Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netesq (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 18 April 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For older talk see:

The story so far (please edit for accuracy)

Black Widow/JoanB is annoyed that people delete images on the basis that they may be copyright, even though the uploader affirms that they are not breaching copyright. Various arguments have been put forward as to whether or not Wikipedians are legally required to police copyright. Some contributors have stressed the importance of international copyright law in determining this.

JoanB: I'm not qualified to decide whether any photo placed here on Wikipedia is copyrighted or not.

Joan, what do you want us to say? Copyright isn't easy to understand, the law has changed over time, and the law is different in different countries. I can say the following with a high degree of confidence: "The photograph of Juliette Binoche in question is almost certainly protected by copyright." Notice that I didn't say that our use was illegal, but that the picture is *almost certainly* protected by copyright.
Second, you keep asking how do we know to trust each other when people say that something is safe to use. In this regard, pictures are no different than text. Every time someone posts some text to wikipedia they are attesting that the text being submitted is safe to use. We usually believe that claim until presented with evidence to the contrary. With the case of photos, however, it is usually obvious that the person posting it wasn't the original photographer, so we end up in these squabbles more often.
Finally, you keeping talking about the "owner" of wikipedia. I don't think that there is anybody who is the "owner" in the sense that you mean it. While there is an owner of the computer that hosts wikipedia, they do not own the content of wikipedia. -◈¡◈
By owner, I mean the one who is legally liable. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but for certain if someone sues you or me for copyright infringement or whatever else we might do at Wikipedia, they will name the owner in the action, and it is the owner who will pay big legal fees and be ordered by the Court to provide the defendant's computer source. That was what happened in the recent ruling on Kazaa, at least accortding to the New York Times. JoanB
That is a good question. I guess until a court decides for wikipedia, then nobody knows who would be "legally liable". It is easy to imagine that if some court ordered the current host to stop hosting wikipedia, then wikipedia would just move to another host. -◈¡◈
For all practical purposes, the owner of Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales. Should someone else host a fork of Wikipedia, he, she or it ("it" being a corporation) would be the owner of that fork. That having been said, there is virtually no legal liability on Wikipedia's part for good faith copyright infringement. Other things being equal, Wikipedia (or a Wikipedia fork) would be required to delete copyrighted material once a copyright claim was brought to Wikipedia's attention by virtue of a cease and desist letter. Accordingly, the only legitimate reason someone should be concerned about uploading potentially copyrighted images is quality control. [Note: This should not be construed as a legal opinion or as constituting legal advice.] -- NetEsq 22:58 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
But I still own the copyright to all the stuff I've written (unlike the case for GNU, where we have sign over - on physical paper(!) - the rights to our work, thus ensuring FSF is the sole owner of GNU code), so Jimbo owns physical bits but not much of the content. The Wikipedia situation is a little more like Linux, which has literally thousands of separate copyright owners in many different countries. Stan 23:17 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I would take it even further: if there is no legal liability: the copyright holders can edit any infringements themselves. No need to bother Jimmy Wales about it. Failure of the copyright holder to remove the infringement constitutes an implicit license for WP to use the image. >;-) branko
If there is virtually no legal liability on Wikipedia's part for good faith copyright infringement why are people arguing about it and going about upsetting erstwhile contributors like Dave Farquhar by deleting their photographs? JoanB
Good question. -- NetEsq 23:06 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Amen. It should be possible to be squeaky clean without freaking out. I notice a User:Tarquin apology on User talk:Dave Farquhar BTW. Stan 23:17 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
This is why I suggested above (way above now) that there should be a one week time out on deleting images, and a reasonably consistent policy for sysops to follow. The irony is that later the same day I managed to violate my own guidelines by incompetently misreading a date - mea culpa... Martin
Another question. If people are going to question others and decide to delete the photos, then how do we know that the photo on the page of User:MyRedDice is him? All we have is his say so. See how ludicrous this gets. JoanB
Regarding my own photo, if you have reason for suspecting a copyright infringement, then you could indeed consider deleting it. Perhaps you have seen me uploading many copyrighted images, and therefore consider that this one is copyright? Perhaps you have seen the image elsewhere online with copyright markers all over it? Perhaps there is no information about copyright on the image description page?
As a non-sysop, you can't delete the image yourself. Instead, you should (in my opinion) add the boilerplate text from wikipedia:boilerplate text (adding specific reasons) to the image description page, remove the link to it from my user space, and add it to wikipedia:votes for deletion. If you genuinely suspect that it is a copyright violation, then that would be entirely reasonable.
Of course, the image has not been uploaded by a routine violator of copyright, it does have an appropriate image description page, and you will almost certainly not find it anywhere else on the web. Thus I don't see that you can reasonably suspect it of copyright violation. Perhaps you should pick a better example? ;-) Martin
To the contrary, that makes it a good example, because now you have to discuss the argument, not the example. branko

