User:Feydey/copyrights

Feel free to add relevant information to this page (edit)! feydey

Below are some template messages for copyvios.

==CopyrightedFreeUse==
I noticed you have been tagging your images as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. But that means that the copyright holder has
agreed that the image can be used for any purpose. Since these are images of copyrighted things or objects,
whoever  owns the copyright for the thing, also owns the copyright for the photo. Now unless you have contacted them
and they  have explicitly said, "Yes, you can use this image for anything," you can NOT tag images like this. It
has to be  truthful. ~~~~

{{no source|month=January|day= |year=2006}}
{{no license|month=January|day= |year=2006}}
{{fairusedisputed}}
{{imagevio|url= }}
[[Wikipedia:Publicity_photos]]

Corbis, PD etc.

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 26 January 2006 (UTC).

keywords: Corbis, copyright, public domain, 1923, pre-1923, false copyright claims, PD-USGov, PD-US, www.copyright.cornell.edu, university collections, written permission, reproduction fee, PD, high quality versions

Users: Eoghanacht, Plugwash, Postdlf, DreamGuy, Fastfission, Lar, BrianSmithson, Quasipalm, Apwoolrich, Quill, Sam Korn

See also: Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/July_2004

Use of pre-1923 "copyrighted" stock images

There are a couple of images on Corbis I would like to use for articles, but am reluctant to upload images from such a commercial stock image site. The images in question are pre-1923, as stated in the image information on the website. I do not know if they were in fact published before 1923 though. Corbis claims copyright on the digital version. What has been the general practice or policy with inclusion of such images on Wikipedia? — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

if you can asscertain they were published long enough ago tag as {{PD-US}} or {{PD-art}} depending on exactly how old they are. Plugwash 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Corbis can claim whatever it likes, but even reputable institutions and companies frequently claim copyright over things that are in fact public domain, because they lose nothing by doing so and will discourage plenty of copiers. This chart is very helpful in determining what is and is not in the public domain in the U.S. Regarding whether something was published, if the author died prior to 1936, it's irrelevant; it's all in the public domain. What can you tell us about the images that would help us figure out what category they belong to? Postdlf 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

They are black and white studio portraits of George Jay Gould II (aka "Jay Gould" or "Jay Gould, Jr."). The pictures are very obviously professionally done -- but with no photographer referenced. The first seems to have an older non-Corbis copyright tag in the lower corner -- although I cannot read all of it (only the city) at the preview resolution. This first one also has a 1910 date in the Corbis info. Unfortunately I just realized that this first image has a faint "CORBIS" watermark over it (not particulary visible in this particular image, though). The second image does not have a date, but he looks several years younger than he is in another image dated 1925. I have a version of this second file without the watermark. — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine they are safe to use, providing the Corbis marks and etc are stripped off of them. I really hate it when big companies and institutions make false copyright claims. They definitely know better, they just hope people believe their lies so they can sell them for big bucks. If you need help stripping stuff or want a more thorough opinion, you can post the image to someplace like yousendit.com or rapdidshare.de (I think that's the name) and link to it so one of us can look. DreamGuy 18:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just as a note: Corbis claims the copyright to a ton of known-PD images (including a bunch of PD-USGov images). When one is sure that the image is in the public domain, one should not hestitate to ignore their blanket claims. I once tried to e-mail them about a few images I knew were PD and they responded that they don't care. --Fastfission 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here is what they wrote me back (this was some time ago):

Thank you for taking the time to write with your copyright query regarding images NA007397, IH132146 and IH129444. Corbis owns the copyright to our digital scans of these images. The underlying images are in the public domain in which no one owns the copyright.

Which is complete nonsense -- scanning an image does not generate a copyright, at least not in the United States. I wrote back to them:

I'm fairly sure that it was clearly ruled in Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation (1999) [1] that exact photographic copies of two-dimensional public domain images could not be protected by copyright because they lack originality.

So how can Corbis claim a copyright to something which is an exact photographic copy of something which was created by the federal government and not eligible for copyright? [2] That's my question -- it seems to me that Corbis is clearly out of line in claiming such a copyright, and is really opening itself up to a class action suit for anyone who has paid you for a copyright license.

If I'm wrong about this, I would really like to know.

References:

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

[2] http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html

OK -- I'll admit. Using footnotes was a little pedantic. Anyway I got no reply. --Fastfission 20:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing! Personally I'd award major style points for using footnotes in a letter to a big corp that uses footnotes themselves, but YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. If someone would like to take the time to upload and explain the use of Corbis images IH185261 and/or IH179075 for article George Jay Gould II, you are welcome to do so -- otherwise I'll add the task to my to-do list, as I am a little too busy at the moment. Also, I will make a note of this for future reference for other images/articles. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What about university collections? Such collections often have online search, but then when you read their usage policies, they require a fee or permissions. Is this a crock, as well? For example, The Brown University Archive of African American Sheet Music places this disclaimer on each image page : "This object is available for public use. Individuals interested in reproducing this object in a publication, web site or for any commercial purpose must first receive written permission from the Brown University Library." The images in question are very old, and should easily fall within public domain. I've seen similar disclaimers at other online archives of PD material. (Incidentally, I haven't contacted them, and they might be very nice about letting Wikipedia use their images. I just want some ideas on whether they have the right to make such a demand in the first place.) — BrianSmithson 18:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are indeed public domain, at least in the US. The US Supreme Court recently ruled (I don't have time to drum up a source -- maybe someone can help?) that scanning and photographing a PD work does not entail enough creative effort to allow libraries and other repositories to hold any sort of copyright protection. They said that copyright is in place to reward creative work, not to reward archives of public domain material. This means that if a library scans a PD image, that image AND the scan are still PD. You can safely ignore claims that they require permission to use.

