Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Gary Dorman Wiggins

(Uploader)
I would like to request permission to be allowed to upload some images to Special:Upload for the Wikibook Chemical Information Sources. There are a lot of screenshots of copyrighted works that I need to use in the book. (See for example the files for SciFinder toward the bottom of the chapter Chemical Information Sources/Computer Searches, for which I am currently linking to a server at Indiana University. I will include the following in the documentation for the images: I will also include in the documentation for the image:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Dorman Wiggins (talk • contribs)


 * Off hand looking at SciFinder and Other Front-end Software and WWW Access I'm not seeing a need for the screenshots atm. I think readers can follow and understand the material without the screenshots. There is no attempt to teach readers how to use and navigate SciFinder for example, which I think would be expected for a fair use rationale to apply here. Am I overlooking something? --dark lama  03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the section Refining Searches on SciFinder in the Subject Searches chapter of Chemical Information Sources. I am currently linking to the images located on a server at Indiana University. Granted, I could create a table that includes all or most of the information in these two screen shots. But isn't it much more instructive and effective to see, for example, the histogram in the second image and to realize that you can link directly to the abstracts simply by clicking on the desired search term and choosing "Get References"? SciFinder is a very intuitive tool, so not a lot of instruction in its basic use is required. However, as the XPS(ESCA) example in this chapter illustrates, there are some tricks to be learned that will increase the effectiveness of the tool. It is not an easy thing to get permission from Chemical Abstracts Service to use images of their software in this manner. They require the permission statement that is included under each image. It will seriously detract from the usefullness of Chemical Information Sources if the reader has to continually click back and forth in order to see the images that logically should be imbedded in the text. Gary Dorman Wiggins (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "SciFinder is a very intuitive tool, so not a lot of instruction in its basic use is required". I think that supports my observation that there is a lack of a need for the images or even a link to them. Looking at Refining Search on SciFinder, it reads, "SciFinder Scholar searches can be refined by many other options, as seen below." This could be rewritten without loss to readers by writing "SciFinder Scholar searches can be refined by many other options, such as by topic, author, or year of publication." Readers wouldn't need an image or link to understand the concept nor would readers need to flip back and forth. I hope that example helps to demonstrate why there doesn't appear to be a need to include those images. A strong correlation between what is being explained and the images as a visual aid for that explanation doesn't seem to exist. I hope another person will see your request to give a second opinion. --dark lama  21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with darklama's assessment here. The screenshot really adds very little to the text at all, as it is little more than buttons with descriptive text.  The icons on the buttons don't impart nearly as much information as the text to the right does, and I would not be able to guess their function without the text.  To me, that means that the text is more valuable than the graphics. --Jomegat (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do (and do not) agree with the assessment above. The first image which just shows a window with buttons next to text describing icons doesn't strike me as particularly necessary.  Though I found the image of the histogram with the check boxes next to it helpful to understand what the output of the analysis looked like and what it might mean that if you check on a box you get those particular results.
 * So my overall opinion is to not grant unloader privileges, but suggest that we could have a more detailed discussion about particular images that Gary Dorman Wiggins feels are particularly vital. Thenub314 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the right to upload images under the fair use should be used for editorial control. I may be missing something but I am failing to read any real motive to prevent the user to add images under the fair use license, except personal conceptual view points.