More talk moved from Village Pump

I want to use some pics off Boeings site www.boeing.com . The copyright notice is this:
Terms and Conditions of Personal, Non-Commercial Image Use: The images on these pages are provided subject to the following terms and conditions. Boeing owns and retains the copyrights in the images except as noted. No copyright license (either express or implied) is granted to the user, other than the right to reproduce the images without alteration for non-commercial, personal use only.
Can I use them for Wikipedia? Adrian Pingstone 17:34 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Under those conditions, no. Wikipedia would need to right to alter them at the least. -◈¡◈
Correction please: "The word "alteration" refers to making changes that alter the purpose and facts of the picture. Example: putting a logo on the side for advertising or by protestors to put up anti-Boeing slogans or other uses that might affect the company's image in a way they do not want. However, to alter the size to fit an encylopedia is fine. In fact, the executive at Boeing would be pleased if you put up a picture and wrote a nice history of every plane they ever made. Thank you very much. User:Wei Chin Ho
But end-users of the wikipedia should be able to use the images any way they see fit. Under Boeing's copyright, this content would not be 'free' and the Wikipedia would be 'The (Mostly) Free Encyclopedia' Jordan Langelier
GFDL also allows one to make as much money as one can get away with selling the content, which is contradictory to Boeing's conditions. Also, I'm sure they would object to a Wikipedia picture with a large arrow added pointing to, say, a design or construction flaw, should that ever prove desirable for an article. Stan 18:07 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Yep, that licence is not compatible with the spirit of the GFDL. Therefore, you can't honestly check the tickbox that says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright" on Special:Upload. That may or may not be a source of concern for you. Personally I think that the upload page should have extra checkboxes for "fair use", "wikipedia-only", and "public domain" and people should have to select one of the four.
If you do decide to upload the images, make sure that their copyright status is clearly marked on the image description page, as described in wikipedia:image use policy. Talking of which, I've made a suggested change to the policy on image copyright at wikipedia talk:image use policy which would benefit from extra eyes... Martin

I don't understand? Is the wikipedia:image use policy a condition of use that I am obliged to follow or a suggestion? User:Wei Chin Ho

You are obliged to follow the license terms as described in Wikipedia:Copyrights, as noted and linked to on the edit and upload pages. The image use policy reminds you of your obligations regarding licensing, copyright, and redistributability, and additionally gives suggestions about sizing, formatting, naming, and the like. --Brion 20:12 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


Okay, someone really needs to clarify this image business. As I understood it, copyright holders retained their original copyright and were allowed to set terms of use for images used on Wikipedia, and only the text was released under the gdfl, since the bottom of each page says, "All the text on Wikipedia," etc., etc. Now I've heard different things in many, many different places, and I've uploaded images under different conditions. The relevant pages are very ambiguous and opaque, particularly to inexpert users not versed in the intricacies of copyright law. Can someone please decide for once and for all what the answer is, and more importantly, post it multifariously in all relevant locations in very clear English? - Montréalais

I second that. It seems either virtually anything can be uploaded, or essentially nothing. Tuf-Kat

Boeing image are just free for personal use, not free of rights that mean you can watch them and keep as many copies as you want for yourself. In fact you can do nothing..... Ericd 20:30 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

In short, nothing that is less old than something like 75-80 years can be uploaded except if you made the photo yourself and accept to release it under the GFDL (or another license compatible with Wikipedia) or if the copyright owner agreed to release it under the GFDL (or another...). Ericd 20:37 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to ask someone for permission to host photos on wikipedia, try the wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission. I've used it eight times and got three positive responses - people are often happy to grant permission
I suspect that the "all our text are belong to you" bit is incorrect and the stuff on wikipedia:copyrights is more accurate. Read the section under Using copyrighted work from others. Martin
Ideally, why asking permission, you don't simply say "can we use it", but you also say "will you release it under GFDL". Difference within there is. -◈¡◈
Yes, now you know why there are so many 19th century drawings and engravings illustrating articles. Sending more email asking for GFDL permission is on my to-do list - serves the dual purpose of getting the image, and advertising wikipedia's existence to more people... Stan 20:48 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

You also know why World War I can have a lot of photos.

