|
'''Please consider to ask at [[Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights]] or at [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]] if you like to get a quick answer'''
== Do Images on Wikipedia need to be under the GFDL? ==
see also: [[meta:permission grant extent]]
It doesn't have to be placed under
It doesn't have to be placed under the GFDL - see [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] - but a statement as to its copyright status, permission, etc., should be placed in the image file ([[:Image:LeCarreJohn.JPG]]). - [[User:Montrealais|Montréalais]]
\: If you do decide to upload the images, make sure that their copyright status is ''clearly marked'' on the image description page, as described in [[wikipedia:image use policy]]. Talking of which, I've made a suggested change to the policy on image copyright at [[wikipedia talk:image use policy]] which would benefit from extra eyes... [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]
don't simply say "can we use it", but you also say "will you release it under GFDL". Difference within there is. -[[User:º¡º|º¡º]]
----
I still am not sure about the conventions about images and
copyrights. I had an interchange with [[user:isis]] in
[[Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom]], and I'm still
not sure that a note shouldn't be posted in the talk of the page that the image is used under fair use doctrine. Isis
thinks that a better explanation should be given, for people
not to be "afraid" of using images. So do I. If this was already discussed and decided, please point me to the proper place [[User:AstroNomer|AstroNomer]] 22:38 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)
I think the best place for such a notice is the image description page. Just something simple, like "Cover of videotape of XXX, used under fair use." or something along those lines. But it should definitely be attached to the image, not the article, so that people who might want to use the image in ways that wouldn't qualify for fair use can see that we specifically aren't claiming that it is GFDL'd.
There's not a specific policy to do this, but I think you're right that there should be. --[[User:Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]]
:The desire to disclose what is and is not public ___domain, GFDL, and/or copyrighted material used under fair use is laudable, but (IMHO) totally unnecessary and counterproductive. If someone wants to use Wikipedia content in some way that is not consistent with the terms of the GFDL, it should be left up to them to determine whether that other use is permissible. Our primary concern should be determining whether the items we use on Wikipdedia can be licensed under the GFDL: Nothing more; nothing less. And by limiting our disclosure as to what is not restricted by the terms of the GFDL, we can encourage compliance with the exact terms of the GFDL.--[[user:netesq|NetEsq]]
:GFDL includes the right of charge money or even make a profit with the information, fair use, i think, not (correct me if I'm wrong) So we can use audio samples, images under fair use, but they will be NOT licensable by GFDL so people must know that.[[User:AstroNomer|AstroNomer]]
::''This poses an interesting legal question, but I am not aware of any legal restriction on fair use which might kick in by virtue of charging for content distributed under the GFDL. To wit:
::"[T]he more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 1171 (1994).
::In other words, if Wikipedia's use of copyrighted content is fair use, it should remain fair use when it is distributed for profit under the GFDL. If not, we shouldn't be using that content in the first place.--[[user:netesq|NetEsq]]''
:That's right. Please say it again to make sure everybody heard you. -- [[User:Isis|isis]] 6 Sep 2002
I'm going to make a few observations here, and then I have to concentrate on my paying work until 17 September, so I'm not going to be able to participate actively in any discussion in the meantime.<br>
When you think about the issue of using pictures of created objects (including book and videotape covers) in the 'pedia, ask yourself why you think it's any different from making and using pictures of Campbell soup cans. Then ask yourself what the difference is between PathMark's using those pictures in its ads and Andy Warhol's using the cans in his paintings: Why can't Campbell's complain about either use? Why don't those users have to get Campbell's permission first? Are they making money out of their use of the pictures?<br>
The reasons NetEsq is right that there's no reason to put a "fair use" disclaimer in the image descriptions (and my reasons for thinking it's inadvisable) are:<br>
If it's fair use of the image, it's fair use whether we say so or not; if it were not fair use, saying it was wouldn't make it so. We can know only that it's fair use for us, not for anyone who takes it from us and uses it for something else down the line, and they may think our saying it's fair use makes it fair use for them, too, and they might be wrong.<br>
Asking contributors to recite (in the image description) the legal opinion that it's fair use is like asking a kindergartner to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury -- he'll do it, but he won't understand what it means, and it might make him uncomfortable about the situation, so he won't want to do it ever again. -- [[User:Isis|isis]] 7 Sep 2002
----
I want to use some pics off Boeings site www.boeing.com . The copyright notice is this:<br>
<i>Terms and Conditions of Personal, Non-Commercial Image Use:
The images on these pages are provided subject to the following terms and conditions.
Boeing owns and retains the copyrights in the images except as noted. No copyright license (either express or implied) is granted to the user, other than the right to reproduce the images without alteration for non-commercial, personal use only.</i><br>
Can I use them for Wikipedia? [[User:Arpingstone|Adrian Pingstone]] 17:34 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
:Under those conditions, no. Wikipedia would need to right to alter them at the least. -[[User:º¡º|º¡º]]
::Correction please: "The word "alteration" refers to making changes that alter the purpose and facts of the picture. Example: putting a logo on the side for advertising or by protestors to put up anti-Boeing slogans or other uses that might affect the company's image in a way they do not want. However, to alter the size to fit an encylopedia is fine. In fact, the executive at Boeing would be pleased if you put up a picture and wrote a nice history of every plane they ever made. Thank you very much. [[User:Wei Chin Ho]]
:::But end-users of the wikipedia should be able to use the images any way they see fit. Under Boeing's copyright, this content would not be 'free' and the Wikipedia would be 'The (Mostly) Free Encyclopedia' [[User:Jordan Langelier|Jordan Langelier]]
:GFDL also allows one to make as much money as one can get away with selling the content, which is contradictory to Boeing's conditions. Also, I'm sure they would object to a Wikipedia picture with a large arrow added pointing to, say, a design or construction flaw, should that ever prove desirable for an article. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 18:07 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
: Yep, that licence is not compatible with the spirit of the GFDL. Therefore, you can't honestly check the tickbox that says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright" on [[Special:Upload]]. That may or may not be a source of concern for you. Personally I think that the upload page should have extra checkboxes for "fair use", "wikipedia-only", and "public ___domain" and people should have to select one of the four.
