Wikipedia:Non-free content review

These Logos

These images fail wp:nfc, replaceable and convey little information

• Image:Albania FA.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Albania.svg
• Image:Andorra FA.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Andorra.svg
• Image:Belgium urbsfa.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Belgium.svg
• Image:Luxembourg ff.png decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg
• Image:Scotlandfootballlogo.PNG decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Scotland.svg

Fasach Nua (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would contest that those logos are not decorative on their respective FA's articles. The logo of a national FA is as important as a club's logo. – PeeJay 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Absoloutely there is no reason to have club logos either, the national teams are bit easier to deal with as they have an obvious replacement Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2#1, you are correct the club logos do fail Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2#8, and should also be removed, a point well raised. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you completely doolally? National teams don't have a free alternative as an identifier. If you mean the nation's flag, then that only helps to identify the nation, rather than the nation's national football team. As for club logos failing criterion #8, I don't see why that is. For most clubs, the club badge is integral to their history, and the inclusion of the logo allows a visual accompaniment to the history of the badge. – PeeJay 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most international teams fly flags over their stadiums, the badge is just one of many ways they identify themselves, if you want a really solid way to identify the team, why not use the country code? If you were on an article, say Austria national football team, and it didnt have the logo, do you really think many readers need a corporate logo to identify it, I think including "national football team" in the name goes along way to helping people to identify the team, I cant even think what you could possibly misidentify these teams as. If the club logo is discussed, put it in the section discussing it, putting it in an infobox makes people think it is okay to abuse copyrighted materials on WP, which it isnt. However I am only interested in sorting out the international teams at this point in time Fasach Nua (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

National team crests are not the same as flags, and they convey more complex and accurate information than a simple flag would. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are not the same as flags, flags are used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, they are free and meet the criteria for inclusion, does the use of non-free crests meet the criteria for inclusion? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairly explicitly. "Team and corporate logos: For identification." It's a team logo, quite simply. matt91486 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, there are no images anywhere in the world that could better represent these national teams than their respective logos. I'm fairly sure Fair Use policy allows the use of these logos in cases such as this, provided that we don't go overboard and start using the logos willynilly about the place. One use on the national team's article isn't going to hurt anyone. – PeeJay 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not hurt anyone, but it does hurt the wikimedia foundation, as their use pushes the goal of a free encylopedia further away. I do not accept your statement that there are no images that can better represent a team, certainly organisations like FIFA and UEFA are content to use national flags, and they have a certain ammount of experience in th world of international Soccer Fasach Nua (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

National FAs should be viewed in the same way as companies. I doubt very much that anyone would argue against the use of the McDonalds logo or the Nike logo on their respective articles, so why argue against the use of national football association logos. – PeeJay 13:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem removing logos from WP, I haven't come across a single one that is necessary, (although that is not to say there aren't any). There are soccer articles that dont use a logos such as Ireland, Saarland Scotish history, and they are perfectly fine articles. There is no doubt the articles look better with logos, but they are just there for decoration, and serve to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The examples you picked are dubious at best. A historical team which presumably doesn't have an easily tracked down image, a non-sanctioned regional team, and a historical article on a team, for which fair use wouldn't be applicable. Your argument is not really strengthened by pointing that out. matt91486 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that FIFA is the world governing body for soccer, and the fact Saar and Ireland are both recognised by FIFA, is generally enough sanction for most people. Ignoring your issues with FIFA, and indeed the original motivation behind not including copyrighted materials. The main thing to note with these three articles are they are about international football teams, and the reader is able to easily identify them without having to resort to copyrighted images, if it is possible to write completely free articles around these teams, it is possible with any team. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What? My issues with FIFA? I never said Ireland wasn't recognized by FIFA. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at. Fair use EXPLICITLY ALLOWS team logos. So I'm not sure how this is possibly a discussion. The FA emblems serve as team logos. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. It's all well and good that you want free images, but you can't decide to suddenly go around deleting any image that you want, even if it clearly meets fair use license requirements. matt91486 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with matt. This entire discussion is completely ill-founded. – PeeJay 08:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. This is way off base. It is a well established practise with accepted rationale here to use logos in an appropriate manner where it suits. "Defeat the purpose of Wikipedia"? C'mon. I hardly see it's impending collapse. And ultimately the purpose is to inform people and share knowledge. Why in the world should the primary virtue be to bulldoze it flat into a sterile landscape of sameness? Canada's football team. Canada's hockey team. Canada's curling team. Canada's baseball team. Canada's basketball team. Canada's basketball team. That does not inform or teach. It numbs. It causes confusion. It sucks the joy out of learning and exploration. It even smacks of a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation. The argument here is based on a narrow and close-minded interpretation of the rules that flies in the face of accepted practise. A no logos approach is extreme and while the use of logos may not suit your personal taste its been clearly demonstrated that the use of logos is accepted here through a concensus bound by its own specific rules and policies which cannot simply be ignored. Get past the wikilawyering and the copyright paranoia and adopt a common sense approach. I'm sure that if the threat to Wikipedia from logos was so serious we would see prompt and deliberate action taken. In the mean time a deeper understanding of the spirit of this place might be helpful. Wiggy! (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A "well established practice" is not a valid reason, the goal of wp is to create a free encylopedia, and to use replaceable free images is the antethisis of the goal of the organisation. To add non-free content to avoid a "sterile landscape" is unacceptable, the use of non-free content is based on neccessity, not decorative value. As for your accusations of "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" would you also level these accusations at FIFA who demand the uses of these free images to represent the teams at every sporting event they partake in? Your final barrage of cliches, is well off topic, address the issue rather than anattempt an illthought out attempt at undermining the person that raised it. I absoloutely agree on one point, a deeper understanding of this place is essential. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Logos should not be removed from articles on clubs, companies, etc., period; they clearly serve as an important identifier of the respective organisation. —Nightstallion 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos here is a well-established practice "with its own rationale" that is "bound by its own specific rules and policies" - I'd think that would make it valid (and no cherry picking). The use of logos is legitimate and its unfair to ignore that and try to impose your own POV on their use, because what you've put forward amounts to little more than that. The use of non-free content is accepted here under specific conditions and that seems to escape you. You might want to go have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content which accommodates the use of logos and other useful bits that can legitimately add something to the landscape.

And why would I level accusations of any sort at FIFA? That's got nothing to do with anything here. It's a red herring argument you've dragged out more than once. You're not getting any takers, give it up, or go get it properly sorted out in a broader context. Wiggy! (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you quoting yourself? it is just bizare, using quotes from yourself to back your own argument is an unhelpful approach. Wikipedia:Non-free content does not accomodate the use of non-free content that "add something to the landscape", it accommodates necessity, non-free content is only used if it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and there is "No free equivalent", these logos fail both these tests.

