File talk:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm

Watermark removed

Syntax
$ youtube-dl -F https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY_6VGWQqXY
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Downloading webpage
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Downloading video info webpage
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Extracting video information
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Downloading MPD manifest
[info] Available formats for MY_6VGWQqXY:
format code  extension  resolution note
139          m4a        audio only DASH audio   50k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.5@ 48k (22050Hz), 9.80MiB
140          m4a        audio only DASH audio  129k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.2@128k (44100Hz), 26.18MiB
160          mp4        216x144    DASH video   99k , avc1.4d400c, 30fps, video only, 19.17MiB
133          mp4        360x240    DASH video  233k , avc1.4d400d, 30fps, video only, 42.88MiB
134          mp4        540x360    DASH video  543k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 83.52MiB
135          mp4        720x480    DASH video  992k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 166.33MiB
17           3gp        176x144    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k
36           3gp        320x214    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2
18           mp4        540x360    medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k
43           webm       640x360    medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k (best)
$ youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY_6VGWQqXY
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Downloading webpage
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Downloading video info webpage
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Extracting video information
[youtube] MY_6VGWQqXY: Downloading MPD manifest
[download] Destination: A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.f135.mp4
[download] 100% of 166.33MiB in 00:14
[download] Destination: A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.f140.m4a
[download] 100% of 26.18MiB in 00:02
[ffmpeg] Merging formats into "A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.mp4"
Deleting original file A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.f135.mp4 (pass -k to keep)
Deleting original file A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.f140.m4a (pass -k to keep)
$ ffmpeg -i "A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.mp4" -c:v libvpx -crf 10 -b:v 1M -c:a libvorbis -ss 00:09:00.5 -t 00:00:42 out.webm
ffmpeg version 3.2.6-1+b3 Copyright (c) 2000-2017 the FFmpeg developers
  built with gcc 6.3.0 (Debian 6.3.0-19) 20170618
  configuration: --prefix=/usr --extra-version=1+b3 --toolchain=hardened --libdir=/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu --incdir=/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu --enable-gpl --disable-stripping --enable-avresample --enable-avisynth --enable-gnutls --enable-ladspa --enable-libass --enable-libbluray --enable-libbs2b --enable-libcaca --enable-libcdio --enable-libebur128 --enable-libflite --enable-libfontconfig --enable-libfreetype --enable-libfribidi --enable-libgme --enable-libgsm --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libopenjpeg --enable-libopenmpt --enable-libopus --enable-libpulse --enable-librubberband --enable-libshine --enable-libsnappy --enable-libsoxr --enable-libspeex --enable-libssh --enable-libtheora --enable-libtwolame --enable-libvorbis --enable-libvpx --enable-libwavpack --enable-libwebp --enable-libx265 --enable-libxvid --enable-libzmq --enable-libzvbi --enable-omx --enable-openal --enable-opengl --enable-sdl2 --enable-libdc1394 --enable-libiec61883 --enable-chromaprint --enable-frei0r --enable-libopencv --enable-libx264 --enable-shared
  libavutil      55. 34.101 / 55. 34.101
  libavcodec     57. 64.101 / 57. 64.101
  libavformat    57. 56.101 / 57. 56.101
  libavdevice    57.  1.100 / 57.  1.100
  libavfilter     6. 65.100 /  6. 65.100
  libavresample   3.  1.  0 /  3.  1.  0
  libswscale      4.  2.100 /  4.  2.100
  libswresample   2.  3.100 /  2.  3.100
  libpostproc    54.  1.100 / 54.  1.100
Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from 'A Celebration of Horses - The American Saddlebred with William Shatner-MY_6VGWQqXY.mp4':
  Metadata:
    major_brand     : isom
    minor_version   : 512
    compatible_brands: isomiso2avc1mp41
    encoder         : Lavf57.56.101
  Duration: 00:28:48.56, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 938 kb/s
    Stream #0:0(und): Video: h264 (Main) (avc1 / 0x31637661), yuv420p, 720x480 [SAR 1:1 DAR 3:2], 804 kb/s, 30 fps, 30 tbr, 90k tbn, 60 tbc (default)
    Metadata:
      handler_name    : VideoHandler
    Stream #0:1(und): Audio: aac (LC) (mp4a / 0x6134706D), 44100 Hz, stereo, fltp, 125 kb/s (default)
    Metadata:
      handler_name    : SoundHandler
[libvpx @ 0x563f0acadee0] v1.6.1
Output #0, webm, to 'out.webm':
  Metadata:
    major_brand     : isom
    minor_version   : 512
    compatible_brands: isomiso2avc1mp41
    encoder         : Lavf57.56.101
    Stream #0:0(und): Video: vp8 (libvpx), yuv420p, 720x480 [SAR 1:1 DAR 3:2], q=-1--1, 1000 kb/s, 30 fps, 1k tbn, 30 tbc (default)
    Metadata:
      handler_name    : VideoHandler
      encoder         : Lavc57.64.101 libvpx
    Side data:
      cpb: bitrate max/min/avg: 0/0/0 buffer size: 0 vbv_delay: -1
    Stream #0:1(und): Audio: vorbis (libvorbis), 44100 Hz, stereo, fltp (default)
    Metadata:
      handler_name    : SoundHandler
      encoder         : Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
Stream mapping:
  Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (h264 (native) -> vp8 (libvpx))
  Stream #0:1 -> #0:1 (aac (native) -> vorbis (libvorbis))
Press [q] to stop, [?] for help
frame= 1260 fps= 20 q=0.0 Lsize=    5327kB time=00:00:41.99 bitrate=1039.3kbits/s speed=0.682x    
video:4914kB audio:385kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:4kB muxing overhead: 0.528180%

