Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 8

Non-commercial use only

It seems that Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted matirial that is allowed for non-commercial use, but I can't figure out why this decision was made. Isn't Wikipedia a registered charity, and therefore non-commercial? --Arctic Gnome 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia wants to create freely reusable material. Matter which can only be used on Wikipedia but not elsewhere is not freely reusable. Rmhermen 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are discussions about this all over. Basically there's currently a jihad against most copyrighted photos. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Proposal_for_Simplification_of_Policy_regarding_Promotional_Photos. I don't believe Rmhermen's citation of Wikimedia goals is correct (at least, he provides no link to policy). Wiki policy when it comes to copyright is decided by users and consensus, like all other policy issues, and there's not been any consensus made at all when it comes to certain kinds of copyrighted non-comm images like promotional photos of people.--Jeff 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No this is the official straight-from-Jimbo reasoning on non-commercial media: mailing list post Rmhermen 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's useful and informative. I see Jimbo didn't directly address the issue of promotional photos of people though. I still think non-comm promo photos should be allowed. Jimbo only cites inanimate objects as examples of non-comm images that should be deleted. That I don't have too much of a problem with. --Jeff 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Followup. Rmhermen, you may be interested in a reply to Jimbo's post by Erik Moller, a Wikimedia board member. [1]. In it he states clearly that there are such things that should be whitelisted fair use, and that includes publicity photos. Therefore, one could guess that Jimbo's intent was not to eliminate fair use publicity photos. --Jeff 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I found that neither useful nor informative. It was just Jimbo ranting about how much he hates non-commercial-use-only images and how we have "tolerated" them for too long. He never gives a reason for why a non-commercial web site can't use non-commercial-use-only images. The examples he gives are images where it would be easy to get a free alternative, but what about for non-commercial-use-only images that would be impossible to replace, like images of dead people? For those, why does Jimbo want us to fall back on a fair use justification when we are aloud to use them as much as we want according to the copyright holders? --Arctic Gnome 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What it seems to basically signify is, because WP content is licenced under the GFDL, we're warranting that it can be used by anyone, for any (non-defamatory) purpose. if we host material that's subject to copyright restrictions, then we can't make that assurance on our content, which limits what Wikipedia material can be used for in an arbitrary way that's hard to police internally, and will invariably lead to conflict externally from time to time. So where possible, material licenced for non-commercial use is to be replaced by material that is licenced for all use; when this isn't possible then questions get asked around "do we really need it", "can it be shown some other way", "is there a fair-use justification" and so on. Hope that helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, I disagree with what you say. First off, Images are almost never licensed under GFDL. Most of the time, if an image is freely licensed, its creative commons. Images and Text are wholly separate. Secondly, I disagree with your rationale for why Wikipedia can't host copyrighted images because it's dismissive and I think you're just wrong about what it will lead to. It's very easy to establish straightforward, simple policy on the subject that is clear cut and easy to police.--Jeff 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that while images don't have to be licensed under the GFDL, they do need to be licensed somehow that is compatable with the GFDL. If they can't be used that way, they really can't be hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is the exceptional rule of fair-use images, but that is something very exceptional and not justification for using non-commercial use only images freely within Wikipedia. Text and images are not seperate issues here, BTW, as they are both covered under the same part of law. I will admit, however, that the issues with images seem to be much more problematic. --Robert Horning 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, FT2, that explains a lot. Nevertheless, in the back of my mind Jimbo's rant against non-commercial-use-only images makes me think that he's planing to make Wikimedia commercial one day and get rich off of our work. --Arctic Gnome 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The cool thing about "making Wikimedia commercial" is that he can't have a monopoly on the content if he does that. There are people such as Gracenote, who used a community donation system to build up a free music album and track list database called CDDB. That they went "commercial" and then closed off their database to people who had contributed to building this database in the first place. If there are worries about what Mr. Wales might do in the future, it is certainly tainted with this experience and others like it. Fortunately, the GFDL protects against that, together with copies of the content database that are free to download, giving the opportunity for 3rd parties to come in and set up a fork of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects that would remain available in essentially the same form that Wikipedia can be accessed today.