: If you do decide to upload the images, make sure that their copyright status is ''clearly marked'' on the image description page, as described in [[wikipedia:image use policy]]. Talking of which, I've made a suggested change to the policy on image copyright at [[wikipedia talk:image use policy]] which would benefit from extra eyes... [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]
I don't understand? Is the [[wikipedia:image use policy]] a condition of use that I am obliged to follow or a suggestion? [[User:Wei Chin Ho]]
:You are obliged to follow the license terms as described in [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], as noted and linked to on the edit and upload pages. The [[wikipedia:image use policy|image use policy]] reminds you of your obligations regarding licensing, copyright, and redistributability, and additionally gives suggestions about sizing, formatting, naming, and the like. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 20:12 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, someone ''really'' needs to clarify this image business. As I understood it, copyright holders retained their original copyright and were allowed to set terms of use for images used on Wikipedia, and only the ''text'' was released under the gdfl, since the bottom of each page says, "All the ''text'' on Wikipedia," etc., etc. Now I've heard different things in many, many different places, and I've uploaded images under different conditions. The relevant pages are very ambiguous and opaque, particularly to inexpert users not versed in the intricacies of copyright law. Can someone ''please'' decide for once and for all what the answer is, and more importantly, '''''post it multifariously in all relevant locations in very clear English'''''? - [[User:Montrealais|Montréalais]]
:I second that. It seems either virtually anything can be uploaded, or essentially nothing. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]]
Boeing image are just free for personal use, not free of rights that mean you can watch them and keep as many copies as you want for yourself. In fact you can do nothing.....
[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 20:30 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
In short, nothing that is less old than something like 75-80 years can be uploaded except if you made the photo yourself and accept to release it under the GFDL (or another license compatible with Wikipedia) or if the copyright owner agreed to release it under the GFDL (or another...).
[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 20:37 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
: If you want to ask someone for permission to host photos on wikipedia, try the [[wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission]]. I've used it eight times and got three positive responses - people are often happy to grant permission
: I suspect that the "all our text are belong to you" bit is incorrect and the stuff on [[wikipedia:copyrights]] is more accurate. Read the section under '''Using copyrighted work from others'''. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]
::Ideally, why asking permission, you don't simply say "can we use it", but you also say "will you release it under GFDL". Difference within there is. -[[User:º¡º|º¡º]]
:Yes, now you know why there are so many 19th century drawings and engravings illustrating articles. Sending more email asking for GFDL permission is on my to-do list - serves the dual purpose of getting the image, and advertising wikipedia's existence to more people... [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 20:48 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
==Moved from Village Pump==
<fontdiv colorstyle="color:#000080">
Help! Please go to [[Panavia Tornado]] and click where it says "Click HERE for a picture of a Tornado GR-4". The picture comes up OK but there is then no way the reader can get to the copyright information except by noting its file name, going to the Image List and clicking on Descr. Clumsy! Should I therefore make the pic a proper Wikipedia page so that the pic can then be clicked on and the description will come up as normal? Thanks [[User:Arpingstone|Adrian Pingstone]] 17:37 29 May 2003 (UTC)
: I don't like the idea of uploading images that I can't edit how I see fit (Like I would be able to under the GPL). So I think linking to images we are legally allowed to use under the GPL is far better. Since these (and other non-GPL images) can't be edited, there is no real point in including them in the wiki. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 17:53 30 May 2003 (UTC)
</fontdiv><!--End of Village pump text. Please add comments below: -->
----
''Image in the public ___domain, from http://wwwihm.nlm.nih.gov/''
However, for [[User:Maveric149]]'s claim to [[public ___domain]] for the [Image:Linnaeus.jpg] at article [[CarolusCarl Linnaeus]], this is what the website states:
*''IHM Copyright & Permission Information - The Images from the History of Medicine (IHM) database is a catalog of the prints and photographs collection of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The purpose of the database is to assist users in finding illustrative material for private study, scholarship, and research. The NLM does not own the copyright to the images in the database, nor do we charge access or permission fees for their use. We do request, however, that published images include the credit line "Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine." Since the NLM does not own the copyright to the images, it is the responsibility of anyone using the database, or ordering reproductions based on information in it, to ensure that use of this material is in compliance with the U. S. Copyright law (Title 17, United States Code). ''
----
==Computer screenshots==
I have a copyright question that, as of yet, no one has answered (I hope this is the right place for it). Is it permissable to use a screen shot from a computer program? Is this considered fair use or copyright infringement? I know this is a tricky question, but since the 'pedia has so many articles about 1000's of peices of software, it could really benefit from some images of them running.
You are correct that things become more complicated if the screenshot itself contains a work of authorship like artwork – of which the user would make a copy then. However, then I'd say fair use applies, especially if the shot is scaled down. – The other issues you bring up need some clarification. 1) The question was about copyright; when logos or the "Microsoft" name are involved, we may run into trademark issues. That's a different can of worms. 2) As you mention license agreements, Microsoft only has the right to impose restrictions on you with these if you ''need'' a license in the first place, because the law protects something: a license gives you rights you would otherwise not have. If there is no work of authorship copied, or no trademark (or even patent) infringed, you don't have to give a rat's ass about license agreements. Microsoft cannot define when copyright or trademark law are in effect, as much as they'd like to. Now, how they think they can prohibit screenshots of the boot process, I'd think, would be a trademark issue because their logos are prominently exhibited, but again, that's not a copyright issue in my view. 3) Disparaging Microsoft is yet another thing regulated by competition law. Of course you, as a Wikipedia contributor, may write a review of a piece of Microsoft software and say that it sucks. Whether IBM may do it is something different. – So yes it's complex, but what I was saying is copyright only kicks in when you make a copy of a work of authorship, and you usually don't.
: [[IANAL]]. The situation is further complicated by the presence of [[end user license agreement]]s (EULAs) - you typically are meant to agree to such a license before using a software product, and it might be possible for a software company to seek to impose additional constraints in that manner. Indeed, I heard of a company whose EULA prohibited webpages created by a certain software tool from being critical of the company, though they subsequently backed down, IIRC.
==Civil War Pictures==
: My suggestion would be - upload the image, note clearly on the [[wikipedia:image description page|image description page]] where it came from, and if Wikipedia gets paid legal advice at some point then it can be kept or removed as appropriate. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]
:: [[IANAL]] either, but I'm unsure whether a EULA would be binding on the Wikipedia. Yes, the contributor could get themselves into trouble, but I don't quit see how Wikipedia could...after all, Wikipedia did not agree to it. - [[User:Cafemusique|Cafemusique]] 19:59 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Are any and all pictures of Civil War (i.e. 1860-1865) pictures taken before 1920 in the public ___domain, whether the site hosting them states explicitly that they are in the public ___domain, or not? Like, [http://www.