For example, you can pull screenshots of Google's scan of public domain works and re-post them on your website or wherever you'd like. --Quasipalm 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re universities charging for PD images, see Reproduction fees. Apwoolrich 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you do not have access to an image, they can charge you for access. However, if you have access to the image (either on the web or from checking it out at a library) you can do what you want with it for free if it's PD, even if they say they are due a reproduction fee. --Quasipalm 22:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that, Quasipalm? I'm very interested in this subject because I do a fair amount of writing for entities that can barely cover production costs and certainly cannot afford intellectual property lawyers.

Just recently I was writing a book and found many interesting and useful images (paintings and photographs) in library and museum collections and on the web. Trying to find out what I would and would not be able to reproduce was a nightmare. According to the Australian copyright office (book was being published in Australia), every single image I wanted to use was in the public domain due to age, and I was perfectly free to use any or all of them. Ha! The museums and libraries had other ideas.

I wrote back to the copyright office, explaining that I was being asked for "access" and "reproduction" fees, which the copyright office said that the institutions had the right to charge. Then followed weeks of having folks from the non-profit org that was publishing the book write to all the institutions begging for use of the work. The more I read about copyright, the more I was convinced that we were being led up the garden path, but I couldn't find any competent authority to say in writing "They're full of bunk, use the photos." The thing was that in general, the institutions had place photos of the artworks on the web themselves, so that was enough to make me think, okay, maybe they do deserve an access fee.

The clincher was when I would find the images used at other sites, including a photo of one very famous painting that's owned by a descendant of the painter, a museum charges a fee for it, so does a very large US company that does reproduction on china plates for a fee.

If anyone's got any comments, I'd love to hear them.

Quill 22:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

They're allowed to charge you for reproduction, but they hold no exclusive rights to the artwork. Anyone has the same rights to charge for reproduction. They can, of course, milk the fact that they have access to high quality versions. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant, if I'm actually the one doing the reproducing, are they nevertheless legally entitled to charge an access or reproduction fee, or can I ignore that and go ahead and reproduce/publish and not pay? Quill 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't using their services, you don't have to pay. If they provide a freely-accessible image, you can use it without charge. Tney have no rights to it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Images, copyright and informing

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 22 January 2006 (UTC).

keywords: images, deletion, license/copyright info, OrphanBot, notifying, watchlist, talk page

Users: Rebroad, Deco, Mushin, Alr, Plugwash, Carnildo, Thivierr (Rob)

See also:

Dealing with images with no license/copyright info

Would it be possible to add a policy where the image uploader is notified of any lack of information so that they can have the opportunity to add it, rather than just deleting the picture and leaving the articles that use it pointing to a dead link? Thanks, --Rebroad 15:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, three things:

1. It is already our policy to notify anyone whose image is nominated for deletion on their talk page, and using a tag on the image description page in case they're watching it.
2. It is already our policy (as far as I remember) to leave a tag on unsourced images for a while requesting more information.
3. It is definitely already our policy to orphan images before deleting them.

Deco 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This may be policy, but this has definitely not happened in many cases. I had two images deleted recently, and was not notified about either. I only found out when I visited the articles in which they were used. Neither was orphaned before deletion either. Mushin^talk 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that a lot of uploaders aren't notified simply because most uploaders never respond to being notified. Alr 01:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mushin: to help prevent this in the future, I advise you to keep all images you've uploaded on your watchlist. They may forget the talk page note, but they'll never forget the IFD tag (the people on IFD would notice). Deco 01:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately once you get a decently large watchlist your standard watchlist view drops to a measly 12 hours making it extremely easy to miss stuff Plugwash 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got a bot (User:OrphanBot) running to try to fix this. If the image is in Category:Images with unknown source, Category:Images with unknown copyright status, or Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status, the bot will notify the uploader and, if the image is more than six days old, will remove it from any articles it's in. Of course, this all depends on getting the backlogs in those categories down to the point that the bot can get to the images before the seven-day limit is up and the images get deleted. --Carnildo 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the bot put a message on the articles talk page also, so others users can fix the problem? Also, perhaps it should remove the image from the article a couple days earlier (say 3 days), as that's an effective way of getting people to "pay attention" before its almost to late to save the image (by finding needed source info). --Rob 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already sticking an HTML comment in the article text and notifying the uploader. Do you really think that adding a comment to the talk page will help? As for earlier removal, I'm trying to strike a balance between the people who want the image removed immediately, and those who don't want the images removed until after deletion. --Carnildo 08:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PD-US images

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 27 January 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: PD-art, PD-US, photograph, 1923, pre-1923 art, two-dimensional, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., American artists, nationality, other jurisdictions

Users: Justin Foote, Physchim62

See also: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

PD-art vs. PD-US

Dose the tag PD-art apply to photographs of art from before 1923 without life of author plus 100 years? If not, dose PD-US apply to recent photos of pre-1923 art? Justin Foote 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the nationality of the artist for copyright purposes. The photograph has the same copyright status in the US as the original work, as long as the original is two-dimensional (ie, painting, but not a sculpture; see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). Pre-1923 work by American artists is certainly PD: for other jurisdictions it might be trickier, I would have to double-check the relevant laws. As for the template, {{PD-US}} fits the bill, but please give as much info as possible on the description page (artist name, date of death, date of production of the work) to help users in other jurisdictions. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Images, fair-use and high resolution

