| Revision as of 06:58, 17 March 2008 editTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,002 edits →Rationale edits← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:44, 24 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,903 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 71. (BOT) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{WPFairUse}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
{{calm talk|pink}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Images and Media}} |
|
| align=center|<imagemap>Image:File.svg|100px |
|
|
default ] |
|
|
desc none</imagemap> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 34 |
|
|
|algo = old(5d) |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{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 == |
|
== Scanned engraving, across jurisdictions == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to use this image in an article . The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which (]) died in 1916. So far, so good. If I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and IA claim that apply to this book (ie licensing remains with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Of course, its impossible to identify the actual donor since its come from a consortium of libraries, none of whom list a contact... it might be easier to hold a seance and get Jacobs to print me another copy. |
|
|
|
|
|
So. 438 years old, 1/3 of a page in a 300+ page book, with no text; can I use part of this scan? Yours in copyright paranoia, ] (]) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The book is out of copyright. Life + 70 in the EU; published before 1923 in the US. No new copyright is created by the act of scanning -- either in the EU or the US -- it's a slavish mechanical reproduction. Therefore, public domain everywhere, and uploadable to Commons. ] (]) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== favour? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could I get an assist at ]? Uploaders are claiming ] release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:if they have the website name in the picture DB-copyvio them. the uploaders are obviously claiming a false license. ] (]) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Pretty clear copyvio.] 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I tagged all the images with {{tl|db-copyvio}} and they were apparently speedily deleted. However, {{user|Tigriscuniculus}}, the same uploader, has now reuploaded the same images (more or less, afaict) licensing them: {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUse-Link|}} and {{tl|PD-self}}. I'm still fairly certain these're copyvios, is the next step to speedy tag the images again and warn the user?<p>I realize belatedly that this isn't the most pertinent place to discuss these, but I've stayed on since I've gotten more apropos and timely responses here than at ]. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:He seems to asert that the images he is posting have been donated by the Institute of Plastination. Perhaps it would be an idea to ask him to have someone at the institute send a formal comformation of this to the "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" adress per ], or maybe even fire off an e-mail to '''g.hamburg(at)plastination.com''' (their Director of Communications, who would presumably know about it if they where releasing a bunch of images to us under a free license), point to the statement on ] and ask them to verify by e-mail by CCing the permission OTRS adress since it's the only way we can rely verify if the uploader is officialy acting on their behalf or not. Asuming they actualy respond we should then have a solid basis for either leaving the images tagged as free use, or blocking the uploader for falsifying copyirght information (or some suitable middle ground if it turns out to be an innocent misunderstanding somewhere). --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I deleted the images again until we hear from the copyright holders. I can restore them once we get firm permission. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've encountered a fair use issue, and I thought I'd better get the advice of editors more experienced in this area. |
|
|
|
|
|
This image is in the collection of the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) According to the at the LAC website, the painting dates to 1978 (the same year the artist appears to have died), and the copyright is held by the artist's estate. It will not be in the public domain until at least 2028. |
|
|
|
|
|
The uploader is claiming both that the image is public domain as the artist died more than 50 years ago (not the case), and (as a back-up I suppose) fair use as per <nowiki>{{Non-free 2D art}}</nowiki>. However, the image is not being used for critical comment of the artist or the work, but is instead being used in three articles to illustrate the 1939 dedication of Canada's national war memorial by the King and Queen, the Monarchy in Canada and the Crown and Canada's armed forces. |
|
|
|
|
|
Moreover, we do have a public domain photograph of the King and Queen at the 1939 war memorial dedication on the Commons (]), which is the same subject as the image in question, so there is a free equivalent. |
|
|
|
|
|
Am I missing something? Obviously the fair use grounds claimed by the uploader are not accurate, but is there another fair use basis that would be acceptable here? I don't want to see it deleted unless necessary. ] (]) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Strictly speaking, I think the library acquired the picture in 1978. It's not clear to me from the description when it was painted; it may even have been painted in 1939. However, the claim that it is PD anywhere because the creator died more than 50 years ago is clearly false. She died in 1978. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The only loophole would be if the library had also acquired the copyright, and was allowing unlimited use. Their website says "No restrictions on use for reproductions or publication". But does that apply only to reproduction/publication by the library itself; or is it a more general release? Might be worth contacting them to investigate this point. ] (]) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks. I was so focused on the fair use notion, I completely missed the fact that LAC website indicates that there are no restrictions on reproduction or publication. Indications like that on the LAC site refer to public usage. Thanks again, and I will fix the image description. ] (]) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== How to use ] properly? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I find this template and the process concerning it confusing. I've used it a couple times to dispute the fair use rationale of an image. What I don't understand is this: the template says "remove it if you've addressed this issue". If one person removes it, but another disagrees that the matter is properly resolved, how do the two resolve the dispute? Is there a place for discussion? Are users allowed to remove the tag if the original tagger still feels an admin should review the fair use? Any help would be really great, thanks. ] ] 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. ] (]) 11:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rationale edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