 * The user has demonstrated a need, will and understanding to use the ability, if there is no problem with the licensing terms, I don't think that this is the proper way of establishing and exert control over how others should contribute to the project. It is up to the contributor to decide the merit and added value that the images will provide to the work he is creating. The above comments and opinions are valuable but shouldn't have an impact on granting the right to upload. --Panic (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was concerned that it violated this part of the policy: "Non-free use on Wikibooks excludes: [second bullet] Media files "used with permission" since this infringes upon third right mentioned above." Notice I just tweaked the wording if this, you may want to read the previous wording. Thenub314 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In our policy Media, the right you are referring to is "the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression", notice that "Non-free use refers to the use of copyrighted works without the copyright owner's permission." in this case Gary Dorman Wiggins states that "The software and/or database is copyrighted by the producer, and permission has been obtained to use screen shots of the company's products in the Wikibook Chemical Information Sources.". This is really not an use of the "fair use" right (that wouldn't need a permission), if not specific contradicted in the obtained permission, my view is that by permitting to include the images specifically in a Wikibook it does satisfy all of the four freedoms required.  --Panic (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if I understand his request correctly (and please correct me Gary if I am confused), it there are two possible legal avenues to pursue to use these images. First is the permission he obtained, which judging from his comments, requires him to include statements to the effect that "This images is used with permission..." as I understand we do not allow images with this type of licensing, because you may not be legally allowed to reproduce the the book/module/image without this notice, hence violating the "in whole or in part" spirit of the freedom of our books.
 * The second legal avenue to use the images is under the fair use laws, which do not require permissions. For this avenue we require that the media.  The third item in criteria for "non-free use" is that "Books or modules are enhanced by related media being used".  Which is why I felt it was appropriate to discuss individual images, if they are allowed they have to enhance the book and a few people (including myself) were not convinced all of the images under discussion did.
 * Also, since Gary is a bit new to the project and new to our media policies, I thought it might be better to discuss individual images and teach him what would and wouldn't fit then granting uploader immediately. And it is very possible that he could ask for later and receive the unloader flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the additional scrutiny is over the fact that images that would otherwise be copyright violations have a justification for their use. The thing to keep in mind is that any books with non-free images would have to have those images removed for the book to be commercially reproduced, so in an ideal world books with non-free images should be able to work without them.  On the other hand, if that were true, those images would then be deleted as unnecessary. – Adrignola talk 05:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends greatly on the permission wording, my believe is that the phrase included in the mock example above is a literal duplication, if so, I interpret it as stating that the images are licensed for use on the specific Wikibook without any restriction to commercialization (Wikibooks do not have any restriction so there is no expectation that they wouldn't be used).
 * In general terms the removal of the images is not the only possibility. Images can be licensed for commercial distribution or just simply fall under the "fair use" right.
 * Regarding this permission request. My view is simply that this shouldn't be happening in this format, the right was supposed to be granted to anyone that requires it, it was previously available to any registered Wikibookian. I have no problem in using the request to determine if the user understands our policies and the specific necessity using us as a repository over commons, but beyond that permission should be granted.
 * As you state the images can later be substituted or deleted (and the text fixed), we should attempt to enable people to contribute not create unnecessary roadblocks, in this specific case by the descriptions above, these images certainly seems to fall under the "fair use" (exactly the reason we have kept the upload function). --Panic (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my position should be clear from the user's talk page, since I directed him here. It probably would have been acceptable for me to simply grant the right since it's up to an admin's discretion per the introduction to this page.  I did not expect much resistance to the request, I have to be honest.  But maybe, just as Wikipedia has become more stringent with requests for adminship, our community is becoming more stringent with requests for uploading files that would be copyright violations if it weren't for justifications that apply only to the US/UK?  Maybe if the user's request had been more generic with regards to simply mentioning the book, there would have been less editorializing.  Perhaps the right could be granted, the user mentored, and Media's non-free use provisions discussed in greater detail on its talk page.  I'd like to see more productive discussions on policies take place. – Adrignola talk 13:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Helping users understand expectations, prior to granting the upload tool, can help avoid the hassle and possible surprise of having uploaded files deleted later. I guess whether learning now or later is better is a matter of perspective. I think the issue is that when it was decided to restrict access to the upload tool, what the requirements for granting and revoking the upload tool should be was left up in the air, and now a situation has come up where such a decision might be necessary because files that are intended to be used may not meet Wikibooks' usage requirements. I think the policy we need is when to grant and revoke the upload tool and one question to answer is whether Wikibooks' usage requirement is enough of a bases for denying a request. --dark lama  15:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think, and it was not my intention when I supported and moved for the change to create any restriction in granting the flag beyond a need for the requester to understand our policy and why we still keep the upload option available. If you disregard the permission, do you see the images and their use as described by the requester outside of fair use ? --Panic (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the image and their use as described by the requester as being outside of what is allowed by Wikibooks policy. FWIW from the beginning of the discussion with the requester I've disregarded the "with permission" notice, and had even to the extent forgotten that files "with permission" notices are excluded from being used at Wikibooks by policy until I had reread the policy. --dark lama  17:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * More or less my view. There isn't at this time an opposition to the granting of the flag to the user, there is some expression of viewpoints against the inclusion of images in general and in the specific case of that book project but that falls into editorial rights and my view has always been that primary contributors (people working on projects) should have a special say on the matter and that sort of discussions should be initiated in that project's talk pages.
