Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony1 (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 17 March 2008 (→Rationale edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Fair use (inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Scanned engraving, across jurisdictions

I'd like to use this image in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which (Joseph Jacobs) 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 OCA rights 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, Bazzargh (talk) 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. Jheald (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

favour?

Could I get an assist at Body Worlds? Uploaders are claiming GFDL release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com — pd_THOR | 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. 198.22.123.107 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty clear copyvio.Geni 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged all the images with {{db-copyvio}} and they were apparently speedily deleted. However, Tigriscuniculus (talk · contribs), the same uploader, has now reuploaded the same images (more or less, afaict) licensing them: {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} and {{PD-self}}. I'm still fairly certain these're copyvios, is the next step to speedy tag the images again and warn the user?

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 WT:CV. — pd_THOR | 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 WP:COPYREQ, 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 User talk:Tigriscuniculus 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). --Sherool (talk) 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. User:Zscout370 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ottawa-1939.jpg

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 description of this image 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 {{Non-free 2D art}}. 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 (Image:RoyalVisitNationalWarMemorial.jpg), 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. Skeezix1000 (talk) 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. Jheald (talk) 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. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How to use Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IfD. Carcharoth (talk) 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. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 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. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with Tony's wording. User:Zscout370 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. Tony (talk) 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 .... Tony (talk) 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? -- Ned Scott 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. -- Ned Scott 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? Tony (talk) 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. -- Ned Scott 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. Tony (talk) 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. Carcharoth (talk) 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. Tony (talk) 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. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Egos aside, Tony's version is better. — Dulcem (talk) 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 add to 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?

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. Tony (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Language in unofficial section needs to mirror language in the actual policy

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. Girl80 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Logos found on USPTO

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 TV Guide Network and Sneak Prevue pages as logos with commentary. I do have an account for this.)

They're VERY low-resolution.

Would it count as "expired copyright", "non-free", "non-replaceable", and/or "public domain because of US government"? What would I have to do?

70.176.127.235 (talk) 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. User:Zscout370 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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? Grk1011 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no, unless the website one has a watermark or other electronic identification embedded. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)