Tag classification
A number of copyright tags seem to be misclassified:
- Tags with a "no commercial use" clause that are in the "free licenses" section
- {{CACTVSGIF}}
- {{User Friendly}}
- {{AlbertaCopyright}}
- {{CanadaCopyright}}
- {{NovaScotiaCopyright}}
- {{OntarioCopyright}}
- Tags with a "no modification" clause that are in the "free licenses" section
- {{GermanGov}}
- {{NZCrownCopyright}} with an additional "can't use in a misleading context" clause.
- {{CrownCopyright}} with an additional "can't use in a misleading context" clause.
- {{LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright}} as above.
- {{NationalAuditOfficeCopyright}} as above.
- {{NHSCopyright}} as above.
- Tags that are explicitly or implicitly "fair use" in the "free licenses" section
- {{ItalyTourismCopyright}}
- {{HIGov}}
- {{IAGov}}
- {{ILGov}}
- Tags that are in the "fair use" section that shouldn't be
- {{Fairuseunknownsource}}: as far as I know, you can't claim fair use without knowing the source.
- Tags that are not categorized as either "Public domain", "Free use", "Fair use", or "Don't use"
--Carnildo 20:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I somehow doubt the claims in HIGov, IAGov and ILGov. Anyone know for sure? --SPUI (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- If they give permission to use it if the source is cited, there's no need for the last sentence. It's not fair use. Permission ahs been specifically given. Superm401 | Talk 22:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- First, has permission actually been given? Can someone find the law stating that? Second, permission for Wikipedia is not enough - it must be able to be used in for-profit works. --SPUI (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've reworded {{Church}}, {{Vatican}}, and {{ItalyTourismCopyright}} (among others) to indicate that there's some ambiguity as to whether these images really are usable. I've also rearranged some of the tags but haven't fixed everything you mentoned above. JYolkowski // talk 14:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
mug shots
Are US mug shots (federal, state, local) normally deemed to be in the public domain. If so, is a reprint of them on a web site, claiming copyright, still public domain? What's the best tag to use for them? I figure the US federal ones fall under the normal PD status of works produced by an employee acting in an official capacity (which we have appropriate tags for). But, state and local law enforcement is maybe different. --rob 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Federal -- probably. State -- depends on the state. Local -- probably not. As for reprints on websites, I'd have to see an example to know what you mean. If you mean, non-governmental officials printing copies of them and claiming copyright -- that's B.S. no matter what the status of those pictures are (if they are in the PD, a private individual can't claim copyright on them; if the copyright is held by the agency that took them, private individuals still can't claim copyright on them). If it's the website of the agency which took them, then it might reflect their actual copyright status. --Fastfission 23:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The copyright flag is used on several images, but is not stated on the copyright tags listing. Clarification about its validity would be nice.{{freefairusein}} --None-of-the-Above 10:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like an attempt to come up with a "verified use" tag. We've been batting a few of these around on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use; it's relatively similar to the {{oldfairusereview}} we are currently playing with. I wouldn't use it quite yet since the system of labeling these is going to change soon. --Fastfission 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Animated GIF and fair use question
I hope this is the place to ask. On the catwalk article there was an image Image:Tbcatw.gif which is of a model walking down a catwalk for Victoria Secret, and it's animated. I tried removing it from the article since I doubt it's use is allowed. There is no origin of the image given, or copyright tag, so I assume it's copyrighted. My question is, how should the image be tagged? And can it be used as fair use?. I thought such an image could *sometimes* be fair use, in articles about the model, the event, or even the clothing; but not for such a general purpose as discussing catwalks. This has been reverted multiple times, and I would like some indpendent opinions. Also, let me know if there's a better place to address this issue. Whether the image is good or bad, is unimportant to me, but I'm just interested in the legal issue here. --rob 00:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it needs to be regarded as a "video clip" since that's what it essentially is. If the article involved criticism or analysis of a video clip -- and the animation was crucial to understanding the criticism or analysis -- then there are ways in which it might be regarded as "fair use" if done right. This is not one of those situations, though, and I don't think it would qualify as fair use. --Fastfission 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only thing lacking is the source. Such an analysis can not be made without it. I think this is equivalent to a screen shot or promotional photo. Also, because it constitutes about 0.1% of the entire program, I think it constitutes fair use. But this is a new issue. I think a new category should be created.--Noitall 00:43, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's a new issue. I also don't think it's encyclopedic -- it doesn't actually add anything to the description of a "catwalk" and was obviously uploaded by a fellow who just enjoys to watch her breasts move. What I mean by criticism or analysis is simply, if the text is using it as "here's a girl on a catwalk" -- that's not criticism or analysis. If the text is, "this video shows how the bullet is going through JFK's head in twenty different places" -- that's analysis. The use is what's important here. --Fastfission 01:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- For some reason, people want to discuss copyright issues on the catwalk page and article issues on the copyright page. The catwalk issue is done. And this is the copyright page. --Noitall 04:59, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
