Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 1

Since Dolly the Sheep is a sort of test-case for this new procedure, I have a few comments to make.

Imagine if Dolly were still alive. How feasible would it be to find out where she was kept and obtain permission to photograph her for wikipedia (it's not like we have a brand name like Britannica, CNN or the BBC)? This can be expanded to anybody who is alive and notable enough to have an entry in wikipedia, and to resources not available to the general public (things in museums, in the vaults of museums, private art collections, the inside of famous buildings, military, etc). We need to consider what is best to be done in these cases where it isn't feasible (or likely) that a wikipedian will be able to photograph the famous item or person, or to find a public domain image (because if these famous things/people are rarely seen then there are people who make a living from selling images of them, not by placing them in the public domain).

I would also like there to be a (well-thought out) policy on things like:

• which articles can be illustrated with cd/book covers if these are deemed to be fair-use (e.g. is it the same thing to illustrate an article about an album with the cover of an album, and to illustrate an article about a bird with the cover of a book about birds which happens to have a great photograph of that bird on the cover?)
• if it is permissible to freely copy images of paintings etc which themselves have no copyright (e.g. can we use an image of a famous 300-year-old painting held in an art gallery - these images of paintings may be considered copyrightable, art galleries certianly generate revenue from selling them, and they also prevent members of the public from photographing the works of art themselves)
• can artistic wikipedians base drawings/illustrations on copyrighted photographs, does that wikipedian have the right to release their image under the GFDL, or is it a derivitive work and a copyright violation?

I have long been confused by the copyright policy, and laws of the USA, and the impact of both on future editions of wikipedia (e.g. paper copies, which will presumably be sold in other countries). If we have to delete all our images and start afresh, so be it, but I want the policy to defined now, to be in line with the law, explicit and easy to understand, and forwardthinking (i.e. we must consider these cd-rom or paper versions of wikipedia now, or face doing this all again in the future). fabiform | talk 17:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You should always illustrate such articles with identifying artwork. Use of such images in association with the work they are promoting is going to be fair use. You also won't get a GFDL license except in extremely unusual cases. See Online service provider law for a selection of things which cannot be copyrighted. That answers your question about copies of artworks long out of copyright: not copyrightable in the US or UK. The only policy which will result in complying with all possibly applicable local laws and which will also avoid forking the project into different copyright camps is to tag and eventually develop ways to selectively exclude content which has not yet been replaced wiki-fashion with whatever license the requesting party wants to comply with. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quarantine

I don't think we should be deleting images that are not infringing on copyrights. Rather why not just quarantine them? This means not using them in any article. If at a future time we change our minds, we have the images, and no work is lost. Also, many people might have uploaded images that are under the GFDL (i.e. their own images) or under fair use, but not mentioned so. They could be gone now, so there would be no way to reach them. Should these images be deleted just on a change of policy? After all, there is a checkbox that asks you that you only submit GFDL images. If someone uploaded their own pictures, which they put under the GFDL by virtue of checking that box, why should those images be deleted just because the author is not around anymore and there was a policy change? just my 2 cents, Dori | Talk 18:11, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Tag and replace if you notice one and can find a replacement. That's the wiki way of improving stubs of all kinds. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for feedback in a certain type of case

Hi. The great majority of the found images I upload are from before 1923. There have been a few exceptions, I'll mention one to see if there are reccomendations for improving my handling of such cases. The image I used in American Austin Car Company article, as I say in the image description, "American Austin motorcar, from ad in July, 1930 magazine. Presumed fair use in unlikely case that any copyright renewal was ever filed on ad. " The company has been out of business for more than 60 years, making it unlikely that any renewal was ever filed to extend any copyright term. (Additionally, people who have worked with material from this era have told me that it was not common practice for companies to copyright their magazine ads in this era, so it may well not even have had any copyright to begin with, although I do not assume that.) What do people think about my use of this image? Ok, inappropriate? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure sounds low risk to me. Though keep in mind that when a company goes bankrupt, someone ends up with the company's trademarks, copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property. These always get sold, even if it's only for $1.00. Tempshill 20:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It'll be fair use in articles about the company or cars in the extremely unlikely event that it's not in the public domain. For those unfamiliar with US law, works during that time period entered the public domain as soon as they were published if they did not have a copyright notice, and again did so if the copyright wasn't renewed. Something over 95% (or is it 98%, I forget which) of all filed copyrights were never renewed. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dolly