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 16 January 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: images, fair-use, high resolution, low-resolution, violation, convert, dimensions, copyright, highest possible resolutions allowed by law, case-by-case and so image-by-image matter, no clear definition

Users: Mushin, Plugwash, Finlay McWalter, Lar, Deco, Shaddack, Nyh, DES

See also: WP:FAIR

"Download high resolution version" on fair use images

First of all apologies if this has been discussed before, I could not find it elsewhere. It seems very contrary to me that on certain fair use images, a link with the text "Download high resolution version" should be displayed. This would appear to contradict the fair use image templates, which state "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images' of X...". I therefore propose that the link text on the images be changed to "Download higher resolution version", or a similar message that does not imply that the image is in fact breaking the fair use laws under which it is hosted. Mushin^talk 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

i'd say if a fair use image displays that link it almost certainly means its in violation of our fair use guidelines and should probablly (much as the archivist in me hates to say it) be downscaled and the original removed. Plugwash 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case then all images displaying that are not actually low-resolution (I'm not sure of the actual definition used for that?) should be downsized as you say. And anyway, for a book cover, DVD cover, etc we don't need higher resolution images, regardless of their legality. Mushin^talk 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that (once worse fair-use deviances are resolved) there will probably be a programme converting fair-use images to their screen-ready size, as used in their article. As you say, we don't need higher resolution, and our fair-use claims are strengthened a lot when we're not using or presenting more than we need. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How low is low? I think this seems a good idea but we may want to try to pick nice dimensions that scale well (scaling a 250 to a 240 can be icky... picked as an example, why would you actually do that!) multiples of 60 are nice for that. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:FAIR says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible" (my emphasis). From that I would argue that if you intended to present a fair-use PR photo of say Evangeline Lilly at 300 pixels wide on the screen, the image stored by wikipedia should be 300 pixels wide. Given that interpretation in mind, I've started cropping the (very few) fairuse images I upload to maximise the utility we get from our few pixels - for example, the image I uploaded for Peter Mullan is dramatically cropped from a larger publicity image. Now I'm not saying that my interpretation of this is policy now, and the legal responsibility of figuring out what is and isn't fair use (supposedly) lies with the uploader (so really it's up to you), but I think a mass downscaling of fairuse images is likely to happen at some point, and I'd recommend "crop intelligently now, lest you be automatically downscaled later". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal issues aside, to say we don't need high-res versions of any image is shortsighted. We're building an encyclopedia, not a website, and those images will have many uses down the line for print versions of Wikipedia, editing, and so on. This is why we have a policy of retaining the highest possible resolution version allowed by law. Deco 06:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, even if we don't count the printing, the images used are likely to grow as the next generation of displays gets higher resolution. Remember when 640x480 was common? It is not so long ago. Also, some images capture high-value details - eg. various labels and texts - that are legible only when checking the larger version. And you never know when such detail contains something crucial for somebody. --Shaddack 06:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. If someone decides to make a printed copy of a Wikipedia article (or the entire Wikipedia), using these images continues to be fair use - even if printed at the finest resolution the printer has to offer. Fair use is about the purpose of use, not about the format used to store the material. Wikipedia should make sure that users understand that while Wikipedia's license allows them to copy whole articles, once you start taking only parts of articles, you lose some of the rights - and in particular, you can't take a "fair-use" labeled image out of Wikipedia and do anything which is not "fair use" with it - regardless of the image's resolution. Nyh 08:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So what are the highest possible resolutions allowed by law? (I asked this in my second question). In any case, my original point has been somewhat sidetracked in favour of a discussion on the actual reoslution on images stored by wikipedia. To reiterate my proposal, that "the link text on the images be changed to "Download higher resolution version", or a similar message that does not imply that the image is in fact breaking the fair use laws under which it is hosted". The resolution of the images hosted is of course, as you have pointed out, dependent on the media used and the current standards. But the point is that the current wording of this message is contradictary to the wording of the fair use agreement. Mushin^talk 10:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no law placing a particular limit on the resolution of an image used under a fair use claim. Indeed it is not clear that in most or all cases a lower-resolution image will have a batter fair-use claim than a higher-res image will. The reasonign is that a lower-res image is less of a "Replacement for the original" which is an important factor in determing wither a use is fair use, but when a low-res image in fact serves as a replacement the high-res woudl be no more of a violation, and if other factors make the low-res image accceptable, they might also apply to the high-res version. It is very much a case-by-case and so image-by-image matter, as far as the law goes. Wikipedia can, of course, chose to have a policy that places an upper limit on the size or resolution of images used under a fair use claim, but no law currently requires us to do anything of the sort. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an accurate assessment, to my knowledge. Deco 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of lists of all the articles?

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 21 January 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: lists, articles, copyright violation, combining with another list, multiple sources

Users: ragesoss, Cherry blossom tree, Dragons flight

See also: WP:MEA

copyright and other encyclopedias

Would it be considered a copyright violation to create lists of all the articles that exist in a given encyclopedia which are not present on Wikipedia? Specifically, I'd like to start making a list of missing scientists using the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, but I'm not sure if the selection of included scientists itself (which certainly took a lot of effort and consideration) is covered under the copyright of that work.--ragesoss 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask at WP:MEA who have been doing similar things with other encyclopaedias. I think the general consensus was that if you mess abut with it, possibly combining it with another list or something then it's probably ok. --Cherry blossom tree 22:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is yes, the selection of such items does fall under their copyright. Hence, creating a list of scientists from compilation X that are not in Wikipedia is generally a copyright violation. Such lists have been created and deleted in the past. However, there is no reason you can't create a list of missing scientists. To do so legally you should draw on multiple sources and preferably not include all the entries from any one source. As Cherry blossom tree says, WP:MEA is the place for work like this. Dragons flight 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Images, visible copyright information

