- /archive1 05:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What license to use?
I'm confused, and I need help figuring out how I should license my own photos for use in Wikipedia articles. Here's what I want to accomplish:
- I want Wikipedia to be freely allowed to use my photos.
- I don't want someone else to earn a profit from the photos I took.
- I want to require that my name be associated with my photos, so people know I photographed them.
- I don't want someone else to be able to claim ownership of my photos or say that he photographed them.
- I don't want someone else to be able to put a different license, with different restrictions, on my photos.
Basically, I want anyone to be able to use my photos fairly, as long as I get credit and they're not making money off 'em. I don't want any complicated legal entanglements on my photos. I had been using this tag: Template:NoncommercialProvided the photographer (Brian Kendig) is credited. but I've been informed that copyrighted photos of any sort are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be deleted. So, how should I license my photos? Or is some part of what I want incompatible with Wikipedia's aim? - Brian Kendig 15:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it weren't for the non-commercial part, that would be roughly identical to the GFDL or cc-by-sa (I think). Maybe you can take "comfort" in the fact that anyone distributing it must include the text of the GFDL, and any modifications must also be GFDL. I'm not that familiar with this stuff, as I'm a public domain commie, so wait for someone else to comment. --SPUI (talk) 16:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In short, I think it's precipitous to be deleting your images at this stage, unless there exist replacements of sufficient quality and weaker license. On the other hand, we certainly shouldn't be redistributing them, since almost all of our downstream users are commercial. While I'd like to encourage you to consider the profit society as a whole could have by being able to indefinitely use the pictures in many works for many purposes, while continuing to credit you, I understand that you might feel like others are profiting from your work. Deco 19:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I just don't like the idea that maybe one of my photos might somehow be so good, or so unique, or just so convenient to get, that someone decides to sell my work and pocket the proceeds for himself. That's why I want to copyright my work and license it freely to anyone as long as they're not making money off it. What do you mean by "almost all of our downstream users are commercial" - are there really people charging others for the use of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia wants me to make my material available for commercial use so they can do this? - Brian Kendig 21:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Downstream users (such as encyclopedia.com) don't charge, but they have ads, and they intend to make money that way.
- About non-commercial licenses, I sympathize, but all submissions to Wikipedia (text or photos) are licensed under the GFDL, which allows commercial reuse. Your only choices are (1) allow people to reuse your work for commercial purposes, so long as they release their own work under the GFDL, or (2) don't submit material to Wikipedia.
- In practice, very few money-making ventures are willing to release their product under the GFDL. So if someone wanted to use your work, but didn't want to release their own product under the GFDL, they would have to ask you for a separate license (which you would presumably either turn down or charge money for). – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have the same concern as the original poster (Brian Kendig). Can I publish my photographs under both the GFDL and cc-by-nc? I imagine this would mean that my work could be freely used by non-commercial entities (so long as they attribute it), but that commercial entities would also have to add the text of the GFDL and publish their entire work under it (would this include a whole coffee-table book or the like?). If so, how do I do this? Do I put both tags on my submission here? Do I just put GFDL? Or does GFDL happen automatically anyway? Toby Ord 20:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Article surgery
Hey all, sometime in the past, the entire article was duplicated in itself, with headings and discussions repeated. I just trimmed it down by removing the top half, in the theory that people prefer to reply to the part on the bottom. My apologies for any lossage involving people who were talking in the upper parts. --Improv 19:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unknown Source
I am creating a new image tag, Template:Unknownsource. It should be used in the case where the license of an image is assumed or suspected to be usable with another tag (perhaps Fairuse, Promophoto, etc.) but the actual original location and copyright status is not known for certain. This differs from Template:Unverified which is used when the license is totally uknown. An example of an image where I think this tag is justified is Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, where fair use promotional photo is assumed, but the image does not have a known source or credits for its creators.
The text of the notice currently is:
- This is a image with an unknown source. Any assumptions about the copyright status or license of this image is opinion or speculation. Use of this image in articles should be avoided if an alternative is available with more clear copyright status.
Comments welcomed. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This has been replaced with {{fairuseunknownsource}}, shortened to {{fuus}}. --ChrisRuvolo 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not really a tagging question
I have used some images from the website http://www.forestryimages.org, the site is a collaboration between the USDA Forestry Service and the University of Georgia. The University asserts copyright over images made by USDA FS, but wouldn't they (the images made by USDA FS employees) be in the public domain by default since they were made by US government employees?--nixie 01:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, they would be Public Domain. The University is incorrect. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ease-of-use suggestion
When I am adding images I can never remember the tags. Invariably I have to open another window, navigate to the tags page, and look them up.
What I would recommend is a pop-up containing all of the tags and a short description. When selected, they would insert that tag into the text at the current cursor location. Yes, I realize this would only work on 95% or more of the browsers out there, and I'm sorry about the other 5%, but I think this would make tagging dramatically easier, and as a result, more widely used.
Maury 13:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Image tagging is a specialized function; there's no reason to muddle up the software to pander to our admittedly small project. Tree of Life didn't get a software rewrite to deal with their template issues; they worked around it. Keep another window or tab open in the background---that's what I do, and it works fine. grendel|khan 18:50, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
- There is a lot of discussion over at Wikimedia Commons about doing something like this for uploads. When uploading, a user would have to select an image tag from a list, or it won't let you upload. Something like this may happen on Wikipedia. Or image uploading may occur at one single location. Or the deal with Google may change everything. It's all up in the air right now. I like the idea though. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I like it too, it would mean the end of untagged images--nixie 06:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
United States Census Bureau
The Census Bureau is a great source of pictures, could someone clever make a template for tagging these images? Incidently we also have no tag for the US Department of Commerce--nixie 06:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There doesn't need to be a tag for every single agency. Just use {{PD}} or {{PD-USGov}} if you must be fancy. Superm401 | Talk 20:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
BBC
Have tried looking around to see if the BBC permits its images to be used online, their site policy says you can use its media for personal non-profit use, which I guess makes it not permitted on Wikipedia? Does anyone know if the BBC have permitted their images to be used? --PopUpPirate 22:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- As the front page of http://www.bbc.co.uk has a copyright notice, I'd assume all their content to be copyrighted unless you find something stating differently. Note that http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ says: "You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. " So it seems that no, we cannot make free use BBC images. -- Infrogmation 16:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Catégorie:Image Art Libre
I noticed an image copied here from fr:Wikipedia, where it was tagged with the template "ArtLibre". This is apparenly some type of free licence, but I don't know the en equivilent, and fr:Catégorie:Image Art Libre has no interwiki. Can someone clarify this, is this equivelent to an existing en category, or is it something different that we can/or can't use? Wondering, -- Infrogmation
- There's an equivalent en tag: Template:FAL. Both tags declare Copyleft, so they seem suitable for use on Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of transwikifying the two templates. -- EagleOne 21:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Clip art?
I've been using this image ([1]) for a while on my user page and it's only recently occurred to me that this might be copyrighted.
The image itself is based on fairly poor-res version of a piece of Microsoft Word clip art. I traced over everything again to clean it up and then changed the colors. But is this enough to distinguish it from the original? And if not, could the original be copyrighted? Can someone shed some light on this? IKato 08:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we can't use Microsoft clip art. MS is not at all helpful about this. "In some instances, Microsoft cannot specifically grant permission for end users to reproduce, redistribute or modify clip art located in our products, because certain clip art may be owned by third parties and licensed to Microsoft. . . Microsoft will not assist you in making this determination, and special permission to use Microsoft clipart will not be granted to you by the Permissions/Copyright Group." [2]
- However, if you've traced over it and changed the colors, I'm not sure whether the copyright holder would have a case or not. Either way, I applaud you for caring; lots of people have copyvios on their user pages, and these have been mostly ignored. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Unless something mitigating comes up, I'm going to remove it for now just to be safe. IKato 22:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
forestryimages.org
Been getting no reply to this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy - anyone here any ideas? or at least know where to ask to get an answer?
There's a huge collection of tree and forestry photos at http://www.forestryimages.org/. Most are taken by private individuals and copyrighted, with (usually) a non-commercial licence note attached; fair enough.
However, some are marked as taken by United States Forest Service personnel - these photos carry the same non-commercial license restrictions on the page (typical example: this one). Yet surely as US Government photos, these are in the public domain and free of copyright? Can I ignore the stated restrictions as being incorrect, and use these USFS photos with the tag {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}? - thanks, MPF 11:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- AIUI, they would only be PD if they are full employees and the pictures were taken in the course of their duties. Whether or not this applies in each case is difficult to ascertain, and in every, very much highly unlikely.