You havent addressed the issue, why is the use of flags to represent international football teams a "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" if done of wikipedia, but if FIFA does this at every' football international it is not? As for a broader context, this has been clealy dealt with, and is already documented in Wikipedia:Non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I quoted myself because you conveniently left out relevant bits of my comments when you quoted me. Take the whole point, not just what suits you. If you do that I won't have to be repeating myself to you.

Wikipedia:Non-free content accomodates the use of non-free content and specifically addresses the use of logos. Policy, guideline and consensus all support the use of logos. You appear to be deliberately ignoring that. Refer to 2.1.3.2 Acceptable use/Images/Logos. Then follow that to the guideline on the use of logos and understand that, while there is some debate about their use, it is acceptable to use them and that use is supported by concensus. That addresses the issue directly and anything else is your POV and unnecessarily pointy editing.

You have also misapprehended the meaning of "no free equivalent" in this context. Logos are intended for team identification. It is usual that they are owned by the team and are protected. The guideline for logo use acknowledges this and recognizes that there is no free equivalent for a logo. Given that the use of the logo is acceptable, ignoring that and trying to substitute a national flag or country code is unnecessary and insisting on it in the face of policy and guideline boils down to deliberately attempting to spread misinformation.

The use of sports team and other logos is clearly acceptable through policy, guideline, and consensus. If you continue to ignore that to push a POV built around a misunderstanding of the current non-free content policy your edits come down to being nothing but acts of vandalism. Either get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view of the world or leave this go.

Finally, this needs to be sorted out through discussion, not through inconsiderate and aggressive editing. It is inappropriate for you to stalk me through my contributions to delete images to suit your view when a discussion is still in progress. I don't particualrly appreciate the attempt to browbeat me. Wiggy! (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos must still comply with wp:nfc, ragardless of the additional guidelines in their use. The guidelines make no referenece to national football team. There is no blanket policy allowing a

As for the demand "get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view", this celarly supports my view, the prable states "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content", these logos still fail criteria #3 & #8. Neither of these issues have been addessed, and the wp:nfc is the consensus view.

You will have to cite how I am brow beating you over this issue. I note you have undone my cleanup of various German football articles in clear opposition to wp:nfc, for which I have issued you with warnings over your conduct. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that these articles were in full conformance with wp:nfc, notably the section explicitly addressing logos. Showing the historic logo of a team is valid and encyclopedic use. There is no evidence of consensus to support the interpretation you're taking - in fact rather the opposite. Wiki-etiquette is Bold-revert-discuss. You have not followed that path. You have been requested to take this to talk, but instead have pushed your edits again. That looks like disruptive editing. Fasach Nua, please don't do it again until clear consensus for your edits has been established. Jheald (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The club logos should be kept. Else use for the American company, McDonald's. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The flag is used by the sports governing body to represent the local organisations, is there a similar policy implemented by the govening body of fast food to use thaa flag to represent McDonalds? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a question up for debate here. We use logos to represent companies, sports teams, etc. That's very well accepted and not something subject to case-by-case review. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the balance of arguments I think that these logos do fall within WP:NFCC and as such they will be kept. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua. some people would acknowledge your bravery of raising such an issue. But as you can see, most people (including myself now) do NOT. It's actually the opposite. Listen to the basic and extremely important facts seeing as this is a specific encyclopedia site. The national flags represent the nation itself. Thats why they are used on the WP pages of the actual country. Using them to represent national football teams is not valid. They are not specific and do not completely apply to the national team. Some people (players) may want to be established as a member of the national team rather than a member of the actual nation. Thats just as well seeing as there are numerous foreigners in many teams. Be reasonable. Using the national flag causes confusion, arguments and further disparities like I just mentioned with foreigners. Its not suitable. Even if it is immediately known what the national team is and where it is from, its still necessary to have the logo. Just as it is necessary to have a picture of the subject on their WP page. People may want to simply know what the logo (or subject) looks like etc. Logo's all the way!

And I really hope you can oversee this when opposing to further FA candidates. No offense, but you unnecessarily raised an issue which diminished the chances of the Croatian national football team being promoted as a FA. It is legal etc to use these logos, the national flags do not count as suitable replacements. I expect this to be resolved shortly by the time I issue another nomination! Domiy (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metro martin carrera.gif

I'm bringing this logo here to be on the safe side, because it actually does seem to fall within Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria--more than many logos, I would image, since the content of the logo itself is discussed in the article. However, the image was listed at WP:CP on June 27th, and the IP editor who tagged the image here was quite correct in noting that "iconography and typography of Sistema de Transporte Colectivo de la Ciudad de México owns copyrights and its replica is not permitted without authorization of STC-Metro, check-it in the bottom of website http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/red/linea1.html". Yup, it says that at the bottom of the website. That same IP editor has requested deletion of the related image at Mexico City Metro from commons. Given the "whois" check on that IP, I wouldn't be surprised if the objection were not somewhat (or someone) official. Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC?". No. Part of the reason for the strict rules in WP:NFCC is to ensure that that law would allow us to use the non-freely licensed work even if its copyright holder isn't happy about our use. (Although I suspect most logo usage is on the weaker side on that point). Public discourse requires that we sometimes be able to take from some copyrighted works in order to identify and discuss things. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hans Island 003.jpg

I have marked this photo for fair use review, because, i'm not sure weither it falls under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images.6:

A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos.

The author apprently has sold the rights to danish press-photo agency PolFoto. The use of the photo in the danish navy magazines was an part of this agreement. Since the photo is from 2002, i am not sure weither it falls into the category of "historical archives of press photos". --Hebster (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this, but do we really need the picture? --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lose both the Danish and the Canadian flag images -- NFCC #8. I can't see that either of them give the reader a significantly improved understanding of the subject of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:TV Theme - Pingu.ogg, Image:TV Theme - Pingu (dance version).ogg

Both files are copies of the complete recording, not a part of it. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A small part of the recording should be cut out. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are too short to cut. I removed them from the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:DRA5.jpg

Copy of a QSL card. Claimed fair use on 3 articles. Seems stretching it a bit, as this particular station or QSL card is not discussed. Please review. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable and/or not needed. I will removed the image from the articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Perfectstrangers.jpg in Bronson Pinchot

What do you think about this use? Is it motivated. My gut feeling is no, it should be deleted, but I'm not sure. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polkadotpuss3.jpg in Measles