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: images, visible copyright information, deleted, cropped, Wikipedia:Image use policy, not valid speedies, WP:CSD, WP:IFD

Users: Tagishsimon, wangi, ALKIVAR

See also:

Image with visible copyright information & advertorial

User:Discomike has uploaded a bunch of images with visible copyright and advertorial information on them, such as Image:Acton Depot March 2002 2.JPG and others, all linked to EN pages . They're great photos, but what do we make of the spam on the bottom right of each of them. (Clearly, I think it sucks & they should be deleted, or cropped). Is there a policy on this? --Tagishsimon (talk)

The user probably isn't aware what the implications of licencing his photos as {{cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}} are... Where as normally he'd put that (c) on to prevent casual copying the licence in fact allows (nay, promotes) copying, distribution, derivative works and commercial use of the photo.

It's a mindset thing I'd say... Perhaps a bit of helpful discussion & education on the user talk page? Thanks/wangi 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus of course you can crop the photo and overwrite (derivative work). Thanks/wangi 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I will get around to cropping them if I have time. I see that Wikipedia:Image use policy Rule of Thumb point 8 says "Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page." On that basis, as they currently stand, they look like speedies to me. --Tagishsimon (talk)

No that does not make them valid speedies as that is not an entry on WP:CSD. ONLY, I repeat, ONLY the criteria on WP:CSD can be used to make a valid speedy deletion claim! ALKIVAR™ 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. I'll put them on WP:IFD then. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Please, only if they are redundant to images we already have (with equal or better licence). There is absolutely nothing to gain in deleting unique images simply because of a copyright symbol which can be cropped out. Thanks/wangi 13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They'll go on IFD because they breach policy. If they get cropped first as replaced with compliant images, then well and good. If not, take it as part of the normal ebb & flow of image addition and deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article sources copyrights

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: article, sources, copyright, copy the text, derivative work, cite, raw information, describe source differently in article

Users: 212.98.150.6, Stephen Turner, Physchim62, Monicasdude

See also:

Copyrights question

It may be a silly question, but is it OK that copyrighted materials (books, magazines...) could be sources for articles? Doesn't this violate Wikipedia:Copyrights?. 212.98.150.6 13:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem, or at least there only is if you copy the text so closely that it would be considered a derivative work. If you cite the book as a source but describe its conclusions in your own words, it's fine. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice blah blah). Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Raw information cannot be copyrighted, merely the words or images used to describe it: hence we are free to take the information from copyrighted sources so long as we do the work of describing it differently. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Physchim62's phrasing of this point is very well-put; it is vital to "do the work" of creating original text rather than making superficial changes. Monicasdude 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Article with licenced text

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: for educational and noncommercial uses only, GFDL license, copyvio, complete rewrite

Users: Sjakkalle, wangi, Deco

See also:

Used with permission "for educational and noncommercial uses only"

I have come across Prosocial behavior. The article states at the top "This article, or parts of it, has been retrieved from Indiana University with the rights to be reproduced for educational and noncommercial uses only.". I suspect that this is not compatible with the GFDL license, and I wonder how we should deal with this and other cases like it. Sjakkalle 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well either it's deleted as a copyvio or a complete rewrite, I'd say. Certainly isn't compatible with the GFDL/ --wangi 11:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Put a {{copyvio}} tag on it and rewrite the page on the temporary subpage, using any "clean" content from the original if there is any. --Deco 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Illustrators with fair use images

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: not in public domain, Fair Use, illustrators

Users: PlantPerson, Dragons flight, Physchim62, Deco

See also:

Illustration examples under "Fair Use?"

I've been looking at articles about famous illustrators such as Robert McCloskey and noticed that many of them do not have examples of these illustrators' work. Most of these images are unfortunately not in public domain, but could it be considered "Fair Use" to supply, say, one example for each artist? --PlantPerson 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is useful for understanding their work, and their importance as an illustrator is discussed in their article, then yes having an example would generally seem to qualify as fair use. Dragons flight 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, Image:MakeWayforDucklingsBookCover.jpg... Physchim62 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like legitimate fair use, but to improve the claim do not use current works with ongoing sales or very high resolution scans. Deco 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of U.S. coins

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: Copyright, U.S., coins, United States, catalogue, copyright law, Wikipedia policy, Bridgeman v. Corel, scans

Users: Crotalus horridus, Deco

See also: WP:IUP

Copyright status of U.S. coin photos/scans

According to the image use policy: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing." Does this mean that images taken from coin auction catalogs, like [this one], could be uploaded under a {{Money-US}} license? This and similar images are clearly either scans or straight-on photos, with little or no creative work involved. Can they be used in compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. Entire pages from said catalogue could be copyvio, since they arguably contribute organizational value, but single images with no creative additions are under the original license. The common sense argument for this is that if the coin were in your possession, you could plop it on a scanner and get the same thing.Deco 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Images with questionable fair-use tags

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: fair-use, images, news photos, copyright by Reuters, licensing, fair use law in the U.S., speedy delete press photos, fairusedisputed, Copyright Act section 107, books, case by case basis

Users: MattKingston, Dragons flight, Deco, Physchim62, DS1953, Shimgray

See also: WP:FU, WP:FU#Counterexamples, WP:CP, {{fairusedisputed}}, {{or-fu}}, U.S. Copyright Office explanation,

Are these really fair use?

