| Revision as of 06:37, 8 September 2024 editJlwoodwa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,162 edits →NFCC#4 and previous publication: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:44, 24 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,435 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 71. (BOT) |
| (64 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Images and Media}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Policy-talk}} |
|
{{Policy-talk}} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
| Line 13: |
Line 17: |
|
|header={{Aan}} |
|
|header={{Aan}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WPFairUse}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Images and Media}} |
|
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}} |
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}} |
|
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}} |
|
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Photo from National Portrait Gallery == |
|
== WP:UUI#9 and biographies about deceased individual == |
|
|
|
|
|
Item 9 of ] states that "cover art shouldn't used to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover", but non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed for this purpose if all of the NFCCP are met. How does policy, therefore, treat non-free cover art when it's being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone biography about a deceased individual? For example, ] and ] are being used for said purpose. There are probably more examples of this out there, but these two are the only ones I can remember at the moment. Neither of these is really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in their respective articles, and they appear to have been simply added because the subjects of the articles are dead. Does policy justallow such files be used in such way for that reason, or does it require different non-free images be used instead? -- ] (]) 05:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Amalija Knavs image == |
|
|
|
|
|
Given that ] was the mother of ] it would seem that there's a very good chance that a free image could be found to use instead of ] or any non-free one. If Knavs appeared at any official White House events, there's a really good possibility she would've been photographed by an official White House photographer. There also seems to be a good chance that a photo of her was posted on an official social media account. The article was created back in January and appears to have gone without an image until the other day, but there's no indication on the article's talk page of any discussion related to an image search. -- ] (]) 03:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I thought so too. I was unable to find any but maybe someone else may have better luck. The vast majority of images I found were Getty/AP. ] (]) 03:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello - I wrote the page ], which I think would benefit from having a photo. I asked about this before - thank you @] (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2024/September#c-Marchjuly-20240921104500-Blackballnz-20240921051800) but this is now archived, so I think I have to ask again. I've emailed the National Portrait Gallery about their photo of Mavis Wheeler, and their Rights & Images section has replied: "We (National Portrait Gallery) have no objection to low-resolution images being used on Misplaced Pages for non-commercial purposes." So, does this mean I can use it? I'd also like to use a portrait of Mavis by August John, but I suspect this would be too difficult. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Non-free no reduce == |
|
|
|
:There's no free license we can use it under here. Misplaced Pages and Commons only accept CC licenses that include commercial use, which the NPG is specifically denying. You'd have to use it under terms of our ]. That said, there's a chance it's in the public domain, NPG's protestations not withstanding. It is not uncommon for entities in possession of such works to defend copyright even when it's very apparent the works are in the public domain. But, figuring out whether it's in the public domain or not is complicated by the fact that the author is not stipulated on the image description at . --] (]) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just going to add that the resolution of the image shouldn't matter regardless of its copyright status even when it comes to CC licenses as long as the image is essentially the same. The NPG might be claiming that digitalization of public domain images into high-res versions is sufficient to establish a new copyright for the better version, but I don't think this is supported by case law. I've also seen discussions on Commons regarding whether it would be acceptable to increase the resolution of a low-resolution images released under the type of CC licenses that Commons accepts, and almost all the comments implied that it should be OK. Even Googling whether such a thing is OK finds on the CC official website itself stating its OK; so, given that a PD image is by definition one that is not protected by copyright, the NPG trying to claim such a thing with respect to a PD image is probably going to be ignored by Commons. What the NPG might be banking on is that those wanting to reuse their images will enter into a separate or supplemental agreement with the NPG to only use the images in certain way at a certain resolution, but ] is also typically ignored by Commons. If, however, you willingly enter into such an agreement with the NPG but then violate its terms, the NPG might try to take