I still don't understand while photos make such debate. The situation is simple. You write a text it belongs to you, you take a photograph it belongs to you. You can paste text from the 1911 encyclopedia because it has fallen in public domain, you can upload a photography made by Nadar because it has fallen in public domain. You could paste a text from Microsoft Encarta if Microsoft allows you to do this you could also upload a photograph by Helmut Newton if he allows you (you can try IMO you have more chances than with M$). Of course you can also paste any text that is already under the GFDL and upload any picture that is already under the GFDL. Etc... etc... etc.... Ericd 20:59 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


I'm learning quickly, finding new pages. There are lots of contributors above with very diverse opinions on photograph copyright but I don't see any person signing as a United States attorney. I would like to possibly insert some pictures with biographies. There must be a legal policy set down by whoever owns this web site, otherwise they would be subject to the risk of very costly litigation. Where do I find the legal facts instead of this collection of very diverse opinions? User:JoanB

A statement written by an attorney is no more binding than that of any other user. Attorneys disagree frequently and the result is often a court battle, and telling a judge that "an attorney told me it was ok" won't protect you. I think that most everybody here would go along with the following statement:
There are images that it is clearly safe for wikipedia to use, such as those which are in the public domain and those which the copyright holder has explicitly released under the GFDL. There are also images that it is clearly unsafe for wikipedia to use, such as a commercial works where inclusion in wikipedia diminishes the value to the copyright holder. Then there is a huge vaguely defined middle ground called "fair use", where most of our wikisquabbles center. -◈¡◈

Copyright rules are essentially the same for text and pictures read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Ericd 15:49 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Problems arise with several things but the reality is that Wikipedia:Copyrights is written by users, not the owner. With respect to lawyers varied opinions, a lawyer is legally liable for their opinions. Universities, banks, insurance companies, and every business pay for a legal opinion that they rely on. However, none of us as far as I can see is qualified to discuss this. At least not me. User:JoanB

JoanB, there is no one "owner" of wikipedia as such. There is an owner of the machine that hosts wikipedia, but they do not own the content within. -◈¡◈

We don't need to be experts we just have to apply the rules. They're adequate to give an encyclopedia licensed under GFDL. Ericd 16:26 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

The GFDL was written by experts. The rule are just requiring to complies with the GFDL. And as we are not expert we should have a very restrictive understanting of the rule. You made the photo it's yours you can release it under the GFDL. You should be aware that by doing that you loose your own copyright. If you did'nt made the photo it's better not to post it here. Ericd 16:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

WHOA! Wait right there Ericd, you do not "lose your own copyright" when you release something under the GFDL. You instead grant a license under the GFDL, but you most certainly remain the copyright holder of whatever you write. -◈¡◈

I can't claim to be a legal expert, but after 15 years of working with GNU professionally and talking to lawyers about it from time to time, I have some sense of what's OK and what's not. Lawyers' advice isn't a magical yes/no - sometimes it's a "you can probably get away with this", because there's no law or precedent. One of the advantages of the GFDL is that it's been vetted by real lawyers such as Eben Moglen, who is also responsible for the GNU license. Stan 16:47 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

75 years old is OK see http://www.superstock.com/about/copyright.aspx Ericd 16:59 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

That information, regarding the copyright act of 1976, is out of date. In 1998 congress extended the terms of copyright to 95 years, which is why the Mickey Mouse cartoons from 1928 still have 20 years of protection ahead of them. -◈¡◈

This made in 2003 80 years in the USA and 75 years in most other countries isn'it ? Ericd 17:12 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

There is no one answer to how long a copyright lasts in the US Ericd, but 80 years is not one of the options. A copyright can last for the life of the author plus 70 years, 95 years from date of publication, 120 years from date of creation, or 95 years from the date a copyright was secured. -◈¡◈

Holy Cow! You are back where we started and everyone who is not qualified giving opinions. GFDL has nothing to do with copyright infringement, it is the after use granting. But, again, no one here (so far) is qualified or legally entitled to impose their rules. That is why I said that the owner (responsible party) of Wikipedia must have a policy in place. User:JoanB