There is no fair-use rationale for using this image in Measles, and I doubt that a valid one could be found. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Completely unnecessary. I removed it from Measles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif in M1 carbine

Please discuss at Talk:M1 carbine#Malcolm X photo. howcheng {chat} 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Frederikshavncoat-arms.jpg

An more free version of similar quality and size now exists on commons (as Frederikshavn logo 02.png) and thus i think that this is in contradiction to WP:NFCC criteria 1 (No free equivalent) and should be deleted. Further-more this is no-longer in use on any articles. --Hebster (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the orphaned fair use template to it. It will be deleted soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Various images used at Hairway to Steven

This article is packed with cover images, including spotlights of the back cover listed with each song. These seem excessive by WP:NFCC. (Since this is not my primary point of contribution, I sought feedback at media copyright questions before listing it here. Presuming the use of the front cover is legitimate, at question here is

• Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Back.jpg, back cover.
• Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Sleeve 1.jpg, inner sleeve
• Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Sleeve 2.jpg, inner sleeve
• Image:Hairwayfront.jpg, also labeled "back cover".
• Image:Butthole Hairway 1.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 2.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 3.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 4.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 5.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 6.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 7.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 8.jpg, detail

These are all used to illustrate one album, and none of them is accompanied by commentary. I'm not sure if these should be tagged {{dfu}}, but given that the problem may be more readily apparent when they are viewed in aggregate, thought to bring them here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely excessive. Remove that all except for the front cover I say. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them from the article and tagged them {{orfud}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ne me quitte pas#Original meaning

This section gives the entire lyrics of the song translated into English. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Ne me quitte pas#Alleged copyvio as to whether including them is appropriate. Please join the discussion there. —Angr 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Microsoft Update in Windows XP.PNG

Uploaded image resolution is 1600 x 1200 x 24BPP. Image size is 123KB. This appears to breach WP:NFCC #3b. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've accordingly tagged it as Template:Non-free reduce. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A screenshot is only a tiny part of the original work (Windows Update), so we don't need to make it smaller for NFCC reasons. Still, the important parts would be shown more clearly in a lower resolution. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original image. The absolute resolution is high, sure, but that doesn't mean the image should be resized down so that the text is unreadable. I don't have Windows XP anymore so I can't create a more suitably-sized image, but I'm sure someone will get to it eventually. Warren -talk- 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reticulah.jpg

This is a directly scanned page out of a book still under copyright. The page does not satisfy criteria 1 of WP:NFCC policy. It would be relatively straightforward to create a free equivalent of this image, and therefore it should not be used. Chaldor (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Will tag appropriately. howcheng {chat} 07:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hand of God goal.jpg

I realize this image has been reviewed previously, and I'm not arguing for deletion, but I believe this requires a second look, as the current rationales are based on a misinterpretation of fair use in my opinion.

This image qualifies as fair use, not because of what it illustrates, but because the photograph itself was at the center of the controversy, as this was the only image, still or moving, that conclusively showed the Hand of God goal was indeed a handball.

So clearly, it needs to be in the Hand of God goal article. However, it should not be in Argentina and England football rivalry, as the latter article does not discuss the photograph itself, and the photograph is rather irrelevant for the Argentina and England football rivalry.

It seems that the current rationales are written with using the photograph to merely illustrate the subject, which is not fair use. Fair use is permitted for discussion of the image.

For the same reason, while it should stay in the article, it should be moved down to the section discussing the media reaction, rather than at the top. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and remove the image from the rivalry article and delete the corresponding rationale. So in effect, I'm withdrawing the review, but I would still appreciate any feedback. --Mosmof (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:BrianUNM.JPG

I've questioned whether this image meets WP:NFCC#1 on a couple of occasions, but in both cases, the image was kept without any real discussion of NFCC. Quite simply, the image is non-notable and does not serve any purpose that couldn't be replaced by prose.

And the following points in the rationale seem awfully specious:

• It is used in Wikipedia only for informational and educational purposes, and is not used for profit.
• Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article
• Since he no longer attends UNM, any picture of him as a student at UNM is an unrepeatable historic event.
• The image is from a Media Guide, it was intended for mass distribution in order to promote the UNM.

Could I get an actual discussion on the merits on this image's non-free image rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2008

Inasmuch as there is a free image of Urlacher at Commons: Image:302343997 76a1a28f71.jpg, this use fails WP:NFCC#1. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the the article’s only critical commentary on the image is that Urlacher sets a weight lifting record at the University of New Mexico; this is perfectly clear without the image. —teb728 t c 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Teb created an IfD. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Walt Brown (creationist).jpg

Does not seem to fit with the fair use rationale. Just wanted to see opinions. We66er (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not much of a rationale. It doesn't address any of the WP:NFCCs. Doesn't explain why a free image can't be created. --Mosmof (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable. I removed the image from the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:MerkelMax.jpg

• Image:ADM Mike Hudson, RAN.jpg

I know this may seem a bit odd, my bringing these here, since I wrote their FUR. I encountered both of them working at the copyright problem board and believed that since the subjects were dead a fair use could be made. I based my FUR on Image:Paul Hill.jpg. Since that image had been around a while, I presumed it was properly done. Now, however, one that I questioned at MCQ has been nominated for IfD, and a responder there indicates of that image (a similar situation, with same rationale):

**Allow me to point you to [1] which discusses the famous JonBenet Ramsey photo which was widely distributed, mainly this quote from David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press:

• • The fair use arguments for ignoring ZUMA's [the copyright holder of the JonBenet photo] assertion of rights to control the image are very weak. Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news.

  • Our usage of this is not even close to fair use by U.S. standards at all. howcheng {chat} 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)}}

If that's correct, then these aren't fair use, either. Since that contributor is an admin at commons, I don't doubt he knows quite a lot more about fair use allowances than I do. :) Other than these, the vast majority of my image experience has been with album covers, which are relatively uncomplicated. Most others issues I've broached at MCQ. I bring them here for review, because it seems a bit odd for me to write a FUR for them and then delete them because of an inadequate FUR. I am also going to separately list one that I uploaded myself, because I suspect is may have a stronger claim to presence than these, though I don't know that for sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out Fair use. A small image used for educational purposes by a non-profit organisation has a very strong claim to fair use. Ty 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be true if Wikipedia weren't one of the top ten visited sites in the world (i.e., our usage of the material reaches a wide audience, as opposed to a teacher reprinting copyrighted work for use in a classroom of 20 students). Additionally, our non-free content criteria are intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. laws allow because it is inconsistent with our mission of providing free (as in unrestricted) content to everyone. howcheng {chat} 02:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cajkovski zlatko.jpg