action against you for that but not for a copyright violation (I think). Once again, you probably should ask about this at ] since that where the image should be hosted if it's PD. The only reasons I can think of for which Misplaced Pages would need to host this image are (1) it's non-free content, and (2) it's PD in the US but not in its country of first publication. -- ] (]) 07:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::+++ To your analysis re: the case law, mechanical reproductions (including digitized scans) of works in the public domain are automatically themselves in the public domain. The scan isn't transformative enough to make anything new. If the original photo is PD, so is the scan, unless NPG substantially edited or remixed the image, presumably not the case here. Love me a good museum and big love to other GLAM folks, but unfortunately the reality of working with living artists and artists' estates - who can sometimes make wildly inaccurate claims about their copyright ownership that museums generally respect in order to keep those third parties satisfied enough to make major loans of art and agree to reproductions - seems to have infected many museums' attitudes toward copyright in general, including in situations with clear-cut case law that favor free use of digitized PD material. --] (]) 14:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for all this. A similar question has been asked at the Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0_acceptable_on_en.wikipedia_for_a_specific_image_on_a_specific_page?) and the answer seems to be that it can be used. ] (]) 01:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:@ ] (]) 15:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. NPG cannot claim copyright on 2D reproduction, even if high resolution, backed by WMF and a legal finding. --] (]) 13:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Non-free image acutally free == |
|
While looking at some newly uploaded images, I came across ] and saw that it was tagged with {{tlx|Non-free no reduce}}. It seems a bit odd that an image used in a biography article like ] needs to be so large given that default width for most infobox images is much smaller. So, I replaced the "non-free no reduce" template with a "non-free reduce" template. I then decided to take a look at some of the other images uploaded by the same uploader to see whether this was just a one off type of thing. It seems that two other files uploaded by the same uploader (] and ]) have been tagged with "Non-free no reduce" as well. FWIW, I'm quite happy to go back and self-revert my edit to the first file if the consensus here is that particular file doesn't need to be reduced. However, if that's the case, I think some more guidance on when it's OK to use this template should be added to ] and perhaps even ], perhaps even an example or two of when it's not OK to use this template. It appears someone attempted to try and start a discussion about adding a {{para|reason}} parameter to the template at ] back in 2018, but never got a response. Perhaps this should be something worth discussing now. -- ] (]) 06:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I added these because these images are portraits of long-dead people with zero commercial value, for which it isn't too easy to find any portrait at all, and the auto reducer is absurdly aggressive in making everything gratuitously tiny and then hard deleting the originals. I don't think there's much chance the original photographers or publishing organizations even remember these portraits exist, let alone care that someone distributes them in the context of biographies, and there's no reasonable challenge to the claim that they are fair use, even at full size. Perhaps there should be some better middle-ground option(s) between "preserve the original upload" vs. "turn this into an unrecognizable thumbnail". –] ] 07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: The specific very bad experience I had with an image I added was with ] which was turned into such a ridiculously tiny thumbnail that the indicated feature (the shapes of the symbols {{tmath|\C}} and {{tmath|\R}}) wasn't remotely visible anymore, even after I had tried to make it as small as possible before the bot came through. (Frankly the size I left it still doesn't properly demonstrate the letter shapes as intended.) But I have also seen plenty of other pages where standard biographical portraits of long-dead people of zero commercial value with unenforced sometimes nearly expired copyright, sometimes fairly hard to find better copies of, were made into thumbnails where the person could barely be recognized. As a reader, I always find these images extremely frustrating. I basically don't believe in adding images at all which aren't either free or far, far on the no-brainer side of the fair use line, but for the latter, I feel like making the images tiny mostly defeats the point of having them at all. –] ] 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Images in which lots of intricate detail is going to be lost due to reduction probably don't need to reduced to the same degree as a "portrait photo" or "logo". Moreover, images which themselves are the subjects of articles in which certain apects of the image are critcally discussed in the article might also benefit from not being reduced or reduced as much. How much detail is really lost, though, when it comes to portrait photos being used in main infoboxes or at the tops of biography articles? For example, you also uploaded ] which also seems to have {{tq|zero commercial value}}, but is much smaller than the other three mentioned above; yet, it seems to be serving it's encylopedic purpose of identifying ]. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? -- ] (]) 08:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Quite to the contrary, the image at ] is an ''incredibly bad'' image which does a horrible job at fulfilling the purpose of illustrating the subject, only very marginally better than nothing at all, and frustrating and disappointing for many if not most readers. Unfortunately I don't have anything else, but if I had a nice high-resolution photo I certainly would love to add it there, in or out of copyright, where it would undoubtedly be fair use under US law. Edit: I will certainly agree with you that ] also has no commercial value whatsoever, and is clearly fair use. {{tq|i=yes|How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size?}} Most of the detail would be lost, for no benefit whatsoever. ] is an image only a few years away from entering the public domain, whose subject is dead, whose photographer is dead, published in a journal which ended over 60 years ago, and which probably hasn't even been looked at by any human in the past three decades (before I hunted it up), with the possible exceptions of (1) whoever scanned the image, and (2) ], the only person to ever cite the paper where this image appeared. It's possible there's a better copy somewhere in the archives at NOAA, and it's even entirely possible this image was in the public domain at its origin (I don't have more details). Down-sizing it serves no purpose beyond ticking some kind of out-of-context bureaucratic checkbox. –] ] –] ] 08:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Now the bot has come through and turned these images to emoji-sized blobs, at readers' expense. I don't really see the benefit, and may revert at some point. –] ] 00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::As a rule, it is better to let the bot reduce the image rather than attempting it yourself. Do it yourself and you usually wind up with the bot reducing it again.{{pb}} I often have free images and tagging them with {{tl|Non-free no reduce}} would be a good option because they literally have zero commercial value and there is no valid reason to reduce them. ] ] 09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't understand what your second paragraph is trying to say. Are you agreeing with me that this type of image should have {{t|non-free no reduce}} added so that the bot doesn't come scrunch images to emoji size? –] ] 09:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes. If the image has no commercial value, there is no reason to reduce it. ] ] 09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'll note that our ] policy does not say it's ok to use a larger non-free image than we normally allow if we take a guess that the copyright holder isn't going to care. Copyright law is copyright law. There is no allowance in it for chances of someone suing. Neither should there be such leniency in our own policy. --] (]) 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The policy page doesn't actually say ''anything concrete or specific'' about what "minimal" resolution/quality means, other than that logos should be insufficient for counterfeiting, and for historical photographs copies "will be of very inferior quality". The image in question here is a poor quality scan of a photograph which was printed as a mediocre black-and-white picture accompanying a journal article. The highest available resolution copy of the digital image as it currently exists doesn't come anywhere close to being suitable for commercial printing of an ordinary glossy photograph, as you might obtain from a portrait studio. There's no way to turn this image into something that won't be "of very inferior quality", irrespective of resolution; the amount of detail in the image is significantly lower than you would get from a bad 2-inch passport photo obtained from your local pharmacy. –] ] 06:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The vast majority of images from that period will not meet your standard of commercial printing from a modern portrait studio. Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright? Prior debate on the size of images has resulted in the practice that non-free images generally aren't much larger than the place (usually an infobox) where they are used. --] (]) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ya know how it goes. Not Bureau, IAR. If an editor in good standing vouches for the need to keep a slightly larger image, bet they have a good reason. We're so far from actual line of what US Fair Use actually permits, we have total editorial freedom to accommodate gray cases. ] (]) 11:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Because the line we use is not fair use, it is about reducing the quantity and net content of non-free images to promote more free media for WP so that it can be reused and redistributed. Its nice to have pictures of long-dead persons, but if they were not in the public eye at any point and their appearance contributed no factors towards their notability or importance, these images tend to be simply decorative, not to where they have to be removed but we're not going to necessarily allow NFC to be thrown out the window to allow larger than needed sizes. ] (]) 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I disagree entirely that portaits on biographies, or images more generally, are "simply decorative". By a similar standard a significant majority of the ''text'' of Misplaced Pages is "simply decorative", especially on our longer articles, detail embellishment of a story that does not "contribute factors towards notability" (whatever that is supposed to mean). A significant proportion of human mental capacity is devoted to processing of human faces, and attaching clear pictures of people to their names and accomplishments creates an emotional connection, anchors memory, and provides significant context used to assess the person. –] ] 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I am not arguing g that such images should be removed, but they are general of very low value in terms of NFCC#8 for comprehension of a person who did not have a public presence as to merit an exemption of NFCC#3 on minimal size. ] (]) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{tq|i=yes|"Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright?"