- They are not separate conversations -- if what is claimed is "fair use" then the use is extremely important. There is no media which is inherently fair use or inherently not fair use, there is only usage which separates them. --Fastfission 23:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- For some reason, people want to discuss copyright issues on the catwalk page and article issues on the copyright page. The catwalk issue is done. And this is the copyright page. --Noitall 04:59, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's a new issue. I also don't think it's encyclopedic -- it doesn't actually add anything to the description of a "catwalk" and was obviously uploaded by a fellow who just enjoys to watch her breasts move. What I mean by criticism or analysis is simply, if the text is using it as "here's a girl on a catwalk" -- that's not criticism or analysis. If the text is, "this video shows how the bullet is going through JFK's head in twenty different places" -- that's analysis. The use is what's important here. --Fastfission 01:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Images for use only on user pages or talk pages
Lots of people have images for use only on their user pages, not in WP articles, or for use in talk pages perhaps to illustrate questions or discussions. What's the appropriate way to tag these items? {{Copyrighted}} but add a clear statement that the image is for use only on your user page? Elf | Talk 21:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've been wondering about this for awhile myself. I don't see why we should treat them too differently than any other pages. The use of copyrighted materials in a way which would not qualify as fair use is copyright infringement, whether it is in the user namespace or the article namespace, unless I am mistaken. In the end this seems to come down to, "do we allow copyright violations in the user namespace" which seems like a "no" to me. But I'll try and find out what the official policy is. --Fastfission 00:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I had in mind more things like "here's a picture of me", "here's a picture of my dog", "here's a diagram of what I'm talking about", usually mostly taken by or drawn by the user or someone the user knows, but maybe they don't want them used anywhere else. Elf | Talk 00:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, that's an interesting exception. I'll try and find out. My guess is that they aren't allowed -- all images ought to be subject to exactly the same licensing restrictions, whether or not they are in the user namespace or the article namespace. But I'll try to get a definitive answer on this. --Fastfission 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- General thought on the mailing list seems to be personal-use-only licensing on user pages is currently outside policy but informally tolerated. --Fastfission 18:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
My userpage image (which was pretty clearly taken by me and marked as permission) was just deleted as a "permission only for use on Wikipedia"-image *somewhat grumpy*. So I have now re-uploaded it and created Template:Userpage-image. Thue | talk 21:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want your photo to be kept here, you should license it under the GFDL. I'm going to go nominate Template:Userpage-image for deletion. dbenbenn | talk 14:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
New Jersey state PD?
Template:NJGov has appeared claiming that they are PD. I'm not convinced - but IANAL etc. Secretlondon 22:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Some states, I believe, have policies similar to that of the federal government. But some don't, I'm also fairly sure. I'd want to see an authoratative source before accepting any such templates as being legit. It shouldn't be hard to establish if they really are or not -- the burden of proof needs to be in establishing that such works are in the public domain (assuming that they are copyrighted should be the default position, since it is both most likely AND the one of the two options with negative consequences!). --Fastfission 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- According to the State of New Jersey's website's legal page [1], the state alows viewing, copying and distribution of the information on the state website. Note that it doesn't include permission to modify or sell material. It also specificly warns that it doesn't claim that the materials are in the public domain. The relevant paragraph follows:
- Section E. Copyright and Trademark Limitations
- The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise state on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply. However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws.