The last image used to illustrate the article Zlatko Čajkovski was listed at WP:CP and deleted, as not only was it a plainly copyrighted image featuring this man, but it featured two others, as well--one of whom was alive. I found this photo at the Croatian Wikipedia and uploaded it with a FUR, since the permission at the Croatian Wikipedia likely does not cover us. If the images above fail FU, this may also. I list it separately because it is under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported at its source. I don't know if that makes a difference. I bring it here for evaluation from more knowledgeable image editors. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg

This question was raised at WP:CP, but we no longer handle images there, so I'm moving it here for review. The contributor who raised the matter there said:

“

• Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg (history · last edit). The problem isn't the screenshot image itself, which comes from [2], but the images within the screenshot, which may be subject to copyright. See, for example, Image:HamasLogo.jpg, one of the images in the screenshot. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

”

I am notifying him that the discussion has been moved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the logos are surely copyrighted. I don't see how the image improves the article anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(Please keep this section live for now, it's being debated on article Talk. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) )

• Comment: Are pictures of a logo really the same as the logo itself? Suppose someone took a picture of a billboard, to illustrate what a billboard was, and the billboard contained the iPod logo which has been copyrighted... does that really make the picture of the billboard copyrighted? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem rather silly if that were the case. Forgive me for this breach of WP:AGF, but based on this diff, I believe that User:Malik Shabazz's motivation for reporting the image was not out of concern of violating copyright, but rather because he doesn't like it that the JIDF agrees with the choice of image. I hope you will look into the matter further, and discover whether the image really can be considered to be in violation of copyright. I hope to restore the image or replace it with an undoubtedly ok alternative. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of our motivations, a precise opinion on the copyright aspects would be appreciated. Thank you. HG | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that in the situation you describe the billboard would be considered a derivative work that should be replaced by a free alternative. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct. A picture of a logo in a given setting, e.g. a picture of an advertisement that contains a logo, is not a derivative work. It is a new work. Misuse of a logo in this circumstances would be a matter for trademark law, not copyright law (if the logo was use to misrepresent something). This is not the case here. A logo can be used to identify... which is the case here. Oboler (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:LOGO#Negative logos: "Logos should not be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative." --John Nagle (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you do realize that Hamas is officially designated as a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, and the United States, right? It is not as if the context is any more negative than its normal use. If we are to read WP:LOGO#Negative logos excessively literally, then IMHO the logo should not even appear on the Hamas article page. After reading the entire WP:LOGO#Negative logos section, it appears that the intent of the policy is to prohibit parodies of logos, the defacing of logos, and the placement of logos alongside negative items with which the logo is not normally associated. The logo in the image is doing none of those things. It is simply associating the logo with Hamas and, since the logo is the Hamas logo afterall, there is nothing unusual or malicious about this association. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Michael that it's hard to put Hamas in a negative light. The main part of logo policy seems to be: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons." In this instance, though, is the logo being used (by JIDF) to promote the JIDF agenda? What do you all think? HG | Talk 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading WP:LOGO#Advertisements. It is not as if this were a Nike Swoosh or the Coca-Cola logo where it might be used to promote a particular brand or product. In fact, the logo is not the main part of the image, and the image is not trying to promote the subject of the logo. You are correct in that it "promotes" the JIDF by illustrating what it does; however, I again think that the intent of the WP:LOGO#Advertisements policy is to prevent the use of corporate logos to promote a brand or product, not to prevent Wikipedia from illustrating the views of a particular company or organization. Perhaps we can get a few of the editors of the WP:LOGO policy to explain the intentions of the policy as well as how the policy ought to be interpreted vis-a-vis this image. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOGO starts by referring to WP:NFCC, which is the controlling policy. There's no indication that the use of the Hamas logo in the JIDF article satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:NFCC, particularly #1 and #8. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that brings us back to the previous argument... Lawyers, a clarification on the copyright status of the image would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]], the logo's usage in an Faceboog group description by parties unknown, then captured by the JIDF and uploaded to their site as part of a screen shot showing various groups on Facebook, is a fair use by JIDF. It does nto need to conform to any WP (I don't comment on whether it does or doesn't - just that this is not a consideration). The inclusion in Wikipedia need only confirm that the image may reaosnably be used to talk about the JIDF, either because permission is granted, the image is in the public domain, or because it is fair use. There doesn;t seem to be any idea here. Oboler (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler, please read WP:LOGO and WP:NFCC concerning the use of images on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the JIDF does and what their attitude is toward copyright. We must comply with Wikipedia policy in this matter. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Do we have a source for this picture? I just looked at the JIDF's Facebook page [3], and this isn't a screenshot of their page. It's a copy of a picture on their page which is apparently a screenshot of some page elsewhere. Of what is this a picture? --John Nagle (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Nagle, the photo comes from here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The origin: it apparently comes from the JIDF Facebook group. I found a similar image in the "Notes" page, indicating that they tried posting several versions. (Perhaps picked up by their minifeed?) But how is this germane to the copyright aspect? HG | Talk 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Ok. I get it, see next cmt. HG | Talk 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is derived from other material; the underlying works may be copyrighted. We have to track it back to the original source. I found the source of the "bed" cartoon shown in the image.[4]. It's by "Nabucho", a cartoonist for the Arab-European League, part of a series they ran in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above discussion of the logos may be irrelevant. For the image taken as a whole is non-free. As such any use of it on Wikipedia must conform to Wikipedia’s Non-free content criteria policy. But it fails WP:NFCC#8, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” The article could say in text that JIDF targets Facebook groups like the “Hezbollah,” “Based on the facts… There was no Holocaust,” and “Hamas Lovers” groups. The image would not significant add to that. A use could probably fulfill US fair use law, but Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is substantially more restrictive than that. —teb728 t c 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your statement? On what basis do you claim that "the image taken as a whole is non-free"? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#Policy: "'Non-free content' means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I've regarded the copyright status of the screenshot itself as a non-issue. The author specifically left it "for Wikipedia", and I've assumed that it will license the photo if somebody asks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The license at the source is “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.” Wikipedia does not accept either noncommercial or no-derivative restrictions. Nor does Wikipedia accept permission for Wikipedia only. Wikipedia accepts only free licenses—licenses that allow use by anyone for anything. Without such a free license a copyrighted image must fulfill WP:NFCC. The image correctly recognizes its non-free status with a {{non-free web screenshot}} tag and with an attempt at a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 07:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Where does it say that Wikipedia cannot display non-free content, even if the author gives express permission for it to be used in Wikipedia? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-withpermission for example: “Wikipedia does not accept images that are … licensed only to Wikipedia…. There are several reasons for this policy, but the short version is that Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content and having images encumbered by restrictive licensing schemes runs counter to that mission.” (This is part of the boilerplate text it gives you when you upload an image by someone else with either permission or a free license.) —teb728 t c 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the link. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note for clarity, I have been editing at the article in question. I agree the image is non-free, but take issue with the claim that it adds nothing to the article. We have a relatively large section devoted to the JIDF's actions on Facebook, and this image provides a visual example of some groups they've interacted with. Certainly the image is relevant to the material which would be surrounding it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience with other images, WP:NFCC#8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic") is interpreted strictly to mean "only if the image conveys information that cannot be conveyed by words alone". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New photo was uploaded here - may we get some expertise on whether this is fairly within the public domain now and if it can be used here? If not, what about other photo sharing sites? This was up in a Facebook group, for fair use by the public. It is now up on a photo sharing site. I think this photo is import and would like to figure out a way to get it back into the article with all the proper permissions. It seems that since it was originally on the JIDF site, it was a problem, so now that it is on a public photo sharing site, that it is alright? --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the tinypic.com Terms of Use, and their license does not amount either to a release into the public domain or to a free license.(What's more, unless the image was posted on tinypic.com by a representative of JIDF, the posting appears to be a violation of the tinypic.com Terms of Use and a copyright violation.) In any case it doesn't affect the image's status on Wikipedia. By Wikipedia policy fair use images are highly restricted here. —teb728 t c 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I went back to the original link and it appears that they have updated it, created a Flickr photo stream, and licensed it for anyone to use? Seems like they are certainly paying attention to things here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo copyrights