}} – This image is still (possibly, nominally) copyrighted. What we are talking about is whether including it in Misplaced Pages is ] under US copyright law, which it clearly is: This is a 91 year old image which was intended to be distributed as a portrait of a public figure rather than sold as art, and certainly has zero commercial value today; it is being used for an educational purpose, for which it is clearly relevant; our use is limited to just this photograph, which we are including on just one page; the image is quite mediocre, and there's really no chance someone is going to start selling prints of it taken off Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
:::::There are many hypothetical scenarios where "images from that period" could still run into copyright claims (whether or not they were pursued in court). For example, if Misplaced Pages scanned a whole book of some portrait photographer's work and reproduced it in its entirety on a page, that would no longer be a limited use. If Misplaced Pages included a high-quality scan of a fine-art photograph, that could (conceivably) impinge on the photograph's commercial resale value. For example, ] is a pretty clearly detailed scan of a famous art photograph, and Misplaced Pages is publishing a portion that could be used to print postcards or something, in a way that could conceivably affect the profits of ]'s estate. |
|
|
:::::Aside: The file page at ] claims that this 1941 photograph published 1943 is out of copyright because it didn't file any copyright renewal. The same is undoubtedly true of the image currently under discussion. –] ] 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::For a image that likely might fall into copyright due to its publication date, we need proof position that the factors that limit its copyright term and can be made into a free image be expressed and demonstrated. That's done in a satisfactory way for the Adam's photograph, so it can be uploaded at full scale on commons because it is no longer covered by copyright. We have no idea if this image here as similar ability to be marked free, so we have to go with the default of assuming non free. Also to stress, we do not care about fair use aspects because NFCC is purposely stronger than those to encourage free media and minimize nonfree use. While the commercial value factor is just one part of fair use, NFCC is more than that, and even a freely distributed copyrighted piece that limits reuse is a problem for us.<span id="Masem:1724775062032:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNon-free_content" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
:::::::Alright, I took a look through the Stanfard copyright renewal catalog https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals and can't find any relevant entries after searching for a variety of relevant keywords. When I get a chance, I'll go ahead and change the file page here to describe the image as in the public domain for lack of copyright renewal. Edit: on second glance, maybe that's not right. This renewal database seems to only contain copyright renewals for books. Would ] have ever plausibly be listed in there / was searching that database really sufficient to declare a lack of copyright there? –] ] 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I am not familiar with that Stanford database to know if it is strictly limited to books or includes other registrations, but if it is strictly limited to books, then that image on. Commons should be nominated for deletion at commons bince that database can't be used to validate picture copyrights.<span id="Masem:1724853244728:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNon-free_content" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
:I agree that the non free bot is often ridiculously stingy (treating the 0.1 megapixel rule of thumb as absolute instead of a guide) and specifically upload content in a low resolution that preserves the relevant info based on context (video game screenshots, for example, can get scrunched to the point where even reasonably large on-screen details become impossible to grok, and thus it's not a useful image at all.) But I think there's a bit of a difference here between "I tag an image I shrunk down to a reasonable size that readers can still see a slightly larger and clearer image for" and "I'm uploading 1.7-megapixel non free images", ], which is what you're doing. If you want to argue for loosening ], you can start an RfC. But right now you're absolutely abusing the template to stop these from being reduced (especially for the Oscar Adams shot, the original scan is so bad all the high-resolution image is really getting you is an appreciation for dot patterns anyhow.) ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Concur. Frankly, looking at the larger image vs. the smaller image of ] I fail to see what the larger brings to the table that isn't apparent from the smaller. It's a man, in a suit, wearing glasses. Even the 94x120 thumbnails on the image description page tell you the same thing. --] (]) 13:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Part of the problem is that "number of megapixels" is an incredibly poor guide for the actual resolution of an image, i.e. how much detail it contains, but is easily substituted by people who don't have a basic understanding of how human vision and images work (which is most people). |