- Note that the last line in the page does include a copyright statement:
- Copyright © State of New Jersey, 1996-2005
- I think this means that this template is invalid and needs to go away. AFAIK, the only US State with a public domain policy is California. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've listed it for deletion. --Carnildo 21:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are 28 images using this tag. All of them appear to be pictures of New Jersey elected officials, and all of them were uploaded by User:MAS117. What should be done about them? --Carnildo 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's a very inconsistent copyright. I'd list all the templates at IFD then list the template and associated category for deletion. Superm401 | Talk 13:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are 28 images using this tag. All of them appear to be pictures of New Jersey elected officials, and all of them were uploaded by User:MAS117. What should be done about them? --Carnildo 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How to tag Marine "Courtesy photo"
The photo Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg was taken from a Marine web site [2], which is normally a perfect spot to get PD images. It was, logically, tagged as {{PD-USGov-Military-Marines}}. However, I suspect it's actually copyrighted by ABC, but the wording in the article is unclear. Instead of identifying the photographer, it says "Photo by: Courtesy photo" (I interpret that to mean courtesy of ABC). If there was a clear copyright statement, I would just change the tag to "promophoto". There's justification as a promotional photo since it says "This Image has been cleared for release". But, I honestly don't know if it has a copyright. It's a worthwhile image, that I almost uploaded myself, before I realized it was already here. I would like opinions on this. I do realize that obviously some images on "mil" web sites are copyrighted, so it's not automatic PD status. I didn't list this as a "copyright problem" since I doubt there's a problem in its usage, but copyright status should be defined in the tag. --rob 08:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would say promo photo, becuase it is not "a work of a U.S. Marine Corps marine or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties."--michael180 16:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Official portraits of US governors
Any idea of whether these are in the public domain by default or not? Usually they are commissioned by the state, yes? But I suppose it depends on the laws of the particular state as to whether they are in the public domain? Any ideas? --Fastfission 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- AFAIK politicians are unlikely to sue anyone for using a basic headshot of them since they'd look bad. It's publicity material, used by the commercial press, and politicians should expect and accept criticism as part of the democratic process. That is, unless it's seriously libellous, but the complaint then should be able the libel not the use of the photograph. So you can always hide behind fair use, but so can everyone so it's effectively free. Dunc|☺ 14:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
original image source URL recorded, but changed
If an image is uploaded, and a source is put in as a url to the page it's on, and a url to the image; what happens if there is site re-organization and the URLs don't work anymore? If the image can't be found easily on the site, does that mean the image is now of "unknown" source. Or, is it still "known", because the company it came from is known. This isn't a specific question to an image, but just a general one about images derived from web pages. It applies to fair use, as well as PD images. This seems to be a bigger potential issue for PD images, in a way, since proof that an image is 100% legal, could suddenly disappear, at any time, without notice. --rob 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Question about CopyrightedFreeUse (Greek or any help requested)
This is a question about the tag for Image:Kalomira Sexy.JPG (used in Kalomira Sarantis )which is currently "CopyrightedFreeUse". It looks like a screen shot. The comment in the description says "This picture comes from www.kalomirasarantis.com It is free for use". I don't think they have the freedom to grant that.
Now, that site is in Greek and I can't read it. However, I don't *think* it's the official site for Kalomira Sarantis (note: the article originally did say that it was official). Also, even it is authorized by her, she may not have permission to grant others the right to use something from the TV show she was in. I beleive this is just a standard TV screen shot, requiring a standard tag and fair-use justification (which is any easy justification). However, I don't speak Greek, and I don't know Greek copyright law, so I didn't change it. --rob 10:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that is right. If it a screenshot (and as you say it does look like one) then it would be copyrighted by the producer. I would put it on WP:PUI. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I speak Greek but I haven't studied, yet, the greek copyright law. I can't verify whether this photo is copyrighted-free_use. The site www.kalomirasarantis.com is a fan-site (unofficial). The photo, most likely, is a screenshot from the reality show Fame Story. It could probably have the tag Musicpromo-screenshot. MATIA 11:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Flash cartoon screenshots
Should screenshots from episodes of flash cartoon series that are intended to be viewed on the web (like Homestar Runner or Space Tree) be tagged with {{film-screenshot}} or {{web-screenshot}}? What about ones with a limited degree of interaction, where even {{game-screenshot}} or {{software-screenshot}} might be approprate? --Aquillion 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just tag them all with web-screenshot. Superm401 | Talk 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- mmm... I'd lean towards {{film-screenshot}}, since they are technically a single frame from a longer "movie", whereas a web screenshot to me generally implies a static page. That is, I'd consider "Flash movies" to be analogous to other movies, even if they have some degrees of interaction (though at some level they could become a "game", I imagine). "Software" is probably wrong in all cases. But anyway, it doesn't matter much, I don't think, most of these distinctions are for categorization only. "Web screenshot" is only necessary, I believe, if it is clear what kind of browser one is using. --Fastfission 15:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Family pictures