Euuuw, there were significant problems in the wording. I've massaged them; the only one I think needs checking is the third one, where I've expressed what I think people intended the meaning to be. ] ] 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just to be safe I think we should discuss this first. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the change, though the third point might not sound the same to some people. -- ] 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am fine with Tony's wording. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What a senseless revert. Don't waste my time, your time and that of everyone else with your "just to be safe" incantations. Look carefully at the changes and determine what on earth was controversial, what meanings were substantively changed. Jeeesh. ] ] 11:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So this Ned Scott person, whoever he thinks he is, has now reverted again and accused ''me'' (not himself) of engaging in an edit war, and of going on an "ego trip". There are unacceptable personal attacks. This arrogant person still hasn't provided any reasons that my copy-edit of the opening was not a substantial improvement. It beggars belief. WE'RE WAITING .... ] ] 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Think yourself so perfect that you become so rude and insulting to others that ''dare'' question your great and glorious copy-editing? -- ] 12:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The change that I have a problem with is this ''"To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose."'' -> ''"To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media. -- ] 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Clearly more perfect that you are, if there are degrees of perfection as you seem to imply. I don't quite understand whether your personal accusations are some kind of young man's defensive pomposity. Please stop being defensive, and explain here why somehow I'm revert-warring but you're not; why I'm on an "ego trip", but you're not. It's all a bit much to take, frankly. |
|
|
:::::My response to your "problem" above is to ask why either phrase necessarily implies a pre-existing quality. It makes no difference which phrase is used, from that perspective. If you're still uncertain as to why the change does not introduce that undesirable meaning, can you explain it in greater detail? ] ] 12:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Learn a little bit of patience and don't attack anyone who questions your contributions. If you can't even do that then you won't be welcome to make your chances, since you would be unable to discuss them like an adult. I don't care who you are, when you make a change to some long standing wording on one of our most hotly debated policies you need to expect that people might want to discuss things first, and that such discussion is appropriate and even encouraged. As for my concerns, I might be right or wrong, but the point is that as a Wikipedian in good standing, I have a right to say "lets just pause for a moment and look at this to be sure". That's how our system works. -- ] 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*OK, nothing more from Ned, and in the absence of clear reasoning, I don't see why the improved wording shouldn't be reinstated. I'll do so tomorrow, unless there's more to this. I have to say that I'm unused to having to fight to make simple, obvious changes to wording. What is there now is very sloppy. ] ] 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**People are sensitive to changes in the wording of this policy. See the talk page archives for some examples. ] (]) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***I don't mind sensitivity, nor scrutiny (I asked for it). But that's different from mindless obstruction. No proper reason has been provided for the reverts, and just a "let's be safe". I put it to you that it's safer to get the wording ''right'', rather than persist with a poor opening exposed right at the top. I can see no substantive change in meaning, and no one has said that there is (well, apart from Ned's claim that" To produce a quality encyclopedia" is different, for these purposes, from "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia". The slight shift in meaning is, frankly, inconsequential, and I don't believe this shift is as he tried to explain above. ] ] 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*In all your ranting you haven't listened to a single word I've said. Take it from my original comment ''"Just to be safe I think we should discuss this first. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the change, though the third point might not sound the same to some people."'' Let me spell it out for you, my concern is how '''''other people''''' might interpret that third point. In the past there has been a lot of debate about that point, is the non-free media required to make a quality entry or does it just adding quality. We are not writing the policy for you, or even for me; we are writing it for the community at large. -- ] 03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**Egos aside, Tony's version is better. ] (]) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll resist the urge to treat Scott with reciprocal rudeness. To take his points in turn: |
|
|
*"In all your ranting you haven't listened to a single word I've said."—Wrong: I've read everything you've written, and pondered for some time over the hairs you're trying to split WRT to the "enhance" phrase. No one else here has a problem with it. You have presented no clear, logical reason that the new phrase is problematic (I still don't understand your distinction above). |
|
|
*"my concern is how '''''other people''''' might interpret that third point"—that's always been my sole concern; I'm glad it's your concern too. |
|
|
*"is the non-free media required to make a quality entry or does it just adding quality"—through the mangled English (sorry) I've tried to understand your meaning; is it something to do with a distinction between non-free media just adding to existing quality rather than being the sole repository of quality. Beats me. Are you really the best person to be critiquing the wording when your English is so unclear and faulty? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 still intend to reinstate the improved wording in the next day or so, given that there's still no clear, logical argument against it. I'm not used to having to fight tooth and nail to make simple improvements to wording. This situation smacks of ownership, methinks; I'd much rather work ''with'' Ned than ''against'' him. ] ] 06:57, 17 March 2008 (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) |
|
|
: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 == |
|
== Language in unofficial section needs to mirror language in the actual policy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word is not consistent with the actual policy. ] (]) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (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 == |
|
== Logos found on USPTO == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
I found a string of logos on the US Patent and Trademark Office search page. They're all expired trademarks (canceled circa 1999), they all belong to the same company (Prevue Networks, Inc.), and they're all non-replaceable. (I would like to upload them for use on the ] and ] pages as logos with commentary. I do have an account for this.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== CRW Flags == |
|
They're VERY low-resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Would it count as "expired copyright", "non-free", "non-replaceable", and/or "public domain because of US government"? What would I have to do? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
] (]) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Trademarks and copyrights are a whole different can of worms. As for the logo usage, they will be considered fair use, since the copyright is still intact. Since you wanted to upload a string of them, you pretty much need to justify why we need every single one of those. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Getty images open content == |
|
== Images == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any difference in the acceptable use of an album cover that has been scanned and uploaded by a user as opposed to one that was copied and uploaded from a website? ] (]) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (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) |
|
:Not really, no, unless the website one has a watermark or other electronic identification embedded. ] (]) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (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)
