| Revision as of 12:39, 10 September 2005 editFastfission (talk | contribs)17,173 edits →Images of art← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:31, 17 September 2005 edit undoKappa (talk | contribs)36,858 edits Images of institutions?Next edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| :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) | :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) | |||
Revision as of 00:31, 17 September 2005
Overhaul
I have boldly updated this page in line with discussion on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use, the mailing list, and User talk:Jimbo Wales. 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.
Please edit it to make it better.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Policy
All of these requirements are met or one? It should specify not imply. --None-of-the-Above 04:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Photo Assistance
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.Kyle Andrew Brown 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- AFP would be Agence France-Presse. Definitely not appropriate to reuse, that's a wire service. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, September 2, 2005 (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. --Fastfission 18:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos.
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. --Fastfission 19:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Images of art
Are all images of all visual art fair use? I know of a photo of King Tut's death mask that someone claims the copyright to. Can we use it here? Can we edit it and use it here? Jim Apple 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. --Carnildo 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 public domain. Fair use applies specifically to certain uses of copyrighted images.
- So I'm not quite sure what you want to know. -- Jmabel | Talk 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. --Fastfission 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? Kappa 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)