Just on the basis of making my user page, I'm wondering what tag to use for family pictures: it seems that PD would not work since it was taken by a photographer. Does anyone know what tag to use? --Akira123323 14:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- You could check back with the photographer, but I think he clearly intended (though probably not consciously) to transfer the copyright to you. As a safe bet, just put {{fairuse}}, with an explanation. The photographer is clearly not going to sue you for displaying your own paid-for family pictures. He's unlikely to sue Wikipedia for hosting them too. Ideally, if it's convenient, just ask quickly, "I've got the copyright on the pics you took, right?" He probably won't object. As a final thought, this might qualify as a work-for-hire in which case all copyright indisputably belongs to you. Superm401 | Talk 14:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Read the contract. Odds are, there's a line in it saying that the copyright stays with the photographer. Professional photographers generally make their money off of things like enlargements, reprints, and touch-ups. --Carnildo 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Even so, it's legitimate to display them on your user page. Superm401 | Talk 20:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you do tag it fairuse, make sure you explain the details of it. In general fair use tags are not allowed on user pages, though in this sort of circumstances I could see it as being ignored. --Fastfission 15:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Even so, it's legitimate to display them on your user page. Superm401 | Talk 20:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Sports Jersey diagram
Hi, what would be the proper license tag for a hockey jersey diagram (ie drawing, not photo). It would have the logo of the corresponding team incorporated into it, so "logo" would be my guess. Basically its an extention of the logo?. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format#NHL_Uniforms Thanks ccwaters 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Probably {{logo}}. --Fastfission 15:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
How to tag image made by government contractor /noncommercial-use
The image is Image:Fatmouse.jpg and is currently tagged as "PD-USGov"
It provides a source at http://www.csm.ornl.gov/SC99/fatmouse.jpg. So, I visited http://www.csm.ornl.gov, which has a disclaimer link, which goes to http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/disclaimers.shtml. It says:
- Documents provided from the web server were sponsored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes. "
I find this very vague. First, it talks of documents only, not images. It talks of "non-commercial" which suggests use of the "noncommercial" tag. However, it also says it "may be freely distributed". I don't know what tag it should be, I don't think it can be "PD-USGov" which is for public-domain images, which by definition have no license. --rob 18:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- ORNL is one of the few labs which is known to not claim copyright, so it's not a problem, I believe (at least, it was when I last checked on these things, but it might have changed -- looking at it now, I'm not so sure why I thought that, but I think I had a reason). You can see Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE for more information on this and what tags to use. If they aren't categorized as "work of the federal government" (as much contractor work isn't) then it needs to be able to qualify as fair use, because we don't use "with permission" or "for educational use only" tags. --Fastfission 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- In the USA, copyright exists upon creation, so what does "not claim copyright" mean? The above disclaimer text seems to make the image have restrictions. (SEWilco 20:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC))
- I haven't had time to check on the specifics of the ORNL issue, but under U.S. copyright law, works of the federal goverment do not generate copyright (they are in the public domain). National labs are administered by the Department of Energy, a federal department, and so one might logically think that what they create are "works of the federal government" -- and in some of the cases, this is true, but in others, the contracts for the administering of the labs change the status of the work done at the labs. It's somewhat tricky. What it boils down to is that some labs claim to have their own copyright policies (some very restrictive, some not very restrictive but too restrictive for WP), while some say that their work is in the public domain. It's not always easy though to tell which is which. --Fastfission 23:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Material of illegal organizations
How does one deal with image material whose theoretical copyright holder has no legal stature? For example graphical material produced by underground resistance organizations (I have some graphic material from communist organizations in Spain before democratization began in 1977). --Soman 10:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- IANAL, but I would guess that if a corporate body does not legally exist, then copyright cannot be assigned to it or held by it, so copyright would remain with the creating artist. (That said, political posters and the like are often a good base for fair-use claims) Shimgray | talk | 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but the creation of the object is for obvious reasons kept anonymous. Does then Fair use apply for photos, etc.? --Soman 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, felonious persons and corporations have the same copyright protection as those who obey law. Also, works are copyrighted whether or not the creator chooses to remain anonymous. A fair use claim may be possible, but this issue is unrelated to that of the work's anonymity. Superm401 | Talk 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but the creation of the object is for obvious reasons kept anonymous. Does then Fair use apply for photos, etc.? --Soman 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Many jurisdictions treat anonymous individuals as gaining a different term of copyright (since of course you can't use life+whatever), but broadly speaking, yes, they have the same protections. As for illegal organisations... it's an open question. In a legal sense, does an outlawed corporation still exist, since it is a legal construct? If not it can't hold properties and copyrights... I say assume created by an anonymous personal author in that jurisdiction. Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Canadian Flags
I emailed the city halls of Dawson Creek, British Columbia and (emailed/phoned) Chetwynd, British Columbia for images of their flags to use on Wikipedia. Dawson Creek emailed me an image of their flag. Chetwynd emailed me an image of their coat-of-arms (which I converted into their flag with a blank Canadian pale). Both times I asked them for copyright info but neither gave me any. What is the correct tag for these? Is there a better tag than the American PD-flag tag, if this is the correct tag, for Canadian use? --maclean25 02:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delaware PD?