I would like to bring this discussion to the village pump to get input from a broader cross-section of wikipedians. My concern is about the widespread use of questionable fair-use images, and there's a clarification to the policy WP:FU that I'd like to make. The specific issue I'd like to address is the use of images from news sources. To cite a few examples at random; 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. These images are all copyright by Reuters, a company that makes its money (in part) by licensing images to people who want to use them to illustrate articles (usually news articles). So my argument is that almost all cases, using a photo from the popular media, whether a news service like AP, or an independent newspaper, is not fair use and should be subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation. My arguments in support of this are:

• WP:FU#Counterexamples point four says "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, used without permission to illustrate an article on the war." This issue is the same, should read "A press photo or work of art, not so famous as to be iconic...".
• WP:FU#Fair_use_policy point two say "The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media".
• From this site which comments on fair use law in the U.S., it says that "In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work." In almost all cases, our use of an image isn't transformative in any way; our use of the image is the exact same as the intended use of the original.

So what do other people think? Can we speedy delete press photos as copyvios? Matt 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Counter_examples for previous discussion. Matt 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Using contemporary material from a competing information service is in most cases bad. However, I wouldn't generally suggest speeding them. Instead, I would suggest removing them from the articles where they are occur and tagging {{fairusedisputed}} or something similar. Dragons flight 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to delete news photos before, ones that were shown on the front page. The uploaders argued against it pretty vociferously, citing various legal precedents that I couldn't verify. Don't know what the state of things is here. Deco 02:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize with your point of view, as an editor who risks three years inprisonment for each time I see a fair use image, but I still think your solution is too drastic given current policy. To answer your points:

• No, we should never use a fair use image where a free use image would do the job just as well;
• In the case of agency photos, we should and do use lower resolution versions than those which appear in printed media;
• Wikipedia is a derived work under copyright law: our use of copyrighted material is inherent on us placing it within an article and commenting on it, so "creating something new" in the sense of the U.S. Supreme Court judgment. Each use of a fair use image should be justified individually (I am not pretending that this always happens).

Please nominate badly used fair use images to WP:CP, but be aware that the copyright of press agencies is (under U.S. law) no greater than that of a book publisher or a TV firm or a movie studio. If the image is not used in an article, it should be tagged as {{or-fu}}. Physchim62 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Using a current photo in the examples you gave is almost never going to be fair use under US law. Fair use is spelled out in the Copyright Act. Although it is a factual question (i.e., there is a conceivable fair use scenario for every work), your context doesn't seem to meet any of the tests. Using a photo taken in Iraq by a photographer could probably be safely used in an article on the photographer, as an example of his work, but could not be used to illustrate an article on Iraq. On the other hand, pulling dozens of photos of a single photographer together as a retrospective and publishing them in a book, even though characterized as a "critique" or "review" of his work, would almost certainly violate fair use (under US law). -- DS1953 ^talk 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you know where fair use is spelled out in the Copyright Acts, I'd be grateful if you could let me know... It is a defense, based on the constitutional basis of U.S. copyright law. There are legal exemptions to copyright in the U.S. and in in other jurisdictions, but that is not what we usually mean by fair use. Physchim62 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in section 107, which is essentially repeated verbatim in this U.S. Copyright Office explanation. Again, it is a factual question that courts have to grapple with, which makes it very difficult to generalize. Even an experienced copyright lawyer faced with specific facts can often only address situations in "probabilities" (my apologies to mathematicians and statisticians for the loose use of that term). That's why cases get to court! -- DS1953 ^talk 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I'm arguing that press agencies have greater protection than book publishers, but rather fair use must consider the nature of the original work. When we use {bookcover} to illustrate an article on a book, we're 1) transforming the use (we're not using the image as a book cover, but as an illustration in an article) and 2) not significantly impacting the value of the original (the value of a book is not in its cover, but in the content inside). So the nature of a press agency photo is different than a book, TV show, or movie. Matt 04:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't consider the nature of the original work; this is particularly true for book covers and CD covers, where much of the financial value does actually rest in the design (for example, American booksellers are reimbursed on their unsold copies on returning the cover, not the entire book). An extreme case is that of foreign bank notes. In these cases, we try to insist on a reduced resolution image, so that nobody could confuse an image taken from Wikipedia with the original. Physchim62 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bookstores return the cover to the publisher not because of the intrinsic value of the cover, but as proof that the book wasn't sold. I think that you'd have a hard time coming up with a single example of a book or CD whose value principally resides in the packaging. I'm not sure how your example of banknotes relates to this issue of agency photos; the purpose of a bank note is not to illustrate anything. Matt 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify - most (ie, mass-market cheap) unsold books are, in theory, returned to the publisher and destroyed. However, it's rather pointless to ship a tonne of paper back to the publisher, so they can send it off to destroy it, when it could be sent direct to the recycler or incinerator. So, the retailer removes the cover, sends that off - you have one cover per book, and you can't sell a coverless book, so this is a very good way to confirm how many books were destroyed - and then gets rid of the books. This is one reason a lot of books have wording like "This book is sold subject to the condition that it not be [sold] in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it was published" - to make it illegal to resell books from which the cover has been removed in this way. Shimgray | talk | 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the work is one criteria but so is the nature and extent of the use, and whether it is for profit or not. Even a for profit magazine can generally publish an excerpt of a book in a book review, but if you put the same excerpt on a T-shirt for sale to the public, you would almost certainly be violating the author's copyright. Using a copy of the photos taken by the participants in Abu Ghraib prison scandal are news and their use is fair use, not because they illustrate the news but because they ARE the news. Using a news photographer's shot of one of the accused participants leaving a courtroom, in my view, is not fair use in most cases, though someone could probably create a scenario where there is at least a gray area. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

GFDL images to Commons

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: images, photos, GFDL, Commons, licence, crediting the author, link to your source, CopyrightedFreeUse

Users: JerryFriedman, Deco, Stephen Turner,

See also: Commons:Licensing

Using and changing pictures in Wikipedia

Am I right in thinking I'm allowed to copy a properly licensed picture to Commons? The one I have in mind is http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Witvleugduif.jpg, which I'd like to use at White-winged Dove. I'd copy the Dutch description and license (GFDL).