BTW, there is nothing stoping you from "making a profit" off of Wikipedia right now, if you wanted to go through the effort. But making the effort to "publish" Wikipedia, put it on CD-ROMs, and other similar projects is exactly what it would take. What is important here is that nobody has exclusive arrangements for the usage of Wikimedia content. --Robert Horning 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I can't speak for Jimbo, I'm strongly opposed to a more relaxed fair use policy and use of non-commercial images. This has nothing to do with wanting to make wikipedia commercial in the future, but more to do with wanting to keep wikipedia 'free' content. Non-commercial use (& no derivatives) and fair use is not free content. There may very well be just cause to print or make available wikipedia e.g. to poor people in Africa. Non-free content complicates this matter given the great project itself is non-commercial, it's likely to be a mess). While non-commercial use may seem better then fair use, it's still not free. We greatly restrict fair use and by banning non-commercial, we ensure these restrictions apply to non-commercial as well. By having these restrictions, many people including me believe we encourage people to find replacaments and discourage people who have the content from licensing their content restrictively and thinking that's enough. It's your content and you can do what you want with it, but we don't your restrictive content unless we it fulfills our fair use criteria. If people still choose to restrictively license their content, that's sad but in the end we haven't really lost that much, but when people see the light, that's good! Nil Einne 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fair use images of art and modern artists

While I consider artwork of older artist like Leonardo da Vinci to be in the public domain with attempts by museums to copyright his work to be silly, I can't say the same about more modern artists who have died in the latter half of the 20th Century or are even still alive.

Of particular concern was the exmaples of artwork by M. C. Escher. Citing "fair use" here I think goes way over the top, and is a reason to strongly consider citing most of the images in that article as a blatant copyright violation. In the case of Escher, copyright is clearly asserted and republication of Mr. Escher's lithographs and artwork can only be done with (in this case propritary and non-GFDL compatable) licensing.

It is precisely this situation that I helped to draft on Wikibooks the Fair Use Policy, which would out of hand completely dismiss images like this. BTW, this policy on Wikibooks was based on the Italian Wikipedia official policy on fair use, which I find to be a very reasonable in terms of interpreting fair-use and permitting most of what is being used right now under fair-use on en.wikipedia.

The reason why I mention this category is that I find frankly almost all of these images to be in violation of copyright, at least if fair-use is the only justification to their inclusion within Wikipedia. Yes, perhaps the "critical commentary" about them may have some minor justifications, but that is really stretching the application of fair-use here. Under this sort of inclusion it is sort of suggesting that copyright doesn't apply to Wikipedia.

I also consider notices like Image:Hand with Reflecting Sphere.jpg#Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act to be downright offensive. If you know that the image is in violation of copyright, it needs to be deleted. Pure and simple. It is a copyright violation. Demanding that the copyright owner first make a request and turn it into a WP:OFFICE is requiring far too much from the copyright owner, and is in effect saying that Wikipedia doesn't care about copyright at all. If notices like this appear elsewhere, it should be replaced with {{copyvio}} instead. Seriously. I can't think of justification to keep images like this if the copyright is seriously in question. --Robert Horning 10:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would for the most part agree with you. However "Hand with Reflecting Sphere" warrants its own article. The use of the image there fits my understanding of fair use. Its use in the Escher article is less likely to meet fair use, in my opinion. (I am not a lawyer.) Dsmdgold 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I need to study up a bit more over fair use, but IMHO even using it in seperate articles specifically about the artwork is really skating on very thin ice, legally speaking. If I were an artist who had art work displayed on Wikipedia like most of these in this category, I would demand its immediate removal as a blatant copyright violation. If I were to publish any of the articles in dead-tree format, I would feel inclined to gain formal permission from the copyright holders first, but that would also imply that they are incompatable with the GFDL. I certainly would be watching by back legally and worrying that even one of the artists whose artwork is depicted in this category might not feel it warrented to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