The EULA is a contract between Microsoft and the owner of the software. It binds the owner and noone else, especially not Wikipedia. Frecklefoot could have his neighbor do the screenshots. :-)
(UTC)
----
Regular readers of this page may find the following of interest:
"COPYRIGHT / THUMBNAIL IMAGES
Court says thumbnail image linking is fair use
A federal appeals court ruled that a search engine's display of miniature images of copyrighted works is allowed under fair use, upholding a similar ruling in February 2002. The plaintiff in the case, photographer Leslie Kelly, had sued image search engine firm Arriba Soft over thumbnail images of her works that were accessible via Arriba's Ditto.com search engine. The decision, however, failed to confirm the legality of displaying full-size images in search results -- a practice known as in-line linking or framing -- and that case is now ordered to go to trial.
HADI BANGASH WAS BORN ON 12 12 2001 AND THEN HE STUDYED IN HIS VILLAGE AND THEN HE LOST HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER SEND HIM ISLAMABAD AND NOW HE IS STUDYING IN ISLAMABAD SCHOOL NAMED SKY SCHOOL SYSTEM AND HE WANTS TO AN ASTRONAUT
"As to the first action (on thumbnails), the district court correctly found that Arriba's use was fair. However, as to the second action, we conclude that the district court should not have reached the issue because neither party moved for summary judgment as to the full-size images," according to the opinion. The framing technique is used by a number of visual search engines, including Google, Lycos and AltaVista. Nevertheless, the ruling was viewed as a victory by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which had filed a brief in favor of Arriba. "Web site owners can rest a bit easier about linking to copyrighted materials online," said an EFF staff attorney. "By revising its ruling, the court removed a copyright iceberg from the main shipping lanes of the World Wide Web."
[http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-1023629.html?tag=lh]
== Photos of old and public sculptures ==
SOURCE: NewsScan Daily, 8 Jul 2003 ("Above The Fold"), 8 July 2003"
[[User:Tiles|Tiles]] 00:52 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't think I have seen any discussion concerning copyright of photographs of 3D artworks.
== AP photos ==
Here I am guessing that a photograph of any sculpture would be a creative work and so any photograph of a sculpture published pre-1923 would be OK as <nowiki>{{PD-US}}</nowiki> and any photograph released GFDL (or similar) would be OK.
Why arent we allowed to use AP photos if we provide the source? [[User:Susan Mason|Susan Mason]]
However, could there also be copyright on the sculpture itself (or would that only apply to a 3D reproduction of the sculpture). Are there any differences if the sculpture or artwork is in a public place ([http://rubens.anu.edu.au/copyright.html] this link draws some distinction for public art). -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 20:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Because they are very likely to challenge our claim of [[fair use]]. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]
== Pre-1923 Images from original sources ==
So? If its a violation we can remove them, we are a non-profit educational/research website. [[User:Susan Mason|Susan Mason]]
I have scanned numerous images from original pre-1923 books, magazines, postcards, etc for use in Wikipedia. The vast majority are from U.S. sources. What criteria can be used to determine when I can simply mark them as "PD" (public ___domain) as opposed to "PD-US" (which marks the image page "This image is in the public ___domain in the United States and possibly other jurisdictions")? I have asked this before, and have yet to get an answer. Is [[:Image:VonLudendorff.jpg|this image of Gen Ludendorff scanned from a 1918 US magazine]] public ___domain? Or [[:Image:Westminster.JPG|this 19th century view of the Palace of Westminster scanned from a US stereopticon card]]? How do I tell? I'd like to mark many images as simply "Public ___domain" rather than PD-US if there is some way to tell when that would be allowed. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
== Old non US sources? ==
:It is best for us not get into that situation to begin with. They say in big nasty words that the images may not be reproduced period. We should respect that even though legally we do probably have a valid fair use claim. --mav
On a related note, how can I know if I can use some of my old postcards, stereocards, etc printed in the UK or Germany? Is there a date similar to the US pre-1923 that is safe to assume public ___domain? -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Creators must 70 years dead. --[[User:134.130.68.65|134.130.68.65]] 15:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Buy a camera: take your own photos. It's more fun than law. [[Two16]]
== avoidImage copyright paranoia?question ==
Please see [[Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Copyright_question]], thanks, ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|contributions]]) 16:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So, have there already been a lot of edit wars over the [[meta:avoid copyright paranoia]] injunction? I think it's counterproductive and hurts Wikipedia -- see my response on that page for why.
== Museum ==
I'm going to put "(disputed)" next to the "avoid" link. I don't think we should encourage contributors to be cavalier about copyright law. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 03:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I photographed some objects from a local (US) museum. I assumed that that would mean I owned the rights to the photographs (especially as the items in question are a couple centuries old, and therefore in the public ___domain), and could therefore upload them, but then I checked the museum's website, where I found this quote:
:Actually, no I'm not. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 20:05 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:''Still photography of the permanent collection, taken in existing light, is permitted on condition that the photographs are for personal, non-commercial use.''
Well, Wikipedia definitely qualifies as non-commercial, but personal? I'm thinking that's not going to fly. What do you think? Do I have to give up on uploading these pictures? --[[User:Iustinus|Iustinus]] 01:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Did you explicitly agree to this rule of theirs when you entered the museum? Was it prominently displayed where you bought the ticket? - [[User:Haukurth|Haukurth]] 19:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:WP does not qualify as non-commercial as stuff has to be released under the GDFL, which includes commercial use. See [[GFDL#Materials_for_which_commercial_redistribution_is_prohibited]]. Your only option then is fair use. [[User:Pfctdayelise|pfctdayelise]] 14:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
----
I have another museum question. I took these photos at museums in China: [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/pfctdayelise/wikipedia/Bonecarving-HuhhotMuseumSMALL.jpg] [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/pfctdayelise/wikipedia/Diagram-HuhhotMuseumSMALL.jpg] [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/pfctdayelise/wikipedia/Puyisschoolbook-ForbiddenCitySMALL.jpg] (these are low-res versions not hosted on WP). I am now back in Australia. I also asked this on commons ( see [[Commons:Village_pump#Pictures_of_museum_exhibits]]) but it seems like no one is sure. :| Any advice would be appreciated. I'd love to use the last one especially. [[User:Pfctdayelise|pfctdayelise]] 14:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
So, there is some discrepancy about image policy on various parts of the site. [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] gives one set of criteria (GFDL, public ___domain, or fair use, with fair use deprecated), and this page gives another (just GFDL and public ___domain). The [[Special:Upload]] page has yet a third box, saying, "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." -- which would leave out public ___domain (no copyright holder) and fair use (copyright holder has no say in the matter).
:It's likely the case that whoever phrased it as "personal, non-commercial use" was not considering GFDL, CC*, or other free licenses. Some museums realize a bit of extra revenue by charging commercial photographers specially, but you'd have to ask to find out if that's what's going on. In any case, it's up to each uploader to decide respect museums' rules, it's irrelevant to image legitimacy. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 22:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to have a clear policy, and we especially have to have that policy on the upload page. That's the last line of defense, and the checkbox is the closest thing we have to an assurance from the uploader.