Template:PD-DEGov states "This image is a work of a State of Delaware employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, and is consequently in the public domain.". I guess this is another confusion with federal vs state governemt copyrights... Secretlondon 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- This has now been deleted - but it briefly went through a stage of being a quite dubious claim of it being a "public record" under the Delaware FOIA - which is arguable - and thus public domain - which is, at least to my semi-trained eye, unlikely, though I can see where the misunderstanding comes about. Glancing at the current list, we also have {{PD-NCGov}}, which makes much the same claim.
- The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law.
- This really doesn't, to me, say "public domain"; it says "you have the right to get a copy of this material and we can't make you pay for it". Thoughts, anyone? Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
LGPL, Why "depracted"?
Why dose it say that GNU Lesser General Public License is deprecated? --Kruosio 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's deprecated for images and other forms of audiovisual media on Wikipedia because it is confusing when used for that type of work. I think Wikipedians as a whole still consider it useful for software, but that does not concern this page. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Still, why is it deprecated? If I would want to upload a image which is a part of distribution of some program which is under GPL or LGPL (and there are such images), how should I tag it? Granted, people should not be encouraged to tag their own images with (L)GPL instead of GFDL, but if some image from external source already is under GPL or LGPL, it must be tagged as such. Nikola 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
CC licences not covered
I don't see any explanation of why certain CC licences aren't covered here - I guess they're not considered sufficiently 'free' if they don't allow derivative works or commercial usage, but it might be nice to make that explicit? --Oolong 13:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Help me tag Image:Haroldmacmillan.jpg
I've pinpointed a source at this BBC site. The problem is this little sentence at the bottom here:
The BBC grants permission to use these images ONLY as wallpaper.
Oh boy...what tag falls under this category? --Bash 01:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- {{Nonfreedelete}}, I'd guess. Pity, after all that work... Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- That wasn't very helpful, sorry. Hmm. {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat}} might work, but we wouldn't be complying with the conditions! And we can't really claim fair use... it does look like it'll have to go. Drat. Shimgray | talk | 02:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome to my world. Image sleuthing is hard: trying to tag as many images as possible while doing it before the evil speedy deletionists get there. --Bash 19:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
PBS and NPR
Isn't PBS and NPR considered to be part of the U.S. Government, making images from them PD?
- No. NPR and PBS are private non-profit corporations. They recieve a large amount of funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, another private non-profit, which in turn recieves grants from the federal government. --Carnildo 04:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- In addition to agreeing with the above answer, it's worth remembering that some media outlets, like the Stars and Stripes, are apart of the government, and their content is also explicitly protected by copyright. --rob 05:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
User Friendly free use?
I don't think the tag {{User Friendly}} should be listed as a "free use any purpose copyright" anymore. It was recently found to be under a non-commercial only license, which is of course no longer accepted on Wikipedia. So, should this tag be relisted as a depreciated image? Wcquidditch | Talk 11:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Go ahead. Superm401 | Talk 20:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Creating new tags
Can we put a note on the ICT page which discourages users from creating new tags unless they have discussed them with others on this page first? There seem to be a proliferation of tags, some of which end up being quite spurious and ignorant of copyright law. Or is this too anti-Wiki? --Fastfission 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, that's been a real pet peeve of mine of late. It seems that, in the time it takes me to delete a useless or misleading tag or rewrite an overly vague one, someone's created another dubious tag. I think that we should discourage the creation of new tags unless they've been discussed here (I'm okay with new fair use tags that have been discussed on WP:FU or WP:WPFU too). JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just to drive the point home, I just discovered fifteen undocumented "fair use" tags, which was a little frustrating for various reasons. I'm adding a message about this right now. JYolkowski // talk 16:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair use for DVDs and magazines
I have a question regarding the fair usage of DVD and magazine covers. The article for the adult model Ava Vincent had three DVD covers and one magazine cover in gallery format- see this version. The links to these images have been removed citing fair use issues. The original uploaded images were not low-res, but I am willing to reduce the image quality to a low-res thumbnail image to avoid potential piracy.
Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags states: "Covers of various media - note all of these require a reduced-quality image, insufficient for quality reproduction or bootlegging purposes, and also that they illustrate articles about the media item itself, not a tangentially related subject."
What exactly is meant by a tangentially related subject in this case? Does this mean that we can only upload DVD covers if we actually have an article about the DVD in question? I imagine that most articles about specific adult movies would be little more than stubs. It can be very difficult to find non-nude images of models that can be uploaded under the copyright standards. If low-res covers are acceptable, they would be a good source for presenting the models in question, and IMO would be fair use. Olessi 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Galleries of fair use images are not allowed in articles because the use of the images has to be related to the article content itself. You could put them in the article, if they were being legitimately used to illustrate the text (i.e. "So and so starred in this movie in 1994, and was featured on the cover," etc.). If you take a look at the {{DVDcover}} template tag, it describes what kind of uses are considered "fair" on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Would something like this be acceptable then?
Notable movies starring Jane Doe:
- Movie 1, Silver Screen Media, 1963
- Movie 2, Pyramid Pictures, 1987
- Movie 3, Eagle Entertainment, 1999
and then below that list have a gallery displaying the covers for each film? Olessi 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Or, would the images have to be combined with the text as such? "Doe has starred in a number of films, such as Movie #1 in 1963, from Silver Screen Media {and have the image formatted to the side}." Olessi 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Either of the final two options would be acceptable. Superm401 | Talk 01:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Best licence / non-commercial ?
I got permission from a historical game publisher to use hundreds of their images on Wiki, but with attribution and not for commercial purposes? Can I upload them to en-Wikipedia? If so, under what license? What arguments could I use to ask them to allow commercial use (which is a requirement for Commons), and what license can I recommend to them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Jimbo has decreed that "non-commercial only" images are off-limits on Wikipedia, and that those uploaded after May 19, 2005 may be immediately speedy deleted. So, no, you can upload these images to neither en-Wikipedia nor the commons: both require free licenses. Here on the English Wikipedia, we also allow "fair use" images, however, "fair use" applies only in the U.S: re-users of our content must re-evaluate each and every "fair use" case for themselves; which (so I think) in practice means that most can't or just won't use such images. Foreign re-users of Wikipedia content typically cannot use "fair use" images because the laws applicable in their countries just don't have a "fair use" provision liberal enough in their copyright laws. This is one of the reasons why the German Wikipedia doesn't allow "fair use" images at all. BTW, note that Jimbo's decree also outlaws "by permission" images unless said permission amounts to a free license, i.e. basically only demands attribution.
- I suggest you ask them to license their images under the GFDL or one of the acceptable Creative Commons Licenses. I have been quite successful to get people to license their images under the GFDL by pointing out that this license:
- requires proper attribution,
- allows anyone to re-use the image for any purpose, even commercial ones, as long as the author(s) is/are credited and a copy of the text of GFDL is distributed with the image,
- and to do so with derived works from that image (different crop or edited otherwise), again, with crediting all authors and distributing the GFDL text;
- and that in my experience, the requirement to distribute the text of the GFDL with any redistributed image in practice is enough to prevent or at least discourage most serious commercial exploitations of the image.
- However, I have not dealt with game publishers but mostly academic people, so YMMV. HTH, Lupo 19:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Seeking confirmation on Crown Copyright
Sorry if this is the wrong place to direct this question, but am I correct that this image of Sembawang Naval Base, taken in 1945, would fall under Template:PD-BritishGov (Crown copyright)? I'm not sure if I'm reading the photo credit right but I think it's been taken by a member of the IX MONAB stationed there, which would seem to qualify... just wanting to make sure before I upload, if anyone can advise I'd appreciate it. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Good deed, or unintentional vandalism?