Specific case, rather than general policy. Dolly is now stuffed, mounted, and on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh. Assuming the museum allows visitors to take photos (UK museums generally do, don't they?), replacing the Roslin Institute's picture with one almost as lifelike is something any Edinburgh wikipedian could do quite easily next time they're up by Chambers Street. –Hajor 20:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If that's the one with all the natural history (stuffed elephants and the like), then I remember taking photographs when I visited. Although I don't know if photography's allowed generally in all UK museums. I'm sure it is often discouraged, limited to non-flash, or outright banned in most places I've been to. fabiform | talk 21:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm expecting in most cases we could either be rebellious and take photos anyway, or negotiate special permission with the folks in charge. Some effort required. Do we use a fair use image until that happens? Martin 21:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In some museums, the lighting and glass cases (when used) would make photography difficult, so special permission would probably work better than covert/rebellious photography (if they are willing to grant it).  :) For what it's worth I just emailed the Museums of Scotland people asking on their policy on visitors taking photographs since their site had no FAQ. fabiform | talk 21:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Permission to photograph anything on exhibit in the National Museums of Scotland for Wikipedia has been denied. Fabiform, can you explain the conditions under which they notified you of that denial? Do they not allow any photography at all, or just photography intended for publication in a collaborative free-content encyclopaedia? –Hajor 20:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Using fair use images when alternatives are possible

As the author of this policy I have avoided specifically stating whether, in cases where remote alternatives exist (such as shooting a photo of a seclusive author), we are allowed to use fair use images in the meantime.

I hope this can be worked out in consensus over the coming weeks. As a fair use advocate, I feel of course that we should have such images. As an open content advocate, I must acknowledge that having these images will reduce the motivation to acquire open content pictures.—Eloquence 23:13, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

This is a wiki. People rework and improve stubs all the time. Just tag the images, make sure there's a visible indication in the article which shows the image, so people know that we're looking for something better, and accept that wikis do produce improved works over time, provided there is at least something to start with. Trying to block fair use is essentially trying to force a fork of the project, in which those who want GFDL only look to be a small but very vocal minority, and I am strongly opposed to forking when we can filter and use the wiki improvement way instead. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Use of still frames from movies, TV shows, and video games

Thank you Eloquence for starting this page.

Newspapers and magazines often print still frames from movies, TV shows, and video games, under the fair use doctrine. Sometimes they use the images sent to them in a press kit from the studio, which I believe always comes with some permission lines printed at the bottom of the photo itself. But often a magazine will just grab a still frame and print it, if the movie is old. Obviously this is the only way to show a scene from a movie, unless we were to insinuate a Wikipedia agent onto the set and take some covert shots. I think we should have such images. We could crib from the guidelines of the Associated Press for a start, if it's not feasible to get a legal opinion to hang our hat on moving forward. In either case this fair use page should explicitly talk about this -- images of this type could be useful to Wikipedia and people will want to upload them. (In the past, I've included some old Apple II game screenshots on Wizardry and RobotWar.) Tempshill 20:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And after posting this, the obvious problem occurred to me, that we are not able to offer fair-use materials under the GDFL. The materials are not ours to license. They could be used as the centerpiece of some commercial product, hypothetically, and be subject to not only copyright but publicity rights of their respective holders. Tempshill 21:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In jurisdictions where fair use is law, fair use is entirely compatible with the GFDL. See meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL? for far more extensive analysis of just why they are compatible with it, in jurisdictions where fair use is the law. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A singularly unproductive exercise

Anyone considering actually using this should realise that we can expect that the vast majority of images used in the encyclopedia will be used under fair use, fair dealing or similar provisions of law in other jurisdictions. The net effect: to add a vast amount of overhead for no useful purpose. If you see an image tagged as fair use and can find one which is more freely reusable, replace it. No need for lots of overhead for the most commonly used image category. Fair use is compatible with the GFDL (as are lots of licenses) in jurisdictions where fair use applies, so it's not necessary to eliminate them provided we describe them properly, so those who want to avoid a particular image type can easily do so. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason people like Jimbo want to remove fair use images is not of a legal nature, it is that they want us to create as much open content as possible, and they feel that removing these images where alternatives could be provided will create an incentive to do so.—Eloquence

Creating as much open content as possible is a legal argument. Jimmy started considering fair use images as a posible problem after he was told that fair use didn't exist in the UK. Then he over-reacted and headed in the wrong direction. In a jurisdiction where fair use exists, that fair use is a public domain right, one which was never granted to the copyright holder. That is, fair use is open content, provided only that the use is moderately conservative, so it will be applicable to the vast majority of GFDL-accepting reusers, which is the case for the vast majority of the fair use situations I've considered over at possible copyvios. In other jurisdictions, the people viewing the articles will see the image and be interested in getting one they can use without fair use... and it will encourage them to do so if it improves the article, just as stubs do at present for text. That's why those in the UK are uploading licensed images even where the image is fair use in the US - the UK people often require a license, so they are going out and getting those licenses or seeking replacements more compatible with UK law. Which is just what we want to have happen. That's why we don't delete text stubs and there's no reason to have a different practice for images. Jamesday 22:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rant

