| Revision as of 16:29, 29 September 2005 editFvw (talk | contribs)19,601 edits →Very specific fair use question← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:44, 24 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,431 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 71. (BOT) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Images and Media}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Policy-talk}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive |
|
|
|format= %%i |
|
|
|age=336 |
|
|
|index=no |
|
|
|minkeepthreads=5 |
|
|
|minarchthreads=2 |
|
|
|nogenerateindex=1 |
|
|
|maxarchsize=856000 |
|
|
|numberstart=71 |
|
|
|header={{Aan}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}} |
|
|
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Photo from National Portrait Gallery == |
|
== Overhaul == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
I have boldly updated this page in line with discussion on ], the mailing list, and ]. In general, it is widely believed that we need a policy on what sort of fair use material we are willing to accept, and this is my attempt at that. |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
Please edit it to make it better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
] Co., ] 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
== Policy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
All of these requirements are met or one? It should specify not imply. --] 04:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Photo Assistance== |
|
== CRW Flags == |
|
Is AFP.com a fair use site. I would like to consider using this photo of President located at http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/photos_pl_afp/050901155931_hc7pmpn4_photo0 |
|
|
Kindly advise.] 20:02, 1 September 2005 (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) |
|
* AFP would be ]. Definitely ''not'' appropriate to reuse, that's a wire service. -- ] | ] 06:42, September 2, 2005 (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) |
|
*There is no such thing as a "fair use site". Whether individual photographs can be used under "fair use" policies does not depend on the site, but since AFP makes their living selling these photographs, it would be especially important to establish an adequate "fair use" rationale. In this case, it would depend on where you want to use this photo. --] 18:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Getty images open content == |
|
==Problems== |
|
|
Here are just a few problematic statements in the present version of the page: |
|
|
*Publicity photos are permitted but are not fair use, see ]. |
|
|
To my knowledge, our use of publicity photos ''must be'' as "fair use", because we no longer allow the use of limited licenses. |
|
|
*News and wire service photos published in 1923 or later. Not permitted. These are copyrighted and there is no fair use exemption for them. |
|
|
What's the justification for saying "there is no fair use exemption for them"? I don't see why these are being treated different than any other copyrighted media. I ''do'' believe that there should be a special warning for using photographs whose copyrights are owned by companies who make their income ''exclusively'' off of photograph licenses (because the argument that we are defrauding them is a lot stronger), but there are many instances in which said use could still be "fair" in my mind. What's the rationale behind such strongly worded text? |
|
|
*Photographs of plants, wildlife, and other natural history subjects. Not permitted. Fair use doesn't provide a general "educational" exemption for such material. |
|
|
Same question as the news photos. Obviously if it is feasible to take our own pictures of the thing in question (no need to "fair use" a photograph of a dog, for example, as there are many dogs), "fair use" wouldn't apply. But if it is something more specific, I don't see why it wouldn't qualify as "fair use" ("Bruno, the wild dog of the Pampas, known for eating cattle" or something like that). |
|
|
*Often an image will be both fair use and licensed use. The license protects the uploader and the Misplaced Pages, while others can use the image as fair use. This is particularly likely when the uploader is not in the US and may not be able to legally use fair use without infringing under their own local copyright law. It's always good to have the legal protection of even a very restrictive license for a work being used under fair use. To assist reusers, do give both the license details and the fair use rationale. In these cases, the license will govern use outside the US, while those in the US can use fair use. |
|
|
I think this whole section should be deleted, personally (along with the similar tags). "Fair use" is a defensive claim because you don't have permission; a license is a form of permission — they should not be confused with one another. I think it also confuses the re-using issue. Images licensed ''only'' to Misplaced Pages are ''not'' allowed on Misplaced Pages. The only way to use a copyrighted image on Misplaced Pages which is not licensed for ''any'' use is to use it under a "fair use" claim, ''if'' one applies. --] 19:06, 2 September 2005 (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) |
|
==Images of art== |
|
|
|
: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 all images of all visual art fair use? I know of a ] that someone claims the copyright to. Can we use it here? Can we edit it and use it here? ] 05:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's quite possible for a photo of a three-dimensional object to be copyrighted, even if the original is out of copyright. --] 05:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''No''' image is inherently fair use, fair use is a matter of how you ''use'' the image. |
|
|
: Also, I think you may be confusing fair use and ]. Fair use applies specifically to certain uses of copyrighted images. |
|
|
: So I'm not quite sure what you want to know. -- ] | ] 05:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think this is a question about the Bridgeman v. Corel implications. Making a 2-D reproduction of a 2-D work of art which is already in the public domain does NOT create a new copyright (in the United States). Making a 2-D reproduction of a 3-D work of art which is already in the public domain DOES create a new copyright (because it involves some form of originality and creativity in arrangement). So a photo of King Tut's death mask can definitely be copyrighted. --] 12:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Images of institutions== |
|
|
If an institution such as a school puts an image of its building on the front page of its website, to describe and/or promote itself, it it fair use to copy that image and use it to describe that institution in an article about it? ] 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Legally? Maybe. Under Misplaced Pages's rules? Probably not. Since images of buildings are usually pretty easy to create, there's no reason to use a non-free image. --] 03:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Misplaced Pages will pay for my air fare? ] 03:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, but it will pay your expenses for contacting a Wikipedian with a camera in the general area. See ]. --] 06:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Template changes == |