Allo, was tempted to go through the list of Fair use images and try to sort out through them to make the list a little shorter - but had two questions that I thought I should 'clarify' before I set to work. First off, on images of various Nazi officials - would it be fair to tag them with GermanGov, even though we can likely never be 100% certain? and secondly, should we have Reuters or FairUseReuters (simply as an example) type tags that further sort the images by their source, rather than just "Fair Use"? Sherurcij 18:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- No. People will inevitably misinterpret such tags as implying that all Reuters images are fair use, which is certainly not true. Superm401 | Talk 19:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- We just deleted Template:Reuters and Template:AssociatedPress because it is quite dubious whether photos from these sources could qualify as fair use, so let's not recreate them. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Soccer-Europe images
The {{SocEur}} tag for images from http://soccer-europe.com/ says that "the images can be used for any purpose, as long as credit is given". But the copyright statement on the website is much more restrictive: "© 1998-2005 soccer-europe.com. The contents of this site may not be used without written permission of the webmaster". Did we get permission, or is the tag wrong? --Carnildo 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently, the edit summary from the creator said that there is permission to use it this way, but just to be on the safe side, I've taken the matter to TfD anyway. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Limited Use Tag
It would be helpful to get feedback from this community at the TFD of the {{Limited Use}} tag. Dragons flight 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this template - which states that works produced by the State of California are in the Public Domain. I have not been able to identify any such statute; and have found various statutes to the contrary(some of which I mention in the link above). We need to review this tag, and decide what should be done with it. Please publisize this notice wherever you think it should be known. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- {{PD-NCGov}} seems to have the same problem; it interprets the local Public Records Law as meaning those records are public domain. Didn't we just have this debate with regard to Delaware or New Jersey or somewhere? Shimgray | talk | 13:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Except that the North Carolina statute says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." (emphasis mine) This is different from the other state statues. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mmmm... I'm unconvinced. There's often a lot of broad fanciful language used in FoI statutes; I'd be inclined to read it in a metaphorical sense rather than one specifically referring to copyright. Note that NC slaps a "Copyright © State of North Carolina" notice on most of the state.nc.us pages. Shimgray | talk | 20:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- The only other piece of data I have on the subject is from Mm35173 (t c), who reports about when he tried to contact NC government agencies to get permission to use the photos. See Template talk:PD-NCGov. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Fonts and copyrights
I've noticed a number of examples of typefaces being listed as PD or PD-inelligible. I presume this is because font typefaces are uncopyrightable in the U.S. Some are licensed under the GFDL (i.e. Image:Times new roman.png). I'm not sure this is correct either -- if the typeface itself is not copyrightable, I'm not sure such an image has enough creativity to be considered as having generated any copyright (the text is certainly not unique enough to on its own). Font faces are, however, copyrighted in most other countries. Perhaps we need a new template for this? The current status of U.S. copyright law as it applies to fonts is summarized here, if someone wants to take a stab at formulating a tag. The goal would be something like {{PD-US}} but more specific in regards to font faces. Anyway, it is something to chew over. --Fastfission 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
PD-old
I've just scanned an image from a 1912 book - quite definitely public domain. So, I go to tag it. We have {{PD-old}}. However, this explicitly limits itself to cases where the author died before 1905. Do we have any form of tag for "is PD through being published before 1923"? I'd assumed PD-old was such a tag, but apparently not... Shimgray | talk | 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- {{PD-US}}. The 1923 thing is a consequence of US Copyright Law. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've poked around a bit and I'm reasonably satisfied that the book was published in the US that year, meaning it qualifies. (It probably qualifies under life+70 in the UK, as all named authors seem to have died before 1935, but I'm dubious there - it doesn't give the authors of the images, so can't confirm for them specifically) Shimgray | talk | 02:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
{{Cc-by-sa-any}} allowed?
I notice the tag {{Cc-by-sa-any}} (which is not listed on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags page but is on the template messages page for the image description pages) includes a a "non-commercial use only" license as part of the image multi-licensing. So, does this mean that the tag is depreciated and should be flagged with the "If uploaded after May 19, it will be deleted soon" message? Wcquidditch | Talk 15:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, now I'm bemused. You can use any image tagged with it commercially under the 1.0 license, but not the 2.0 license? Shimgray | talk | 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look closer, it appears that images tagged with it can be used commercially under the 1.0 and both commercially and non-commercially under the 2.0. That is so confusing, I am this close to TfD'ing this template. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- If my understanding of CC licenses is correct, this means that the cc-by-sa-nc is effectively redundant, so the image is in effect only tagged with cc-by-sa-1.0 and cc-by-sa-2.0. But... argh. Shimgray | talk | 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, this template is very confusing. It's on TfD, link below... Wcquidditch | Talk 19:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- If my understanding of CC licenses is correct, this means that the cc-by-sa-nc is effectively redundant, so the image is in effect only tagged with cc-by-sa-1.0 and cc-by-sa-2.0. But... argh. Shimgray | talk | 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:SocEur