- James F. (talk) 12:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Granting into the public domain
Lately I've become concerned about works on Wikipedia supposedly granted into the public domain by their authors, including a number of my own. According to an e-mail I recently received from the U.S. Copyright Office:
- "Please be advised that one may not grant their work into the public domain. However, a copyright owner may release all of their rights to their work by stating the work may be freely reproduced, distributed, etc."
In other words, it's currently impossible to grant one's own work into the public domain, and a statement willing it into the public domain has no legal effect. This suggests that such works currently put us in some danger, since the owner still retains full copyright despite what we or they might think (although you might argue in court about their intent).
It would seem we need some kind of statement that authors can apply instead — a sort of "public-domain-equivalent" license that irrevocably releases all rights to the work. Although it might seem like there's no harm in also saying it's granted into the public domain, I'm concerned that, like a contract, there exists the possibility that one unenforcable stipulation might render the entire license void. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I'd like to hear a real lawyer's opinion on all this. In any case it seems like some action needs to be taken. Deco 18:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Creative Commons seems to imply the opposite, but Public domain#Disclaimer of interest seems to agree with you. Damn legal stuff. --SPUI (talk) 18:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nor am I a lawyer, but I agree, something needs to be done. We could modify the language of the PD-self, PD-user, and PD-link tags to reflect the language of the note from the Copyright Office. I suggest the following:
- I, the creator of this image, hereby release all rights to this work. Permission is granted to freely reproduce, modify, and distribute this work. This applies worldwide.
- Again, I'm not a lawyer, so the language may need tweaking. – EagleOne 18:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- So is anything going to be done about this? Your wording looks good, but no lawyers in the hizzy. --SPUI (talk) 01:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, changing the language of existing licenses is likely to get us in trouble — since, legally, the contributors have not yet released any rights, we can't go releasing rights on their behalf without their permission. That's why I propose below we simply retire the existing tags and ask the original authors to change the tags. Deco 06:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who needs a new tag for this? Just {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} should do the trick. dbenbenn | talk 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I hesitatingly recommend we retire the {{PD-self}} and {{PD-user}} tags, recommending {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} in its place, since technically no one can place their own works in the public domain. This could save us a lot of potential trouble, and convincing contributors to change over probably isn't a big deal. Is everyone for this change? I realise we might want a {{CopyrightedFreeUseUser}} tag to indicate which user is the copyright holder. Deco 06:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{MultiLicenseMinorPD}} and {{MultiLicensePD}} are also in trouble, then. —msh210 15:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- These never made any sense anyway — a work is either copyrighted or in the public domain, not both. In fact, even multi-licensing both free-use and GFDL makes no sense, because this is simply equivalent to free-use. We should encourage users of these to move to the appropriate free-use tag for text contributions (what would that be?) Deco 18:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just pinging this for people's watchlists — if there is no complaint in the next several hours, I will proceed to deprecate the tags that claim that an author has released their work into the public domain and inform the necessary users about the change. I've created a project page explaining this here: Wikipedia: You can't grant your work into the public domain. I will deprecate the text-licensing tags later on after I've warned them properly. Deco 03:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're right; I have never liked {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} because I suspect people don't realize quite what they're letting themselves in for (in particular, I'm not sure they realize this includes modification and sale). I made a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:You can't grant your work into the public domain for an unambiguous replacement tag (which may need some discussion). --Andrew 04:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, the final consensus seems to be that there's no consensus and so no changes will be effected. See Wikipedia talk: Granting work into the public domain some discussion. Deco 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
photographs of trademarked products
I've become interested in taking photographs to illustrate articles. If I take a picture of, say, a Coca-Cola can, can I release that into the public domain or under the GFDL? Or since it is a photograph of a presumably trademarked design, can I not do that? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As I understand it, you can release any extra rights you would have over the fair use of the product under any license. So someone using it would have to comply with fair use and whatever you specify. Trademarks are a different matter - if they're old enough to be PD as copyrights, the only restrictions are on using them in a way that violates the trademark (like selling the image on a soda can). --SPUI (talk) 01:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A trademarked word cannot be copyrighted, and is free for you to use with or without the trademark symbol. Logos, however, are frequently copyrighted in addition to being a trademark. I am not a lawyer, though, and this isn't professional legal advice. Deco 06:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PD-USSR
Text in Template:PD-USSR is incorrect:
- According to the laws of the Soviet Union, all works published before May 27, 1973 were not protected by copyright and were thus in the public domain.
It's incorrect. These works were protected by copyright in USSR (and they are protected in Russia now), but until May 27 it was not recognized internationaly. So it's not worldwide public domain! See ru:Википедия обсуждение:Источники информации/БСЭ (in Russian). --ajvol 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So, where does that leave us with this tag? Are there any Russian laws on works in the public domain? Should we scrap the tag altogether? — EagleOne\Talk 04:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- New text:
- All works published in Soviet Union before May 27, 1973 were not protected by International Copyright Conventions and were thus in the public domain in many countries (in Russia some of these works yet protected).
- Is it OK? --ajvol 05:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good. I've made a couple grammatical changes; see below. Do you have a link to a website on Russian copyright laws that we can throw in there? Possibly in English?
- Also, what is the copyright status of these texts in contemporary Russia? The text needs a little more information in that area. — EagleOne\Talk 19:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- User:DaeX has done large research in this field [3] (in Russian). As result: all works published in Soviet Union before July 28, 1954 are now in worldwide public domain (protection expired). Works published in Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, but after July 28, 1954 are now in public domain in all countries except Russia and, probably, ex-USSR countries (these works were not protected by International Copyright Conventions, but they were protected by national copyright), they will in public domain in Russia in July 29 2024. Works published in Soviet Union after May 27, 1973 are protected by modern international copyright. But all my sources only in Russian, so we need Copyright in USSR article in English (I'll request it in Russian Wikipedia community. Sorry for my English :( --ajvol 12:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- New text:
Proposed text
All works published in the Soviet Union between July 28, 1954, and May 27, 1973, are not protected by international copyright conventions and are thus in the public domain in many countries. (In Russia and other former Soviet republics, some of these works may still be protected by copyright.)
- This is misleading. Solshenyzin's "August 14" was published illegally in France as a member of the Berne convention and was thus protected in Germany (German decision in 1990 BGHZ 64, 183). --172.180.228.181 22:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Was it published in Russian language? Otherwise, probably, only translation are protected. --ajvol 05:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I made a few grammar changes. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- And I; also, I added the info about 1954 and the other former SSrs per above discussion. —msh210 14:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I cannot verify that anything written here is correct. If we have no extensive translation of the Russian legal position we cannot assert that the facts are as assumed in our template. Please do not ignore the following links:
- http://active.wplus.net/copyright-monitoring/en/problems.html
- http://www.rusnet.nl/news/2003/11/14/report04.shtml
- http://web.archive.org/web/20040604060309/
- http://www.library.arizona.edu/library/teams/fah/subpathpages/Russian.Slavic/RIL/library/copyright/copyright.htm (Quote: materials published in the USSR before 1973 MAY STILL BE PROTECTED in other countries.)
Copyright term in Russia: 50 years post mortem auctoris: http://www.fips.ru/avpen/docs.htm (Copyright Act 1993, engl.)