BTW, are there clear examples of something like this in an encyclopedia (like even Encyclopedia Brittanica) where the publisher didn't first gain explicit permission to reproduce the representation of the artwork? I'm fairly certain that even EB has used explicit permission to license these images for their own encyclopedia, even though in that case propritary licensing is used. --Robert Horning 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure EB doesn't use fair use at all, and indeed it's questionable if fair use applies to EB. My understanding of fair use is that it will probably be acceptable to include the artists work, at a low resolution when an article is talking in detail about the painting. Compiling all the artists works in an article on the other hand is definitely wrong Nil Einne 12:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how low is "low-resolution"? I'm still not convinced that even in this situation it applies accurately, and my quesiton still stands: Can any other publication (non-internet encyclopedia that is widely used or even some other reference publication) be demonstrated that uses artistic works like this under fair-use guidelines? I can think of some art works that have guides and publications about them, but they have all been "used with permission" through a licensing arrangement by either the artist or an agent resonsible for that artwork. Or they are all books about classical art works where copyright doesn't directly apply. This is specifically about contemporary artists and their works, which I seriously don't think a legitimate example can be demonstrated from something by a major publisher. That is IMHO a pretty low bar to provide a counter argument to what I'm saying. I'm also strongly suggesting that this puts Wikipedia in a position for a major legal "bulls-eye" about this class of images. Just one significant publication is all I'm asking for that gives an example of a major publication displaying contemporary art works without explicit licening. I don't think you can find one. "Public Art" might be reasonable (for example, a statue in a public park paid for with public money), but that would be public-domain art, and not fair-use of that content. --Robert Horning 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Car manual external links

(Discussion continued from Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Car_manual_external_links) A few days ago I reverted the addition of http://www.analogstereo.com/ to several sites e.g. BMW 7 Series, then reverted my revert since I was not sure. I was about to remove all references in all articles - there are currently 97 articles containing this. From one point of view it contains usefull downloads of manuals, from another it may be a multiple copyright violation. Let me knnow, I've got an AWB script set up to delete them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyrights

If a photograph is published in a volume which is not copyrighted, is the photo in the public domain? MisfitToys 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer: NO!

More complicated answer, it depends on a whole number of factors. If the volume is published by the U.S. Government (or other similar entity with similar PD publications) the answer is "maybe".

If you are fairly certain that the images were originally published prior to 1923 (in the USA) it is likely that the image is in the public domain. Otherwise you have to use the "Life+70" rule and find out when the photographer died.

Current copyright law doesn't require formal copyright registration, and presumes that every "creative artwork" including drawings and photos fall under copyright as soon as they have been put into a "fixed medium", whatever you want to call that. At that point, the "author" must explicitly grant an artwork to the public domain in order for it to be so, and even then you run into some problems.

Besides all of this, how do you know that the volume you are talking about is not copyrighted? Is there an explicit disclaimer that says "this work is not copyrighted"? I have (very, very rarely) seen that done in a very few books. If you can't find a copyright notice, that doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. It just means you don't know. All you can do then is put it in a lock box for 200 years to presume that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years, and even then it isn't a firm guarentee. --Robert Horning 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: it's a 2006 publication with no copyright or publisher info, just a note of who assembled the material. Various photographers are listed, but without identifying which ones took which photos. Thanks for the replies, anyway; I wasn't planning on using the photos, but mainly wanted to know the answer for future reference. MisfitToys 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A question concerning an images copyrights ...

I Don't know if this is the correct spot to ask a question but ... When I want to include a section of text about a product with an image of that product, and I go to the creators/owners site to look for images. I see a nice image and then Email them and ask if I (and wikipedia;hence the rest of the world) can use that specific image. What if they tell me they don't care and that I and others can do with it as they please. Doesn't that mean they've released the image in the public domain?Rex 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• No. Unless they specifically state that they release the image in the public domain, they have not released it as such. "We don't care" is not a legal statement. >Radiant< 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh>, I'll re send the email then ... Rex 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be public domain though, the GFDL is also fine. >Radiant< 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

status of Image:0001v.jpg

I thought this was ok because the image, and the whole book, as part of a whole series of works by different artists and businesses, was "Gift of the artists and DC Comics (the specific image used is the story-cover under "Scott Kolins, Dan Panosian, Joe Kelly, John Workman, Wake up, 2001 Kolins, Panosian, Kelly, Workman Wake up [Page 1]" about 1/4 of the webpage down. So I applied {{PD-USGov}}. That's been challenged.

I also note a variety of related options - first I am in contact with the artist and he made no objections of the pictures, second there are a number of comicbook related copyright options under Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use but the above seemed to me the most straight forward.