Please try to edit this into something readable before adding it to the page. Moreover, please limit yourself to one paragraph, preferably not of the current length.—Eloquence

For all images, the potential copyright issues are far more extensive than fair use, fair dealing or other ways to use information. Architecture and signs have IP attached, so permission may be required or there may be moral rights requirements even where an uploader asserts that an image is in the public domain or is GFDL. Also, each country around the world has its own copyright laws and terms, so what is in the public domain differences in each jurisdiction. In the US and UK, the question of whether a scan of an old work is free of copyright is easy: it is, because mechanical conversions don't create a new copyright. However, there's sure to be a jurisdiction somewhere where that is not the law. It's nowhere near as simple (simplistic) as arguing that avoiding fair use makes everything fine. The laws around the world are not that simple.

For these and other reasons, no reuser outside the US or other jurisdiction where a DMCA-equivalent protects them can use the Wikipedia images without checking each image. Similarly, no reuser in print even in the US can use even asserted public domain or GFDL images without doing their own checking, because they have legal liability if the is IP in the image. We can try to help, with accurate tagging and source information, but we cannot make it unnecessary for reusers to do this work. Regardless, even if we eliminated every fair use image and replaced them all with claimed GFDL images, we wouldn't eliminate the need to do this checking: accurate source information matters far, far more than any claimed copyright status.

I didn't think the above was a rant; I thought it was eminently practical and good advice. Tempshill 00:17, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place to explain what fair use is and is not, and certainly not in a POV manner. We should present the user with a very brief summary of the key facts, with links to Wikipedia articles, and a description of our current procedures.—Eloquence

It didn't explain what fair use is or isn't. It explained that fair use is not the problem and why. The problem is different laws around the world and how they interact with the GFDL. Jimmy focussed on fair use because he was told that it wasn't the law in the UK but that ignores all the other jurisdictions with different laws and all the other IP catches which can be present even in GFDL images. Essentially, Jimmy focussed on something which is only a tiny part of the problem and this page is not doing anything legally useful. Work on getting people to add source details instead. It's far more important and really does help. Jamesday 22:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I asked this before and you ignored me, so I'll ask again. If a work is created in the US, and a US entity owns the copyright, doesn't fair use apply worldwide for that work? anthony (see warning) 10:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's probably best to use my talk page if you want me to notice you asking me a question. I do not routinely look at my watchlist. I don't think US law applies outside the US. That's one reason non-US contributors may need to use licenses, even licenses more restrictive than the GFDL, for items which are fair use in the US. The license doesn't stop it from being fair use. Jamesday 00:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Using images while waiting for fair use decision

I removed this line: "During this deliberation process, the files may exist on the server, but should not be linked from any pages but this one." I think it's unreasonable to require that we remove all fair use images while going through a ten-day process. And unless we remove them all, that means those listed here would be penalized for going through this process. Furthermore, fair use is a decision which is made in context, based on use, not something which applies to the image itself. Anthony DiPierro

Also no one seems to heed this very basic point: each "fair use" must be explained. YOu can't say, well this image is "fair use" because we say it is. It is fair use in the context it is used, no other. If it is just posted on an image description page then there is really no meaning to the statement and this means the credibility of Wikipedia as a group that seems to engage in copyright compliance is really worthless. I hate to sound harsh, but it appears that there is a lot of effort going into creating this idea of "fair use" that is sort of Wikipedia concept that has little, if nothing, to do with Title 17 USC. The idea about describing specific uses has been listed on the Image Description Page for quite some time; but there are people here who appear to be "experts" on fair use that don't seem to know that there is no such thing as general fair use, unlike the above poster (who I think is Angelo DiPetro). — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 07:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The approach must depend on the type of "fair use". I don't see how exemptions for "non-profit" or "educational" use can be used, since combining GFDL material with such fair use material produces a derived work that can't be used commercially, which obviously violates the GFDL. I think use of fair use material must not impose any restrictions additional to GFDL. Goatherd 13:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought that was the point of tagging it—to extricate the fair-use material and create a completely GFDL-compliant collection in cases where it's necessary? —LarryGilbert 17:39, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

I don't think it would be sufficient. If Wikipedia is going to include GFDL material, then it can only avoid infringing the copyrights by using the GFDL itself. Where in the GFDL does it say that you can distribute derived works which mix GFDL and non-GFDL material as long as the non-GFDL material is easy to extricate? Goatherd 22:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are two different theories on this. One relies on section 7, "A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document." The other relies on the fact that the resulting work might actually be able to be licensed under the GFDL. For example, the parody "Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew is copyrighted and licensed independently of "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison and William Dees, which it parodies. Of course the argument can certainly be made that redistributing the work under the GFDL with the intention that others will modify and redistribute it might lean against the work being fair use in the first place. anthony (see warning) 09:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aggregation with independent works in the GFDL covers this. See Meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL? Jamesday 00:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The images have to be displayed in their context - in their article - to decide on fair use. The context is key. The same applies when suggesting that an image my be a copyvio - if you remove the image from the article, you remove the ability to judge whether it is a copyvio or fair use. Jamesday 00:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image fair use?