We should avoid wishful thinking and if there is a doubt we should avoid claiming one opinion for a fact. --172.180.228.181 21:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) (de:Historiograf)
From here (PDF) This may help to clarify things:
Each of the following Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan (but not the CIS countries Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) is a successor state to the Soviet Union’s copyright treaty obligations, in particular, the obligations under the UCC Geneva, and accordingly is a member of the UCC Geneva effective May 27, 1973, the date the Soviet Union became a party. The successor status in each case was confirmed in a bilateral trade agreement between each of these countries and the United States, effective in each case on the date set forth below. Note that the successor status is consistent with the treatment by UNESCO (secretariat for the UCC) of these countries. The effective dates of the bilateral agreements with the United States confirming the successor status are as follows:
- Azerbaijan (April 21, 1995)
- Belarus (Feb. 16, 1993)
- Georgia (Aug. 13, 1993)
- Kazakhstan (Feb. 18, 1993)
- Kyrgyz Republic (Aug. 21, 1992)
- Moldova (July 2, 1992)
- Russia (June 17, 1992)
- Tajikistan (Nov. 24,1993)
- Turkmenistan (Oct. 25,1993)
- Ukraine (June 23,1992)
- Uzbekistan (Jan. 13, 1994)
and
Russia:
- UCC Geneva May 27, 1973
- SAT Dec. 25, 1991
- UCC Paris March 9, 1995
- Berne March 13, 1995 (Paris)
- Phonograms March 13, 1995
ALKIVAR™ 07:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
New icon
I took the liberty of changing the template icon from Image:Hammer and sickle.png to the more discrete and correct Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.png. Salleman 19:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Templates should link here
Every template's talk page should link back to here or something:
"See Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags"
- Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Commons templates
I think commons templates for PD and stuff are prettier. Can we copy them? - Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- My guess is that we can copy their design. I've looked at most of the templates, and the wording appears to be identical. The question is, do we want to go through the trouble of replacing all of the templates that we have developed thus far? — EagleOne\Talk 03:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat
I've been having a long conversation at User talk:Dbenbenn#M1911 Pistol image about what kinds of restrictions are allowed on the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag. My position is that since the tag places its images in a subcategory of Category:Free images, certain restrictions are not allowed, such as disallowing modification. User:Twthmoses disagrees, and tags all his images, such as Image:P38 AC44.jpg, with
- {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|it remains unmodified (except re-size), credit is given and copyright is attributed.}}
Opinions? What restrictions exactly are allowed with that problematic tag? dbenbenn | talk 05:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I was looking over at your entry at Commons:Commons talk:Copyright tags#What is free content exactly?, and you indeed have found some interesting cases. I would say they are not free images, and thus can’t be on Commons. They have clear reproduction and use restrictions. I found some interesting cases too looking around. Some of them make my entry look like a schoolboy copyright, and some of them are clearly not free images. It would be nice with some guidelines here…
- Commons:Image:BSD-daemon-rendering.png Is such a large credit requirement not an image restriction too?
- Commons:Image:E 022 3A.jpg Notification of author on use!
- Commons:Image:Embraer supertucano.jpg Weird!
- Commons:Image:Minhocampusparty2002 logob.gif Not alter
- Commons:Image:Nickshanks.png Use and reproduction restrictions.
- Commons:Image:Pär Nuder.jpg A valid date? Huh? Twthmoses 06:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at some of the other tags.
- How can CrownCopyright be an ok tag to use when it stats “reproduced accurately”? does that not mean ‘Not edit”? how else can you reproduced accurately?
- WorldCoin seems to be a halfheaded tag. It grants Wikipedia full permission to use, not users of wikipedia or any other! and does full permission for use also mean full permission to modify?
- LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright also contains the reproduced accurately string. "Accurately" most mean a modification restriction. Right? What else does it mean? It also contains reproduction restrictions, since you can't use it in "misleading context". Is that not a reproduction restriction? Btw the above CrownCopyright also has this as well as NationalAuditOfficeCopyright and NHSCopyright
- CanadaCopyright is much better and much more accruate if no restriction is allowed on images on Wikipendia, they only ask that the user "use due diligence" in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced.
- OntarioCopyright Does not state it specified, but state "reproduced for non-commercial purposes" does that mean you cannot use it for commercial use? If so is the image then actually free? Should it not be listed under none-free images?
- CACTVSGIF has clear restriction on use.
- HABS is just plain weird. What it is basically saying is that it is the users responsabillity to find if the images are really free. How do one know if images under this tag is really free? What an easy way to make it PD!!
- PAphoto may not be supplyed to 3rd parties?? Huh? A restriction and what excatlty is 3rd party? In the link it is stated that it has clear mod. restrictions. This is not free images.
- Many weird things here........Twthmoses 07:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have a different position. I believe {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} should not be considered a free license — nor, in fact, should it be used at all except in exceptional cases. People who are not lawyers should not be randomly inventing a multitude of licenses. Not only will many of them create non-free licenses, willingly or accidentally, but many will create licenses that courts are likely to rule unenforcable, self-contradictory, or meaningless. It also makes them very difficult to combine with other works under other licenses. This really isn't the sort of mess we want to get into. Deco 08:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That might be a valid and good opinion, but as you can see some of the tags already listed right here as FREE or PD tags, are actually not free (in the true sense of the word) and contain restrictions of both use and modifications. Why should a normal mortal user also not be able to makes such same restrictions? Why is CrownCopyright more "right", and allowed, then a user making the same restrictions? Because they can better enforce it? Does capability to enforce make you more right? Hmm... I think the real question here is; how free must an image be to be on wikipendia? I think that needs to be resolved first.Twthmoses 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- By a free license I don't mean a free-use license. It's alright to place restrictions, but the issue is that it's easy to create a license that is completely bogus if you don't know what you're doing. For example, take a look at the Artistic License or the zlib license. They're well-intended but much too vague to be useful or safe. Licenses like the GFDL or the CC licenses (or, yes, the Crown Copyright) were carefully reviewed by professional lawyers, which is a luxury we can't afford for every license invented by a user. (To clarify, the statement in the template is not necessarily legally accurate, but it refers to a fully reviewed license statement elsewhere.) Deco 18:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Deco, do you think we should move Category:Conditional use images to a different parent category? And move {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} to a different section of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I totally agree with your point about creating bogus licenses; we shouldn't be encouraging that. dbenbenn | talk 18:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is two different subjects here. Is it allowed to put images on Wikipedia where there are restrictions on both modifiability and reproduction?
- If it IS allowed then there can’t be any argument that a normal user is allowed to enter whatever he likes on the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}, even make up bogus copyrights.
- If it is NOT allowed, then about two dozen other established tags, which are currently listed under free licenses and PD, includingCrownCopyright should be listed under un-free images, and eventually deleted.
- The original discussion came about because dbenbenn thinks that my tagging makes my images un-free. Fair enough. But I can’t take a CrownCopyright Winston Churchill image and paint a Hitler moustache on it and then re-publish it. That is absolutely no different then my tagging. So either they are both disallowed or they are both allowed.
- dbenbenn even gives a tag that is listed as un-free on wikipedia Cc-by-nd-2.0. But how is "No Derivative Works" of this "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies" tag different from "reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" from the CrownCopyright, which is a tag that is allowed? This is not a wording contest is it? Create the most hidden restrictions and still manage to slip it in under "free".
- As for the 2nd subject. Creating bogus licenses. I agree on that (even though I do it myself :)), it should not be encouraged. I will probably retool to GFDL, after reading it carefully.Twthmoses 19:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Releasing all rights
After a painful and unpleasant discussion on Wikipedia talk:Granting work into the public domain, the lack-of-consensus seems to be that we should ignore the legal problems with granting one's own work into the public domain. Fair enough. But I want to release all rights to my work unambiguously. The current recommendation is {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but that license makes me nervous: I'm not convinced people who use it realize how broadly we interpret "free use" (i.e., including modification and commercial use without credit). Of course, once a tag has been slapped on an image, we can't change the tag (we should perhaps be using subst) without consulting the author.
So I propose (sigh) a new tag that unambiguously releases all rights to an image. Here's my suggestion:
© | This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. |
It could become {{NoRightsReserved}} (or something else if a better name is available). There could also be corresponding {{NoRightsReservedUser}} and {{NoRightsReservedSelf}} if they're useful.
Note that I am not suggesting some sort of giant project to replace all PD-release tags with this; I just want a good tag for my own work, and I personally am not comfortable with the uncertainty involved with PD-release or CopyrightedFreeUse. --Andrew 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I still find it unclear whether one has to provide a copyright notice when exploiting the image, or not. Jonas Olson 22:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
© | This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author. |
Is this clearer? When someone uses the image for something, they can't legally claim their own copyright on it (although they can claim copyright on any expressive changes they make) but they are not required to attach attribution or indicate in any way what the original copyright permissions were. --Andrew 23:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, done. --Andrew 13:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Releasing your own works under a certain version of GFDL
Currently, it seems like you have to accept current, and future, versions of the GDFL when uploading your own works. I have always found it strange to release something under a licence you have never seen, so I wonder why it shouldn't be possible to specify the version which should be applied. Jonas Olson 22:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Protection of copyright tags?
Twice now, I've tried to fix minor wording errors in copyright tags only to find them protected. Questions on the talk page have not elicited responses. Protected pages include {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}} (but not {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}), {{CrownCopyright}}, {{NationalAuditOfficeCopyright}}, {{NHSCopyright}} (but not {{CanadaCopyright}}), {{Cc-by}}, {{Fairuse}}, and so on.