The least I could've done. This should also be a better source with no visible interlacing.

Disclosure: Special:Diff/791070660 was me. WubTheCaptain (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC); edit: youtube-dl -F output added 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute

WubTheCaptain, I don't know why you keep tagging this clip. It has already been reviewed, cussed and discussed, as evident on the page history. One of the reviewers is a former member of ArbCom and an admin, others are seasoned editors. Please respect what I'm telling you and stop trying to fix what ain't broke. You need to register and set up a TP so you can be notified, and stop going back & forth using your IP address or you may end up getting blocked as a Sock. Atsme📞📧 05:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Atsme: I have long-standing use of WP:VALIDALTs for privacy reasons, and I am being transparent about it where the two "accounts" are editing the same subject.

    I believe I have followed community guidelines in good faith, explaining them to you in my edit summaries. I'm not going to engage in a revert war with you more, but allowing another editor to review the actions of both of us; a second opinion.

    I feel like there's a small tone of passive aggressiveness or hostility in your contributions (others are seasoned editors in your previous comment and Go away in Special:Diff/791108708, mildly at least WP:DISRUPTSIGNS in my opinion). I'm not really fond of Special:Diff/791110939 and calling it vandalism, though in this dispute I would've accepted calling it "disruptive" or a summary to "seek consensus first" while waiting on someone to review the edits.

    You keep referring to the page history (specifically Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 9#File:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm), but I believe that discussion gives you no good faith reason to remove Template:Orphaned non-free revisions which is applied to every non-free file with multiple file revisions. Removing Template:Watermark I'm content with if the revision with top-right corner watermark removed is kept.

    I don't understand why you also reverted the file to the original upload revision; please explain yourself why you've done so. Hopefully I've also explained my actions adequately to you as well, and we can seek arbitration on the dispute.

    2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Atsme: About tagging the clip, I'll repeat what I've said on your talk page (which you've presumably already read, since you removed the section with Special:Diff/791110881): Template:Watermark was more or less obvious, and the watermark could've been easily avoided. I found it to be "broken", and attempted to "fix" it with a new upload (which you had briefly reverted for a reason I don't yet understand). {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} I've already explained to you, but it is related to CSD F5. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You came here and started doing things to a stable video without consensus. This video didn't need another review, and if you had checked the edit history you would have seen that it was already reviewed and didn't need anything else. - read the edit summary. You are not being helpful and I don't wish to engage you in petty arguments. If you plan to continue changing stable videos, I strongly advise you to contact the author of the material first, or at least get consensus on the TP of the file. Atsme📞📧 06:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • In response to your comments, I'd like to believe the relevant policy and guideline to be WP:OWN and WP:BOLD. I don't believe my edits have done anything against the consensus sought at the file for discussion you're referring to, namely the non-free use criteria which was previously at dispute (both replaceability with a freely licensed work & minimal extent of use/fidelity): I believe I did not attempt to replace this work with another very different work to talk about horse breeding, and I believe it is adequately low bitrate (source permitting) for the purpose. The video resolution I kept at 720 × 480 pixels because of User:Tryptofish's comment on WP:NFCC#3b.