==Editing free use covers, etc.==
Personally, I'm down on the whole [[fair use]] idea, especially as it applies to full images. Certain applications of the principle [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php discriminate against fields of endeavor], so Wikipedia as a whole becomes less free. I at least think we should note the public ___domain on the upload page, if not fair use.
Hi, forgive me if this has been covered anywhere, but I can't find it. Does it still fall under free use for an album cover, book cover, etc. to edit it? For instance in an article on Joe Blow, can one provide a picture of Joe Blow cropped from the cover of the book the Life of Joe Blow, captioned as "picture of Joe Blow from cover of The Life of Joe Blow" under free use? Does it matter at all if the book is referenced in the article? [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 14:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:OK, now I've got somebody who doesn't like the use of even the intact unedited image of an album cover, well attributed, in a context where it is not the direct subject of the article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slide_guitar&curid=852254&diff=19691645&oldid=19691475] Anybody else have a personal preference they would like to share with the class? [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::I think your friend is right, although there are many editors who don't bother to make the distinction (and I am usually one of them). See [[:Template:albumcover]], which I assume the covers are being uploaded under, namely ''solely to illustrate the album or single in question''. Just go to Jow Blow's official website, find a picture that looks vaguely press-release-style, and upload it under [[:Template:Promotional]] or [[:Template:promophoto]]. [[User:Pfctdayelise|pfctdayelise]] 14:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
==Image of £1 coin on [[Forth Bridge (railway)]] article==
Having a checkbox that people have to sign off on, and consistently lie about -- "the box is wrong" -- is a bad precedent. The message? "Ignore policy." Not a good way to work. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 20:15 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The image is there becase the design on the coin features the Forth Bridge, so it is relevant to the article. However, the {{tl|currency}} license template says "their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used ''for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself''". Is the use in the the article fair use or not? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:[[IANAL]] disclaimer - sounds good for me.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup style="color:green;">Talk</sup>]] 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
==Please recommend the best tag ==
: I agree on all your points here. I think "fair use" images on Wikipedia should be, at a bare minimum, such that ''any'' sub-licensee of Wikipedia content would be able to use any article together with its embedded images, under fair use. Nobody should have to strip the images from an article in order to legally re-use it: that's not open content.
I recently found two untagged images (now using permission, which is better then nothing), that I have confirmed where uploaded by their creator (a professional book cover artist). I have contacted him and he wishes for them to remain on Wiki (and is willing to upload some more), but he is not sure which tag is the best for him. He wrote: ''I am still confused--now that I am able to examine the permissions, is there any one I can use that doesn't give up my copyright to the work? I am happy to let Wikipedia use it, but it is still a valuable intellectual property for me that I regularly re-sell, so i don't want to put it into public ___domain, or give up the copywrite. I just want to give permission for it to be used in this one instance, but i don't see any permission that does that. Can you advise how to proceed without giving up everything? '' I know we don't accept permissions anymore. What do you think can be the solution? Perhaps he can release under a copyleft a low-res version, and keep full rights to a high res ones, like we did with [[:Template:Polish coats of arms by Tadeusz Gajl]]?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup style="color:green;">Talk</sup>]] 11:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
== [[Template:CopyrightedFreeUse]] should be deprecated ==
: Sadly, we need paid legal advice in order to identify that point, which we don't yet have. :-( [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 20:47 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have proposed at [[Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Template:CopyrightedFreeUse should be deprecated|Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags]] that {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUse}} should be deprecated in favor of {{tl|NoRightsReserved}}. Please comment there. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 10:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::You know, I think it's actually not all that difficult. The fact is that laypersons involved in Wikipedia are completely aware that "fair use" inclusions are non-free. I don't know what a lawyer is going to be able to tell us, except, "Yeah, you're right -- stuff you use for wikipedia.org under principles of fair use may not be free for downstream users."
== Images from magazines ==
::But, I wonder if Eben Moglen or Larry Lessig would be interested in commenting. I dunno. IANALW (I am not a lawyer wrangler).
Sorry if this as been asked before, but what is the proper tagging of a photo taken from a magazine? I know there is a tag for magazine covers, but what about a picture inside the mag? --[[User:Jaysscholar|Jaysscholar]] 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::On the more practical side: we at least need to get the Image Upload page up-to-date, or get the policy pages synched with it. Having two different policies is confusing. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 20:56 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== Trademark question ==
:::We could just ask them; Lessig especially should be very keen to help out an effort to expand the [[Creative Commons]] by a large-scale act of encyclopedia-reverse-engineering. There are several lawyers among our editors, but I don't think any of them specialize in copyright law. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 21:46 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Earlier today, I had this conversation at the [[Wikipedia:Help Desk|Help Desk]]:
:: Well, what I'd want from a lawyer is an answer to the question: "when will an image used under fair use on Wikipedia be free for all downstream users to re-use?". If we have a clear answer on that, then we can build that into the policy. If that turns out to be so restrictive that it makes it impossible to make a decent encyclopedia on some subjects, then ''at that point'' we may consider licensing images under a different arrangement. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:24 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
{| style="background: #EDEDEE;"
|-
|
'''Trademark'''
Does anyone know if there's a forum to discuss copyright status on WP images? I'm having a little trouble finding a place to ask my question. In particular, I'm concerned that WP doesn't use the Commons template ([[:Commons:Template:Trademarked]]) for trademarked pictures such as pictures of products, etc. Does anyone know about this, or know where else I can ask this question? [[User:Tomtheman5|<b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b>]][[User talk:Tomtheman5|<sub style="color:black;">(2¢)</sub>]] 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I see your point. Obviously, fair use itself isn't bad -- it's a broad principle that gives us the right, for example, to quote passages from books or song lyrics. Anyone downstream from us can use those same quotes, fairly and squarely, for practically any reasons.