Am I right in thinking I'm allowed to edit a properly licensed picture and save it under another name? I'd like to crop and enlarge http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiImage:Laughing_Falcon.jpg so it will fit better at Laughing Falcon. I hate to do that without the author's permission, but his or her user page and talk page are redlinked.

Are the answers to these questions available somewhere? Are they considered obvious?

—JerryFriedman 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You can always edit an image that allows editing as long as you follow the license terms, which usually include things like crediting the author and releasing the derived work under the same license. There's no need to inform the author, although it's a nice thing to do. Note that Commons has a stricter license policy forbidding fair-use, non-commercial, and no-derivative-works licenses, so they do not accept all images from the Wikipedias (see Commons:Licensing). Other than this caveat, just copying images around and uploading them under different names or projects should be okay with any of our images, but remember to link to your source. Deco 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The first one is GFDL so you can certainly modify it and upload it to commons. The second one is {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} (and is also missing a source :-( ) — I'm not sure, does that permit modification or only copying? Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am under the understanding that {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is as close as you can come to legally releasing an image in to the public doamin (in countries that don't allow you to release to public domain like the US). I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me if this actually is the case or not. Secondly if the image does not have source information then it should be tagged for deletion as there is no way to verify it's copyright claims. --Martyman-(talk) 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CopyrightedFreeUse is misnamed. It's very liberal, more than any other license but PD. I've suggested it be called FreeUse instead, but whatever. Deco 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all, that helps a lot. —JerryFriedman 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So excuse my ignorance, but what's the difference between {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and {{NoRightsReserved}}? Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. Currently {{NoRightsReserved}} (which I'd never heard of before) has a better name and is worded more explicitly, but they have the same legal impact. Deco 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot copyright

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: screenshot, copyrighted, original holder, reproduction, creativity, screenshot source, still frame, TV

Users: Circeus, Monicasdude, Dtobias, Jamesday

See also: {{fairuse}}, {{screenshot}}

Second-level copyright

This concern several types of images that are normally considered specific occurences of {{fairuse}}, but mostly the various {{screenshot}} (althought the reasoning can be extended to stuff like {{bookcover}} and {{promotional}}).

• Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. established that "Photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable because the reproductions involved no originality."
  1. From there, is it reasonable to assume that a screenshot is copyrighted to the original author, not the screenshot taker?
  2. If the copyright reside solely within the original holder, then there is no requirement to ask the screenshot taker for permission to use it on Wikipedia, since they cannot claim any copyright on it whatsoever, right?

• However, it remains polite to at the very least acknowledge the taker (e.g."screenshot courtesy of www.randomsite.com")

Does that reasoning hold? Circeus 13:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it oversimplifies a complex set of issues. A screenshot is not an exact reproduction of the original work. If it is viewed as a "derivative work," both the creator of the original and the creator of the screenshot may have copyright interests. Consider the case of a photograph of a stage play. The performance itself is copyrighted, yet the photographer who take a picture of a moment in the performance is presumed to have a copyright interest in that photo. A case can be made for each side on this question, and the courts have certainly not yet come close to resolving it. Monicasdude 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I was really interested in tv-screenshots (I want to add sceenshot to some anoimecharacter pages.), so I'll keep these arguments in mind for other cases. Circeus 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on exactly what the screenshot is of. In some cases, such as screenshots of software, computer desktop layouts, etc., there may be some compositional creativity on the part of the screenshot maker in getting things laid out just right on the screen before capturing it, and hence the possibility of copyright there. On the other hand, if it's just a raw capture of some canned material from the original author (e.g., a still frame from a TV show, or a static Web page), then you're probably right about no further rights being gained by capturing it in a screenshot. Also, in some cases a screenshot may capture works of multiple authors; a screen shot of a Web browser, for instance, includes possible intellectual property of the browser maker, as well as the maker of whatever Web site happens to be displayed in the browser. *Dan T.* 13:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That roughly confirm what I was thinking. Circeus 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Say you want a perpetual copyright. You could make a new copy of the tape for each broadcast and claim a new copyright because of the new copy. Even thought the content is essentially the same. That decision says that the original copyright status applies and you don't get a new copyright for an effectively perfect copy. That's because there is no original creative work involved and original creation is what earns you a copyright. Lots of hard work or spending lots of money to make something doesn't. A screen shot in an encyclopedia is typically intended to be an exact reproduction of the original - that is, it's objective is not to be original. Such screen shots would not have their own copyright. However, as a courtesy, you're correct that it is good practice to credit the provider of such content. It's likely to be mandatory in some non-US jurisdictions. In any case, it's helpful in tracing the source and tracking the license status and that is something we always want. There's also some need to consider whether the screen shot really is no more than an accurate representation, though the courts would generally describe any potential copyright of this sort as "thin" and the fair use of the original source might well dominate the discussion. Jamesday 06:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on WP

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 9 March 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: fair use, image, Wikipedia, one-per-article limit, abuse, problems, competition, copyrights expire, current policy works

