Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia

Starfleet ranks and insignia[edit]

For more discussion, see this WP page.

I say this is an excelent ex-article. It was broken apart big time and downgraded into a list as article was getting colosal. I helped create this article and feel it would be a fine featured list. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well referenced, great lead, nice pictures. Phoenix2 01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have two words: image copyrights. Some are claimed as public domain as self made, others say Paramount released it to PD (proof?), others say fair use (cannot be used for decorations and in any way needs rationalles). In one word: mess. Renata 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really most of the images were drawn by wikipedia editors such as myself. All you need is paint for a large number of the images. Infact most are on commons.wiki.

I do not know if paramount released them to pd or not (not that it matters), but I do know images I and others created were released to the public domain. Some images on the page were coppied from websites as a free alternative for now is not avalible for some ranks such as the alternate universe insignias. I am not that skilled as a creator even though the designs aren't complex so if anyone willing to redraw those, I have no objections.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter if Paramount released it because, for example, Image:Star Trek The Next Generation, Alternate OF 9.gif claims that. And simply redrawing does not solve copyright issues. Imagine, I redraw Microsoft logo and use it on my own software. I will be jailed in no time. So redrawing is very much the same as simply copying. Renata 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does matter because the Microsoft logo is a TRADEMARK and protected by an entirely different set of laws and cases. The issue is whether or not the redrawing is a derivative work or not. This is a much different issue. For example, a common shape that is used by Star Trek for their insignia's (like a circle in TNG) can be copyrighted in certain contexts, but they can not prevent all others from using circles or even circles for insignia. I think that if we can straigten out whether or not these are derivative works then we can resolve the copyvio issue. Trödel 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pulling my leg? So if I take a picture of Jean-Luc Picard (patric Stewart) off screen in star trek uniform I am violating copyrights?

You can buy the pins and take the photo. Or you can use paint to draw the images.

The only issue here can be trademark, not copyright. Otherwise we will need to delete every image with a yellow circle on it as paramount owns the copyrights. This has been discussed to death and I am tried of explaining myself. have a read of m:copyright paranoia --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My whole point is that you need to fix and clean up the copyright status. Simply saying "oh, I can redraw them" does not fix anything. Renata 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'll have to ignore your comment which seems to complain about copyright of images I and fellow wikipedians have created. They are released to PD and moved to commons. Nothing you say will change that.

Now if you'd like to help with the rest of the images left on en.wiki by creating alternatives under a free license, be my guest. If not you made your point.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a Star Trek kick today, I guess. Oppose. Fair use only extends to a point, and a reproduction, even by hand, of a copyrighted work still violates copyright. -M^ask 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Copyright concerns are legitimate. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nominator appears to misunderstand trademark and copyright. Suggest the nominator obtain reprint permission from Paramount, then resubmit. Durova 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for copyright, odd organizations, and a very messy reference section. Staxringold 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the artist of some of these images in question, I mainly drew the images using Microsoft Paint based on the illustrations previously uploaded onto Wikipedia. The PD Paramount thing was not my idea, but I have seen no proof about images being released like that. Some of the images are released under PD-user|me, since I drew them. If the consensus is that the images cannot be just redrawn and retagged, then go ahead and re-tag them as such (most are at the Commons now). But, are you sure this image is for decoration, since we are showing comparisons between the different ranks from the different series. Regardless of how the situation turns out, I do not have a vested interest in this article passing FLC or nor I will step in it's way to reach that point. Any more questions can be directed to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more then just concensus, it's copyright law. When an image is copyrighted, they are not copyrighting specifically THAT IMAGE, although that image is copyrighted, they are copyrighting any other depictions of that image. Googles copyright is not on just the jpg on their homepage, but on all depictions of the word Google with a blue G, red O... et cetera. In fact, I'd be surprised if the color order itself wasn't copyrighted. Amazon get's a lot of flax for how many things they patent/trademark/copyright. The amazon.com logo contains a non-circular period (it's oval), which they copyrighted. They have successfully sued other web sites that created logos that had ovoid periods in the logo. Also, the main part of the rank insignias is the original USS Enterprise triangular-thingymabobber. I know for a fact Paramount has that under some damn strong copyright protection. Not in any way whatsoever public domain. It may become PD slightly sooner then mickey mouse will, but it'll be by about 2 minutes, and occur several million years after humans have vanished as a species. -M^ask

So if I take the photo of the earing of a monarch with my digital camera after the monarch appears on TV with, the TV station owns the copyright?