Why were they protected? Wouldn't some discussion, or at least, an explanation have been nice? And can someone unprotect them please so I can fix (for example) the wording of {{CrownCopyright}} to indicate that it's specifically for UK government material? --Andrew 23:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Importing Cornell Copyright Table
This table is helpful [4] - fills incomplete holes in this artice's explanation. Any objections to importing it under publicdomain? Lotsofissues 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The table is not public domain. It is under the cc-by-nc license, which is listed under "non-free licenses". I don't think you can use it in Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo 15:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- © 2004 Peter B. Hirtle. Use of this chart is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. In addition, permission is granted for non-profit educational use, including but not limited to reserves and coursepacks made by for-profit copyshops.
Charts from United Nations reports
I have used a chart from the PDF of a UN report on HIV for the AIDS in Africa article (Image:UNAIDS 2004 HIVAfrica85-03.png).
I cannot conceivably imagine they would object to the dissemination of this information and have put a {{fairuse}} tag on it. However, the copyright blerb reads:
- All rights reserved. Publications produced by UNAIDS can be obtained from the UNAIDS Information Centre. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate UNAIDS publications—whether for sale or for noncom-mercial distribution—should also be addressed to the Information Centre at the address below, or by fax, at +41 22 791 4187, or e-mail: publicationpermissions@unaids.org.
Should someone email them and ask permission to reproduce graphs? Or does fair use cover this? It would probably be useful for the future to have their permission. UN material probably merits its own category and template notice too. TreveX 20:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What's in the public domain and what's not.
If you want to know what's in the public domain and what's not, you might be interested in User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
screenshots
thumb|50px|Ann CoulterFor a screenshot to qualify as fair use, does it need to include the entire screen, or can it be siginificantly edited down? I've seen some images which have had all the identifying marks removed that have still been listed as screenshots. thumb|50px|Tidus. Here are two examples I've run across. Thanks of any input. -Willmcw 03:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Fair use does not require the entire image to be used. (For instance, one of the classic fair uses is to use a brief quote from a book - this is essentially the same as cropping an image.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. But can any screenshot, edited down to remove identifying text, be freely used? If there's a copyrighted image that is on a website, computer game, etc., which is then isolated on its own so that it no longer aqppears as a screenshot, haven't we basically just copied that photo or artwork? What would keep us from going over the Corbis website and taking screenshots of their collection to add to articles? On a second issue, should all screenshots, since they are a form of fair use, be at the lowest usable quality? Thanks for your time and attention. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The screenshot tag is currently kind of a mess. For example, if I take a screenshot of the open-source video game nethack, it's difficult to see how the screenshot can be non-free, but it's classified along with screenshots of copyrighted programs. Moreover, there are three different possible sources of copyright on a screenshot: copyright on the program, copyright on the data displayed, and copyright on the screenshot itself. The last of this is probably void, since there is so little creative expression involved in taking a screenshot (although this involves selecting data, UI themes, cropping, rescaling, and so on). A screenshot of copyrighted data (for example, a screenshot of the GIMP displaying a copyrighted image) is certainly a derived work of the data. A screenshot of free data but a copyrighte program is pretty ambiguous - on the one had, you could view it as a photograph of a new model of car, for which the car maker doesn't get copyright, but on the other hand any modern program contains a number of custom images and layouts as part of its UI design.
- For this reason, screenshots are just treated as fair use here. So yes, they should be of just-good-enough quality. This is true for practical reasons too: screenshots rescale badly. --Andrew 22:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- How would the Corbis example be fair use? Just because it's a screenshot doesn't make it fair use. Fair use is applied on a case-by-case basis. Image X may be fair use if used in article X but not article Y. The article on fair use does a fairly decent job of explaining it, I think. kmccoy (talk) 08:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Copyright labeling
I'm trying to label an image Image:Bahai.jpg which was uploaded by someone else however I'm struggling. I found a page which specifies the copyright and its certainly legal to use, even available for making profit with etc, but I can't find a tag that matches. I contacted the original uploader and he didn't get permission but thats not required according to the copyright page (http://www.bahai.org/copyright).
I've left the details in the description page.
Any help would be nice. -- Tomhab 15:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- In this case, I think you should use {{logo}}. (I've tagged it.) For other images on the page, it's quite possible that, while the terms for re-use are quite generous, they're not compatable with the GFDL, so we can't use them. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
General non-free licenses
Under the section General non-free licenses it says: "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies." This includes both the copyrighted tag and the permission tag. So if we're not supposed to upload images we have permission to use, then what images are we supposed to use? And why did someone go through the trouble to create tags that can't be used anyway since we're not allowed to upload such images? This seems confusing, and therefor my guess is that I have completely misunderstood these instructions. I would appreciate if anyone could clear this up for me. Maver1ck 09:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- The {{Permission}} and {{Copyright}} tags both say essentially the same thing: that the copyright holder has said that Wikipedia can use the images, but other sites that copy Wikipedia content can't. Since Wikipedia, in its entirety, is released under the GFDL, those images are violations of the GFDL, even if Wikipedia has permission to use them. (If, instead, Wikipedia has permission to use the images under the GFDL, then we use the {{GFDL}} tag, not the permission one.)
- These tags were created in order to tag existing images. They may eventually be deleted, but it's good to organize them first. For instance, some kind soul might wish to look through all the images tagged "Permission" to see if any of these also count as fair use (in which case we can use them), or to see if we want to write the copyright holder to ask permission to use the images under the GFDL. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:34, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Pics donated to US government
A few pics from here have been uploaded for an article on fish parasites. The pics were donated by the maker to the US Fish and Wildlife service. {{Attribution}} was the best tag I could think of, can someone suggest something better? --nixie 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Non-free pictures
What is to be done with all the pictures that have been tagged with non-free licenses? There are hundred and hundreds of images tagged {{copyrighted}} and in the Non-commercial use only images category. I'm sure that this has all been discussed before, but are these images allowed to remain? — Asbestos | Talk 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Non-derivative issue
What is our stance on licenses that do not allow derivatives. On the one hand, Creative Commons No-Derivs is banned. Yet, Crown Copyright is allowed, despite requiring "accurate reproduction." Clarification requested. Superm401-Talk 17:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Tagging sounds?
I've uploaded some short (30-second) audio clips of songs for The Supremes for some music articles I have worked on. The moderator I worked on the page with informed me that featured music articles should have sound samples. How do I go about properly tagging the sound samples? --FuriousFreddy 03:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question
Can one of yall tell me what is the image tag if you want an image to be requested to be renamed? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Press Releases
If an image is included in a press release, can it be used under fair use? --MJR 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Use the {{Promotional}} tag – this covers promotional materials, press packets, etc. — EagleOne\Talk 21:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Update: use the {{PD-awio}} tag for bulletins released by to the press by emergency services: Amber Alerts, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, and the like. — EagleOne\Talk 03:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace
This page should be merge with Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace. They both contain a slightly different amount of tags, but most are duplicates. Why should we maintain two different versions of this page? This is why it needs to be merged. --michael180 21:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree - Omegatron July 3, 2005 23:29 (UTC)
Softwarecover template?
Has anyone before discussed possibly having a fairuse subtemplate for software box art/covers? Something like "This image is from the cover or box of a computer software program. blah blah blah fair use provision of United States copyright law." --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, it look like this has not been discussed before, at least not on this talk page. I would assume that you could make a derivative of Template:Gamecover, as long as it adheres to our fair use rationale (i.e., must be of reduced quality, does not restrict the owner's right to sell the software, etc.) That blah blah blah section is important... — EagleOne\Talk 00:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that suggestion. Just change "video or computer game" to "computer software" and make sure it's NOT used for computer games. --JohnDBuell | Talk
Indian public domain
I've made a template for the Indian public domain images. Indian copyright info can be read here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Someone familiar with legalese terms may want to fully decode it. =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
GFDL-user
Is there a reason why there is PD-user but not GFDL-user or just noone needed it so far? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See: {{GFDL-self}}. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- -self and -user are different things. File:Helix84.jpg helix84 20:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem that different to me. See Template talk:PD-self. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- -self and -user are different things. File:Helix84.jpg helix84 20:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Logos / Coats-of-arms
Hi. Does the fair use rationale behind the "logo" and "coatofarms" tags apply to the arms or logo as a conceptual idea; or to the specific artwork inherent in them; or both? Obviously the "conceptual idea" is in most cases governed under some sort of trademark law (or heraldic law in the UK) while the artwork is presumably regular copyright. If the rationale only extends to the idea, then that would mean that we'd have to redraw many logos/coats-of-arms from scratch ourselves; if only to the artwork — well, that would be pretty pointless & we'd really be up the creek!; and if to both, then we're OK and all the thousands of arms and logos can stand as they are. Thanks, oh legal experts, for your help. Doops 21:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
salem witch trials – actual documents
The University of Virginia is posting these on the Web at ... http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/MassHist/ ... and they are all original documents.
