| Revision as of 15:20, 27 November 2024 edit139.218.73.237 (talk) →Photo from National Portrait Gallery: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← 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) |
| (15 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
{{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 == |
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#WPT:NFCC}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 15:49, 4 November 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) |
|
== NFLISTS and license plate articles == |
|
|
⚫ |
: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 == |
|
I'm pretty sure might have been discussed before, but I figured it would be good to hear what others think about the non-free use of individual entries in articles like ]. For reference, I broached the point with the uploader at ] but then sort of forgot about it. I was only reminded about today when the article popped up on my watchlist again. Most of the non-free images being used were uploaded as replacements for files deleted from Commons. That's not an argument in favor of their non-free use, but it just shows that they were uploaded in good faith. Is there anyway this kind of usage could be treated along the lines of national currency list articles. I'm not a big fan of those per se, but over time they seem to have become (a bit grudgingly perhaps) accepted for what they are. -- ] (]) 20:52, 5 November 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) |
|
:I'd argue that at least the current design that is used at the top of the page should be allowed and would qualify as fair use for commentary, as it is describing the (current) subject of the article. It's kinda hard to describe some of the newer US designs with words alone. At the end of the issuance it could be deleted.</br> |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
:As for the actual lists, it may be the best to see if they can be used for the articles by emailing the DMV of the states in question.</br> |
|
|
|
::Ah thanks, didn't see that new upload. I suppose that might replace the jpeg entirely. ] (]) 08:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I will agree that it is kinda like banknotes where it is technically the subject of the article even if it isn't the currently issued design.</br> |
|
|
:<span style= "font-family:Times New Roman; background-color: #4b5320">] ]</span> 14:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Spoken word non-free audio files == |
|
== Non-free 3D photos of non-free 2D cover art == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Most of my experience when it comes to non-free content has been with respect to images. I understand that policy also allows non-free audio files, but I mostly see them used in music related articles. I'm not sure how policy treats non-free spoken word audio files like ].{{pb}}It seems as if a non-free audio file of an interview would fail ] because a transcript of the interview could either be cited or quotes of what was said during the interview could be added and cited. Moreover, if there are no ] issues, a link to the audio/video of the interview could be added to "External links" section.{{pb}}It also seems unnecessary per ] to simply hear someone's voice just for that reason alone unless their voice was perhaps the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources due to some unique characteristic.{{pb}}There is also the issue of length and ]. ] states clips might be used, but it's not clear how long a "clip" is supposed to be. Is it 5%, 10%, 20% or some other percent of the total length of full audio file. Is there ] guidance provided for audio files. The Routh audio file mentioned above is 1:45 long and comes from a 10 minute long YouTube video; so, that's about 20% of the total video (I guess). -- ] (]) 05:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== CRW Flags == |
|
:Spoken word clips should be treated both as NFC and as ] related to quotations, which means the length of the quote/clip should be kept to a minimum. 1:45 minutes of a 10 min. video is far too much, we're talking maybe what takes 3 or 4 sentences to be used. External media that is relevant can always be linked to in the article (we have a template box for that) if the full source (made available by the copyright owner) is out there. |
|
| ⚫ |
:but all NFCC also applies - if the spoken text comes across just as well as in text quotes (which are FREER) the audio sample is wholly unnecessary. ] (]) 13:22, 7 November 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) |
|
== Photos of people who disappeared == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
This came up recently in a FFD. ] We seem to have quite a lot of photos of people who disappeared even in cases where there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is still alive. Sometimes this even includes age progression images which only make sense when it's assumed the person might still be alive. Or perhaps to put it a different way the age progression is only needed if the person is alive. We're less likely to have images when the person seems to be presumed dead which I guess makes sense since in those cases while NFCC#1 might be clearer, NFCC#8 is not (readers don't need to know what they look like). The FFD above seems to be leaning towards delete, so I'm wondering if we have a wider problem we need to take care of. ] (]) 11:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Personally, unless there was some notable visual feature about the missing person, we don't need an image of the person on a page about a missing person (eg NFCC#8 fails), but I know many others assert that it is essential to see the image of the person that is being talked about. In NFCC terms, it is fair that for a person that has been missing for several months/years, we cannot readily expect to take a public photo of them, so there is at least some reasonable allowance for it. |
|
|
:We are ''certainly'' not a missing-person finder so things like age-progression images are not appropriate at all (I am sure in such cases, references and ELs will include sites with that). Usually in such cases, the last known photo of the person is what becomes tied to the public knowledge of the case, so that's the only real (non-free) image that should be used. ] (]) 13:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The person in this instance isn't exactly disappeared in the sense of 'likely dead/kidnapped', he (and his kids) are intentionally avoiding society and we know his rough location. So I don't think this is a one-to-one with most disappearances. I agree though that NFCC#8 isn't really applicable to understanding a disappearance. ] (]) 20:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We have allowed NFC of living persons who are known to purposely avoid public and are recluse, but that still urges NFCC#8 to be satisfied<span id="Masem:1731099863774:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNon-free_content" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
::::@] We have? ] (]) 01:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The general rule on photos of living persons is based on the fact that they likely will appear in a public place and thus a free photo can be taken. For people that either cannot be in public (such as those in jail) or that are purposely avoiding public places (documented as such) then this is generally not possible so we'd allow for a non-free to be used if such is otherwise appropriate for NFC.<span id="Masem:1731116389258:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNon-free_content" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 01:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
:To copy what I said at that FFD: With disappearances: if they are the presumed dead kind of disappearance, and it has been a reasonable amount of time, then it may apply. This is about the case of a family subject to a recent disappearance who is recognizably still alive. No one knows where they are but a photo of them was just taken. So the reasons for the exception given for historical photos is not present here. If they are presumed alive but no one can find them, no. An image could still, in theory, be taken of them that is free. In theory, someone could just meet them and take a photo, however unlikely that is, but there are plenty of living people who it is unlikely to see and we can't upload NFCC of them except in truly exceptional circumstances where it is certain they will ''never'' be accessible to the public. I do think it enhances understanding but still, the replacability factor. ] (]) 03:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Photo from National Portrait Gallery == |
|
== Getty images open content == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
| ⚫ |
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) |
|
|
|
:Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see ] ] (]) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
: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) |
|
|
|
: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) |
| ⚫ |
: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) |
|
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)