Amazons thing requires citation weather or not if amazon sued and weather or not if it was because of a period being drawn oval. By the way, A simple aschi charatcer can violate that copyright. So all ovals are copyrighted by Amazon.com? You may want to tag all images on Oval as a copyrigh violation then.
As for google, they do not and cannot copyright this text: Google, I ask you to cite a source proving otherwise. Google is a pd word and you cant copyright words in a dictionarty. [1] is the logo that appears on google. mind the tiny "TM" is not a C.
As for rank insignias, four circles or two arcs cannot be copyrighted and I find this to be quite ridiclous.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you create an image to look like another, yes, that is considered a derivitive work and copyrighted. The google you just printed up there is used under fair use. Also, it will not be found in any dictionary. Google is a deliberate misspelling of the math term Googol. How hard is this to understand Cool Cat? Copyrights copyright. You are the only one who seems to think otherwise. Might try thinking about that for a second. It usually means the loners wrong. -M^ask

19:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting any picture taken of patrick stewart is copyrighted by paramount. Or if I take my camera go to a Star Trek set and take pictures I am violating copytrights? On screen apearance of ranks were metalic. My version is a caricature at best. Your argument is flawed. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "Google" is in the public domain requires a source itself. Arguably Google is not yet at the same level as "Aspirin", for instance. I'd suggest you to read and understand the legal concept behind Genericized trademarks before making such claims. In the context of this nomination, it only shows your misunderstanding of copyright and trademarks, just as Durova above pointed out. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open up a dictionary and look for the word... wiktionary:google... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is the captain rank from TNG S1. I doubt NASA will ever credit paramount.

Or how about this one:

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those images, for one, are naturally occuring things. No one can copyright the sun, but one could copyright a paticular picture of the sun. NASA images are not copyrighted either, but when they do reprint others images, they credit them. You're creating a strawman argument here. The pictures of the sun were not created specifically to look like another work. I have Jimbo's talkpage on my watchlist. He himself, in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia_and_copyright_status_of_images_that_appear_on_it told you they were copyvios. Drop the argument, you're just making this a mockery, and not the one you want, either. -M^ask

01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to your argument if I take a photo of the sun I can declare it is copyrighted. A similar argument is that if I draw the sun on a peice of paper I can claim copyright.

Paramount owns copyright of star trek images that appeared on their show images they have filmed/photographed etc. They do not own copyrights of images I have created. I thought we respected intelectual property on wikipedia. Images I created are my property and I was nice enough to release them to the PD.

Also how can US gov talk about copyrights here: Image:Stamp-ctc-star-trek.jpg

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US Government, through the library of Congress, can designate certain images, recordings and whatnot as 'culturally significant' and use it for their own purposes without limitation, as it is a 'symbol of America'. However, they generally get permission for art on stamps. If I were paramount, thats billions worth of free advertising. No way I'd say no. -M^ask

23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine.--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support, but for the copyright concerns: not in relation to the redrawn images, but the ones that are said to be "PD-Paramount". Do we have a signed release? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed that. Those images now register as fair use. trying to come up with redrawn versions. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because of the copyright issues of the images, I have decided to make things easier for myself and others and not re-draw them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful about "fair use". Perhaps a letter to Paramount asking how they'd like to be cited would clear everything up. Usually copyright holders are happy to get the publicity. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Are you sugesting we ask permision for "fair use" or we ask permision for a free license? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge all arguments above that treat the images as a copyright infrigments. What you are suggesting as I see it is that anything that is seen on TV cannot be released with a free license.

I can draw a painting of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and release it with any license I please fit. I can also buy the starship models used in the series from the sets and release their photos with any license I please. You can copyright a spesific picture of a Segway HT or a Ferrari car, however you can't copyright all images of Ferraris just because you manufactured it.
Unless paramount owns copyrights to all images with yellow circles (Ex: ), paramount does not own the copyrights of images I and other wikipedians have created. I value the intellectual property I created.
I second the comment above by Amask: No one can copyright the sun, but one could copyright a paticular picture of the sun.. No one can copyright a yellow circle or a white one, but one could copyright a particular picture of a circle.
Images in question are not protected by "trademarks" which protect images such as microsoft logo, Google logo, Amazon.com's logo as they are a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the business and its products or services from those of other businesses.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can if the image is of nothing other then a ferrari. You duplicated a copyrighted work and put nothing in artisticly. It's against a red background, red being command color on ST, who we normally associate with the word rank- 'pulling rank' and what not. No one can copyright the sun because no one here made the sun. Paramount made those rank images for the purposes of copyright law. Since all they do, their express purpose, is to display the rank pips and circumvent a copyright with no artistic addition, then that image that you created belongs to Paramount. -M^ask