As I understand, all court documents – be they either from the present Government or a former "overthrown" government that has been amalgamated into the present – are public domain UNLESS they have been officially labeled: classified, confidential, secret, or top secret.
If this is not so, please explain else-wise. I have already uploaded one of the images to a webpage that I started entitled Mary Walcott.
WB2 07:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Several questions about licensing
- What I would ideally like for my images (and other contributions) is to release them as copyleft. In other words, they can be used by anyone for any purpose as long as derivative works are released the same way. Initially I tried wading through all this nonsense and just decided to be lazy and left them as PD, which allows people to modify them and release the derivative in a non-free way, correct? I would like to change my licensing to a copyleft license, but I can't figure them out! Why are there so many different licenses that do the same thing and are incompatible with each other?? So what do I do? License them under GFDL, CC, free art, and BSD license all at the same time? I don't see a tag for that...
- Is it even legally possible to change a tag after you have put one on an image? Isn't the version that I originally tagged PD forever and ever? I can't revoke that, can I?
- I thought all images uploaded to wikipedia were implicitly under the GFDL as well as whatever tag people put on it. Is this not true? So if someone puts their own picture up that has a {{cc-nd}} tag on it, they are also implicitly releasing it under the GFDL, so this image is still ok, right? - Omegatron 18:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Excel?
I'm curious as to what tag to use for images made in Microsoft Excel - I've been using it to create charts. I'm guessing {{PD-self}} or {{PD-ineligible}}, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me. Impetus 00:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you'll be okay with the GFDL tags; though you might want to see the section below for a controversial interpretation of the GFDL as it relates to images. There was some controversy over the legality of the PD-self tags, too; see above and this project page for the gritty details. If you truly want to release all rights to your work, then I suggest one of the tags listed here. I also have some general comments on your images, but I'll take those to your talk page. — EagleOne\Talk 02:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
AP photos
I am curious what tag you would use for photo's off of Associated Press? --ZeWrestler 01:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would use {{imagevio|url=Associated Press}}. dbenbenn | talk 14:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There's no way it could classify as fairuse at all? -- ZeWrestler 20:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it qualified as fair use, you would tag it as {{fairuse}}. Superm401 | Talk 00:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good, but how would a user know to put one or the other? -- ZeWrestler 12:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it qualified as fair use, you would tag it as {{fairuse}}. Superm401 | Talk 00:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- There's no way it could classify as fairuse at all? -- ZeWrestler 20:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Fair use, there are really limited situations where fair use can be claimed.--nixie 12:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Israeli Government
How does Israeli Government copyright work? Superm401 | Talk 04:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- According to the Copyright Act 1911, the government has copyright for 50 years after publication. Physchim62 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
ESA pictures
See explanations and discussions on meta:ESA images. David.Monniaux 29 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Given the recent policy change on the use of noncommercial-only licenses, we have to be much more careful about what we allow. Does the ESA license fit under the new guidelines? Prior experience says no; see the similar Art Images for College Teaching license, in the talk archives. However, the terms listed on meta seem to be a little looser in terms of commercial use, so I'm not sure. — EagleOne\Talk July 1, 2005 02:22 (UTC)
MIT License
Can we use images under the MIT License? I think so, but we don't have a copyright tag for it. — Bcat (talk | email) 29 June 2005 22:58 (UTC)
- PS: The image in question is here. — Bcat (talk | email) 29 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)
- For our purposes, this looks like a free license. — EagleOne\Talk July 1, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
- I'd just like to say that licensing an image with a software license distinctly displeases me. It would be far better for people to use an appropriate license for their situation, like Creative Commons by-sa, or one of many others. Nevertheless, the licnese appears to be valid for use on Wikipedia. I'm reluctant to create an MIT license template for what seems likely to be just a couple of images. Therefore, I've used(for my first time) Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, in the form of
- For our purposes, this looks like a free license. — EagleOne\Talk July 1, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat
- I do understand that using that as a tag is somewhat of a way of evading the concept of a specific tag for a specific permission. Nevertheless, I believe my type of use was intended by the creators of the tag. If I see more MIT licensed images, I'll create a template for them. At any rate, I believe that this type of image use falls right under a {{logo}}-type "fair use", so I've added that as well, as a fallback, in case the other permission is invalid. Superm401 | Talk July 1, 2005 03:30 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I was bold and created Template:MIT to add to the image. I think this is OK, but if not, let me know. As for the odd choice of license, the image is from an MIT licensed software package. — Bcat (talk | email) 2 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
subst with image tag templates
I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that anyone can effectively change someone else's license for their work by modifying a template. Should we begin recommending that people use the image templates, but add subst:? That will still copy the template message exactly to the description. However, if subst is used, the image desciption page will not change when the template does. The advantage to this is that it guarantees their intended message will remain intact. Disadvantages include lack of standardization and the fact that better wordings for the licenses will not automatically be used by licensors. I don't think this plan would adversely affect the image tagging idea, becauses the images will still be categorized. What do people think? Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 16:13 (UTC)
- I'd rather just protect the templates. We already protect pages for legal reasons anyway (e.g., Wikipedia:Copyrights). — Bcat (talk | email) 3 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
- Protection is better, so they can be updated when needed. The whole point of these is to make image tagging easier. If we need to go through all our images and redo the tag every time it changes a little... - Omegatron July 3, 2005 23:28 (UTC)
I'd rather not have these templates protected. If they are going to be included without using subst:, then the text of them shouldn't change at all, "better wording" is still different wording which changes the legal meaning, and if it does change any user should have the power to change it back. For legal purposes we should probably be using subst:, and adding a signature. I was actually just thinking this a few days ago, then I ran across this.
I'd suggest using subst:, and adding a dated signature. In addition to not allowing the meaning to be changed without an easily accessed audit trail, this would allow one to know at a glance who added the tag, and at what time the tag was added. The latter is especially useful for fair use images, where the fair use status might change at a later date/time, and also useful in tracking down situations where the image changes but the image page doesn't (which unfortunately is possible in the current wiki system). Also, if a second or third user wants to affirm the tag, she can add her signature right after the first one. Yes, right now we need to focus on getting all the images tagged once, but in the future it will be quite useful to know that someone reviewed things and it isn't just the assertion of one person who didn't really know what she was talking about.
The disadvantage is that it makes the tags harder to read by a computer. But when these tags were invented, we didn't have category tags. Now that we do, those could be used for easier computer parsing. Use of tags is a kludge in the first place. Use of subst: is a little bit less of a kludge. Ultimately the better solution is to have something built into the wiki software. To do that properly we need a good specification, which addresses the needs of all Wikipedians. Maybe now that we've had these tags for over a year the work on a specification can begin. anthony 12:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Public Domain Art
Can the public domain art licenses be used for any image whose original version was created by someone who died 100 years ago etc... Or does it have to be some particular type of art. I.E. paintings, sculpture. My instinct is strongly toward the former, but I want to be certain before I start tagging news photographs or paintings PD-art. Can someone confirm or deny? Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)
- I see now there are equivalents like {{PD-old-50}}. I'm not sure how I missed that before. However, there is no general PD tag that specifically refers to the fact that ANY image
madepublished before 1923 is PD. Do people have suggestions as to how to deal with this? If not, I'll probably add {{PD-old-US}} or something similar. Superm401 | Talk July 5, 2005 04:18 (UTC)
UN Photo Archive license - non-free?
The UN Photo Archive's image license states:
- UNRWA photographs can be reproduced for editorial purposes only. They may not be used in advertising. All photos used must show the UNRWA photo credit line.
Currently, this template is filed under "Any-purpose copyright" section. I think that the restriction on adverstising use makes it a non-free license, according to the ban on images under non-commercial licenses. Should we move this to the deprecated tags section? — EagleOne\Talk July 9, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
Fairusein
There was some talk on the mailing list about having a tag which allows specification of which article(s) apply to a fair use assertion. I had created Template:Fairusein for this purpose, and added it here. It was struck through in November '04 [10], and there is a bit in the talk page archive about it. At some point it was removed from this page. I haven't bothered to track down the link. anthony 12:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. It should be reinstated. It will help fight the idea of fair use being a license. Superm401 | Talk 12:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
non-profit or educational use
{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} - For example, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed. Note that non-commercial or educational use restrictions are not allowed as provisions in this tag.