        Please calm down for a bit (You are not being helpful), focus on the edits not the editor in a civil manner. For clarification, I have checked the edit history and reviewed what I believe was reviewed. I would say Special:Diff/791071633 was agreed upon with the previous discussion, so I don't think more consensus would be required on it (though it'd be welcome).

        (Aside: There is no arguably material ownership in digital works in my opinion, only temporary granted exclusive right of distribution (copyright). I found it biased or misleading to call it material.)

        @Tryptofish: I'd like to ask for your opinions, since you did licensing patrolling for the file. More opinions, review and consensus from anyone would be welcomed.

        2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • For clarification of a technical standpoint, I did not attempt to intentionally reduce the video bitrate to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. The DASH video (H.264) on YouTube is encoded at ~1 Mbps, and I don't have access to a better video source. (The original one had peaks of ~4 Mbps bitrate during scene transitions, but I'll let you compare the quality. If I understand correctly, YouTube does transcoding and attempts to reduce the bitrate to a minimum required.) It makes no sense for me to attempt to encode at a relatively higher bitrate, VP8 and H.264 bitrate differences, generation loss and efficiency also considered.

        The new (non-watermarked) upload doesn't experience interlacing issues, but should still hopefully be adequately low resolution for minimal extent of non-free use and hopefully illustrate the subject in question better (but still adequately) than the previous work.

        2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC); edited 07:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC); edited 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Atsme: I'm likely missing something obvious here, but I'm honestly not sure how a favorably-closed FFD establishes consensus against uploading a better version of a video. The proposed version isn't as obnoxiously watermarked, and it looks better without the interlacing artifacts. I'm also perplexed by your classification of an edit adding {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} as vandalism. Not only is it not vandalism (which, please recall, does not cover all disruptive edits), it's actually standard procedure and is required by NFCC § 3(a). Rebbing 08:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rebbing - as I asked below, show me where it says any editor can alter the original and replace it with the altered version. That does not constitute free use - that's altering the uploaded original and making the altered version subject to whatever license went with the original version. Images and videos aren't like text that you can simply change and replace with your version at will. Atsme📞📧 09:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          • If you don't consent to the better version uploaded, I suppose we could remove Template:Non-free with permission from the file description? As I argued previously, I don't believe your consent/permission is required for this limited use. It'd also not really change how over 16,000 works are uploaded on English Wikipedia at Category:Fair use images without the copyright holder's consent (versus over 2,000 in Category:Fair use images used with permission), excluding works which don't meet a threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. See also the fair use doctrine and article here for limited use without permission.

            I wouldn't oppose non-free reduced resolution for the sake of clearer non-free use criteria (with copyright holder's permission or not), which some editor previously proposed.

            I'm not sure if you're arguing for the originality requirement in derivative works to be eligible for a derivative work copyright (and also subject to the underlying work's copyright); if that's your argument, the better version ought to be well below the threshold of originality in United States to be considered original to be eligible for additional derivative copyright.

            2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem now is that you altered the original version which somehow made the audio out of sync with the video. The watermark must've been added during the online conversion to webm because the original had no watermarks, and now you're telling me you went to the full length video and downloaded it from YouTube and from that downloaded version you edited out the clip you uploaded? For one thing, webm is already low quality, and any lower it isn't worth having. Atsme📞📧 09:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

              • Could I get a third-opinion to compare and verify the claim of audio desync? I'm not noticing it myself.

                I'm aware the start-end timestamps of the video are not 100% accurate to the original, but close enough to convey the same message; It would've been a lot more effort to find the exact timestamps (frames) to fractions of a second for negligible gain.

