|
Image review
- File:Bristol_city_coa.png: what was the creation date of this design?
- An interesting question - to which I'm having problems finding an answer. According to this page the arms were first granted in 1569. That page also shows a very similar representation in use on a cigarette card before 1906. According to this site variations were identified in 1908. This agrees "Recorded and confirmed 24th August 1569". This page shows a similar design in 1673. I don't think I'm going to be able to find a definitive answer - should the image be removed?— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if the design was in use before 1906 this should be fine even without an exact date.
- File:Bristol_1873.png needs a US PD tag
- Added (hope I've done this right?)— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Banksy-ps.jpg: freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to graphic works - you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural. Also, the image description page appears to have been vandalized.
- I've removed the vandalism, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural". It already includes a CC 3.0. Again - should this image be removed from the article?— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the CC 3.0 is meant to reflect the photographer's copyright, correct? Or does Banksy himself release his works under CC 3.0? If the latter, I'd like to see a source confirming that. The problem is that because this is a 2D graphic work, we can't use photos of it without considering the artist's copyright (whereas for a building or sculpture in the UK we would only consider the photographer). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the Banksy image.— Rod talk 13:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria, the image is freely licensed and is suitable for inclusion. You are quite correct that FoP in the UK does not extend to 2D graphic works, such as murals, however what we have here is graffiti. It is the policy of Commons ( COM:GRAFFITI) that graffiti, as illegally painted works, are not eligible for copyright protection. If you wish to argue this I suggest you take it up on Commons, but this FAC discussion is not the place to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattbuck: It seems that the Commons page you link to has a more nuanced view than just "not eligible for copyright protection". It notes that authorship is sometimes unknown, which isn't the case here; it also states that for post-1978 artworks not covered by freedom of panorama, the non-free grafitti tag should be applied - this tag states that "there is no evidence of this legal theory [of graffiti being ineligible for copyright protect] being tested" and that Commons' precautionary principle applies. Thus, given the information presented here the image is not freely licensed and Commons policy would support its exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel qualified to enter this debate, so I'm glad you two are having it (although I have asked for further input from others with specialist knowledge in this area). I'm not sure about the authorship being known as Banksy has not been identified or identified him/herself. Presumably the outcome would relate to many of the images at commons:Banksy and others in the commons category: Graffiti artists from the United Kingdom?— Rod talk 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: I understand you have concerns, but again, this is not the place to do it. The image is freely licensed on Commons. If you think this is in error, file a deletion request for all such images on Commons, or discuss it at commons:COM:VP/C. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Image licensing is part of the FA criteria, which means that concerns in this area are appropriately discussed at FAC. Of course this issue should also be addressed at Commons, but this article cannot pass FAC with the image as it stands in place, unless someone has more information to demonstrate that it is in fact freely licensed (or unless a fair-use claim can be made). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Commons policy on graffiti very specifically references the illegal nature of the act which created the grafitti. The policy states: "Graffiti are essentially murals that have been painted illegally. Photographs of graffiti have long been allowed on Commons. As artistic works, copyright in graffiti will theoretically belong to the original artist. However, in many cases the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party... For legally-painted artworks, see Murals." Since whoever painted it did not have the owner's permission to do that, this image is not a legally-painted artwork, nor a mural. Thus the image, as with many other graffiti is able to be hosted on Commons. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to start a Deletion Nomination at Commons where all the admins & 'crats can discuss it. Thank you for all your hard work on DYK and Featured article. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy goes on to say "Graffiti may be in the public domain if painted without a copyright notice in the United States before 1978 ... Reproductions may be permitted in a few nations that have freedom of panorama for 2D works... For all other works, use the {{Non-free graffiti}} tag". Neither of the former two cases applies here, so the image is non-free. The argument that the creation of the work was illegal has been made, but as the non-free grafitti tag states, "there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested", and Commons' precautionary principle would demand the exclusion of the image regardless of how likely it is that the artist would or would not attempt to claim copyright. Of course Commons should address on a wider scale the practice of hosting non-free images based on untested legal theory, but as mentioned above the question of the licensing of this specific image needs to be resolved here in order for this nom to succeed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Nikkimaria, you seem to have decided that this image is problematic and are unwilling to accept that, as far as the Commons community is concerned, there is no copyright violation. We have told you why it's freely licensed. Please either accept that the copyright paranoia is awesome community have no trouble with it, or come to Commons and engage us in a discussion about every piece of graffiti in countries where FoP is limited. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Mattbuck, Commons policy agrees that the image is non-free. The policy you cite doesn't say that "there is no copyright violation"; it says, in essence, that creators are unlikely to sue us. The precautionary principle applies. Further, previous conversations around the COM:GRAFFITI policy have demonstrated why the argument around illegality is problematic (and that the "copyright paranoia is awesome community", as you put it, has a problem with such images being hosted regardless). I'm happy to provide sources if you like - while there have been few test cases, most scholars agree that graffiti can indeed be copyrighted, particularly in this case given the known (if pseudonymous) creator. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion seems to have stalled with no further comments after a week. What should I do as nominator as a result? Does anyone have any further comments on this (or anything else about the article)?— Rod talk 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Without more information, your options are a) claim it as fair use, or b) remove it from the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Having already removed it from the article once - to be reverted within minutes, I'm having to struggle my way through the non-free content guidelines trying to find a rationale for its use when the article is about Bristol rather than Banksy. Just one question. if a similar image is on another site (CC 2 licenced) and I imported that one would it still be challenged on the same grounds?19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- As with the current image, the CC2 licensing there appears to be that of the photographer, not the artist. If we had any evidence that Banksy released his artwork under CC that would be a different story. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some discussion of Banksy and graffiti in general in Law for Artists. Note that the image in question is shown in that work on page 130. My own view is that we should include the picture per WP:IAR, which seems especially appropriate when considering the work of an anarchist. Andrew D. (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, thanks! They give the image a copyright notice for Banksy (presenting the image as fair use) and state elsewhere that Banksy has previously asserted copyright over other work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note in passing that you should look at making your referencing format more consistent before someone checks that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I will look (again) at the referencing over the next day or two.— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As several very experienced editors have already pointed out above, the objection to the Banksy image is unfounded, and the fact that one editor disagrees should not prevent this article from being promoted if it is otherwise OK. The image is properly tagged and licensed, and fully complies with Commons' rules for hosting graffiti images. The CC tag indicates the photographer's licence. All mention above of fair use and freedom of panorama are entirely irrelevant here, as neither are applicable under UK law to this work (UK copyright law applies as the artist is British and the work is located in the UK).
Wikimedia Commons' approach to graffiti has been in place pretty well since the beginning, and is very well established. Of course it could always be changed in the future if any English court were to decide to the contrary regarding Banksy's art. I think that unlikely to happen under English law (though I acknowledge that the situation might be different in other countries, and with other images). Commons' position seems perfectly sustainable under English law, namely that while Bansky may prima facie hold the copyright, he would be estopped under the equitable clean hands doctrine from benefiting from his own illegal act and the courts would not on that basis grant him any relief.
In any event a Featured Article Candidate discussion on the English Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to 'correct' decisions made and principles set up long ago on Commons. One of the great advantages of having Commons as a specialist free media repository is that it frees the English Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites from having to re-run every copyright discussion on an image by image basis. There are probably thousands of validly hosted graffiti images that are in use on the English Wikipedia, and this one should not be treated differently from any of the others. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info: The 'clean hands doctrine', sometimes known as Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, is specifically applied to copyright in the 2015 English legal text Law for Artists. At p176 is this statement:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - from a dishonorable cause, an action cannot arise (you cannot, for example, claim copyright in a work created through criminal activity.)
--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that freedom of panorama does not apply here under British law - and thus that the CC tag for the photographer does not apply. You are incorrect that image copyright should not be discussed here, as it remains a FAC criterion.