- Then what do we use for something like Image:@molecricket.jpg, which is from Public_domain_image_resources#Insects? - Omegatron 13:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Why is it listed on that page? It doesn't seem to be public domain. If indeed it can only be used for non-commercial use, then we aren't supposed to have the image here at all. anthony 13:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Watermarks
I assume that images with watermarks are a serious no-no on Wikipedia. Is there a stated policy somewhere on this, ie "no image used on Wikipedia shall have an embedded tag or watermark"? Image:Mustang2005 convertible.jpg is the one I have this problem with, and the fact that it's of disputed copyright status... --SFoskett 22:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- You assume wrong. Whether or not there is a watermark is totally irrelvant to copyright law. According to the Berne Convention, works are copyrighted when put into a fixed form. Whether or not there is a tag is meaningless. We use works here at Wikipedia based on legality, and as noted, watermarks don't affect this. Some images with them may be used under fair use, and others may be licensed. The image you provided, however is an orphan. Was it unused when you found it, or did you delete it from an article? Superm401 | Talk 22:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't mean legally a no-no, just aesthetically! *grin* It was in use on Ford Mustang and I removed it because of the content - the watermark claims a copyright, and there was no notice of the license on the image. Also, the original poster was just link-farming. So others have no problem with watermarked images? --SFoskett 02:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- As far as legal images go, generally the most informative win out. Obviously, if two were functionally equivalent, one without a watermark would win. Superm401 | Talk 04:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Since the watermark in this case says where the image came from, you can send it directly to WP:CP--nixie 02:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Philippine copyright tags
I've taken the liberty of making the following Philippine copyright tags:
Philippine public domain tags
{{PD-Philippines}} - for all images in the Philippines that are now in the public domain under the following provisions:
- The image's copyright has expired
- The image is ineligible for copyright
- The image has been released into the public domain
- Why is this necessary? Are we to have a PD tag for every country works were originally copyrighted in? That's pointless. Superm401 | Talk 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Considering the variation in what constitutes "public domain", this tag is useful because: 1) It indicates what law the image is public domain under, and 2) It indicates what the law says. --Carnildo 19:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- And considering the huge number of tags for instances specific to the United States, I think there's room for a tag for Philippine public domain images.
{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} - for all Philippine government images and other works (which are not eligible for copyright)
- That's reasonable, because each country has different copyright terms for gov. works. Superm401 | Talk 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter though. All that matters is the legals status in the United States. Superm401 | Talk 22:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- This "All that matters is America" is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. TheCoffee 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter though. All that matters is the legals status in the United States. Superm401 | Talk 22:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Philippine fair use tags
{{Philippines-fairuse}} - for all images being used under the fair use provision of Philippine copyright law.
- Bad precedent. Images must be usable under US fair use law, because the servers are in the US. Superm401 | Talk 15:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has servers in France and Amsterdam, with plans for Belgium and South Korea. TheCoffee 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Philippine copyright tags
{{Philippinecopyright}} - for all images copyrighted in the Philippines
Additional comments
It is highly recommended that all government images use the Philippine government tag ({{PD-PhilippinesGov}}), all Philippine fair use images use {{Philippines-fairuse}}, and all public domain images taken in the Philippines use {{PD-Philippines}}.
Additional information on Philippine copyright may be found on the Philippine copyright law article and on this website:
- http://www.chanrobles.com/legal7ipcp.htm (the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines' full text) Josh Lim 13:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The only rationale I can think of for having separate country language tags is to aid in the re-porting of Wikipedia content to other places. But I think it's a bad path to go down, since there are hundreds of different copyright policies which could be contended with to figure out that criteria. As far as Wikipedia's own legal status, "the United States is all that matters" is correct. As a general point, of course, we don't want to be U.S.-centric, but as far as legality is concerned, the servers as hosted in the U.S. --Fastfission 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
EU images
Images from the website of the European Union are listed under the "Any-purpose" copyright section. However, the "audiovisual services" section of the EU website contains this rather explicit license, saying:
- This material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and education purposes.
- For any other use, prior clearance must be obtained from the Central Audiovisual Library of the European Commission.
- In no case may this material be sold or rented.
- NB: Pictures containing buildings and artworks may only be used to meet the needs of current news coverage.
- Credit © European Community, 2005
Since the European Commission, in the photo library of its own separate website, also limits its licensing to non-commercial use with credit given, it looks like more or less standard practice for the EU. It looks like a parallel case to the UN case mentioned above, and this tag, too, should probably be moved the deprecated tags section. / Alarm 01:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't use GNU Licences for Images
The following interpretation by Johndarrington (talk · contribs) on GNU licenses has been removed from the project page and posted here by Lupo 17:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC).
- "Contributors should think very carefully before placing an image under a GNU license. These licenses are not intended to be applied to images, and whilst they can be used for images, doing so will present a lot of very inconvenient and probably unintended problems for the licensee.
- "In particular, GNU licenses require that a complete copy of the license be distributed with every copy of the work (the image). The GFDL even goes so far as to require the license be included within the work. Thus, unless the image you uploaded has the license contained within it, nobody will be permitted to make verbatim copies of the image. If there is no practical way to embed a copy of the license within the image, then nobody will be able to make derivative works either. Hence the image cannot be copied at all."
- There's no requirement that the derivative work must be an image, therefore the part about "Hence the image cannot be copied at all" is incorrect. anthony 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Per Jimbo on the WikiEN mailing list [11]:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote: > That's exactly as I feared then - GFDL isn't a very > suitable license to make free images with. And someone > who wanted to make a postcard series out of the > featured pictures would indeed have problems since > many of them are only licensed under the GFDL. > > This is a problem and we need to address it. It is being addressed at the level of the license itself in a forthcoming update to the license. --Jimbo
Dunno when that will take effect (a quick survey of the GNU Project and FSF sites didn't turn up anything on next version), but it's at least an end in sight for the current problem. In the meantime, encouraging people to dual-license with CC-by or CC-sa is helpful. — Catherine\talk 20:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Images from internet newspaper which allows reproduction with attribution
I found the site[12], whose image I would like to upload. The copyright statement (in Russian) sound something like this:
- "Reprint of material in full or in part only with written authorization. For internet publications - no restrictions provided that the name and the address (hyprelink) of our resource is quoted."
(Original: "Перепечатка материалов в полном и сокращенном виде - только с письменного разрешения. Для интернет-изданий - без ограничений при обязательном условии: указание имени и адреса нашего ресурса (гиперссылка)".)
Nothing is said about modification either. I assume, the images cannot go to commons, but should be fine for Wikipedia. Could anyone please advise, what tag to use? Thanks! --Irpen 17:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- No. This is unacceptable. Our images must be legal for print publication as well as online. Superm401 | Talk 18:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- They say written authorization is possible, so you could try asking for a GFDL license using a Wikipedia-recommended form letter. Superm401 | Talk 18:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:PD-awio
Template:PD-awio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:PD-awio. Thank you.kmccoy (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
U.S. Copyright and Public Domain of Published Photographs
I'm a little confused with the rules Wikipedia seems to use for PD images. For published books, everything copyrighted before 1922 is public domain ( 1963 if the copyright wan't renewed). U.S. government-produced stuff is PD.
Wikipedia seems to use PD-old, PD-old-50 and PD-old-70 tags where the author died 100/50/70 years ago. Are these rules because photos are treated as unpublished manuscripts? (in this case it has to be 70, not 50 years for the U.S.).
I'm wondering about the case of a published photo. I've always assumed if the book's copyright has expired (i.e., is now PD), the entire contents are PD, including photos. Is this true? Dananderson 16:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are a lot of complicated criteria for when things enter into the public domain. Any works which were published before 1923 is now in the public domain (in the United States). After 1923, things get a little complicated. For things created before 1923 but not published, things get a little complicated. This page I've found very helpful, esp. the "Is the work protected?" section. As for photos published in a book which entered into the public domain because of age, by default they will have also entered into the public domain. --Fastfission 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
camera photo of board game
If I had a board game (Stratego), with pieces laid out, and I take a photo of it myself; can I tag it as "public domain" (it's my photo) or do I have to tag it as "fair use" (as it's a proprietary board game, with presumed copyright). If this was a computer game, I know it would be "fair use". So, should board games be treated the same way? For now, I assume it's "fair use", and can be used in an article describing the game. --rob 10:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure of the copyright status of the board. You could do something that allows for several interpretations, though, such as putting on the image description page something like this:
- "This is a photo of a copyrighted board game. In as much copyright can be claimed on the game itself, use in articles about the game is asserted to be a 'nominative' fair use of the design. In as much as copyright can be claimed on the photograph, I, User:Thivierr, the creator of the photograph, release it into the public domain, or otherwise release all rights to it."