:
Actually, I just noticed that we do have [[:Template:Trademarked]], but it is not nearly as widespread as it should be. I guess I'm just curious as to why... [[User:Tomtheman5|<b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b>]][[User talk:Tomtheman5|<sub style="color:black;">(2¢)</sub>]] 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
: It's pretty hard for me to figure out a use on Wikipedia that would violate the trademark (other, perhaps, than things like a "this user Hoover(tm)s up vandalism" userbox or something equally cretinous, all of which would violate the copyright anyway). If the template is intended to warn users about the non-wikipedia use (its wording is rather wooly) then it doesn't belong, as we're not here to offer legal advice. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:::But when fair use applies only to us as encyclopedists, and only to presentation on wikipedia.org, well... that's just not open content. We obviously can't make all Wikipedia legal for all uses -- people could alter parts of Wikipedia for defamation of character, for example, or use an algorithm to make a cracker tool, or print out a page and make it into a paper airplane and poke someone in the eye -- but using Wikipedia's content downstream shouldn't be a violation of copyright. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 01:29 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:
So if someone takes a picture of a trademarked product (let's say for argument's sake [[:Image:Pepsicup.jpg]]), and licenses it under GNU free doc license, then anyone can use this picture for any use (which may even involve commercial use), so long as they simply credit the photographer ([[User:Appraiser]]) Something about this just doesn't seem right... unless I'm missing something - which is often the case :o) [[User:Tomtheman5|<b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b>]][[User talk:Tomtheman5|<sub style="color:black;">(2¢)</sub>]] 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|}
The Help Desk typically isn't that great for ongoing conversations since people tend to look only at the most recent topic. At any rate, I did a little bit more research and found this page. Can anyone help me with my most recent comment up there? Thanks! [[User:Tomtheman5|<b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b>]][[User talk:Tomtheman5|<sub style="color:black;">(2¢)</sub>]] 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:
Aha! I just found [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks]]. Case closed. [[User:Tomtheman5|<b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b>]][[User talk:Tomtheman5|<sub style="color:black;">(2¢)</sub>]] 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
== If I took a photograph of a musician performing in a concert from my seat, what copyright do I have of this? ==
== Digital representation of out of copyright image ==
''Moved from [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] on [[Saturday]], [[August 2]]nd, 0[[2003]].''
It'sSo my understanding thatI ifhave an image (of a paintingphotograph inof a musician on stage, and I took this case)photograph isfrom outthe ofaudience copyright,area. oneWhat can'tlikely is its copyright astatus? digitalCan representationI ofrelease thatit image.to Amthe Ipublic right___domain on Wikipedia? Please advise. Thanks, [[User:CgsAppleJuggler|CGSAppleJuggler]] 1803:3112, 2413 JulFebruary 20032007 (UTC).
== Image copyright question ==
: That's true, but only if the digital image is not a "derived work." This can be tricky and is very much of a gray area -- for example, a cropped image might be "creative," depending on how it's cropped. An image with color-enhancement or sharpening might be a derivative work subject to a separate coypright. It's often nearly impossible to tell whether something is a straight "accurate copy" or a copy with some sort of copyrightable modification.
:: The subtleties of this question are almost agonising, and there have been similar questions raised (offline) about the copyright in photographs of artwork. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 17:25, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
: My policy as of late has been to assume the image is not copyrighted, and just to use it (this goes both for old paintings and for scans of 19th-century photographs). I usually make a note of where I got the digital image from, and a note that I the original work is out of copyright. I figure if someone really thinks their digital image is a creative work subject to copyright, they can always complain to us and we'll take it down at that time. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 19:50 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There is an open Rfc page on image use policy & copyright which can be found here, [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FC Vorskla Poltava image]]. --[[User: Palffy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Palffy</span>]] 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
: Photographs are copyright. If you photograph a nice sunset, the copyright belongs to you: ditto if you photograph a painting in a gallery. Hence galleries normally forbid photography, so that they can sell you postcards they own the copyright to. The copyright is not in the painting (unless it's recent, of course) but in the photo. A 19th-century photo is out of copyright. (IANAL) [[User:Gritchka|Gritchka]] 17:25 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== Pictures of a 3 dimensional objects that have a logo ==
:: In German copyright law, the work has to have an artistic expression to be copyrighted on its own. If the photographer just makes a 1:1 reproduction of the painting, it's the painting's copyright you have to obey. If he also pictures the frame and the little sign below it, the photographer has made a new artistic work and the selection of his motive qualifies for a copyright of the photography. The reason most galleries don't like photos being taken is a) flashlights not being good for the images and b) they want to sell their souvenirs. -- [[User:JeLuF|JeLuF]] 08:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I took a picture of a 3 dimensional objects that have a logo. Can I use this pic in Wikipedia?
[[WP:IUP|Image use policy]]
:: US law is similar. An accurate reproduction of any work (whether a painting or book) is simply a copy, and subject only to the original coypright. A new copyright is possible if the work is "creative" and thus constitutes a "derived work" in its own right, rather than merely another instance of the original work. So if you scan in a painting, or take a photograph which is cropped at the edges of the canvas, this isn't subject to copyright. You'd have to argue you did something creative in your photography (framing, postprocessing, etc.) for it to be copyrighted. Same with a book -- if you merely reprint an old book, it's not copyrighted. If you do something creative with it, then it is. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 19:30, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)
It says:
----
''"Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright in addition to copyrights of objects."''
[[Image:Scientology_Symbol_2.jpg|frame|right|The Scientology Symbol]]
There are many instances of the logos apearing in many pictures. [[User:Bravehartbear|Bravehartbear]] 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
=== United States Government publications and the public ___domain ===
:This image (which is wrongly labelled, btw) is of a logo copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. It can only be used under fair use provisions, since no permission has been given. It must comply with the rules set out at [[Help:Image page#Fair use rationale]]. Fair use images can't be used in templates, as that's incompatible with the fair use requirements. They can only be used in an '''article''' (emphasis added!) about the topic that the logo represents. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Are government publications in the public ___domain by default? Does this cover postage stamps? I've seen lots of postage stamps around for older stuff. I just added [[media:John_cassavetes.jpg|this image]], which is from 2003. Is this kosher? -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 00:10 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== [[:fa:Image:Persian wikipedia poster.JPG]] ==
:What I've heard regarding postage stamps is the following:
:The USPS hasn't been a government system for a while. I'm not sure about other postal services, but I suggest you do some research before posting any images. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 01:26 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm the creator of this image. Is there anyway to publish this image on my user page? Is this a derivative work? [[User:Armandeh|Hessam]] 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, that's apparently so. Postage stamps produced since 1970 are under copyright of the USPS, and not in the public ___domain. Dang! Well, guess I better put it on the votes to delete page. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 02:41 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== Invalid license on logo ==
:::This is a tricky point, and I've never seen a good legal opinion. In practice, the world's postal admins are perfectly happy to see images of stamps reproduced a lot, because that means increased visibility and more stamp sales. Pictures of stamps are in fact extremely widespread in print and online publications, and I've never heard of a postal admin making a copyvio complaint. On the other hand, the USPS does license the artwork to outfits that make tshirts, coffee mugs, one of the ornaments on my Xmas tree :-), etc. So my IANAL belief is that post-1970 images are completely defensible fair use if they are obviously photos/scans of physical stamps, but that it's not kosher to crop/scrub the image so as to obscure its stamply origin. Stamp images are often altered anyway (some jazz musician recently got the ciggy taken out of his mouth for instance), so it's better to present a stamp image as "this is how country X depicted Y politically correctly" :-) not "this is a archival-quality image". [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 04:56 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The logo of my app has been uploaded with a "public ___domain" license and, despite what the Permission field says, without permission from the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joplin-icon.svg
::::Alright, I'm getting tired of reading it and not understanding it. what does [[IANAL]] mean? [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 14:13 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The actual license is there: https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/blob/dev/Assets/LICENSE
:::::I think it means "I am not a lawyer." —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 15:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
How do I go about correcting this? I don't mind if the logo appears on the Wikipedia article, but I don't want it to say it's public ___domain. It's like Firefox, even though the app is open source, the logo usage is restricted.