- For every source saying graffiti cannot be copyrighted, you find another that says it can (even in the UK). The legal theory underlying this debate remains largely untested by the courts (though as you note that could change in future). This is why Commons policy is to tag such images as non-free. It is also Commons policy that copyright doesn't disappear just because someone is unlikely to pursue a claim. Now, Commons keeps these images around regardless, so a case could be made for IAR as Andrew suggested above - but that doesn't mean they are free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does does that mean that, in this specific case, Nikkimaria would be willing to WP:IAR, as the vast majority of contributors to this debate seem to hold a different view to the one that you have cogently argued throughout?— Rod talk 14:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You will need to remove the CC tag as it does not apply; the image is otherwise already tagged as non-free, so with rationale it can be kept. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm confused I thought you said the CC tag applied to the photographer (in this case User:Ajuk), which may be important for the other 20 foreign language wikipedia's the image is used on.— Rod talk 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The CC tag is correct, as I said above, and needs to be kept. It indicates the licence under which the image has been released by the photographer. Removing or changing the tag would infringe the photographer's copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's meant to. We would always consider the photographer's copyright in cases where freedom of panorama could apply - in other words, in representations of 3D works. As Michael points out, that isn't the case here - this is a representation of a 2D graphic work. The WMF's position is that such reproductions do not garner a copyright for the photographer, and that only the original artist's copyright should be considered regardless of the work's country of origin (in other words, following US law, despite the fact that under UK law the photographer can claim copyright on the photo). If you wanted to be absolutely clear on the matter, you could keep the CC tag but specify that it is for the photo only, while the non-free tag applies to the underlying artwork. You just can't keep an unannotated CC tag, as it could give the impression that the artwork is CC-licensed when it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While we can't change or alter the photographer's licences, it will do no harm to state explicitly what rights they applies to. I have amended the info on the image to specify that "The photographer's rights have been released under the following licences"... --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thank you. Now we just need to add a rationale and we can put this discussion to bed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By 'rationale', do you mean under WP:NFCCP? That doesn't seem to apply as this is not a standard non-free image held on the English Wikipedia, but a free image held on Commons. No doubt a local use rationale could be created anyway, if it would assuage your concerns, but where would the information go? It can't be added to the image page on Commons, as English Wikipedia-specific text isn't appropriate for a Wikimedia-wide image. Perhaps it could be added to this page, and kept as a record here? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia requires that a use rationale be present on the image description page of any media tagged as non-free that is used here, as this one is. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's bloody not! It is tagged as free, because it's on Commons, and we don't allow stuff that isn't free! If you don't think it's free, tag it for deletion on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's tagged as non-free graffiti in accordance with the guidance of COM:GRAFFITI, since it is neither PD due to age nor covered by freedom of panorama. You yourself pointed out the apparent conflict between treatment of graffiti and the general prohibition on non-free material on Commons, in previous discussions about that policy; as another commenter in the various discussions noted, "This is a case where COM:PRP typically is ignored and where unfree images are accepted" on Commons. Since this conflict does not exist on Wikipedia, we can use such images here so long as the non-free tag is accompanied by an appropriate rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The WMF rule I believe you are referring to is the PD-ART policy that "faithful reprodutions of public domain images are not copyrightable", however I would not be sure that that applies here - I'm not sold that this is entirely without photographic effort. PD-ART is meant to be about old images from galleries where the composition is constrained, not for an open streetscene. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, we have to agree to differ, but I have to point out that you appear to be in a minority of one here. All other contributing editors, as well as those who reverted the removal of the image when attempted by Rodw in an effort to overcome your concerns, disagree, as does the entire community on Commons who have determined by long consensus that such images can and should be held. As I'm sure you know, Commons is a free media repository, part of the purpose of which is to provide easy-to-use media for other Wikimedia sites, including the English Wikipedia. Individual opinions that media hosted there are not 'sufficiently free' based on some different, personal and local, definition of what 'free' means subverts the entire purpose of the Foundation in setting up that sister project in the first place. In the circumstances, I'd suggest you simply cast your !vote against this article being promoted, and leave it to others to judge consensus. I am really sorry that it's not been possible to deal with this to our mutual satisfaction. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no - it's actually Commons itself that says that such images are non-free, not any "personal and local" definition. If Commons chooses to host such images regardless, well, that's a policy contradiction that Commons will need to resolve at some point (see the multiple discussions regarding COM:GRAFFITI there). For our part, English Wikipedia is happy to use non-free images so long as they include a rationale. The article could be promoted with the image if one were to be added to its description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a possible way to overcome this impasse be to copy the image back to wikipedia (presumably with a different filename) and add a "fair use" statement to the file on wp without affecting the file on commons? (It was originally uploaded to wp in April 2007 and transferred to commons in April 2008).— Rod talk 18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I have now copied it to File:Banksy-ps2.jpg, attempting to apply a fair use rationale, but I have found this process very difficult as different templates appear to be used on Commons to those on wp. I have asked for help at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Banksy graffiti and fair use rationale and any guidance about whether I have done this right would be appreciated.— Rod talk 08:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You could copy the template itself from Commons to Wikipedia to give the more specific information, but in the interim I've added the 2D art tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which template? - I tried to copy everything to give the history etc. I added the "Non-free media information and use rationale for Bristol", but it now says "To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." I thought I'd done this using Template:Non-free use rationale but obviously done something wrong.— Rod talk 14:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that part is fine (that message is just part of the template, to remind people to do that). What I'm suggesting is that you could create {{non-free graffiti}} on English. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Pigsonthewing has kindly done this as I've never created a template.— Rod talk 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thanks both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