I wanted to use this art for part of the article on Scott Kolins - it being an example first of his pencil work (as almost everything available is actually colored and inked) and second a statement of his commitment on the matter of 9-11. Yes I know my name is similar to the subject of the page - I am in fact his brother - but we went through all that with the article (see the talk page) and I've tried to have a hands-off approach since it developed enough since I got warnings that it just didn't look right for me to be involved. This copyright problem got brought to my attention as I uploaded the image. Frankly if it were one of the other pictures at stake I wouldn't make a fuss but this is the only released work of the pencils (the specific style of the art that he is most involved with though as stated in the article he's done all the steps at various times and the art present he did all of) I've seen with even a hope of copyrights being ok for wikipedia - and I really thought this was right on target. But I'm no lawyer. However the person who flagged it admitted it was a gray area but had recieved secondary opinions that it wasn't ok. He pointed out the art wasn't created by the government and I had used a notice specifically only for creations of the Fed government.

I'd welcome any guidance on how to make this situation right. If my involvement is questionable and someone else wants to pursue the matter fairly that would be fine too. Thansk for your attention.--Smkolins 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are comments also here under "Comic Book Art and Political Cartoons" which says in part " donated 335 original drawings to the Library." Scanning up and down the samples one can examine a variety of statements about copyright status - they range from " Gift of the artist" to "Gift of the artists and DC Comics" as in this case, to "© 2001 Tribune Media Services, Inc., all rights reserved Gift of the Artist". Perhaps this information can be helpful clearing up this matter.--Smkolins 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all, {{PD-USGov}} is used for works produced by the US government. Unless the artwork was done by an employee of the US government, it can't be {{PD-USGov}}. Second, in virtually all other cases, copyright automatically applies to any creative work at the time of its creation. The copyright holder may transfer the copyright to another entity, including the US government, but it remains copyrighted. If the artists 'gave' the works to the library, the library would be the copyright holder. Releasing a copyrighted creative work to the public domain requires an explicit statement from the copyright holder (I'm not sure what form the statement would have to be in to be effective). Copyright holders may also license the items under copyright. To be treated as a free image on Wikipedia, the creative work needs to licensed under the GFDL or an equivalent license such as some of the Creative Commons licenses. -- Donald Albury 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations of ancient writers and their translations

My excuses in advance if this not the right place to ask this question. I would like to cite some statements of ancient writers, like Herodotus. But i know the citaions i find on the internet are translated from their origin languages (Latin or Greek). Do I violate the copyrights of the autors when citing the translated citations in my article?! If yes, does it remain a violation if i referred to the site as a source?! This is an example:
They begin with the ear of the victim, which they cut off and throw over their house: this done, they kill the animal by twisting the neck. They sacrifice to the Sun and Moon, but not to any other god. This worship is common to all the Libyans. (book IV.168-198).
It is originally said by Herodotus, but now it is translated and i copied it from the site who posted the translated version on his pages (This one). Thanks in advance, Read3r 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Translations are subject to copyright. A translation made by an author who died more than 70 years will generally be in the public domain, but more recent works remain copyrighted. You can cite and link to such translations on the web but quotations from the translations are subject to 'fair use' rules. Quotations must be short and essential to the context. -- Donald Albury 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about U.S. federal law

I am hoping for some opinions from people knowledgable about United States federal law, including copyright law. There is currently a dispute regarding the use of an image of the emblem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ([2], [3]). User:Patchbook has stated that the use of Image:Policelight.jpg violates Title 18 United States Code ([4]). Other users are stating that this is not the case, and as a U.S. government image, it is public domain. I'm a neutral third party who stumbled onto the dispute, but as a Wikipedian I am of course worried about a possible violation of the law. Can any experts here help shed some light on this issue? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The statutes which User:Patchbook has used clearly do not apply here, specifically United States Code Title 18 [5]. Ginkgo, image clearly does not violate copyright, and certainly does not violate any title 18 laws. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright-wise, it's in the public domain. There may be non-copyright restrictions on use, such as a prohibition on impersonating an FBI officer, or a prohibition on using it to imply an association with the FBI, but those aren't things Wikipedia would be doing. --Carnildo 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't be any copyright violation because such things as badges aren't covered by copyright law. (Copyrights have expiration dates, in any case, and an organization wouldn't want its symbol to lapse into the public domain for use by just anyone.) Symbols such as the FBI's badge would be protected by trademarks, if they are protected at all. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and not Title 18, is where one should be looking to find out if there are any restrictions on this particular image. Whyaduck 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Title 18 does prevent some (obvious) uses of government seals, LEO badges, etc. Mainly you can't defraud or deceive people using these symbols, i.e. having an LEO badge as a collectors item is fine, using it in an encyclopedia is fine, use of a LEO badge by non-LE officials to arrest people, not fine. I'll look into the USPTO to see what restrictions, if any, there are. Thanks for the suggestion. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is an image of a police badge titled "police light"? Rmhermen 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Because at first the logo was to be that of a police cars light. SGGH 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Title 18 and opinion on FBI Image use