                Speaking of webm in the low resolution non-free use criteria, that's a confusing one: WebM is a container for VP8/VP9 video and supports high bitrates (high-quality) too. I'd replace the rationale with low bitrate. (I'm aware this rationale was patrolled and discussed at FFD, yet I find it potentially confusing.)

                I'm sure neither of us are completely satisfied in the current media uploaded, but again I encourage you to upload a version without watermarks with adequately minimal extent of use if you are able to do so. (FFmpeg can do this, in example like above.)

                2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key words here are "non-free" which does not give anyone the right to alter the video in any way without first getting permission. Please respect the licenses and tags on uploaded non-free media. Atsme📞📧 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe I have not created a derivative work upon a non-free work, but merely transformed an exact clip of the original into another format usable on English Wikipedia, hosted in United States for illustration of a subject under fair use for a limited purpose. The non-free work may only be distributed under a copyright license from the copyright holder, or under the doctrine of fair use. Quoting from Wikipedia:Non-free content, Fair use, by contrast, is a limited right to use copyrighted works without permission, highly dependent on the specific circumstances of the work and the use in question.

      I don't believe your permission was needed to host this work on Wikimedia's servers, but it was certainly helpful and nice of you to do so. If the video source A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred with William Shatner on YouTube is from you (user named Betty Wills, same as in the file description), then it's reasonable to say that video source to also be reasonably original previously published, suggesting implicit permission by meeting the previous publication criterion. Arguably, you also gave explicit permission in the file description (for Wikipedia).

      2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC); edited 08:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I redact my first phrase about derivative works, because it was not very well phrased. Hopefully you'll understand what I was meant to really say. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under your wishes of publishing under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and attribution of Clip from A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred produced by Betty Wills, starring William Shatner., I have also kept both notices in the file description. This hasn't substantially changed since the non-watermark upload, to my belief. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you wish to verify the source of the non-watermark clip hosted here, the process and output of the tools to create the exact clip are included in the parent section on this talk page. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure about that? The whole point of fair use is that it allows us, in limited circumstances, to use copyrighted media without a valid license; I'm unfamiliar with any requirement that fair use media (in either Wikipedia's sense of that term or the law's) not be modified from the original. Rebbing 08:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can show me where it says an editor can alter the original video and replace the original with the altered version? Atsme📞📧 09:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe OWN speaks to this question. As for copyright, we're claiming fair use in addition to your non-free license, so it would appear that your approval isn't required. Additionally, you licensed this "under the terms of [Wikipedia's non-free content policy]," which doesn't say anything about forbidding modifications. I'm receptive to arguments on the merits (A/V sync, for instance). Rebbing 13:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ended in KEEP. Perhaps your time and efforts on WP will be better served where they are needed. This clip doesn't need any further modification. What was already done threw the voice and video of the original clip out of sync, and that is not helpful. The clip is in use in the article it was intended for, and anyone who wishes to use the clip per the license, have at it. Just don't replace the original video that was uploaded with an altered version that may affect the license and/or conditions stated at the time of upload. Atsme📞📧 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours later

Hi, everybody, I'm responding to the ping. Here are my opinions about the issues raised here.