::::I think for [[fair use]] you have to be discussing the copyrighted work in and of itself, as part of the scholarship and criticism, not just using it as a decoration. I was using [[:Image:John_cassavetes.jpg]] as a portrait, not discussing the stamp, so I think I still need to get it off the Wikipedia site.
Also what to do about the history of this file? The template is lying when it says "This work has been released into the public ___domain by its author" because I've never released it into the public ___domain. And I wouldn't want someone to dig this up and says "well that version was open source so it can be used freely". Any suggestions?
::::Personally, I think [[fair use]] of works -- especially in their complete form -- is asking for trouble. And it makes Wikipedia less free, since our downstream users don't have the same rights under fair use that we have. But that's just me. -- [[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] 20:37 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
(Also I'm a bit shocked that it's possible to grant so many permissions on behalf of someone else - without providing any proof that they are authorised to do this)
: see [[IANAL]].
: I don't know how this is dealt with in the US, but in the Netherlands the design of a stamp is often done by third parties, e.g. famous artists and designers. If this is also the case in the US, the copyrights to the images of the stamp may be with the designer, not the US government or the USPS. [[User:Branko|branko]]
The US stamps before 1978 are in the public ___domain. Regarding newer stamps there is a sort of open license that the [[United States Postal Service]] has that allows images of postage stamps to be used in many forms. This license can be found in the DMM (Domestic Mail Manual) D013. [http://pe.usps.gov/text/DMM/g013.htm]. Will someone who adapts Wikipedia content under the GFDL also be allowed to use postage stamps? That is for them to determine. Chances are that it will be covered under the USPS license, if it is done in the right way (a t-shirt that is also a wikipedia article might pass the test). If someone edits out everything but the image, well that may not pass the license terms; but should we worry about such cases? [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 01:28, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
: The [http://www.secretservice.gov/money_illustrations.shtml Secret Service] says that any pictures of stamps (whether US or foreign) must be:
:* Black and white, OR
:* A picture of a cancelled stamp, OR
:* Less than 0.75 the size of the actual stamp, OR
:* More than 1.5 times the size of the actual stamp.
: Presumably this requirement applies to all years, and is in addition to the copyright restrictions since 1978.
: I don't know if there's any way to guarantee the size of a displayed image, but you could certainly satisfy the requirement by "cancelling" the stamp in Photoshop. -- [[User:Ortonmc|Ortonmc]] 01:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The Secret Service is just restating the rule under postal service regulations.
Unless someone has a citation I think that the SS is just stating the obvious. Any stamp can be copied for a non-fraudulent purpose. Even copying public ___domain stamps cannot be done for fraudulent purposes, i.e. to evade the paying of postage. Something being in the public ___domain does not allow one to use it in contravention of the law. How does this reproduction rule apply to digital copies? Good question. I would assume that using any thumbnail that is found on a USPS site would be allowable. They would not post it in enough resolution to allow counterfeiting to be done easily, would they? Most of these are under 200 pixels in width, so I am assuming that this is a permissible size. Of course the other argument is that an ephemeral digital copy is not the same as a "picture" of a USPS. The only problem occurs when you print the stamps off the internet in color. it is the person who prints the stamp who must insure that the print is not within the 0.75 1.5 image size restriction. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 03:30, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
== Pic of fonts copyright ==
''village pump''
I know that [[A]], [[B]], [[C]] have Microsoft puny font sample. What's exactly is the copyright limitation on font size or how much "sample" (i.e., must be under 20% of the entire character database)? Is there any? Many fonts have to be bought, would the company be happy that we do whatever we want to GNU-ize the pictures of it once we bought it? (I'm thinking of doing an article on [[Eight Principles of Yong]] using the Chinese calligraphy fonts). --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 18:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
:I thought that one can't copyright a typeface (a legacy thing), only the file that produces it. If it's a rasterised image of a font, I think you can use whatever you want. I may be very wrong... [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 18:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).
::IANAL, but I think CGS is dead-on. I've run into this a few times in the past. You can't copyright a font, but you can sell typefaces. But the user can do whatever they want with the font, with the exception of giving the typeface away for free (or selling copies of it). —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 19:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:::This is potentially much more problematic than that, especially given international issues. In the United States, font design is not copyrightable, but it is patentable if novel enough. As far as I can find, Stone and Lucida are the only two patented typefaces, and this may not hold up in court. However, the situation is ''much'' worse in Europe. Europe used to have the same "can't copyright typefaces" laws as the United States, but Germany (in 1981) and the UK (in 1989) have passed laws making typeface designs copyrightable. The UK law is even retroactive (!), so designs produced before 1989 are also copyrighted, if the copyrights wouldn't have already expired (the German one is not retroactive). --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 09:29, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
:::: I moved this comment to [[Copyright#Copyrighting_fonts]]. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 11:45, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:On the other hand, we may include hi-res pix of the characters, but that is still not the font information (i.e. hinting, the bezier curves, etc.). A font licensed for use in publishing should be unproblematically used here, as long as we don't include the "source-code" of the font, but only pictures of it. Or how would one use a font for, say, newspaper headlines, if large pix of the font aren't allowed in the license? -- [[User:Tillwe|till we *)]] 10:57, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
== Flags and Coats of Arms ==
Can graphic representations of Flags and Coats of Arms be copyrighted? It seems a bit strange to me - but if the answer is yes, does someone know where one could find ones that are in the public ___domain?