And you can grant use only for things that belongs to you or to nobody or everybody. -Ericd 17:25 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

JoanB, the simple policy is this. Do not post anything that is protected by copyright unless YOU created it or the copyright holder has EXPLICITLY released it under GFDL. Fair use is a slippery slope that we could argue about forever. -◈¡◈
Fair use doesn't even exist in France for instance.
Ericd 18:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, which (IMHO) is where this discussion should continue. -- NetEsq 17:49 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


"If people are going to question others and decide to delete the photos, then how do we know that the photo on the page of User:MyRedDice is him? All we have is his say so. See how ludicrous this gets."
Paraphrased "If people are going to question others and decided to delete their text, then how do we know that anything User:MyRedDice writes is actually written by him.", to which I answer, we don't know. We believe people until presented with evidence to the contrary. -◈¡◈

I would add, it is REALLY important not to let people get the impression that other countries are irrelevant for copyright. This is not to say that they necessarily have to police things, but rather that if they ever do have to or choose to, getting it right matters - and unfortunately a US-centric approach might trip some people. PML.

All right, Netesq, why is what you are doing, stopping telling people about non-US copyright possibilities, not vandalism? Granted, the information remaining is correct, but it is incomplete and likely to produce the impression on some Americans that they are covered when in fact they are not. This is not saying that you don't know, but that all should be told just in case. So, what is wrong with telling them?

If I don't see an explanation or a reversion within a few days I shall report these repeated suppressions as vandalism. PML.

Please be advised that I am currently in the process of researching international copyright law and its larger implications for Wikipedia. IMHO, such issues should be discussed on the Wikipedia copyright page and *NOT* in the very limited context of Wikipedia's image use policy. If you disagree, then feel free to report anything you want to anyone you want. -- NetEsq 02:11 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
That's my fault -- I moved everything from Village Pump to here, because originally it was only about the image use policy. I considered moving some of it to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, but even now, almost all of the examples and case studies used in this debate have been about images, so I thought we may as well keep it all together. -- Tim Starling 02:17 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Hardly your fault, Tim. PML and I were having a small edit war, and it may or may not have been resolved by my explanation above. In any event, PML has raised a very important issue that -- as far as I can tell -- has *NEVER* been addressed by anyone. The simple answer is that conflicts of law regarding Wikipedia copyrights would be resolved by United States law, but the question is very deserving of further research. -- NetEsq 02:40 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Two points: It wasn't about the determining jurisdiction, it was about why we should stop telling people the extra stuff (why remove it without a strong reason for removal?); and, there's the area that I ducked in and did something in once it reminded me, like the King James I Bible, real cases where other countries' rules are stronger (the safe bet is the non-US way, when in doubt). The reasons you gave above are not reasons for deletion of broader context, they are reasons why you would decide any particular case without referring to a broader context. Which is no reason for depriving others of that, as near as I can tell. If I am wrong, by all means show me. PML.

I found an article that is totally on point: Conflict of Laws Issues in International Copyright Cases By Peter K. Yu. Basically, there is no "right" answer when it comes to international conflicts of copyright law, and anyone relying upon Wikipedia's GFDL in a foreign jurisdiction does so at his or her own risk. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Copyrights should be modified to reflect this fact, and THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY THE WAY IT IS. -- NetEsq 04:20 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

BUT, that is NOT "this article should stay the way it is". The "way it is", as it were, INCLUDES non-US information - or else goes back to holding no information on the point. Anyway, that link relates to someone's view of what is right and NOT to what people should be told/allowed to go and see for themselves. Either way, US-centric is wrong. PML.

"relying upon Wikipedia's GFDL in a foreign jurisdiction does so at his or her own risk".
The GFDL is a licence to use the content in any medium. Not any US medium. If you are uploading content that is public domain under US law, but copyrighted under EU law, then you may not licence it under the GFDL.
Not exactly. The GFDL is *PROBABLY* a valid license for content that is public domain under United States law, whether that content be foreign or domestic -- the jury is still out on this one -- but public domain content may be defined differently in another jurisdiction. In other words, international law has not yet caught up to the concept of public domain content being repurposed via the Internet, and each jurisdiction can -- and will -- make up its own rules. -- NetEsq 14:56 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Ericd said above: "Fair use doesn't even exist in France for instance". That's not true: [1]. Fair use provisions in France are similar to those in the US.