 * The granted permission in this case seems superfluous and what makes this case somewhat special, putting it outside of our stated non free/fair user guidelines, and it was probably a result of your intervention on the user's talk page.
 * The policy text could probably benefit from the inclusion of limited uses (to what level those can be possible will be open to debate but should respect the 4 expectations we already defend) in this specific case, and in regard to the stated use and nature of the images, there seems not to be any collision with our policy. The license information in the mock seems restrictive, if I was in the user position, I would state normal fair use right over the images (that would make them also usable outside of the specific book in any valid context), or we can let the permission and limitations be stated and address the issue at a later time, if someone else needs to use those images. We already have several books using similar images of proprietary software (File:Visual studio includedirectories.png). I don't foresee any copyright issues. My experience in the project seems to indicate that any fair use image if challenged by the software copyright holder will probably get deleted without any interference from Wikimedia as to support the fair use claim and I expect most contributors will not bother to fight a pull-down request. --Panic (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the above post by Darklama, he clearly sees the images as outside of fair use (I disagree, but will let the issue rest for some time so others can intervene or explain how it is not fair use), therefore the user shouldn't be allowed to upload those images until we establish a consensus in that regard. --Panic (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When I first created the Wikimedia version of Chemical Information Sources at Indiana University in 2007, it wasn't long before someone hacked into the server. IU decided that we could no longer upload images. That rendered any update of the book's images impossible, so I finally decided to put it on Wikibooks. Given the opposition and roadblocks to using images from chemistry database producers (who are notorious for protecting their intellectual property), I am beginning to wonder if that wasn't a mistake. This is a very heavily used work on the Web (at least it was until the IU server blew up!) (NB: The server is back up today, 12/1/l0, and there have been a total of 795,656 page views, and 4,923 page edits since ChemicalInformationSources was setup in September 2006.), and I had hoped to be able to provide a stable environment in which I and others could keep it up to date.Gary Dorman Wiggins (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes things take a bit of time, continue your work for now without these specific images, if you must use place holders, the work will not be lost. We will attempt to get a consensus on the images subject. Have you taken a better look into our policy ? Media Did you understand, besides the editorial view points expressed, what the core issue is regarding the image rights,use and permission ? As a Wikibookian your opinion is as valid as anyone else, please understand that we are only working to protect the project, establish a common ground for the future and prevent wasted work and time for you and to the administration...  --Panic (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly inclined to grant the right if needed and soon, as this user should not bear the brunt of our meanderings with regard to policy contemplation. There are many software screenshots used for Question Writer Manual and Using SPSS and PASW with the users who uploaded them having easily obtained the uploader right.  If permission through OTRS can be obtained, let's get the images uploaded to Commons.  If explicit permission cannot be obtained or the publisher doesn't wish to go on record, upload them here.  As can be seen above debates over fair use are only serving to frustrate the user.  This situation would be analogous to debating the requirements for administrator in someone's RFA and is not fair to the user. – Adrignola talk 00:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, provided he has read through this discussion and read the Media policy, I could see changing my position to support granting the upload flag. I think that will give him the necessary background to try to keep non-free images to a minimum. Thenub314 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read through this discussion and Media and want to assure you that I will only use such files when necessary.Gary Dorman Wiggins (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. I support granting the flag. --Jomegat (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. I will monitor uploads and ensure they are labelled properly. – Adrignola talk 03:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)