The "author" of the screenshot has released it with a GFDL license. The issue of the copyright logos in the screenshot, such as Image:HamasLogo.jpg, still remains. Could somebody knowledgeable about such matters help us out? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issues remain. The logos are still non-free. Also, image still does not improve the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the image does not improve the article. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Are not the logos of Hamas[5] and Hezbollah[6] already on Wikipedia? In the case of Hamas, "Fair Use" was argued for the following reasons-

for fair use on Hamas.

-This image is a low-resolution image of the logo of a political party. -This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. -this image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. -Use of the logo visually identifies the company and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.

In the case of Hezbollah[7], we have "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship."

What gives? This current ruling does not seem consistent w/ the ruling of the past. Furthermore, the logos and artwork in question in this photo are of extreme low-resolution. Again, it is my firm belief that this image does help enhance the article as it helps explain what the organization does. It's a shame anyone would dispute this fact. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg

This image, despite being under copyright, is being used all over the place, and I wonder if having it in nine separate articles is within the spirit of our non-free content policy.

I cannot argue with its inclusion in Guernica (painting), of course, nor in Pablo Picasso, as it is perhaps his seminal work. What concerns me are the other seven. Two days ago, it appeared in eleven articles but had FURs for only four. I removed the image from the other seven articles; five have since been restored with rationales. However, these new rationales are largely copied from the previous ones, and thus may not apply. In particular, the rationale for use in the article Spain says "Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s)," but it doesn't really, and there are plenty of free images of Spain available.

I would like a review of this image's use in Wikipedia and whether the claimed fair uses are appropriate.

-- Powers ^T 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I do agree that Guernica is used more often than usual and more often than other works of art; I disagree that it appears in inappropriate places - it isn't being used in any inessential or trivial articles.

Guernica is an essential and pivotal work of mid-20th century art; it graphically depicts and represents both history and the history of art. The painting is one of the most important paintings by one of the most important painters of the 20th century. It conveys powerful and historical information beyond the ordinary information conveyed by a work of visual art. It has become a symbol of Spanish heritage and culture; as well as a symbol of Western art and culture.

It was a politically charged message against Fascism at a crucial moment in history. Consequently it appears in a few important and historical articles including Spain, Spanish art and The Spanish Civil War. It appears in Guernica (painting), Pablo Picasso, the History of painting, (the history of) Western painting, as well it should and in Goya's The Third of May 1808 (FA) and in Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) the place that exhibited the painting in the first place in 1937.

This is a crucible of Modernist art, and while it probably should not appear in any other articles beyond where it is now, I don't think the painting is overextended. Modernist (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is potentially valid in those articles, but this depends on the text in the article. Where there is no text about it, but just the image and caption, as in for example Spain and Spanish Civil War it isn't justified. In fact there should be text about it in the articles, as it played a significant role and had an international repercussion. Ty 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree with Ty that the text in Spain probably doesn't justify its inclusion there; the caption in Spanish Civil War which reads - was painted as a representation of the bombing of Guernica, serves as a link to the article on the bombing. The image appears as a thumb in the section Atrocities during the war - seems apropos...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it as justified in its current use in that article. There's hardly anything on the bombing itself. Ty 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is more on it below in the "The war: 1937" section, to which the image should be moved (the article is hugely under-illustrated, but has two pictures left & right together). I'll do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Powers point about the Fair Use Rationales is valid several can be reworded better, I'll change them. Most seem fine to me...Modernist (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the wording wasn't the best in some of the rationales, but it can be difficult to understand what rationales are acceptable and what some of the wording that seems to be acceptable actually means. In the article Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) where the painting was first shown, there is definitely wording in the article that specifically refers to the painting, and it is a central part of the article (and Exhibition) with a parallel to the artistic (and soon to be real) conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia at the Exhibition. With the central themes of the exhibit (and article) best illustrated by artwork produced by 3 states which later collapsed it is impossible to illustrate the article without using some of this work. If Fair Use doesn't apply here, where does it? But how does all that fit into our pre-packaged rationale boxes? Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B.: The two articles that currently have not had the image restored are Biscay and Around the World in 80 Treasures. Powers ^T 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• N.B. They weren't restored because they weren't essential or necessary IMHO. Modernist (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't really matter what the reason was; I just thought it important to mention for the historical record. =) Powers ^T 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg

• [See below: two images deriving from same YouTube source and blog copying from earlier Wikipedia version of YouTube; materials are unauthorized uploadings of photographs of an indoor exhibition in the Auschwitz-Birenau State Museum, which prohibits visitors from using cameras (both still and video) and photographing such exhibits from its photo archives and other holdings. U.S. copyright law, not Polish copyright law, governs uploading of images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