- Then you could also stick a PD and fair use tag on it, just to make it clear. Of course, if you used the image somewhere other than in an article about Stratego, the fair use claim may not be valid anymore.
- Please keep in mind, IANAL, TINLA. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are in a grey area. It is a question that has come up a couple of times before, see for example Image talk:Monopoly Game.jpg, but this picture has generally been accepted as GFDL and uploaded to the Commons (that might not be the correct decision). As I understand it, your photograph is a derivative work of a copyrighted image. It is probably only the printed surface of the board that is copyrighted and your photograph isn't sufficiently clear to allow the board to be reproduced directly, so you are probably OK as far as a copyright infringement goes. Nevertheless, the copyrighted board and game is clearly the primary (and only) subject of the picture, so it could be argued that the photo entirely derivative and so is effectively still copyright of the game manufactures.
- The suggestion by kmccoy on tagging and description seems sensible, and I don't think we have much of a problem using this on Wikipedia, unless the manufacturers complained. However, if it were tagged {FairUse} & {PD} I doubt it would be accepted by Commons. -- Solipsist 20:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have been clear -- the solution I offered is only for en. I don't do much stuff on commons. :) kmccoy (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- A somewhat related question: is a low resolution image of the 'cover' or 'box top' of a board game considered fair use on en, the same way an album cover or DVD cover are? if so, what tag should I use for this? is it possible to create a template tag for this purpose? Wookipedia 06:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- As long as you used the image in an article about the board game, I would think this would be a fair use of the image. You could make a template tag for it, if you want, just copy the formatting from one of the other similar tags and make a new one. :) kmccoy (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a Boardgamecover template. Wookipedia 09:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I used it, since it now seems the obvious choice. --rob 09:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a Boardgamecover template. Wookipedia 09:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Promotional and PromoPhoto tags
I wanted to ask for some clarification about what kind of images are allowed with the 'Promotional' or 'PromoPhoto' tags.
I'm assuming that if I take a press packet / press kit (the folders that companies send out to promote artists, movies, tv shows, etc) and scan in the photos or images for use in an article about the subject of the photo, that would be considered fair use. Is this correct? Does it matter if the photo is copyrighted and says "All Rights Reserved"? Does the photo I upload have to be a low-res version of the photo? Is there some special text that has to be included (specifying what the press kit is, giving the copyright information that's in the press kit, etc)?.
Now here are some other related scenarios (these are all based on concrete examples of photos that I'm considering uploading but I'm phrasing these in general terms so maybe this can be useful to others):
1) If I don't own a physical copy of a press kit but I have seen it and I know that the press kit contains a certain photo, and I find this photo online somewhere (presumably scanned in by someone else) can I upload it and use the Promotional tag?
2) Do the same rules that apply to physical press kits also apply to "online press kits" or "digital press kits" in the form of either a "press kit" / "press release" website, a PDF file or another kind of printable document, or the kind of digital press kit that includes a CD with images? Can high resolution images found on these be uploaded as fair use?
3) If a promotion webpage or document is available online for some time but then is taken down or no longer available, can an image from it still be used on Wikipedia with the promotional tag afterwards?
4) Can photos on artist / tv show / tv personality or celebrity / movie official websites or the website of a record label / tv channel / promotion agency etc be used with these tags? Obviously these websites are created with the purpose of promoting the artist, just as the press kits are. But does this imply fair use? In many cases these kinds of websites have explicit copyright pages or "terms of use" pages but it's unclear to me how fair use would relate to these. If a copyright or terms page on a website puts explicit restrictions on how the materials on the website can be copied or used, does this mean that "fair use" can not apply?
Here are two example "terms and conditions" pages from companies that seem to have place a lot of restrictions on how the materials on the website can be used - so I assume materials from these websites can not be fair use unless someone tells me otherwise:
Sony Music terms and conditions
Comedy Central terms and conditions
(These questions are all for uploading images onto en, not commons).
thanks. Wookipedia 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you've asked some good questions. I'd like to first emphasize that there are no easy answers when it comes to fair use. Despite the legislation and extensive case law on the topic, it is never certain how a court will rule. Therefore, always avoid using fair use if possible. That said, it is appropriate to copy images under fair use in certain circumstances, which is why the tags you referred to were created. However, there is no guarantee that ANY promotional photo is usable under fair use. Always use your judgement and refer to fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use for advice. That said, I'll consider your specific questions and answer in generalities. You asked whether all press packets could be used under fair use. The answer is no, but the image being used in a press packet is a good indication that the author wouldn't be losing out if the image were redistributed. That's one of the factors considered under fair use law. Therefore, many press images are fair use. It doesn't matter whether the photo says it's copyrighted or indicates all rights are reserved. Under the Berne Convention, all works are copyrighted upon creation, so a copyright notice is irrelevant. The image doesn't necessarily have to be low-res, but it might be a good idea, because amount is considered in fair use legal rulings. That being said, a low-res image isn't automatically legal. You asked if special text needed to be included. The answer is no, however more information is always welcome. Therefore, if you have that information, please do include it. As for your first scenario, it is irrelevant whether or not you received a copy of the image directly. Regarding the second, there is no legal distinction between online or offline works, so it being a "digital press kit" doesn't matter. It also shouldn't matter whether the image was taken down. The answer to your fourth scenario is that terms and conditions of the copyright owner don't matter. That is because fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, and obviously infringment doesn't occur with the permission of the copyright owner. That said, you might consider it a warning that they don't intend the image to be distributed, which means fair use could be a more difficult claim to make. However, the author's intent is not the most important thing to consider when judging fair use. For the criteria that matter most, see fair use. Those terms and conditions could also be an indication that you're risking a lawsuit, which is always unpleasant, even if we're legally in the right. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject:Fair use
I've been bold and started a WikiProject to try and reform Wikipedia fair use policy, and a large part of this is in re-writing the fair use image copyright tags. Those who are interested or curious are invited to see what we're up to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. --Fastfission 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Poster tags
The {{Poster}} tag should be phased out -- it is overly vague and gives the impression that any posters are automatically fair use. There are a few specific types of posters which could be used in generally fair ways, but otherwise there is nothing special about posters as a medium. Those which are currently tagged "poster" should be shifted into a more specific sub-categories: {{Movieposter}} (for movies and films), {{Sportsposter}} (for specific sporting events), and {{Eventposter}} (for generic "events"). Of course, all should be low resolution and should only be used in the absence of adequate "free" alternatives. If the "poster" in question doesn't fit into those categories of use, they should just be tagged {{fair use}} for now (and treated like any other image). --Fastfission 22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Create PD-USGov-Military-Celebrity?
I was thinking that it might be a good idea to put all (or most) of the PD US miltary sourced, celebrity images (at least new ones), in their own special tag (and thereby category). The reason is that, for celebrities, it's usually unimportant which service branch they were in. Most of the time, the image is used in a non-military context (those for a military context are fine as tagged).
Then, a seperate category for these pics could be created. It would be easier to find celeb PD pics, when people are adding image to their celeb article.
The reason for doing this exclusively for military celeb pics, is that this is actually a common legitimate source of PD images, with verifiable source. Other PD designations are often erroneous. I wouldn't do a "PD-Celeb" tag, since I know it would be misused. But a "PD-USGov-Military-Celebrity" tag has a better chance of being used properly (even though not all military sourced pics are PD).
It's quite a nuisance to browse through a hundred pics of battle ships, to find a pic of a celeb one is adding an image to.
On the upload page, we might mention this tag. Personally, I suspect the largest copyright challenges come from celeb pictures. This might diminish the number of "fair use" celeb pics a bit (admittedly not for most celebs).
I know I could just go and create the template, but it's pointless unless many others would use it.