Did you seriously read this page ?


Here is some cut and paste this is a quotation isn't it ?

III. France A. Fair Use

Article L. 122-5 of the Intellectual Property Code Provides:

When a work has been divulged, the author may not prohibit:

(1) Free private performances taking place exclusively in a family circle;

(2) copies of reproductions strictly reserved to the private use of the copyist and not destined for any collective use, with the exception of copies of works of art intended to be used for the same purposes as those for which the original work was created;

(3) subject to the condition that the author's name and the source are clearly indicated:

(a) analyses and short citations justified by the critical, polemic, pedagogic, scientific or information character of the work within which they have been incorporated;

(b) reviews published by the press;

(c) the diffusion, even in its entirety, by the press or radio-television, as current news, of speeches intended for public delivery in political, administrative, judicial or academic assemblies, as well as public political meetings and official ceremonies;

(4) parody, pastiche and caricature taking into account the laws of the genre.

B. Public Domain

The duration of copyright under French Law for published works is life plus seventy years.

I'm going to save my comments on NetEsq's statement above for Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, where a similar discussion is taking place. -- Tim Starling 11:32 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Rapport du Conseil d'état à propos de l'utilisation loyale «une telle exception (fair-use) ne s'inscrit pas du tout dans la tradition française en matière de propriété littéraire et artistique. » Ericd 17:50 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

So it doesn't fit at all with your tradition but it's part of your laws. I see. So if someone copied work owned by a Frenchman citing "fair use", would the owner sue the infringer, expecting the court to ignore statutory law and France's treaty obligations? -- Tim Starling 01:05 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry but the above article doesn't refer to fair use. The title is not a part of the Intellectual Property Code. And the content refers to private use and citation. Is there any treaty about fair use ? I doubt.
Ericd 07:51 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Fair use is a common law concept allowing copies to be made for criticism, research, citation, etc. The US codification of it (Section 107 of the US Copyright Act) is similar in its essential elements to the quoted text above. There is a treaty about fair use: you may have heard of it, it's called the Berne Convention. Specifically Article 10. And next time you reply, please use a language not in Babel Fish. Otherwise it's way too easy :) -- Tim Starling 12:10 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything that seems to be the same strange case of unreported edit conflict that happened to 172. Ericd 18:10 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Not a problem, Ericd. I figured it was a computer snafu, but I wanted to make sure that the deletion was not intentional. I'm sorry this came across as an accusation. Mea culpa! -- NetEsq 18:19 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

I've just removed something from the policy page about " If you use images from the US based Wikipedia in other countries' Wikipedias..." there is no such thing as the "US" pedia. All pedias are international. -- Tarquin 09:41 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I think that's missing the point. It's not about the encyclopaedia aspect, it's about the mechanics of publishing and how that brings it under this or that effective power and/or authority. It seems at least dangerously misleading only to cite US copyright and thereby risk other dangers coming up. At least if no warning is given, reasonable people know they are on their own - but if only US stuff is cited (which has to do with enforcers at the door, not -pedia issues) reasonable people might make the mistake of thinking they have complied with what they need to, when they have actually talked themselves into trouble. That is what I want presented round here, and (say) Netesq's approach just doesn't address that. Frankly, I see no reason not to leave things like that in, even if they are irrelevant. And if they are NOT - well, it's one of those "don't bet what you can't afford to lose" things. Netesq and Tarquin aren't settling the substantive matter, so it remains a bet. PML.

ok - then someone reinstate that note, but say "All Wikipedias are international - don't assume that merely US law is sufficient" - or something. It was a fair warning to give people, but rested on a fundamental misunderstanding. This is just a problem with PD though. If it's your picture or text, it's yours all over the world. -- Tarquin 10:24 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Please note that the following disclaimer already appears in this article:

Please note: this is not the official copyright policy - merely a reminder and additional tips

As such, there is no reason to discuss international copyright issues in this article, and it is clumsy and cumbersome to do so, inviting all sorts of pointless discussion. However, an appropriate disclaimer in re international copyright issues can -- and should be -- discussed in the context of the Wikipedia:Copyrights article. -- NetEsq 14:02 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy&oldid=842103"