AND

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg

Please see the questions already posted in the talk pages of both images and in the related article(s). If this is "FUR" (WP:FUR), I am posting them here for review. I looked for a place to post them right before seeing a ref. to "FUR" in a recent edit summ. by Piotrus; this appears to be what is intended. I welcome review of these images. If they can be kept, fine; if not, fine. --NYScholar (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear if the images are not in public domain. If not, than FUR is acceptable. The museum has no right to prohibit the display of those images under Polish law.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When trying to figure out if the images are free, we have to look at both US Law and what the law of the country of origin this. That is how it works on here and the sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. These images are copyrighted in Poland, since the photographer is still alive and has copyright protection of his work from the time he dies and 70 years after that. Some claim that works like these under duress are not copyrighted in Poland; no such provision exists in the copyright laws of Poland. So the uploader is correct that these images related to Czeslawa Kwoka are copyrighted. The problem I am seeing that the claim is now that these images were from videos that are from youtube (which I have never seen, so I can never vouch for it.) I think only one image of Czeslawa Kwoka should be kept, since both depict this girl in prison uniforms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec): Sorry; but it is also not clear that these images (one is a cropped piece of the three-pose image) are in "public domain" in the U.S. [or in Poland]; U.S. copyright law governs the content of Wikipedia. There is full discussion and related links to relevant information posted in each image talk page. This review cannot take place independent of the discussion already placed on the image page; it took a lot of work and time to develop it, and it needs careful consideration with respect to both Wikipedia media/image inclusion policies and U.S. copyright law, which applies to Wikipedia's uploading of images to articles and other Wikipedia space. --NYScholar (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [added accidentally-omitted words. --NYScholar (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Addition: Contrary to a statement made by another user above: The Museum is not prohibiting "display" of the photographs; it exhibits them (which is a display of them, for visitors to the Museum to look at); but the Museum does prohibit visitors from bringing cameras (both still and video) into its indoor exhibits and from photographing its exhibits. It also protects its indoor exhibits (Museum property) and photo archives, photographs of the exhibited photographs, and publications by the Museum from copyright violations through a clear copyright notice on its official website. The above user confuses the matter. --NYScholar (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to US Copyright Law, works published from 1923 until 1977 without any sort of copyright notice fall into the public domain. Plus, about the US and country of origin, that is how I was told policies work on here, regardless of law. I think we are tougher than actual law. That is why we have many photos from WW2 licensed under fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping one photo under FUR sounds reasonable to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of what Wikipedia policy relating to images in Wikipedia???? This is not a personal matter but a policy matter. Your statement does not seem "reasonable" at all in view of the copyright infringements and lack of licensing of the image and false fair use rationale claims of "public domain" etc. --NYScholar (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the uploader has been claiming that the images are not copyrighted in Poland and that they are, therefore, in the "public domain" in Poland, which I contest, and consider irrelevant in relation to U.S. copyright law and the sources that the uploader has actually used in copying, editing, and then uploading these 2 images to Wikipedia; please see the editing history of each image. --NYScholar (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If one hasn't seen the videos in YouTube, one is not able to comment on them. They are easily accessible via the URL cited in the image page(s) (various versions) and via any simple YouTube search or Google search for these particular photos; they are copied from YouTube and a blog--a self-published site that copied the 3-pose version w/ the Museum's exhibit captions intact from the YouTube source posted in an earlier version of Wikipedia and gives only a URL to this very Kwoka Wikipedia article (earlier version) as its source: feedback plagiarism loop. --NYScholar (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog image was at one point actually "hot-linked" in the fair use rationale. It may still be; I tried to change it to "nowiki" format but it was reverted at times; it may still be nowiki format, so one can just copy and paste it. Due to its being a self-publication, it is no longer listed as a source in the article on Kwoka or Brasse or The Portraitist, and neither are the spurious YouTube videos. --NYScholar (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am disputing the inclusion in Wikipedia of both photos, not just one of them, and I am asking for review of each one; one comes from the other, but the uploader has identified them differently, even though the source is YouTube in both cases, bec. the blog took it from Wikipedia which took it from YouTube (in earlier version of this article); see the URL to Wikipedia as the "source" given in the blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article in which both images appear (one in infobox and one in section), even though they both come from same 3-pose photograph exhibited in the Museum and posted w/o permission in YouTube and other Websites and blogs and message boards: Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog is "TACSE", self-published; blog post gives Wikipedia as source at a time when YouTube version was in Wikipedia: <http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp2.blogger.com/_CkVCzqsazOk/RtlNY3kUTSI/AAAAAAAAAGE/akPPl2SIAco/s320/czeslawa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tacse.blogspot.com/2007/09/lori-schreiner-and-i-collaborate-for.html&h=145&w=320&sz=10&hl=en&start=3&um=1&usg=__B-2MbEWAZO3UhdXA1VK2jeVjJRA=&tbnid=I01WMQUF6vibgM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCzes%25C5%2582awa%2BKwoka%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-34,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN>: Poeticbent (the uploader) has identified this blog (which I actually had provided as a source before realizing the unreliability) as the source of the 3-pose image; but this image was originally taken from YouTube video, which took the image without license or authorization from the Museum exhibit which does not allow photography and/or from elsewhere on the internet that did that...unclear and unreliable source; lack of license to feature the photo in YouTube or in blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've provided the URL in nowiki format to this and other YouTube videos w/ the images from the Museum exhibit uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec" before, but it has been continually deleted from the speedy-deletion and fair use rationale templates by the uploader et al.: e.g., <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAcoG3ju0vw>. Please consult the talk pages of both images for this information and the editing histories of the image pages for both images. I can't keep repeating information I've already given. It's accessible. The YouTube videos have been flagged, but are still online. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption in the TACSE self-published blog reads: "Wilhelm Brasse photos via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czes%C5%82awa_Kwoka." In Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia itself is not permissible as a source. --NYScholar (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of these images is permissible in Wikipedia; I am aware that they duplicate each other, however, and that is more reason why the same image (1 of the 3 poses) does not belong in the same article; I've seen arguments about that before (e.g. piece of a book cover used in both an infobox image of an author and in a section in same biog. article of that same subject (person). Here the repetition is not justifiable either. But in neither case is the image within fair use according to Wikipedia's policies on non-free images, because the images are actually copyrighted and from the Museum's photo archive (items in an exhibition which visitors to the Museum are prohibited to photograph at all), not in the public domain, and not free or out of copyright in either the U.S. or in Poland. The photographer is living and 91 years old. --NYScholar (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, relax for a moment please. I am watching the video now and from what I am seeing, it is just a slideshow of pictures from the museum. I personally never been to the museum, let alone Poland itself, so I personally cannot comment on their specific policies when it comes to photos. Regardless of all of that, the original copyright holder of the photographs has been identified as Wilhelm Brasse and he is still alive. They are still copyrighted in Poland, but not in the USA. Plus, I am checking to see if we have policies about museums and photographs on one of our sister projects. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already documented the Museum's policies in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs and already done so in the image talk pages; photography (cameras, both still and video) are explicitly prohibited from use in indoor exhibits; this is indoor exhibit of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. Couldn't be clearer. Please consult the talk pages of each image. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photos are credited to Brasse, who took them in either 1942 or 1943; they are not out of copyright in the U.S. --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the U.S. Copyright Law and provision of fair use and Wikipedia's own policies relating to them (which are in some cases relating to images even stricter than U.S. copyright law, see: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues. --NYScholar (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If the images have no copyright notice, then the images are PD in the USA, as I mentioned above. But they are still copyrighted in the country of origin, so we both know it is going to have to be used under fair use here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photographs from the same exhibit have featured copyright notices in publications of the Museum advertised and featured on the website of the Museum (I've quoted them in both the image page and in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs. There is no reliable source to prove that this particular 3-pose photograph made by Brasse has no copyright notice on it in the Museum's Photo archive materials published in books later (much later, in 2004, e.g.); in The Portraitist (2005) Brasse identifies his own photographs as such; re: public domain: see Cornell: [PDF etc. I think too much guessing is going on here. But I agree, it is copyright in the country of origin and proper fair use notice would be required to claim fair use, but in such a rationale in Wikipedia the actual source of the image must be given, and that is actually a blog citing Wikipedia and a YouTube video which basically infringes the Museum's intellectual property (the Museum provided the captions for its exhibit of this particular photograph (as with the others) and also in its own publications (e.g., 2004); and it does not permit visitors to photograph its indoor exhibits (which this one is). --NYScholar (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube video was made after 2004, and uploaded just a few months ago, according to YouTube. In 2006, a person claimed to photograph this photograph at the Museum in 2004 in Wikipedia Commons, but the uploaded image was deleted from WC for "copyright violation." (That person created the Kwoka article too.) It's the same exhibit. --NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyrighted film made in Poland, The Portraitist (Portrecista), TVP1, 2005) includes the work of Brasse; it is a commercial film, screened at film festivals and for sale via contact with its distributor's website. The photographs are part of the film's poster (see the W. article; this is copyrighted intellectual property, and Brasse is the subject of the film, intereviews with him are the content of the film as well as visual illustrations of his work in the film; copyrights pertain there as well. --NYScholar (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I already told you the photo is copyrighted in Poland, the country of origin, so that is no longer the question. The question now is should a photo from a museum be allowed to be uploaded here. I don't have the answer to that question now, and I won't have one for at least a few days. I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your post: "I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways." Someone just deleted the image from the film (the press kit photograph; featured in the distributor's press kit materials) which did have a proper fair-use rationale. Without any clear explanation of why. Please look into that now as well. That fair-use rationale was entirely proper and gave all the necessary information required by Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean in the quoted portion? Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain. Status of those photographs did not change after Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 was enacted. (See: Template:PD-Polish). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this already; what evidence is there that this particular photograph (credited to Wilhelm Brasse was "printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994"? No source to support that cited anywhere in the articles about Brasse or Kwoka or the film about Brasse, The Portraitist; that is an assumption not a fact about this particular photograph of 3 poses of Kwoka; the image has been published since 1994 with a copyright notice attributing it to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, which exhibited Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners beginning in 1955, which is a "permanent exhibition" in the Museum, and which visitors are not allowed to photograph, because it is an "indoor" exhibit. This is legalese without factual sources to establish its relevance to this particular photograph. --NYScholar (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The museum published a photographic book with photographs of Auschwitz prisoners from this area of Poland, etc., in 2002 to 2004 (various editions). Not 1994. The photographs in the book come from its Photo Archive. The book is copyrighted. If someone uses the book as a source of the photograph (which is possible; without acknowledgment) that is a copyright violation of the publication copyright. How do you know when this photograph first was "printed": where was it first "printed?" And who printed it? "Author"? "Publisher?" "Date of publication/printing?"--NYScholar (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish Copyright Law has been amended re: intellectual properties since 1994; I've linked to the law already in the image talk page(s). U.S. copyright law pertains, however, in relation to Wikipedia's uploading of images re: "fair use" claims, whether or not "public domain" and so on. You need to supply evidence to support your claims. --NYScholar (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[I'm located on the East coast of the U.S., in New York; it's too late to be up anymore re: this; I'm going to bed. --NYScholar (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break