My concern has nothing to do with copyright. My concern is not about use of the image of the FBI badge, or seal, or term FBI in general, for informational Wikipedia articles. I believe that to be lawful under current law.

I suggest individuals go to the official FBI website [6] and examine "A LAST WORD TO THE WISE" at the bottom of the page. You will find an official posting indicating the position of the FBI on use of the name and logos.

My concern stems from using the FBI badge logo for personal or group ID, or awards in Wikipedia. This would appear to violate USC Title 18, PART 1, Chapter 33, Section 709 [7], which restricts unauthorized use of names of federal agencies. The section authorizes the US Attorney to prosecute unless the parties have written permission of the Director of the FBI.

Since the Wikipedia law enforcement group and individual members of it are using the badge likeness, it infers endorsement by the FBI which is what the federal law mentioned strictly addresses and prohibits without authorization.

An option would be to either formally request permission for the Wikipedia law enforcement group to use the FBI badge logo from the Director of the FBI, or to formally request a legal opinion from the US Attorney. Both options might cause unwise scrutiny to Wikipedia.

Another option would be to design a generic emblem to replace the FBI badge logo for the use of your Wikipedia law enforcement group which would not be in conflict with the laws.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is NOT to be construed as legal advise.Patchbook 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The FBI link you included is completely out of context. I suggest editors who believe there is any credibility in user Patchbook's claim, to first read the above previous discussions, then follow the link he provided to an FBI page [8], of which the following is quoted:.

“ Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000. ”

Obviously businesses who want to deter piracy (film distributors and the like) need to apply for official permission to use said seal to deter crime. This is not the seal we are using, and would have no use with such an anti-piracy seal, as Wikipedia is free to copy, with the license, thounsands of times. The goal is free knowledge, we don't retrict it's copying. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have plenty of public domain material whose use is not free in certain countries. The FBI seal is free of copyright under 17 U.S.C. 105: its use is obviously not free in the United States, but is in other countries. See {{Nazi symbol}} for another class of works whose use is restricted in some countries, or Image:U.S. one dollar obverse.jpg for an image whose reproductions cannot necessarily be freely distributed in the US. Physchim62 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The FBI link to the Cyber Taskforce was just one example of the numerous warnings posted on various FBI official sites regarding use of FBI logos and wording. Since Wikipedia is legally headquartered in the US, more attention to the laws of the US are always wise. The matter was referred to the Wikipedia Foundation legal staff, and the US Attorney to resolve, and the FBI logo has since been replaced with a more appropriate logo and disclaimer by the Wikiproject-law enforcement group, so the issue is now mute.Patchbook 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

where put acknowledgement ?

Top of Wikipedia:Copyrights says "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version .. acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). .." If wikipedia content is copied to another wiki, can wiki#2 have the acknowledgment on the talk page? --24.85.26.49 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. If you'd follow the 1st point regarding "Record information" of the transwiki procedure (see m:Help:Transwiki#Begin transwiki: "On the [...] talk page, copy and paste the original page's history log under a new heading [...] If there are only a few authors, you can note them in your creation edit summary instead") there wouldn't be a problem;
2. Otherwise, if you want to take advantage of the allowed exception ("a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement" as quoted by you above): in that case "direct link" supposes you put it on the page where the copied content is pasted. (Having to click to a talk page before being able to click the link to the Wikipedia article would be an "indirect link" wouldn't it?) --Francis Schonken 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vector graphic images as corporate logos