|
|
::This image could certainly be reduced in pixel dimensions (hopefully by a less shitty process than whatever the bot is doing) without losing too much detail, because, again ''it's a mediocre scan of a mediocre black and white print''. I uploaded the version I did because this image doesn't need further degradation, and carefully reducing the pixel count takes time and work that is better spent on something else. –] ] 15:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|Hammersoft|Masem|David Fuchs}} Is it now safe to assume that the {{tlx|Non-free no reduce}} templates on ] and ] should be replaced with {{tlx|Non-free reduce}}? {{ping|jacobolus|Hawkeye7|Feoffer}} Would you prefer that these images be further discussed at FFD? -- ] (]) 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'd fight for a no reduce tag in theory, when an article requires it, but these two specific images are used at much lower resolution in their respective articles. They should be reduced and the larger versions removed. ] (]) 05:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I see no problem with reducing them, as they will be displayed at 220 to 300 pixels. My issue has always been with the requirement to reduce free images, for which the wording of {{tl|Non-free no reduce}} is equally inappropriate. (And does anyone know what "non-free media on Misplaced Pages should not be usable as substitutes for the original work" means?) ] ] 06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It means that you aren't supposed to put a high resolution image of someone's fine art painting (or whatever) that could be used to sell postcards or something and hurt the original artist's revenue stream. –] ] 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{ping|Hawkeye7}} There's a requirement to reduce ''free'' images? Where have you seen that? ] (]) 05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The images referred to are free ''gratis'' images (Creative Commons Non-Commercial). Our rationale for reduction does not apply because there are no commercial opportunities of the owner to impact. Nonetheless, there is an insistence on reducing the images! ] ] 06:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I think I see what you mean: Misplaced Pages can legally use those images at whatever resolution it likes. But Misplaced Pages policy is stricter than US copyright law, and ] applies to images licensed under CC BY-NC (which are considered non-free for this purpose). Which part of the wording of {{tl|non-free no reduce}} do you think is inappropriate here? ] (]) 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, they should be reduced. --] (]) 10:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, it has been pointed out to me on Commons that ] is in the public domain as it was created over 70 years ago. Given this, would it be possible to undelete the larger version and mark for movement to Commons? ] (]) 05:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== NFCC#4 and previous publication == |
|
|
|
:Hi {{u|Chipmunkdavis}}. There already exists a version of the flag on Commons as ]; so, it's not clear why a jpeg version (that seems inferior in quality) is also needed; however, if the larger version of the local file is the same, then a request can be made at ] to restore it because it was deleted per ]. Given that the flag is pretty much nothing but the organization's logo on white background with its name written underneath, there's probably not much encyclopedic value gained from using both images in ] in my opinion, but that's something that probably needs to be sorted out on the article's talk page. -- ] (]) 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah thanks, didn't see that new upload. I suppose that might replace the jpeg entirely. ] (]) 08:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Non-free 3D photos of non-free 2D cover art == |
|
Do personal photos uploaded as non-free content which never seem to have been published (at least not prior to being uploaded to Misplaced Pages) like ] meet ]? Is being uploaded to Misplaced Pages considered sufficient or satisfying ], even though it seems to imply that it's not. There might be ] issues with the photo as well, but for I more curious about the NFCC#4 compliance. Please note the file was tagged for speedy deletion per ] by another user while I was typing the above, but I think it's still a good idea to discuss the potential NFCC#4 issue. -- ] (]) 04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two discussions taking place at MCQ (] and ]) that basically involve files which are non-free 3D photos taken of non-free 2D cover art which have been tagged for speedy deletion. I've commented quite a bit in the discussion about the bible image, but it might be nice for some other input on this since I could be completely wrong. Nobody has yet to comment in the other discussion, but it seems to essentially be about the same thing. -- ] (]) 04:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Being uploaded to WP, while that's the first publication, is not the type of previous publication that we expect for non-free images. This is really a case where we expect that the image, being what appears to be a personal photo, should be uploaded as a free image if it hasn't been published before. ] (]) 04:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Interesting case. On the file information page, the uploader identifies the photographer as {{tpq|my son-in-law's father}} and says that the image is {{tpq|used with his permission}}. If the son-in-law's father wants to give permission, then a proper CC BY-SA 4.0 license (or equivalent) is the way to show that verifiable permission has been given, no matter the familial relationship between the uploader and the photographer. ] (]) 04:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== CRW Flags == |
