| Revision as of 21:05, 11 August 2014 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,778 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 64. (BOT)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:44, 24 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,778 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}} |
|
{{Policy-talk}} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive |
|
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive |
|
|format= %%i |
|
|format= %%i |
|
|age=240 |
|
|age=336 |
|
|index=no |
|
|index=no |
|
⚫ |
|minkeepthreads=5 |
|
|minarchthreads=1 |
|
|minarchthreads=2 |
| ⚫ |
|minkeepthreads=1 |
|
|
|nogenerateindex=1 |
|
|nogenerateindex=1 |
|
|maxarchsize=256000 |
|
|maxarchsize=856000 |
|
|numberstart=39 |
|
|numberstart=71 |
|
|
|header={{Aan}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WPFairUse}} |
|
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}} |
|
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}} |
|
{{archives|index=/archive toc|search=yes|auto=short}} |
|
|
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}} |
|
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}} |
|
==Hey Jimbo== |
|
|
|
|
|
In case you happen though here, I wanted to let you know that large numbers of Wikimedia/Wikipedia image editors don't know about these exceptions at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
And telling them about this is almost futile-- |
|
|
|
|
|
As the other documentation on acceptable use of images claims that there '''are no exceptions whatsoever'''. Therefore when told about this page they don't believe it, don't look at it, and just aggressively start deleting. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am talking about images of dead people, not living persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also-- there really should be specific examples written out here, because those editors (who do actually read about the exceptions described here) can't figure out how to apply it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appreciatively, |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 05:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You have to be more specific what images you think are being deleted outside of the allowances here. Remember that while ] (a list of allowable examples) is there, all conditions at ] must be met, so just because the image is of a deceased person doesn't mean it is immeiately allowed. --] (]) 06:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you want ] to "happen through here," you should ping him via ] like I just did in this sentence. ] (]) 06:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
* Looking at ], I see no uploads at all by this user. The complaint therefore doesn't seem to be about files uploaded by the user h{{gender:Cliffswallow-vaulting|im|er}}self. --] (]) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{reply to|Cliffswallow-vaulting}} if you are referring to ], the problem was that you uploaded it to ] instead of here on Misplaced Pages. Commons is a repository for free media and does not accept non-free/fair use content (see ]). <font color="navy">]</font> <small>(<font color="navy">]</font>)</small> 11:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much! Are you saying that Misplaced Pages will accept fair use (as opposed to Wikimedia)? If so, is there anything I need to pay special attention to? |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 11:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Misplaced Pages accepts fair use content that meets all of the criteria. However, an image of a deceased person is usually only accepted as fair use in an article about the pictured person, the image that was deleted from Commons was being used in ] where it is unlikely to meet ]. <font color="navy">]</font> <small>(<font color="navy">]</font>)</small> 12:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation! Well, I will upload his picture and it put it back into the article about him then. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appreciatively, |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 12:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:P.S. Thank you all for the help! And thanks to Jimbo not just for this, but also for Misplaced Pages & Wikimedia! |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sincerely, ] (]) 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi, |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have one last question just in case anyone still has this on watch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Photo from National Portrait Gallery == |
|
::With the "Fair Use" J. Frank Raley photo (mentioned above), it was pointed out it could well be acceptable as a Misplaced Pages image for the article about him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::But one last point about the ] article-- J. Frank Raley is effectively the founder of the school-- |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
::It was a tiny Junior College before and he led a state campaign that greatly expanded it into a four-year college with far more students. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::Not only that, but-- |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
::Then he was president of it's board of trustees for 30 years, under his leadership the school then rose to being ranked "5th in the Nation" (for public colleges) by U.S. News and World Report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::Would those facts allow for use of the "Fair Use" image of him on the ] article as well (if supported by quality citations)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== CRW Flags == |
|
::I'm not arguing the point, just trying to see what you think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
::] (]) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, if we have a separate article on the person, the link to that article from the College's page would let the reader to see the person, but we would not allow that person's picture to be used on the college page that way. --] (]) 17:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Getty images open content == |
|
::::Ok. Thanks for the info! :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::::] (]) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (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)