If fair-use of corporate logos require them to be used in low-resolution only, why does wikipedia allow .svg images as corporate logos. Shouldn't the usage be restricted to low-resolution raster images. If this discussion has taken place before, can someone point out the discussion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it has, probably somewhere in the archives... Nil Einne 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

US gov PD

This question arises every so often but I don't know if it's ever been clearly discussed. Am I right that when USgov PD is used, it should always clearly be a work originally produced by the US gov? The cases I'm thinking of are primarily of photos of people regarded as criminals, terrorists etc. Often the US government releases photos but where they come from is not clear. In some cases, it seems likely they may have been taken by people associated with the people pictured. While the US government may not care about the copyrights of those they consider criminals and terrorists, my understanding and personal opinion is we should.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this before when pictures have been released e.g. of alleged Al-Qaeda members when it seems unlikely the work was produced by the US goverment. The specific case that brought this to mind is this Image:Barzan ibrahim.jpg. The photo is from the playing cards. Where it came from is unclear. Possibly it was an old photo from when the US was still friendly with Iraq in which case it would be USgov PD. Alternatively, it could have come from somewhere else. Should the copyright status of this be disputed? Nil Einne 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. There should always be a specific source on every image. If there isn't tag it with {{subst:nsd}} (no source date). If a source isn't provided, it should be deleted in 7 days. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Websites like amazon

I was trying to fix up the Beastie Boys pages by uploading the single cover for one of their singles. I obtained the single cover from amazon.comn's page, but I am not sure what license to give it. I have yet to find any info about copyright status. Do you know what I should do about the licensing? Maplejet 14:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

These images can only be used under fair use. The appropriate tag here is probably {{albumcover}}. However, please see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Superm401 - Talk 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You would add this text ({{albumcover}}) to the image description page. Superm401 - Talk 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Notice

I have modified the GFDL notice to say that it must link to a local (on the redistributor's server) copy of the GFDL. This is based on the GFDL requirement that "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies" [emphasis added]. This fits with guidelines at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Superm401 - Talk 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted;

• Keep the link to the gnu.org page on fdl (that's where you start to make the copy isn't it?)

It doesn't matter. They can copy from WP:GFDL, or anywhere else. All GFDL copies should be the same. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't, layout-wise. Gnu.org offers 4 or 5 layouts (depending on circumstance, not all of these are even suitable for the same goals, eg print vs. web); the WP:GFDL copy (with its wiki layout) is only relevant in MediaWiki surroundings. Besides, the longer you're making the text on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page the less likely it is going to be read and followed. --Francis Schonken 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the layout is different, but layout doesn't matter. We can be brief, but not if it means actively saying the wrong thing. Superm401 - Talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• People need to follow the GFDL, every letter of it, it's not as if we're going to spell out every letter of it on this "copyrights" page (or say here that such-and-such paragraph of the GFDL is more important than such-and-such other paragraph of the GFDL).

Unfortunately, no one follows the letter of the GFDL, not even Wikipedia (they're a distributor too). We can't spell out every letter, but we can avoid giving people incorrect advice (like linking to an external copy of the GFDL). We also do need to tell people what's most important, and that's what we do at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks . I put back the link as a reference, but we still need to tell people to use a local link. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not your/our problem - I'd rather have people copy an article of Wikipedia with a copyright notice that includes *that* link to the gnu.org website, than no link at all. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - it is linked several times from the Wikipedia:Copyrights page and we don't repeat all the content of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks on Wikipedia:Copyrights. Why would we need two separate pages otherwise? --Francis Schonken 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course copyright violation is our problem. If it isn't, why do we have this page and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks? I prefer any link to nothing too, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing which one we should recommend. I believe the GFDL requires a duplicate of the license, so we should indicate that here. As for WP:MF, we certainly aren't repeating all the info. The problem is the current version contradicts WP:MF, and I have explained why I think WP:MF is right here. Superm401 - Talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• People have a link to the GFDL text, and can read it for themselves. --Francis Schonken 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