I'm not entirely clear on the guidelines laid out in Image use policy. If I wanted to add (a smaller version of) this picture to the article On Your Mark (about a Japanese animated music video), would that be allowed? I believe that image is from a calendar; if I posted an actual frame from the music video itself, would that fall under fair use? I see professional movie reviewers using shots from movies all the time, must they always have special permission? If I copied a Disney park photo from a Disney park web site, would it be fair use to put that image on a Wikipedia article about the park? I have trouble seeing how the reproduction of any image here on Wikipedia would cause any sort of financial harm to the owner of the image, and an image would often help make an article clearer - what's a good rule of thumb to use in deciding whether my intentions for an image fall under 'fair use' or not? Brian Kendig 19:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Brian, if you've not found it already, Wikipedia:Fair use is probably the best place to read about (and posit regarding) fair use. It's a minefield, not least becase different countries have different concepts of the doctrine. I'd guess that what you plan would be okay, but the folks who hang out there will know better. Oh, if you do upload it, can you see if you can "descreen" it (as whoever scanned it didn't, making it look lumpy)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Can you give me examples of when adding an image to Wikipedia would definitely NOT be covered under fair use? Brian Kendig 05:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, in most cases. Just lifting a picture off the Intenet is usually not covered under fair use (despite the fact that there are numerous websites that have lifted images themselves). For example, we don't even have a photo of Princess Diana because most photos of her are copyrighted. Images from things like video games, movies (including covers and posters) are covered under fair use. Use of professional photos is not. If you have any more questions about fair use, consult Wikipedia:Fair use like Finlay suggested. Any further questions about fair use, you can post there. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

And another question: When I try to upload an image, I have to check the checkbox which says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." I can't check this box: I have a feeling that if I contact the makers of the anime of which I want to upload a photo, they'll flatly deny my request so that they can cover their own tails, because there's no benefit to them in supporting Wikipedia at all. How do you balance "fair use" of an image with the fact that there's no reason why a copyright holder should agree to help Wikipedia? Does "fair use" of an image ever override the copyright holder's unwillingness to bother with anything but his own interests? Has anyone pursued the copyright owners of a copyrighted image and had them say, "Sure, go ahead and use our picture"? Brian Kendig 06:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most of the website owners I've contacted are more than happy to let us use their images, as long as we attribute the image to them. This is the upside for them--free publicity. And the attribution doesn't have to be glaring--I usually just put it on the image page. For an example, see this image. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

So you're saying all that matters is permission from whoever made the image file, not from the copyright owner of what's in the picture? I'm not sure I'm clear on this... for example, the original artwork of that Defender of the Crown box is doubtlessly still under copyright (especially since another company bought the rights and released a new version of the game for GameBoy two years ago). Wouldn't you have had to find and contact the copyright owners of the original game before you could check the checkbox on the upload page to affirm that they approve its image being posted to Wikipedia? If not, then what's keeping me from taking a picture of anything - like, taking a picture of a copyrighted photo of Princess Diana - and uploading it to Wikipedia with permission to use my picture?

What I'm most confused about is that the image upload page "the copyright holder agrees to license it" checkbox seems to require me to contact whoever owns the original material being pictured, and would preclude "fair use" of the image without explicit permission, since it requires you to know that the copyright holder gives you permission. The image I want to upload to On Your Mark is from a calendar; is it enough to get permission from the person who took a picture of the calendar, or do I have to get permission from the calendar's publisher? I have an mpeg file of of an animated short from which I want to post a picture to Studio Gainax, but I don't see how I can check that checkbox without convincing the company's lawyers that they should grant use of their images to Wikipedia. Brian Kendig 15:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anyone is the rights holder for fair use and can do it. It doesn't require permission from the creator and refusal of permission by the copyright holder doesn't negate fair use. Of course, ideal is a request for and granting of a GFDL license. At various times, the image upload text is modified in ways which don't reflect current policy by those who want to change the policy. Most often in ways which say that permission must always be obtained or that only GFDL items are acceptable. Neither is an accurate statement of en policy. If the picture is a scan or picture of another work, the person who took the scan is not the copyright holder - the copyright holder is the creator of the original work being scanned. Unless there is some original creativity in the picture or scan, not just a simple accurate reproduction. Jamesday 00:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)