  • Anyone is free to tag or modify the file, insofar as copyright goes. The copyright owner would have a claim if the modified file were being used for profit or used in a manner that creates a misleading or unflattering impression of the original work, or if the edit history that provides attribution were removed, but none of that is the case here.
  • Removing the watermark is desirable and an improvement, for the same reason that Wikipedia does not permit photo credits on pages. I'm talking here specifically about the watermark, because any incidental degradation of the file that occurs as a consequence of watermark removal needs to be avoided. (Perhaps watermark removal should be re-done with better technical features, but I do not understand the technical stuff well enough to really know that.)
  • Anything that visibly reduces the image quality or interferes with the synchronization of video and audio is unhelpful, and should not be done. It is not necessary to do so in order to satisfy the NFCC in this specific situation. It looks to me from the file page history that an edit by a different editor back in May, before this dispute began, initiated a bot-mediated minor reduction that probably is OK, and fully satisfies any NFCC concerns. (I haven't viewed and compared any versions at this time.)
  • Whatever becomes the consensus version of the file is not an orphaned image, because it is in use at one page, and there are no orphan-related issues involved in having the edit history of the file. However, earlier versions would be both non-free and orphaned, and subject to deletion, but can always be re-uploaded to take the place of the current version, which would then, in turn, be deleted.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your input Tryptofish, but please let's be clear on one thing - anyone can download the clip and use it according to the licensing agreement, which includes modifying/altering/shortening/etc. but they cannot modify/alter/change the original and replace it with a modified/altered/shortened version that changes its appearance and intended use because doing so may affect the articles, and why I cautioned about discussing such an action with the author first. With regards to the watermark - it was inadvertently placed by the free conversion site and I actually didn't notice it when I uploaded it - I thought it was a WP thing since it was a free conversion site I believe is recommended by WP. However, my understanding of what the IP did was go to the YouTube site where the original program is located, downloaded the original program, edited a different clip from the copyrighted program, and uploaded it replacing the one here, and that action is unacceptable because of the YouTube copyrights. We certainly don't want to get into that habit. They can download the clip here at WP, make modifications as they wish then upload a new file under a different name but with the same license for however they wish to use it - I never meant to imply they couldn't - but when an IP starts taking a free rein with copyrighted material at YouTube, be it with good intentions or not, and there's no way for anyone to discuss it with them on their TP (there is a way now) it naturally raises a red flag. Atsme📞📧 20:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • About but they cannot modify/alter/change the original and replace it with a modified/altered/shortened version that changes its appearance and intended use because doing so may affect the articles, and why I cautioned about discussing such an action with the author first, that is simply untrue. Yes, they can, on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they can put the altered version anywhere else. About what the IP did was go to the YouTube site where the original program is located, downloaded the original program, edited a different clip from the copyrighted program, and uploaded it, yes, that is correct (without permission), because what is at the YouTube site is still covered by copyright. And about the red flag, the other editor is talking with you now, here, so let's put that behind us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tryptofish, please direct me to that policy because that is not what happens at Commons. It must be something only en.Wiki allows which is a bit crazy because you're saying an editor could come here, download this original, remove all but the foaling portion, upload it back and replace the original which would render it useless at the breeding article. I need to see that policy. Thanks. Atsme📞📧 22:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please direct me to the Wikipedia or Commons policies which say that a content licensee has veto power over the articles on which her submission is used. You appear to be arguing that you have special authority on Sultan's Great Day § Breeding and offspring, which contradicts WP:OWN. Rebbing 22:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that there's a copyright issue with using properly-licensed (or fair use) material that has seen a trip through YouTube—YouTube doesn't have cooties—and I take exception to your claim of ownership over the articles on which this is used. You licensed this to Wikipedia (and, if I recall, argued for fair use as well); you don't have veto power over how it is used. Other than pride, I can't imagine why you're objecting to a competent effort to improve this, particularly since you admit that you paid so little attention to detail that you didn't notice the clear watermark (or the deinterlacing artifacts). Moreover, WubTheCaptain appears to be decently knowledgeable about video codecs: FFmpeg, not some website (!), is the appropriate tool for what you tried to do here. Please reconsider your approach. Rebbing 22:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free/fair use

Rebbing, disagree all you want, but it doesn't make it so. And please stop with the unwarranted PAs, and various other unwarranted accusations. It's disruptive. You were invited here by the IP (WubTheCaptain) as a 3-O so please stick to discussing the facts, content and not the editors. The events that transpired here last PM/early AM with regards to the modification/alteration of a copyrighted Fair Use media clip, and the downloading of copyrighted material at YouTube to replace the original licensed Non-free, Fair Use clip that I uploaded and properly licensed for use in a particular article was highly inappropriate. I understand the editor was trying to be helpful so relax, switch to decaf. His responses to me in the beginning were not helpful, and he actually did more damage than he was helpful. He should've sent me a simple notification about the watermark, and we could've discussed it. For one thing, the rule here is that per WP:WATERMARK, free images should not be watermarked - it doesn't apply to non-free/fair use so there was much ado about nothing. Furthermore, the guideline states: There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; so scaling it down in size doesn't apply to non-free media.