They should, but they won't, and if they do, they won't understand it. If they do understand it, they still won't comply. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not your/our problem - If they copy it as is, with the link to the gnu.org page, that's still preferable to having no link at all. The problem is that there's no consensus for the change of the Wikipedia:Copyrights page, I have listed several reasons above for being opposed to this change, so I revert it. Please find consensus before change on policy pages. --Francis Schonken 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a valid point here, but the problem is no one pays any attention to copyright issues. For instance, I constantly ask for help with WP:MF but people (somewhat understandably) just aren't interested. However, I'll post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to try to get some more input. Superm401 - Talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, no one else was interested. I will make the changes I described at 08:58, 19 January 2007 again if no else objects. Superm401 - Talk 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

VIOLATOR HOW REPORT

This web page: [9] is a direct copy of our Scouting article, but there is no way to contact the outfit by snail mail or email. It has a copyright notice on its page. How to handle this? Rlevse 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We found an email addy. Should I notify someone at wiki?Rlevse 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is being taken care of at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#Justrec.com. If you have new contact info, add it to the section, noting your source. Superm401 - Talk 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added to the info there, but why? It looks like just a tracking log and nothing ever gets done about it. Rlevse 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of the contents of Wikipedia articles belongs to the editors of each article. Technically, only editors who have contributed to an article have standing to complain about infringements on their copyright. If you are not one of the authors, post a note to the talk page of the article and to any relevant project talk page to inform such authors of the alleged infringement. -- Donald Albury 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a major author. THe other web site copied the wiki article.Rlevse 00:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process gives you steps you can follow to deal with the infringing site. Good luck! -- Donald Albury 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice but if they choose to ignore all the letters they can and we without the legal money to fight it can do nothing else about it.Rlevse 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint messages might do the trick. You won't know until you try. Document what you do and the results at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#Justrec.com. If a site continues to blatantly infringe after being notified per the Non-compliance process, we can see if there are any other options. -- Donald Albury 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but not keeping my fingers crossed.Rlevse 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you advise I proceed in this situation?

Hi,

As I understand it, fair use of an image is considered permissible for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs.

The use of Norman Rockwell's painting of Ruby Bridges in the Norman Rockwell article probably meets the criteria but the use of the same image in the Ruby Bridges article does not meet any of these criteria.

It seems to me, therefore, that the image should be kept but the use of the image in the Ruby Bridges article should be removed.

Do you agree? Should I just be bold and delete the image or should I start a discussion somewhere? If the latter, where should that discussion be held?

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

A 'fair use' rationale must be made separately for each article in which a non-free image appears. So, yes, I agree with you, an image may meet the 'fair use' criteria in one article, but not in another. The problem is that while I think a 'fair use' rationale could be made for the image being used in the Norman Rockwell article, it has not been stated on the image page (putting a template on the page does not create a rationale). I do not see grounds for 'fair use' of the image in the Ruby Bridges or Timeline of United States history (1950-1969) articles. I will remove the image from the Timeline article, as I think that is hopeless for any 'fair-use' rationale. You can go ahead and remove the image from the Ruby Bridges article, if you wish, but you may get some flack for that. In any case, a rationale for 'fair use' of the image in the Norman Rockwell aricle nees to be added to the image page. Do you want to do that, or would you like me to do it? -- Donald Albury 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem illustrates the long standing problem here on Wikipedia with the use of "fair-use" images that don't have explict copyright permission. I have been running a one-man campaign against any fair use of modern artworks (like these Norman Rockwell paintings) for Wikipedia articles, as the rationale behind their inclusion is very shaky at best and blatantly abused at its worst. These are images that clearly have copyright, and in order to use them in this fashion they simply must have permission of the copyright holder. Particularly in this case they really don't belong in Wikipedia at all, because they are reproducing the entire piece of artwork, although admitedly at a "lower resolution" than perhaps what you would see if you saw the art work "in person".

In addition, by even having these images available in the Wikipedia database it causes problems. Once here, there are few tools to guard against these images being included in possibly infringing pages like mentioned above. I also believe that this is a very slippery slope to be standing on legally, as you can justify nearly every possible copyrighted image or painting on some sort of "fair use" basis, effectively eliminating copyright as a concept altogether for images. --Robert Horning 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I would also like to see 'fair use' more strictly limited than it is now, I'm not sure the English Wikipedia is ready to do so, per the current debate at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. -- Donald Albury 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)