[[User:Sandman|Sandman]] 08:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
: While national flags at least are NOT restricted in such a way (I don't know one way or another about coats of arms, but most are too old to be still under copyright), legally a particular DEPICTION of either can be copyrighted as a derived work. Can't help with the public ___domain versions, sorry --[[User:Morven|Morven]] 18:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::I have a vague impression that CIA World Factbook has them. And Images used in Wikipedia are from there. I could be wrong, though. [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 13:06, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Some coats of arms are covered under specific legislation to prevent them from being used without the permission of the government in question; for example I had to get special permission from the government to reproduce the [[Coat of Arms of Saskatchewan]]. - [[User:Montrealais|Montréalais]] 15:26, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
== TV screenshots ==
''move to [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright]]''
This is probably a stupid question, but does it violate copyright to upload images from television shows if I capture them? - [[User:Evil saltine|Evil saltine]] 08:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
: Probably. Try our [[wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission]]. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 12:41, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
::I think TV newscasts are exempt from copyright. IANAL, but I seem to remember this a loophole in the copyright law. You can't plagerize them, but you may rebroadcast their content. You may want to research it further. —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 14:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't a single screenshot qualify under fair use? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 01:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:::Hmmm... Wikipedia needs a lawyer. I found the thing about news (bottom of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_108.html here]), but that's not what i'm interested in. [[User:Evil saltine|Evil saltine]] 05:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
::::This is a good site for fair use info [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/index.html Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries]. News images are generally exempt as being part of the historical record. Other images? Probably would be if you make sure to keep the attribution information (so that someone else can get permission later if it might not fall under fair use for a downstream licensee; not all subsequent uses under GFDL may qualify as fair use). I'd also put a caption on it somewhere directly accessible on the page (alt text maybe) i.e. "Broadcast image, Sept 4, 2003, CBS Television Network" and make sure that it is relevantly connected to the informational purpose of the article in which it appears. (putting a hidden note inside the article explaining why you think it is fair use is a good idea, i.e. <nowiki> <!-- this picture is relevant to this article because it shows how newscasting sets have evolved over the years --> </nowiki> ). BTW, [[IAAL]], however, [[Wikipedia:Legal advice|Wikipedia does not give legal advice]] (even to itself). [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 05:24, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
::::: Preferably not alt text - see [[wikipedia:alternate text for images]] (the clash of the lawyers and the accessibility advocates - argh! ;-)) [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 21:58, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
: Whatever you decide to do, describe what you did on the [[wikipedia:image description page|image description page]]. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 09:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:Here is an outline that one can use to describe fair use elements[http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.pdf]. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 02:21, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
==Public Domain Paintings==
''Moved from [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] on [[Sunday]], [[September 21]]st, 0[[2003]].''
Is a pre-20th century painting in public ___domain?
: I think it's in the public ___domain if the painter has been dead > 50 years. Date of the painting itself is irrelevant. IANAL. [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 16:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).
: The paintings themselves may be considered to be in the public ___domain, but photos or illustrations of the paintings are copyrighted to whoever made them or possibly their heirs. [[User:CyberMaus|CyberMaus]] 17:21, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:: Are you sure? I thought you can't copyright a digital representation of another image (in this case a painting) unless it is a derivitive somehow (although that could be something as simple as cropping). [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 18:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).
:: Yup. It doesn't matter what the digital image is a representation of. The digital image itself is copyright protected even though it's a scan of a photo of a photo of a picture. Keep in mind that the original photo is also copyrighted so that it's possible that the digital image itself may be in violation because permission was not obtained from the original image's owner. The Visual Resources Association Guidelines propose exceptions for educational institutions (I suppose it could be argued that wikipedia qualifies as an educational institution) in some circumstances, but these have no legal foundation. BTW IANAL :) [[User:CyberMaus|CyberMaus]] 20:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:::Under U.S. law copyright does not subsist in purely mechanical reproductions of public ___domain works. See: ''Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation,'' 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, US SDNY (1999) accurate photographs of public ___domain works is not original[http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html]. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 04:36, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:::See [[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights]] for previous discussions of this. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 20:44, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Isn't copyright life+70 years now? [http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/%28C%29_Term.html] --[[User:Skyfaller|Nelson]] 01:31, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
----
From VfD/copyvio. Listed September 23rd.
*[[:Image:Padres-logo.gif]] and [[:Image:Dodgerslogo.gif]] are copyrighted property of their respective organizations. Unless someone has obtained written permission from both the teams and Major League Baseball, these images would constitute copyright violations. This would be true of all North American sports logos on either the college or professional level. Licensing and merchandising are big money for sports. There maybe more in the MLB pages, but these are the two I noticed. [[User:Vudujava|vudu]] 00:39, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
(...)
:How are they trademark infringement? Did Wikimedia get into the sports team business? Are we selling t-shirts? You can only infringe on a trademark if you are passing off. This is obviously a fair use under copyright law, probably broad enough for most legitimate GFDL uses as well. I vote to keep them. They are obviously significant for cultural and historical reasons. Remember [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Title 17 USC § 107] states that fair use is not a copyright infringement so if someone claims fair use it should not be deleted as a copyright violation. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 18:03, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
::Disclaimer: IANAL. The reason these logos raised red flags with me is due to the fact that in 2002, Major League Baseball began issuing cease-and-desist orders to fan web sites. In each and everyone of the cease-and-desist orders, they cited trademark infringement for use of team ''marks'' (among other things), even when there was no merchandise for sale. Mind you, these were fan sites promoting teams and obviously not for profit. The NHL has taken similar actions against fan sites. You can cite anything you like, but the fact is that Major League Baseball has money to fight it out in court whereas wikipedia does not and if push came to shove, we'd have to remove them as a part of any settlement. I'm not saying it's right, or that I agree with the way things are, but we all know what the outcome would be ''if'' it ever became an issue.