My response to the IP as a result of his actions have nothing to do with WP:OWN or vanity or whatever else you tried to label it - but it certainly speaks volumes to your behavior. Rest assured, my comments had everything to do with WP:NFCCP- the Exemption Doctrine Policy - and the licenses that specify how non-free/fair use media can be used. I highly recommend to all of you - IP, Rebbing, & Tryptofish - to do a bit more homework on the subject because it appears none of you quite understand the restrictions granted under WP's Non-free/Fair use policy.

Oh, and thanks Tryp for stopping by and sharing your interpretation of policy and what you believed to be the case, but as a side note, you might wanna keep your day job.😜 I disagree entirely with your interpretation of Non-free/Fair Use which sounded more like public domain. I thought perhaps there was something I had not seen - a hidden clause, fine print, etc. - which is why I asked for you to point me to the policies to which you referred. In fact, the WP policy and licenses attached to the subject clip are very clear as I have explained below.

The rationale in WP:FUC states two key points that apply here: (my bold)

  • To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.
  • To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.

In other words, WP is willing to make a few exceptions after you jump through rings of fire to prove the media is worthy of inclusion.

I've bolded the relevant portions of the licenses as they apply to the subject clip:

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

  • To illustrate the subject in question
  • Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
  • On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Copyrighted:

In addition to the fair-use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties.

Policy WP:NFCCP begins:

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The BOT apparently came along and tagged the other uploads for deletion: 

{{Orphaned non-free revisions|date=20170718201221}}

The above is why I became concerned. When an editor comes in and changes copyrighted non-free material in violation of its stated use - which was specifically for the article Sultan's Great Day - it creates a problem. I'm not saying an editor can't edit Sultan's Great Day, or decide to remove the video from the article if they can find a free clip (not going to happen, the horse is dead & you'd have more luck digging your way to China from Dallas, TX.). Editors can certainly try to replace the video, but they'll probably need to get consensus from WP:WikiProject Equine if they do, which is a fair and courteous practice when collaborative editing is involved. I'm also not saying an editor can't apply to use the media in another article, but they need to be prepared to jump through hoops like I did, and prove that its use illustrates the subject in question, and that there is no free equivalent available anywhere else. I'm not saying an editor can't download a copy of the clip and use it according to the Free Use criteria.

See the guideline: Wikipedia:Non-free content which explains how and in what way non-free media can be used. There's a section near the end of the page that reads:

If a work is not free, Wikipedia requires that it comply with Wikipedia's non-free use policy. As explained above, this policy is more restrictive than US law requires. Logically, material that satisfies the policy should also satisfy legal requirements as well. However, to be more certain of avoiding legal liability, and to understand the meaning of Wikipedia policy, editors should consider the legal rules as well. See fair use for further information, and the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, on the subject of fair use. Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court. The Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to remove unfree copyrighted content at any time. Note that citation sources and external links raise other copyright concerns that are addressed in other policies.

Happy editing, everyone! Atsme📞📧 02:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC); format edited 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to say that I agree with Rebbing. To answer the question about policy, it is Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files, along with nothing at Wikipedia:Non-free content making an exception for what you claim. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I cannot imagine that there would be more retention of copyright rights at Commons, because everything there must be freely licensed. What is key here is that the copyright owner released the file under Wikipedia:Non-free content. This is no different than when an editor crops an existing image file, or increases its contrast. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'm a little late to this party, but first off, I don't see an OWNership problem here; I see an editor dispute over which version of a fair use video to use, with legal and technical sub-disputes. The technical discussion can be summed up simply -- don't lose the synchronization of the audio from the video and don't downgrade the image more than needed. It appears that the editor(s) who made these changes did both. Atsme uploaded the appropriate version that balances the quality and resolution of the image so as to not infringe on other commercial opportunities of the copyright holder.