--rob 03:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you have images of this type, just put them in {{PD-USGov-Military}}. It's ridiculous having tags four levels deep. If you're trying to prevent false tagging, that's futile. Superm401 | Talk 04:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Copyrighted images provided to media
I have uploaded two copyrighted images provided by the copyright holder "for use in print and web graphics" on their media resources page. These images are obviously provided for publicity purposes but no license, restrictions or non-restrictions are mentioned. I'm concerned that these images may not be appropriate on Wikipedia. I need an opinion. Is there an appropriate template? If not, should I create one? The images are:
- Science_Museum_bernoulli_exhibit.jpg
- Reuben_H._Fleet_Science_Center_Exterior.jpg
They were found at:
Rsduhamel 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I visited the site and read this, which prohibits commercial use of images, and seems to require permission for even non-commercial use. Plus, on every page it says "All rights reserved". Now, in my non-lawyer view, I would say that wiki can't use the images unless a) you get special permission (which must include commercial use) or b) they're used under "fair use". I don't think anybody can tell whether they qualify for fair use, unless they know exactly what context they would appear. In any event, the statements of the web site do nothing to make it easier for wiki to use images, in my opinion. Denying commercial use, is denying wiki use, based on what I've read here. --rob 06:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I e-mailed the public relations representative at the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center and asked if the images on the Press Images page are restricted from commercial or non-educatianal use. The representative thanked me for putting the images on Wikipedia as said they are "approved for third-party use". Rsduhamel 04:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- The 'promotional' copyright tag seems to apply to these images. I have so-tagged them. Rsduhamel 06:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Iowa Free Use template?
There may be a need for a new Iowa (IA) template. When loading Image:Iowa Pleistocene snail penny.jpg I noticed variations of existing templates didn't seem to fit quite right. Below is the source's policy. It's not labeled as copyrighted nor PD, just gives freedom with an optional request. (SEWilco 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
- http://www.iowadnr.com/policy.html
- "Any person is hereby authorized to view, copy, print, and distribute documents on this site without condition. We ask you to extend the courtesy of crediting the material to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Any distributed copy of a web document, or portion thereof, is a reproduction and any changes made to any Iowa Department of Natural Resources material will invalidate the document."
Check out the new 'Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Displayed and ranked' page
Dear fellow Wikipedians with an interest in image copyrights,
After being directed to the Wiki-Project-Page-for-image-copyrights in order to learn more about copyright tags, I found it to be quite a confusing page, with precious little guidance provided and what for me was much much information overload. In order to try to help simplify the tag-selection process for image-copyright-newbies, I have created a new image-copyright-tag-display-article at:
I feel that actually being able to see the tag before selecting or using it might be helpful for some, plus actually seeing the rankings laid out plainly like this could be helpful too. If others like this page, then additional links to it might be inserted around where ever they might be considered as suitable. I've already placed a link to it at the bottom 'See Also' section of the project page. Also, I'm not a Wiki administrator, but I think that the page I created might be good to somehow make into a part of this project, instead of remaining as a Wiki article.
Am interested to see what others might think about this page.
Scott P. 19:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Free or not?
I'd like to use this photograph from this site - a project run by Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy - for this WP article. The site's privacy and security page states "this work of authorship was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Accordingly, the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so for United States Government purposes."
Question: does this qualify for {{PD-USGov-DOE}} or not?
Thanks! - Bantman 23:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Since it is a photograph that is freely and widely distributed in a government publication, but you cannot say with any certainty that the photo was taken by a government employee, and since it is of a geographic feature, which would tend to make it less likely to be proprietary as well, I would guess that your best bet might be to simply use the simple, umbrella-like, public domain tag, of which all other public domain tags are a subset, and therefore less certain. Just my best guess. If further questions persist, you might try doing some Google searches on that reservoir's name and image, and seeing if anyone is trying to make any copyright claims for that photo or others like it.
- -Scott P. 00:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- (I am not a lawyer) -- This actually sounds like one of those cases where a work that is connected to the US government is actually produced by a contractor and is specifically not in the public domain, instead being copyrighted to Sandia with a free license granted to the US government. I would say that any PD template isn't appropriate, and the image may not be usable in Wikipedia without further clarification from the copyright holder. kmccoy ::(talk) 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- (I'm not a lawyer either), but I think that by doing a reasonable search on the Internet for copies of that image that someone is attempting to sell, and finding none, and especially if also finding it in numerous places where it appears to have already been released to the public domain, such as newsletters, school magazines, etc., then it seems to me that while still never 100% certain that somebody somewhere might be trying to make their living by selling that photo that they took, that user:Bantman would have done due dilligence in determining if that was in all probability a public domain photo, and he could thereby reasonably assert that he believes it to be a public domain photo. Otherwise it would seem to me that the only way that anyone could use that tag would be by actually getting a notarized sworn affidavit from the alleged photo taker that he or she releases his or her copyright to the public domain, which nobody does on Wiki that I know of. No?
- Scott P. 06:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- If Sandia is the creator of the image, then it is not public domain. Widespread distribution is not the same as releasing something into the public domain. An affidavit (which is by definition a sworn statement and certified by someone such as a notary, so you don't have to say "notarized sworn affidavit", just "affidavit" will do) isn't needed, but a statement from the creator of the image indicating their desire to release all copyright claims to the image is one of the ways that we determine that an item is in the public domain. (There's still some argument about whether someone can release things into the public domain, as discussed in many places on these copyright-related pages, but you could interpret an attempt to release a work into the public domain as releasing all rights, even if it remains copyrighted -- see {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} or {{NoRightsReserved}}.) Other ways that things are public domain are: age (if the image is old enough for its copyright to have expired), too simple or basic to be eligible for copyright, or created without copyright (such as a work created directly by the US government.) In this case, the license on the page, according to the original poster, says that the US government has a license to use the image for their purposes. If the image is licensed, it's copyrighted, and it's not public domain.
- If the image is copyrighted, there are a few options. You could ask the copyright holder to release it under a free license such as the GFDL or cc-by-sa. Or you could claim that our use is a fair use of the image, despite the fact that we're not complying with any license from the copyright holder. But in that case, we need to have an argument more substantial than simply arguing that the copyright holder isn't trying to sell the image anyway. We need to justify why we need this image. Is it an image which we can't possibly make ourselves? Our article on fair use explains that to claim fair use is an affirmative defense.
- So, basically, to answer the original question, it appears that a PD tag of any sort isn't appropriate. Further research might reveal a justification to use this photo, but I'd suspect that further searching on the internet may reveal a demonstrably PD or otherwise free alternative image to use in the article you mentioned. kmccoy (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
A generic photo taken from PD object, is copyrightable or not?
Perhaps it was discussed but please respond here. Suppose someone goes to, say, the US National Gallery of Art where he makes a picture of some 19th or 18th century painting. The picture he makes is a plain picture of a painting, no photo-artist collage or anything special. The person then posts it on his web-site. Are the rights of the picture taker protected by a copyright law? I mean the object here is clearly not his work but a 100-200 year old work of an artist. I assume the is no CP protection here, but what specific law states that? Thanks! --Irpen 06:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Opinion from non-lawyer: I think you have to assume its copyright. A rainbow is nobody's work, public domain, something anybody can take a free image of; but if I take a photo of it, that's copyright; even if no editing was done. I've heard of special law about government buildings, monuments, etc..., but I've never heard of a special rule for photos of items in a museum. Fairly or not, the mere act of taking a picture, with no editing, with no artistic work, still grants the photographer a copyright to the image created. --rob 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- update: Also, some museums may force those who enter to agree to terms regarding the taking of photographs, and effect the legal status of any images taken. But, I don't think there's any universal rule about that. --rob 06:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- National gallery has no such rule. What then? Extension: say I picture a monument, an old one. In public view anyone can see. There is no sunset or special lighting I cought, or a special angle or shadow that makes it look like a whale or an elefant. So, a generic picture of a monument and all value of this pic is the work by a sculptor and not by me. I can claim I own the copyright of the picture. But what would the law say? You see, my feeling is that there must be a difference with the rainbow or sunset. To get these, one needs preparation, waiting, luck, etc. Monument is there 24/365. Point and shoot. But that's just my view on the common sense. The law may be different. Ineterestingly, the Russian law [13] has such provision.
- Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place
- The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.
- TIA --Irpen 07:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Somalia
Ok, what copyright status are pictures published in Somalia after the fall of the government? Since there hasn't been a government there since 1991, I would think work there would be un-copyrightable, unless some other nation or international law claims jurisdiction. Anyone know? What would the appropriate tag be? Saswann 11:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)