23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can recreate the image using the sun which as you point is not copyrightable. But when I compress the picture of the sun to 10px I create an image identical to the pips that appeared on star trek. Hence I am definately violating copyrights. There is an artistic addition, the red backround, the light effect, etc of which none appeared on the show. Red is the color of Command but the pips are NEVER worn on red. How would you redraw the images which would then satisfy the copyright requirements? This really is a gray area not an out right violation. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat asked for my input, so all I will say is that IMO, the images are derivative works. Remember, to be eligible for copyright in its own right, a particular work must have some creativity involved in its production. Drawing an image as closely as possible based on a copyrighted image involves little (if any) creativity. Drawing your own interpretation of that image might qualify, but certainly not where you attempt to duplicate as closely as possible a copyrighted image. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the images in the series had a red background. Also the image ratio of my images are off. The ones in the show were much smaller and further apart. It is not a screen capture.

You can take the picture of 3 coke bottles you bought. You can also do the same with three pips. What i am doing is no different than [2] (note that the captain rank insignia is visible), its just that mine was created digitaly and not painted. Also I released my image with a free licenese.

I can take the photos of the same rank insignias sold by Hollywood Pins. And the crop the photo to look identical to the computer generated images so that they are aligned to the table.

I cannot get too creative as the material discussed is the rank insignias and images should be about the rank insignias. Just like this not so creative image: Image:St Pete meetup - Jimbo's ferrari.jpg. i do not think ferrari owns the copyrights.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that a picture three Coke bottles taken directly by you probably involves some element of creativity, in the position you were standing/sitting when you took the photo, how you positioned those bottles, the background of the photo, etc. When you attempt to reproduce an image as closely as possible without adding anything creative to the process, your product is a derivative work. That is exactly why the images you have made are not eligible for your copyright without permission from the copyright-owners of the original work -- you "cannot get too creative". Image:St Pete meetup - Jimbo's ferrari.jpg involves elements of creativity, such as where the photographer was standing, where the Ferrari was placed, the lighting, and so on. There was no conscious attempt to exactly duplicate an existing photo of a Ferrari. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I made no consious attempt to duplicate what appears exactly on the show (which are always angled as they are 3d pins reflecting various objects in the set). What you say would be a screenshot. The insignias I drew have a light effect if you consider that an element of creativity...
  
  I just drew for circles next to each other which doesnt require a lot of talent. Even a 4 year old can draw circles (really they should be ineligable for copyright). I just used a computer tool to draw the images rather than taking a photo of hollywood pin product. Are we not allowed to use computer tools to draw images? What I did is little difernt from: . The 4 images each are pd. Why cant I claim my circles are pd?
  
  Please understand this is being extremely frustrating for me. I do not enjoy second guessing myself so I ask you, how would you do it? Note that the focus of the images must be the rank insignia as that is the thing compared.
  
  I prefer to use images with a free license whenever posible. That is why I created these images.
  
  --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Two images showing the captain rank insignia from the show: Image:Picard1.jpg Image:Sisko8.jpg. My image: . See the diference?
  
  I am no expert in copyrights or trademarks, however I do not see an issue based on my udnerstanding of the articles.
  
  --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I do not want this page representing this project. John Reid 06:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not a criteria of featured lists. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to remain civil but it's a little difficult what with you going around and arguing with every oppose. I suggest that you do not want me to spend an hour or two marshalling objections. I don't like it. Why don't you just let that be enough? (By the way, criteria is plural.) John Reid 13:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a discussion, not a vote. If you refuse to be transparent about what you base your recommendation on, what is there to discuss? We're here to gather consensus through discussion, not take a vote. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to be polite here; I think you may just not understand how hostile I am to this page. Rather than bring out the full extent of my objections, I've limited myself simply to noting that I feel it is unacceptable. This is not something you can argue about or fix. You don't really want me to crank on it any more. John Reid 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats still not a featured list criteria. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is. Its the first one. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. If he doesn't like it, in his view it doesn't represent our best work. All Featured xxxxxx have their own version of that criteria. Featured Pictures have to be something you believe looks pleasing to the eye. He can't say he votes against it because he doesn't like television shows, or star trek, but he can vote against it if he doesn't like the list/doesn't think it's up to snuff. Please read the Featured List Criteria next time. -M^ask 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, AKMask, for saying politely what I was nearly tempted into expressing in much stronger language. John Reid 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People - this article has not been a featured list candidate for over 2 weeks, so this debate is going nowhere fast. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]