The legal position would appear to turn firstly on the date of first publication of the image, ie not when the work was created; nor when the work was first publicly exhibited; but when authorised copies of the image were first generally distributed so people could own them.

NYS says this first occurred in 2002 in a book by Helena Kubica [8]. But I haven't yet seen his evidence for the claim that this was the first publication of this image. He also doesn't give a page reference that the image was published in this book. The picture subsequently appears to have been distributed to the press in the United States in 2005-6.

According to our talk pages here, the image may also be currently displayed as part of the permanent exhibit in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. This exhibition has apparently been in place since 1955; though presumably it may have been re-made a number of times since then. Now, public exhibition doesn't count as publication; and we don't know how long the image has been included in the exhibition. But prima facie it's at least possible that the image may have been published in a catalogue of that exhibit prior to 2002.

If the image was first published in 2002, then it might be copyright to Wilhelm Brasse. On the other hand, original copyright might have vested with the Nazi state, which organised and directed the work of the Erkennungsdienst at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz museum itself in 2007 was in dispute with one Dina Babbitt over copyright ownership of sketches and paintings she had been forced to make for Mengele. [9] If the original copyright was owned by the Nazi state, it's not clear to me who that would now rest with. Another question is whether these photographs in fact attract copyright at all: the current EU requirement under Directive 93/98/EEC (enacted in Poland in 2000-2002) is that for full protection photographs must be "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality". Do standardised mug-shots qualify? Finally, note that the same directive also institutes "publication rights" for previously unpublished works in which the possibility of copyright has expired (being 70 years pma etc.). Such publication rights in the EU are granted to the first publisher, for 25 years. However, they do not apply in the United States.

So, if the work was first published in 2002, and if the work is considered sufficiently original to qualify for copyright, and if Wilhelm Brasse is considered the legal author, then it would appear to indeed be under copyright (both in Poland and the U.S.A.)

If any of those conditions aren't met then things are more questionable.