Users: User:MattKingston, Carnildo, User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Jossi, Loom91, Sam Korn, TreyHarris, User:Thivierr, Plugwash, User:Matt Crypto

See also:

Getting rid of fair use

I'm seeing this issue come up over and over again. Most wikipedias prohibit fair use. Although I can see legit reasons to include some truly fair use images on en, I've observed that in practice it just leads to a whole lot of problems. A lot of people are claiming fair use for any image that they want to include, regardless of the legitimacy of the claim. A lot of people are spending time arguing over what is/is not fair use. I'm beginning to think that it's really just not worth it and it's greatly reducing the freeness of the english wikipedia. I know that a lot of people will object to depreciating fair use on wikipedia, but I also know that I've heard a lot of people voicing similar concerns to mine. How can we move towards putting this bad idea behind us? Matt 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it, with one exception: when the image itself is the subject of an article, such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. --Carnildo 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Err, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we remove all fair use images, we'll leave a great many articles with no illustrations (perhaps permanently):

• Almost all articles dealing with modern art. This includes basically all movies, TV shows, paintings and other graphic arts, etc.
• Almost all articles dealing with fictional subjects.
• Many articles dealing with aspects of modern history not witnessed by US government photographers. Note that this would probably include all situations where the exact copyright status is unclear (e.g. Nazi photographs).
• And various others.

Aggressively pushing for free content is very good, of course; but let's not forget that we also want to be an encyclopedia, and one that can be competitive with commercial ones. Decimating our image libraries isn't really going to help in this regard. —Kirill Lokshin 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the "baby" in this case is all that valuable. We might end up with articles without illustration, so what? It would be interesting to see what percent of EB's articles include illustration (I don't know the answer to this). EB's article on Salvador Dalí (from what I can see from [1]) has no images. To say that we need "fair use" to compete with non-free publishers seems to me to be an argument for why a free encyclopedia can't be done. But de.wikipedia.org is doing it, and by most measures has been more succesful than en (unless you measure an encyclopedia by the number of pokemon articles). Matt 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

EB gets less than 1% of Wikipedia's hits so it is really rather insignificant as a competitor. We are competing with the whole (very well illustrated) www. Osomec 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is so much abuse of the "fair use" that we need a stronger wording that currently exist to discourage uploaders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

NO! Getting rid of Fair Use will cripple Wikipedia. The IP laws are already restrictive enough, I don't see any reason not to take advantage of the little freedom we are given under law. We should encourage replacing Fair Use images where possible, but there are many instances where it is NOT possible ever (such as articles on video games and movies), where Fair Use is absolutely essential for a good article. Loom91 15:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is possible ever -- when the copyrights expire. Wikipedia would survive. It would also be more free, and more reproducable outside the US, both of which are healthy aims. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights only expire theoretically—no copyright has expired during the lifetime of Wikipedia. Passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998 (and its international counterparts), and the failure of legal challenge to it, virtually guarantees that another extension effort will occur before 2019 (the next time that copyrights might expire). Making policy decisions based on the assumption that copyrights will eventually expire seems overly credulous. I think we have to assume that nothing presently copyrighted will ever transfer into the public domain. --TreyHarris 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some intermediate choices. We could establish an arbitrary limit, like one-per-article (with some sort of special procedure for granting exceptions). Right now, there's no incentive to make free images, because so many articles are already crammed-full of non-free ones, which are usually "prettier" than the free ones. --Rob 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree getting stricter on fair use is a decent idea. i disagree with arbitary limits though. Screenshots and suchlike are essential to proper critical commentry on software products.

As for copyrights expiring yes that will happen eventually but for many things probablly not in our lifetimes. ALSO if we get rid of non-free images now then we still won't have them when thier copyrights expire unless someone else archived them! Plugwash 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose allowing fair use images only when the following conditions are all satisfied A) it is a genuine fair use claim; no legal problems for Wikipedia; B) there is a compelling argument that the image is necessary to illustrate the article, and C) there is a compelling argument that a free alternative is either impossible to obtain, or it is highly unlikely that we could ever obtain one through reasonable means (however you define that!) — Matt Crypto 23:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio not by Wikipedia

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: copyright, a copy of Wikipedia, copyvio, original version, comparison, history

Users: User:William Allen Simpson, User:Ziggurat, User:Necrothesp, User:Kjkolb, User:Jjinfoothills, User:Carnildo, User:Deco, User:TenOfAllTrades

See also: Internet Archive

A Cautionary Tale

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah, somebody opined that there was a copyvio. The text in question was extracted from the Hanukkah page. Turns out it was originally added in 2004. That is, the cited page is actually a copy of Wikipedia from several months later than the original section!

Remember, folks cite Wikipedia without attribution. The fact that Google finds them does not make a good test for copyvio.