|
|
For some time now I've been thinking about and discussing more potential policy changes and clarifications for fairuse images, but finding something which strikes a balance between our many needs and many perspectives is very difficult. Still, the existing system leaves a lot to be desired, and there is a lot of argument related to fair use images. Some users believe we are overusing fair use and reducing the freeness of Misplaced Pages, while others counter with the fact that fair use is essential to our goal of producing an encyclopedia. Virtually all who have evaluated the situation agree that there are a lot of incorrectly tagged images. |
|
|
|
|
|
Recently, the new speedy delete criteria for unsourced images has caused a lot of additional discussion about all facets of image copyright handling on Misplaced Pages. After extensive consultation with quite a few Wikipedians I have decided that there is a lot more to gain by changing some details in our procedures rather than proposing a more comprehensive policy change. As a result I have created two new templates: {{tl|fairusenoalternative}} and {{tl|fairusereplace}}. |
|
|
|
|
|
Both templates share a common characteristic: two variables. These allow (and encourage) the user of the template to provide both where the work is fair use, and why the work is fair use. This is necessary because all fair use is dependent on context and must always have a basis. I do not suggest we impose standards on what goes into the why field right away, but rather feel out what is most useful. The two templates differ from each other because they separate fairuse into two broad classes. In one class we have fair use where there can be no alternative to that work. For example, if we are writing about a copyrighted painting there is no freely available work which could act as a reasonable alternative to the use of an excerpt of the painting in that context. The other class is for works where, while our use would be considered fair use by law in the US, it is possible to create free works which would act as a good replacement. For example, we might currently be using a fair use photograph of ] but anyone can take a picture of him, and many possible pictures would do as good or better of a job as the fair use image. Because Misplaced Pages is the ] Encyclopedia, we prefer the freely licensed image when we have an option. It is possible for a work to have multiple instances of both tages, because the replaceability of the work and the rationale of the use may differ from linking article to linking article. However, I think situations requiring multiple tags will be rare. |
|
|
|
|
|
After the tags are in wide use, the plan is to convert the existing {{tl|fairuse}} into a message requesting fairuse review and disambiguation. We also have some subject-area fair use tags which may benefit from being split and being provided with where and why fields. Enjoy!--] 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cover Photos == |
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently not everyone has the same idea as to whether a magazine cover may be used for the article of the person appearing on the front cover. See ] for a discussion about this. I think everyone should be agreed on this before a bunch of people remove cover photos and then a lot of other people see it the opposite way around. Thanks ]|] 16:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Covers of media should be used to illustrate the ''media'' in question, not the subject of the cover. In cases where the media in question is quite notable, such as ''Playboy'', this can usually be cleared up by a good image caption and the addition of a few sentences regarding the subject's appearance on the magazine cover to the article text. However, magazine covers are not automatically fair use in articles about the subject; care is required. I would also generally discourage this use because the fair use claim isn't as solid as one for an article that primarily contained commentary about the media itself, as well as the fact that it should be easier to get a free replacement (or at least a better fair use replacement). ] // ] 20:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Okay, so if I understand this correctly, we can use magazine covers if the appearance on the cover is discussed in the article and it plainly states in the caption that the image is being used to show the magazine with said person on the cover? ]|] 12:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's what I believe. There have been some discussions at ] about this as well, and those discussions seem to have reached a similar conclusion. ] // ] 20:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mugshots == |
|
|
] |
|
|
Unless a city has a policy to put work generated by city employees as part of their job into the public domain, then that work is still protected by copyright. So, how does/should this apply to mugshots? The purpose of these images is somewhat similar to that of publicity shots in the entertainment industry with the major difference being the wishes of the subject. In that case, the images are copyrighted, yet the holder of that copyright let's them be used rather freely in order to drum up publicity. That makes it easier for us to make a fair use claim on those type of images. Does this also apply to mugshots? Is there even a market for mugshots that may be damaged by copyright infringement? What should our policy on mugshot use be? --] 04:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, that particular image is from the Los Angeles Police Department, who certainly seems to think they can claim copyright on their content (see ). I don't think the wishes of the subject are required to be taken into consideration for copyright questions, as they are not the copyright holder and would have no standing for a copyright-related suit. I do not think there is a market at all would damage the copyright holder in this instance, though, which would make it not terribly difficult fair use claim for Misplaced Pages. The images are certainly distributed with intention of potential reuse of some sort. I think it's a pretty low-risk fair use category. --] 01:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Another thing to consider is the fact that mugshots are very uncreative, which should help our fair use claim with regards to "the nature of the work". ] // ] 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Mugshots are no more uncreative than many portraits, and some are great pictures (the ] one springs to mind), as people are in unexpected situations. I dont see how copyright is in any way different from any other picture. And most of the so-called publicity photos we have are not. I would be against using these. ] 12:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think they are as "creative" as anything else when it comes to the legal definition of creativity, but I don't think they are a dangerous category of images. I find it very, very unlikely