:::We are not promoting anything here but knowledge, there is no trademark or servicemark infringment, and nothing including membership is being exchanged here for value. A fan site is obviously a service and if a fan site posts such an image they are suggesting that they are somehow approved by MLB. I would like to see them issue a cease and desist "order"! (There is no such thing! You are speaking about a cease and desist "demand", I send them out all the time, any person can send out such a demand, somehow some people think they are scarier when signed by a lawyer! They are just warnings!) Let them spend their money; if they want to keep their lawyers in billable hours because of Wikipedia we are doing them a favor (i.e. we are [[rainmaker]]s). The worst thing they are going to do is send at DMCA notice. Big deal! This is paranoia at its worst. Even if they sue Wikipedia what are they going to get as a judgment? What are their damages? We were promoting ''them'' by putting the logo on a general information page about them. If they don't use the DCMA notice then they cannot claim infringement damages from the ISP. Wikipedia has not made any money off the logo nor has it in anyway prevented them from making money (you could argue that by posting the logo it is encouraging people to become familiar with their merchandise and the use is thereby promotional for them. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 04:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
::I still think it wise to remove these images and save ourselves the headache. But if you're feeling lucky, why don't you contact the offices of Major League Baseball and cite Title 17 at them and see how far you get. [[User:Vudujava|vudu]] 03:01, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
:::I did that several days ago and I am waiting for their response. I also mentioned that they are allowing their images to appear on google images and that Wikipedia's use is much less intrusive. If they want to fight, we'll they can fight. They cannot prevent every fair use of these images they have a historical and cultural value. If they demand that Bomis or Wikimedia remove them then the powers that be will have to make a decision, stand up to these people or just take it down. If they send me a cease and desist order I will post it on Wikipedia and cite it as fair use as an example of what large corporate businesses spend their money on. are they going to say that we should take down the letter too? ''[[User Talk:Alex756|<font color="red">IAAL but it is NALO]]</font>'' 04:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
::You did the right thing in contacting them, although I suspect they will not respond favorably. It's an unfortunate fact that organizations - especially one's that hold so-called ''intellectual property'' - only consider the bottom line and not the good of the people. I'll be impressed if we get cooperation from Major League Baseball (I hope you extend this to the NHL, NFL, NBA, and WNBA as well). I guess my next question is what happens if they come back with a cease-and-desist? Are we prepared to fight with them? Can you (personally) afford to take a case of this scale on ''pro bono''? [[User:Vudujava|vudu]] 15:30, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
:::Quite frankly I don't think they want to admit that their images could be covered by fair use. They might be afraid that this creates some precedent, you know it might cut both ways. I was watching some baseball coverage recently and the news show was flashing those logos a lot; that has got to be fair use. Regarding MLB they may have some time finding the images. I didn't tell them what images were being used or where. I just gave them the general URL, so they will have to search. Soon they will realize the size of our database and they will probably decide that they are buried deep in the database and hard to find; but we will see. I am sure if Jimbo receives a cease-and-desist notice we will hear about it! I doubt if Jimbo will want to fight it though, he will probably just remove it as a precautionary measure. Since Little Dan posted them it is really his case I guess, so as far as fighting it I don't know if his parents would allow me to file it in SDNY for him (MLB is located in that federal court district and I am admitted to practice before that court, basically it is Manhattan). But hey, I've done copyright litigation there that was settled favourably to my client so I can just adapt pleadings that I already have in my files; it would be a fun case and really not that complex to plead. Could probably be finished off with a summary judgment motion asking for a declaratory judgment that Little Dan was using it under fair use, really no need for a trial there will not be many facts in dispute (though there may need to be some fact finding regarding MLB's allegations of infringement). Anyway, I am not promising that I will take the case on yet, let's see what happens next. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 07:48, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
== Image copyright ==
When searching for public ___domain images, I often find the note: "All images on this page are believed to be public ___domain." Would you consider such a note as sufficient to include the images in Wikipedia, or should I regard the word "believed" as a warning not to touch these images? Example: [http://www.emayhem.org/satire/1066635263.shtml]. -- [[User:Baldhur|Baldhur]] 08:17, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
: I think that note means: "I like the image, so I took it from another website without checking or asking the owner. If you are his or her lawyer, please don't suit me. I mean, please!!! I am ignorant, I said "I believe", didn't I? I didn't say "I know"!"
: I wouldn't use them, I don't know about others. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 08:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
: I think you need to go on an image by image (and site by site) basis. A lot of sites just copy images from anywhere without regard for copyright. Some sites are better than others and you can still ask the site what criteria they use for images. There are some initial/skeleton guidelines on [[Wikipedia:Copyright]]. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 08:51, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
::Thanks a lot for your answers, Menchi and Daniel!! I did not use these images up to now, and I won't do in the future. -- [[User:Baldhur|Baldhur]] 14:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Whatever you decide to do, say what you did on the [[wikipedia:image description page]]. Personally, I would have no real qualms about using such images, provided I made the uncertainties explicit in the image description page, unless I had some reason to doubt that they were in fact public ___domain. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 18:20, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Those will often be [[Fair use]], particularly for the online or print Wikipedia, but you must consider them individually. It's routine for sites to have global copyright notices which don't apply and for sites to use images they don't have rights to. The [http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q= Google image search] is one option if you want to try to track own an image. Always worth remembering that it's preferable (strongly preferable) to use public ___domain or less restricted images if you can but we are trying to build an excellent encyclopedia, including one using lots of images. If you do use one of those images, please document where you got it from and why you think that it is fair use - such images are very likely to be reported as possible copyright infringements and providing good source information helps a lot. [[User:JamesDay|JamesDay]] 12:17, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
== 19th century (and earlier) art ==
''"Accurate photographs of paintings lack expressive content and are automatically in the public ___domain once the painting's copyright has expired (95 years after initial publication). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored."'' [[Public_domain_image_resources]]<br>
Am I correct in reading that as meaning that any jpg, gif, etc. of a painting first produced in 1908 or earlier found on the web can be safely appropriated for use here? Or do we need to be more subtle about it? Guidelines? (This is specifically in connection with the discussion at [[m:Talk:Egyptopedia]]. ''–[[User:Hjr|Hjr]] 17:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)''
: If the scanning guy in addition done some graphic manipulation on it, then the image's copyright magically becomes his. Does such graphic manipulation include resize and highlight?! I dunno. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 01:52, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK, thanks for taking the time to answer. Definite grey area, then; I'll hold back. ''–[[User:Hjr|Hjr]] 17:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)''
: There is one thing that you could do, if you want: if the image does not have digital watermark (I'm not sure how to check it), you could crop/resize/enhance it yourself so that it is not identical to the original image, and it could not be proven whether you or someone else scanned it. If you then post it to Wikipedia claiming that you have the copyright, it is not illegal for Wikipedia to use the image, only for you. [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 18:06, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... interesting. But it's still not entirely kosher, is it? Let's try a different tack: what's the legal position of scanning in 19th C. art from late-20th C. books (books which have the "No part of this publication may in any way be reproduced... etc., etc." blurb in the front)? Still a grey area? ''–[[User:Hjr|Hjr]] 01:51, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC) ''
==Civil War Pictures==
[[Special:Contributions/92.40.176.255|92.40.176.255]] ([[User talk:92.40.176.255|talk]]) 22:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Are any and all pictures of Civil War (i.e. 1860-1865) pictures taken before 1920 in the public ___domain, whether the site hosting them states explicitly that they are in the public ___domain, or not? Like, [http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/ this site] obviously has only Civil War-era pictures, but it says nothing about copyright or anything of that sort. Can I just take pictures, because they are all taken before 1920, or not?
And:Ok I've digress,updated butthe thislicense. pageHope isI overdid 100it kb,right. you might try reducing it[[Special:Contributions/92.40.177.101|92.40.177.101]] ([[User talk:Ugen6492.40.177.101|ugen64talk]]) 1610:4200, Dec17 6,July 20032021 (UTC)
| 