|
::: <s>I've uploaded thousands of my personal photos to Commons, which haven't been published before. I've always selected a free license. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC) </s> |
|
|
::: I have an email from him to me giving me permission, but I'll contact him tomorrow about sending an email to VST. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per ] and you uploaded this file locally to Misplaced Pages as non-free content. ] is ] that are required to be met for each use of non-free content per ]. -- ] (]) 04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I knew not to upload it to Commons, that is why I uploaded it to Misplaced Pages and tried to use "fair use". This was a short-lived event that made the news. Someone on a talk page requested a photo, which I saw in the category of photo requests in Georgia. My son-in-law's father sent us that photo while he was waiting to pick up his child. I asked him if it was OK to put on Misplaced Pages, and he said yes. I thought it would help Misplaced Pages so I put it up. I'm a grandmaster editor so I was really trying to help - now it is all of this. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website {{url|www.crwflags.com}}, which appears to be getting its images from ]. If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like ] and ]) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at ], though that seems mainly due to ] than ]? -- ] (]) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Since this photo is related to an incident that just happened, there could eventually be a free equivalent posted somewhere online, which makes FREER an issue. Not meeting FREER alone is more than a sufficient reason for failing the NFCC. Even so, the NFCC#4 issue is still interesting to me. For example, even though the photographer can release this particular image under a free license if they want, they might not want to do so because they're hoping to take advantage of any potential commercial opportunities the image might provide. They might see Misplaced Pages as one way of increasing the value of their photo. I don't mean that in a bad way and not trying to imply that's what happened here; it's just that I think more people these days are aware of potential commmercial value that their personal photos of breaking news stories may have. Photos can easily go from one's camera to being posted online with a simple click. Does the "Meeting the previous publication" section need to be tweaked a bit to make it clear(er) that there needs to be some in-between third-party publication stage between a photo being taken and uploaded to Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, those hypotheticals are plausible. And yet the uploader states on the file information page that {{tpq|The photographer has no intention of comercializing the photo}}. The only evidence we have of that at this point is the uploader's assertion. ] (]) 05:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::: The photographer (my son-in-law's father, who had a child at the school) has sent an email to the VRT saying that he wanted to use the free license. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{ping|Bubba73}} Do you know ''which'' free license? If so, the file can be tagged with that license and {{tl|permission pending}}, which should resolve the issue for now. ] (]) 05:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I asked him to say to license it under CC BY-SA 4.0 and he said he did. But something might not have worked - the last time I checked there was no update to the file. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::] will only update the file once they've processed the permission, and that could take some time. In the meantime, anyone who knows that permission has been sent can put {{tl|permission pending}} on the file, and it'll be tentatively treated as having that license. ] (]) 06:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Getty images open content == |
|
== non-free rationale and ability to use copyright photos appropriately == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. And with the templates like how do I use them and when? Thanks ] (]) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! ] (]) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see ] ] (]) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See ]. -- ] (]) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website www.crwflags.com, which appears to be getting its images from Flags of the World (website). If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png and File:Flag of Opp, Alabama.png) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at c:COM:Bad sources#Flags of the World, though that seems mainly due to c:COM:FAIR than WP:RS/P#Flags of the World? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
