deciding on local project policy. What I can offer is if you'd like help in structuring and proposing an RfC, connecting you to staff at the WMF who can speak to some of these matters related to the Terms of Use and Licensing Policy, or if you are looking for volunteers with the skills sets needed to think about redesign, I can help you with those matters, so feel free to let me know what you want to do next and where I can help. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO IMPLEMENT ANY OF THE IDEA LAB IDEAS FOR REDUCING HARASSMENT WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHANGING ANY POLICY OR IMPLEMENTING ANY IDEAS? WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE THING? JUST TO GET IDEAS TO IGNORE? SO YOU CAN SAY TO PEOPLE, "HEY WHY DON'T YOU SPEND THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OF YOUR LIFE TRYING TO COORDINATE SOME OBVIOUS FUCKING FEATURE THAT YOU ALREADY USE ON YOUR PHABRICATOR SITE BUT WOULD REQUIRE A MASSIVE POLICY SHIFT TO DO ANY WHERE ELSE?" IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, THEN HIRE PEOPLE TO DO IT. IT'S WMF'S JOB TO MANAGE THE PROCESS, NOT MINE. WHAT A COLOSSAL FUCKING WASTE OF TIME AND AN AWFUL SPAM OF BANNER ADS FOR NOTHING. Pengo (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you want to lay off the caps lock and have an actual conversation, let me know. I've offered you to help you make this happen. The offer is still on the table. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pengo, I was one of the first folks to take interest in your proposal in my volunteer capacity. I hoped to help your proposal by asking for clarification to make it better and more approachable to others. You responded and I think we made it a little better together. The whole idea of the IdeaLab and specific campaigns like this one is to empower volunteers to make an impact on the movement - to see you succeed in an area that interests you and help along the way.
I know I JethroBT (WMF) as a colleague and what he says is genuine. Replying in such a manner is not conductive to a good relationship. Please take a moment and reflect. We're people too, we want to work with you, and are doing our best. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I have invested enough time into writing this and previous IdeasLabs ideas and I am not working on this idea further. I never asked for empowerment or a relationship. I merely put the idea forward.
You, the staff at the WMF, need to actually take a position on the issue and decide if it's something you think the WMF should do or shouldn't do and then find the best way to make it happen. Do you want to follow the advice of your users of how to address harassment or do you not? Do you want to talk to your lawyers about whether there are potential issues that could come up by not following this advice? Or do you just want to throw money at whoever can be bothered writing a grant proposal and hope that makes things better? I don't know. It's out of my hands. I am not the person who is doing it for you. You asked for ideas, not for people to waste months or years their lives fixing deep flaws in your website and its policies.
The WMF needs to actually commit to an idea and see it through. If you want to do it then pick up the ball and commit to making change happen from within your organisation. As a volunteer, I'm not spending many months of my life raking shit uphill to fix (what is to me) an obvious issue you have across your sites. Do you expect me to hire programmers, lawyers, evangelists, lobbyists, translators, office space, and work for free for months or years managing them myself to get this change accepted and implemented? Because you know that's what it would take for an individual to add a feature that, to reiterate, you already have on at least one of your sites and no one has complained about it. I'm not doing that. The many people who supported this idea are not going to do that. You need to do that.
.jpg){kind=link}