    But at the root of this dispute is the difference between a free license and fair use. Something that qualifies as free license at Commons can be altered and used commercially by others, so long as the limits of the license (attribution, share-alike, etc...) are observed. But this is NOT a free-licensed work, so what you can do is more restrictive. It is a work that is allowed on WP under the Fair Use criteria, which does not grant carte blanche. Major alterations of the work that virtually negate the use for which it intended can basically mean that the content no longer has use on WP... so here, where it is important to keep audio and video together, an alteration that messes that up destroys the whole purpose. Where removing a watermark also interferes with the quality of the image in crucial respects, there is no need to remove the watermark (again, this isn't commons, and even there, watermarks are not prohibited, just discouraged). As for quality of the video, the short length of the clip keeps it within fair use range. In terms of resolutionthere's a fine line between too-high and too-low quality, but WP is clear that it needs to be low-enough resolution so as to not infringe on the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. In that respect, the owner of the content is the one in the best position to say if there is a problem with that balance. So let's leave it well enough alone. The previous version was fine. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Editors can certainly try to replace the video, but they'll probably need to get consensus from WP:WikiProject Equine if they do is what's outlined in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He should've sent me a simple notification about the watermark, and we could've discussed it. I believe you were made aware of the watermark at least twice, none after didn't bring up a conversation on the file talk page or user talk page. First time you reverted the without explaining why in the edit summary,[1] second time you told to Go away.[2] To me, it suggests you wanted a willing editor to resolve the issue (without your collaboration). 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later you acknowledged you had not noticed the watermark, but it remains unclear to me if you want to collaborate to remove the watermark or not after all because of your conflicting actions.[note 1] The keypoint I see here is a lack of communication. So the question here is: What do you want us to do? Aside: Sorry for pointing this personally at you. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, what I'd like for us to do now is just sit tight until the BOT deletes what it's going to delete and leaves what it considers to be the "original" file. If you're looking for a project to keep busy, I can certainly help there, but not at this exact moment. What I would appreciate most is for you to acquire a better understanding of the policies that govern non-free/fair use and copyright; it's complicated, I know, but it's good information to have logged in memory. You also need to acquire a little better understanding of Wikipedia:WikiProject and WP:OWN because there's a big difference in the two. Perhaps you could join a project that focuses on the things you're interested in?

      The reading I suggested will help make you a better editor. You appear to have the kind of knowledge WP could certainly use, and I actually do appreciate what you can offer at the technical level. My knowledge is rusty but I update faster than my computer updates its OS. Granted, I've been retired for a while, but I kept a few remnants of my former editing studio, including a waveform monitor, Sony switcher, Sony VO9850, UVW1800, a PVW2650, and a DXC30-PVV3 camera which also has a studio back, but I never invested in a digital back. I went to DSLR and now trying out mirrorless. I do have a digital converter for when I want to convert tape footage from my expansive stock library of U-matic & BetacamSP, so if I come across a problem with the digital aspect of the upload, it would be nice to know that I can contact you for help. That's how our community operates best. How can editors contact you? Does this ping work - 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1? It would be much easier if you'd set-up a TP with a an actual user name because IP #s are hard to remember. Atsme📞📧 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • To my awareness, the bot will delete all but the "current" revision of the file as orphaned. Be aware thumbnails on file pages may not be updated for multiple minutes after upload, and they may still show up incorrectly if cached by your web browser. You may need to press Alt+F5 to clear the web page cache to see the current revision's thumbnail (which is currently not the "first" revision in upload history, as you may expect).

        For the rest of your discussion, I'll contact you on your user talk page. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

         – 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An awful lot of what has been said above is tl;dr (given my "day job"). Atsme: you know me well enough to know that I am going to listen sincerely to what you say, and that nonetheless I am simply trying to comment in Wikipedia's best interests. Unfortunately, it looks to me like this will end badly unless there is a lot of dropping of the stick. From this point, I am going to leave it to others to work this dispute out. I am continuing to watchlist, but I'm unlikely to make any further comments here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Special:Diff/791110343 and Special:Diff/791111751, the latter restoring the non-watermarked version.

References

  1. ^ Special:Diff/791071481. User:Atsme, 23:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC). Reverted edits by 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) to last version by Ronhjones.
  2. ^ Special:Diff/791108708. User:Atsme, 05:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC). Go away - this clip has been reviewed by admins and thoroughly discussed. It is fine just like it is. Please do not add anymore tags.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Clip_breeding-foaling-A_Celebration_of_Horses.webmhd.webm&oldid=1171305988"