Template:SocEur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:SocEur. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 16:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Cc-by-sa-any
Template:Cc-by-sa-any has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Cc-by-sa-any. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 16:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Coats of arms
Can somebody claim copyright of a coat of arms from several hundred years ago, and thus forbid the use on Wikipedia? It is the case with some Polish Coat of Arms, where I have just encountered an anon claiming he published the pictures in a book and they were 'stolen' by Wikipedia (I am trying to contact him by email for more info). If you need a specific example, one of the images he claimed is Image:Herb Slepowron.jpg. The uploader of the pics, User:Emax, who has been inactive for almost a year now, uploaded the pictures under fair use and they are (with few exceptions) used in the articles about specific coats of arms (like Ślepowron Coat of Arms). Can the images be used on Wiki, and if so, under what tag - {{coat of arms}} or {{fairuse}}? Some of the images are also used in the biographies of people who wore a given coat of arms. I'd appreciate advise on this matter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. We've just been having this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Copyright_in_coats_of_arms.2C_flags.2C_military_insignia_etc.. Lots of good discussion there, please have a look. Copyrights in coats of arms etc. is kind of tricky. An image of a coat of arms etc. is an artist's interpretation and so doesn't fall under the aegis of Bridgeman vs. Corel Corp., so if the image is of recent origin, it is likely copyrighted. That's why I've changed {{coat of arms}} to indicate that the copyright situation on these is pretty tricky. For images of coats of arms that were scanned from pre-1923 works, they should be tagged as {{PD-US}}. For images of coats of arms that were created by the uploader, they should be tagged as {{GFDL}} or whatever licence the uploader wants. For images that were created by the country or province in question, it's probably safe to use these under fair use (use {{symbol}}, which I haven't listed on this page yet, as I wanted to get the wording down first). Coats of arms that don't fall into the above categories are probably copyright violations. Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wish Emax was around. I don't know at the moment if the images were made by Emax and are simply similar to anon works or were scanned from anon book (and I don't have this book). Assuming the worst case scenario - that Emax scanned those coats directly from anon's book and anon does not release those images under a usable licence - will we have to delete all of these images, or can we claim fair use in coat of arms articles? If we have to delete them, this would basically kill the entire Polish heraldry/List of Polish Coats of Arms project :( , not to mention destroy the largest and best repository of ancient Polish coats of arms on the net :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Making your assumptions, I would think we would have to delete the images. I don't think we can claim fair use, because our usage of the coats of arms would likely have a harmful effect on the sales of his book (fair use factor #4), and our usage is probably derivative and not transformative because we're talking about the coat of arms in general, not his specific illustration of it, and our articles could be seen as being a replacement for the book (factor #1). JYolkowski // talk 19:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I got a reply from the author. He is indeed the author of the graphics (this webpage proves our are a copy). He is willing to grant us a non-commercial use licence, but is afraid to grant a commercial one due to the fear somebody can reprint his work. I know we are not looking favourably towards non-commercial licences, so I'd appreciate all advice and arguments I can use to convince him to grant us a better (which?) licence. From what I understand he is not afraid of the files being distributed online, but would like to prevent them being printed and sold (individually or in a new book). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Making your assumptions, I would think we would have to delete the images. I don't think we can claim fair use, because our usage of the coats of arms would likely have a harmful effect on the sales of his book (fair use factor #4), and our usage is probably derivative and not transformative because we're talking about the coat of arms in general, not his specific illustration of it, and our articles could be seen as being a replacement for the book (factor #1). JYolkowski // talk 19:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wish Emax was around. I don't know at the moment if the images were made by Emax and are simply similar to anon works or were scanned from anon book (and I don't have this book). Assuming the worst case scenario - that Emax scanned those coats directly from anon's book and anon does not release those images under a usable licence - will we have to delete all of these images, or can we claim fair use in coat of arms articles? If we have to delete them, this would basically kill the entire Polish heraldry/List of Polish Coats of Arms project :( , not to mention destroy the largest and best repository of ancient Polish coats of arms on the net :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Proposition of a new template
I have suggested a proposition of a new template that I will probably call {{Template:SQA}}. It is for work published by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), and states that "The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications. If it is reproduced for any other purpose, then SQA should be clearly acknowledged as the source in the reproduction".
The first draft of the template can be seen in the subsidiary of my user-page here. I "made" this template becuase I would like to upload numerous images about chemistry; including,
- Electron arrangements of Main Group Elements.
- Densities of elements.
- Melting and boiling points of selected elements.
- Names, symbols and relative atomic masses of selected elements.
- Flame colours.
- Formulae of selected ions containing more than one kind of atom.
- Solubilities of selected compounds in water.
- Melting and boiling points of selected inorganic elements.
- Melting and boiling points of selected organic elements.
- Electrochemical series (reduction reactions).
- Periodic table of the elements showing symbol and date of discovery.
Thanks, --Kilo-Lima 18:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)