that a police department would ever use legal action against an encyclopedia reprinting a mugshot of theirs. At least, I've never heard of anything like it. The lack of a true market for these makes it a pretty strong fair use claim as well. --] 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thats the sort of thinking that has got fair use into the horrible mess its now in. LAPD say "Trademark and Copyright 1998 by the Los Angeles Police Department, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. All materials published on the Site are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by the Los Angeles Police Department, or the party listed as the provider of the content, software or other materials. Commercial use of the materials is prohibited without the written permission of the Los Angeles Police Department." So they should at least be tagged as noncommercial if they are from LAPD, but its worse, they specifically forbid "UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING, DOWNLOADING, POSTING, TRANSMITTING OR DUPLICATING ANY OF THE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED. You may download or copy any downloadable materials displayed on the Site for home, noncommercial and personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright, trademark and other notices contained in such material and you agree to abide by all additional copyright notices, information or restrictions contained in any material accessed through the Site.". These people are protecting their copyright. We are blatently ignoring this. We have no justification at all for this. Delete these images. ] 12:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Stop calling them "fair use images" == |
|
|
I think the tendency to call unlicensed images used under the term "fair use images" tends to mislead editors into assuming they can use an image when they can't. I, therefore, think we should avoid using that phrase and instead use the term "unlicensed images". Images being used under the fair use doctrine are not licensed; the fair use doctrine merely permits the use of the image without a license. We have to make it crystal clear to people that fair use is a per-instance doctrine that authorizes an image to be used '''only''' in a specific context and that the image itself remains unlicensed and is not available for general use outside that context. ] 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. ] ] 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good idea. Can anyone think of a term that has even more negative connotations? --] 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unfree? Non-free? Restricted use? Limited use? ] 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Constrained-use''? (also: subservient, captive, enslaved, enthralled, subjugated '';D'') -- ]<small> | </small>] 16:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::''Unlicenced''? That is in essense what they are. The use in the article may be fair use, but the image is just plain unlicenced. --]] 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Very specific fair use question == |
|
|
I'd like to use an image of an IBM 603 tube multiplier found on the ] page I'm rewriting. Of course the image is probably Copyright IBM, but in their "Terms and conditions" set forth for that portion of the site (), they explicity state "Fair educational use of the contents of this Web site is permitted." Does uploading this image to Misplaced Pages qualify as proper fair use under our rules? I find it very unlikely that IBM would agree to license the image under a Free license or release it to public domain, so I think application of fair use is the best way to go here. I'm pretty sure this is kosher, but wanted to be positive before I use the image. -- ] 20:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd like to see what other people say, but I think it seems fairly reasonable. It's a photo from the archives of the company that made the product, the archives encourage fair use, and it sounds pretty difficult to get a free equivalent. ] // ] 21:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It sounds like a very low risk of a problem to me, I'd go with it. Noting all of things you wrote above on the image description page would make it even more so. --] 02:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Allright, I uploaded it to Image:IBM_603_multiplier.jpg .. I had to use the old and unfavored fair-use tag because nothing else applies. Hopefully nobody will find a problem with it. -- ] 15:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That sounds rather close to <nowiki>{{permission}}</nowiki> to me. Certainly <nowiki>{{noncommercial}}</nowiki>. A bit dubious. ] 12:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::ARGHH... I don't want to rant here, but it's really frustrating that careful editors have to debate about the usage of an image that is both explicitly allowed for educational fair use and is extremely difficult to impossible to obtain in either public domain or under a free license. I am loathe to point out that there isn't a legal entity in the world that would construe usage of that image on a 💕 page as 'commercial usage.' Have any helpful suggestions like, say, where to find public domain images of early electronic computer multiplier units? The only good source would be the military, and there are few good military images of later Von Neumann tube-based computers. I do understand the preference for free and public domain images, but is exclusion of rare and useful images really a better alternative? What about things like CPU dies? I'd like to include an image of one of those, but the chances of getting one under free license is nearly impossible since the people that TAKE those sorts of images are generally IC manufacturers, not independant photographers or government agencies. -- ] 13:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Nobody's denying that '''we''' are non-commercial, but the point is that we're trying to make an encyclopaedia that's '''freely redistributable''', which includes by commercial entities. If we use non-commercial-use-only images, we're no longer the Free encyclopaedia but only the free encyclopaedia. --]] 16:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fair use without source == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does fair use of an image require that we list the source of that image, legally or by our own policy? I've noticed quite a few images getting marked as fair use for reasonable fair use rationales but without their source being specified. --]] 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A source is required in order to claim fair use. Unsourced images will be deleted without warning. ] 21:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If we don't know any source, we can't determine the nature of the work, the portion of the work copied, and the impact on the original work - that's three out of the four factors that we need to consider in determining fair use. It would seem very, very unlikely that we could claim fair use in this case. ] // ] 21:37, 26 September 2005 (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)