--William Allen Simpson 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A useful thing to remember, actually. Somebody deleted the history section of the Royal Artillery article, saying it was a copyvio of the history section on the Royal Artillery's own website. In actual fact, I wrote much of the section for the Wikipedia article and I therefore know that the RA nicked it from us. Don't always assume that even official sites are the originals. It shows where people turn these days if they want information though! -- Necrothesp 23:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It can sometimes be difficult, however (especially when the dates of writing are not cited properly in the external source) to prove which way the information bleed goes. We don't, after all, want to be sued by a breakfast cereal company for copyright infringement (excuse the oblique reference please!). Ziggurat 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally it can. But there is a (wholly natural and understandable) tendency to automatically assume that official sites are the originals, which is not necessarily the truth. It's just useful to keep an open mind. -- Necrothesp 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised that Royal Artillery would copy the article, though. Some claim we're unreliable, but we're good enough that people (Royal Artillery, journalists, companies) take our content and try to pass it off as their own. -- Kjkolb 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oblique reference excused, 42! Jjinfoothills 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to look at the original version that was added to Wikipedia. If it's unwikified, or if it's fairly old and an exact match for the other text, the other text was probably the original. --Carnildo 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unwikified and/or written in a very pompous, sycophantic, self-promotional, flowery or old-fashioned style - usually very good indications of a copyvio. -- Necrothesp 12:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another good way to identify a copyright violation it is if the user who wrote it is not an "established" user and has very few other contributions. Also, reused Wikipedia content is often easy to identify by the lead-in, which will in a typical Wikipedia style mention the article title prominently and establish a context. Also keep in mind that the short-term consequences of copyvio are not as severe as you think, because OCILLA forces copyright holders to ask websites politely to remove content before they sue. Deco 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another test – that is suggestive, but not definitive – is to check the Internet Archive at http://www.archive.org. Drop the URL of the putative source of the copyvio into the Wayback Machine link, and click 'Take Me Back'. You will be able to see versions of the page from various time points in the past; there will be an entry for every time the Archive spidered the page. If a page's content appears in the Archive either before or long after it appeared on Wikipedia, one may be able to draw an inference about who copied whom. Please note that this is not infallible—the Archive doesn't spider all pages, it may take a significant amount of time for the Archive to find a page in the first place, it doesn't help you if the external page has been moved or renamed, and it doesn't tell you if both pages were cribbed from a third source (web or paper). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Amount of fair use images allowed in an article

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion started on 24 May 2006 (UTC).

Keywords: fair use, images, screenshot, limit, copyright law, copyrighted expression

Users: User:Kafziel, User:Postdlf, User:Dragons flight, User:Simetrical, User:Thivierr, User:Carnildo, User:Rodii

See also:

Another [gasp!] "fair use" question

Buu, some kind of character from a cartoon, has what I consider a pretty excessive amount of fair use and/or completely unsourced images. Thirty-eight screenshots, to be exact. Does that seem a bit much for the purposes of illustrating a cartoon character? This situation was (accidentally) brought to my attention by Zarbon, who wanted my help putting yet another image in the article (his was a little movie). This editor has had a lot of problems in the past, leading him to several blocks and an RfC from me, so I'm hoping someone else here can weigh in on that article and make the changes that need to be made (if, in fact, I am correct here). It might be better if it doesn't come from me. If anyone here disagrees, and thinks 38 pics is a reasonable amount, please let me know. Thanks! Kafziel 04:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article overall fails to qualify as fair use, both in its use of fiction and the images. It mostly just gives an abridged version of the character's story without really commenting on it or transforming it by adding a factual, real world context. That's the real danger of fancruft—not simply that it is worthless to an encyclopedia, but that it is a copyright infringement by being merely derivative of fiction rather than informational and analytical. Postdlf 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many screenshots, I agree. However on the broader point of it's general existence, I'm not sure. Perhaps you have a better understanding of copyright law on this issue than I do, but I've never been sure where to draw the line on transformative uses. The character is apparently based primarily on some 59 episodes of an animated cartoon. At face value I would say that taking a cartoon and producing an encyclopedia style article describing one of its key characters is at least somewhat transformative. I doubt, for example, that the cartoon laid out things in the same way or bothered with such systematic descriptions. I also don't see it doing much harm to the anime market, as the article is probably not much of a replacement for the experience of seeing the show (and 59 episodes is a lot of show). If it were originally written material, I'd probably feel differently, but in my mind there are enough qualitative differences in the change of format and media that I could imagine at least being able to argue the point. Dragons flight 05:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Dragons flight. Too many screenshots (although you could make a case for keeping all those directly depicting some kind of "special ability", since those do add to the informative value), but the article itself is quite transformative and is certainly nothing resembling a substitute for dozens of episodes of a cartoon. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You really said something when you used the phrase "encyclopedia style," because that's all it is for the most part. To retell a story is to make use of its copyrighted expression, even if you use none of the original specific language. So there must be a fair use rationale for that retelling. However, nothing transformative occurs when someone just summarizes fiction by giving a play-by-play history of what happens, even if that summary is in a different medium than the original (e.g., from cartoon to writing). At best, the result is just a condensed or abridged derivative of the original work. Instead, the fiction needs to be placed in a proper factual context and objectively described (i.e., from a real world perspective). The more an article looks like it came from a fan reference guide (of the kind that the original authors of the fiction would themselves market), the less of a claim to fair use there is for retelling the fiction. The more an article looks like the work of a cultural historian, the better our fair use justification for making use of the fiction (and associated images). Postdlf 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to write an additional section in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), explaining the legal boundries of what's acceptable and what's not. I think most people are pretty well aware of the dangers of "straight copying", but not aware of what you're speaking of. --Rob 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Far too many. I'd delete all but one or two. --Carnildo 06:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this article up before to no avail, and oddly enough was just talking with Angr about it this morning. Angr feels (and I think I agree, in so far as I understand the issue) that there's a serious fair use issue with the images. One think that makes it hard to fix is that one editor in particular (not Zarbon) feels an incredible degree of ownership on that article, as you can see from the talk page, and any change or "meddling" is likely to be followed by a great deal of argument. I haven't taken it on because I thought the task of building a consensus to prune on the article's talk page was just too daunting. But I think just pitching in and pruning isn't a good idea either. Perhaps a note on the talk page that it's being discussed here? · rodii · 14:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)