In particular, if the work was legitimately published before 1994, then things turn very closely on whether it was published with a clear copyright notice (identifying the copyright owner of the photo, not just the book it was contained in). The relevant U.S. law then becomes the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restores U.S. copyrights in non-U.S. works, if they would be copyright in their home countries as of January 1, 1996.[10] According to Polish law, [11] for photos before 1994 this will be the case only if the photos were published with a clear copyright notice. Otherwise they would be public domain in Poland, and therefore also in the United States.

(Note added) One other thing. Under Article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, the following are excluded from copyright: "official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols". This image looks as if it might qualify as "official documentary material", that being on the face of it the very purpose for which it was created. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some other points

You tube, etc. At least per US law (Bridgeman vs Corel), there won't be any additional copyright in the faithful reproduction of a 2d work. So the only copyright we need to consider is the copyright in the original work.

Museum photography policy. We don't have a contract with the museum. If the image is not copyright, the museum does not acquire any rights in it merely by putting up a sign saying "no photography".

Museum ownership of the copyright. On the face of it, unless anyone can add better data, there seems no reason to assume that the museum would own the copyright. If copyright exists, it might be held by Wilhelm Brasse, or by whatever body has inherited the copyright of the Nazi state; but there seems to be no a-priori reason that such copyright would be owned by the museum. In Europe, if the copyright had become extinct before first publication, then the museum might have a 25 year publication right; but such a right would not apply in the United States.

Fair use. The copyright position seems at least murky. But if the image were copyright, there seems to me a reasonable fair use case per WP:NFCC. The detail picture identifies the subject of the article, and is the picture the recent artwork has been based on, which is identified as the main source of the article's wikipedia notability. It therefore very much is right on the spine of the subject of the article. The full picture (from which the detail is taken) conveys the full context of the original picture. But before jumping to conclusions, I think we should investigate more the actual copyright situation first. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some responses

"But if the image were copyright": If? Another part of the same exhibition of photographs has already been removed from Wikipedia Commons for "copyright violation" and another photograph from the same exhibition uploaded by the same uploader to Wikipedia Commons is also currently disputed. I placed the link to it in the talk page of these images. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a whole host of unverified assumptions being made about the indoor exhibition from the Photo archive of the Museum in the post by Jheald. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum makes its position about ownership of its exhibitions very clear in its website; that position is already documented (with reliable sources from the Museum) in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs and in the talk pages of these images. The Museum states that it does not allow photography by visitors of its indoor exhibits. There is no published catalogue with the particular photograph that the uploader uploaded to Wikipedia being cited by the uploader. If there were such a catalogue, it would be a printed and copyrighted work with copyrights of the publisher of record (the Museum). (The Museum makes no reference to any such published "catalogue" of its exhibition Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners (which contains these photographs containing the 3 poses of Kwoka, and of many others.)

The Museum's copyrights for its exhibits are not in the "public domain" in the United States (as claimed by the uploader and others citing Polish copyright law w/ respect to 1994), which is not complete citation of current Polish copyright law (I provided the links to it in the image page for others' convenience a few days ago).

All "fair use rationales" in Wikipedia image pages are required to state the actual source used for the image and why uploading from it to Wikipedia is permissible in an image uploaded to Wikipedia. I dispute the description page of this image in Wikipedia.

The current image page refers to use of a YouTube video featuring still photographs from the Museum exhibit.

There is no doubt that this photograph is part of the exhibition called Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners.

"There is no reason to assume....": This is not an "assumption":

• The captions included in the image w/ the 3 poses are clearly and undisputably photographs of the Museum's exhibition in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners, over which it claims ownership rights in its website and which it disallows visitors to photograph (still or video), as it does all its "indoor" exhibits.

Another photograph from its Photo Archive and featured in the exhibit is also posted on its official website with a clear copyright notice and credit to the Exhibition Department photographer for the Museum. (It is a photograph of a photograph, produced by the Museum's Exhibition Department photographer credited.)

The Website features a copyright notice with the dates 1999 to 2008. I have provided this information with URLs for further investigation already in the talk page of the image. Both this 3-pose photograph and the one copied and uploaded to Wikipedia taken from both YouTube and a blog are Museum archival photographs that make up the exhibition in Block no. 6. The Museum features a portion of the larger exhibition on its own copyrighted Website, and I have provided a link to the Museum's Website for verification of that. There is also the matter of the copyrighted documentary film about Brasse, made in 2005 and distributed commercially. I have provided the credit to Rekontrplan Film Group and its website location in The Portraitist; the video clip advertising the film on Rekontrplan Film Group's official Website contains stills of the photographs from the exhibition of photographs (and other items) in Block no. 6. Fair use rationales (if that is the route for any of these images) need to identify sources used to upload the images (what source[s] they were taken from by the uploader of the images). In the past (I haven't checked it again today) the fair use rationale and identification of sources used have not been presented correctly.

One of several remaining questions is: what is the source used by the uploader to copy and upload this image (3 poses) and the close up part of one of the poses (part of the same photograph) to Wikipedia. It appears to be a derivative work not original with the uploader but taken from Website content. Wikipedia has clear stipulations about the problems about uploading potential copyright infringing material from Websites to Wikipedia.

The film about Wilhelm Brasse featuring archival materials and iconography (according to its distributor) is a commercial property and has its own copyright as well; fair use rationale for the use of the image of the movie poster is provided in The Portraitist image; click on its image page in the infobox image. That is a clear situation of fair use with proper Wikipedia procedures followed in the creation of the fair use rationale and licensing information.

These images uploaded by Poeticbent do not have a proper fair use rationale and proper licensing information in the image pages.

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Final comment

Firstly, I would like to thank User:Jheald for this professional assessment of the images in question. I can really appreciate your knowledge since copyright law is a stuff of life for me being a professional artist. By the same token, for those who might have difficulty understanding the premises of copyright law due to its complexity, I suggest you expand on your knowledge by additional reading. You can start by visiting the web site of photographer Dan Heller for his in-depth article on the subject of releases.

To put it in simple words, copyright protection notices displayed in books, in film, and in public exhibits of historic photographs and paintings refer to layout, original copy text, vision, as well as the release concept. The actual historic 2D images (unless they are transformed in a creative way) fall into a separate category. For example, the picture taken of Mona Lisa does not make one an owner of Mona Lisa copyrights. Similarly, the picture taken of Mona Lisa painting by the museum photographer does not include copyright on the image appearing in the photograph. The museum exhibits are copyrighted, the Mona Lisa painting is not. In that sense, the copyright tag by the distributor can, but doesn’t have to be honoured with a mention, in the face of law.

To speak of You Tube anywhere around here is overly courteous already. It does not matter, who took the picture of the picture of Czesława Kwoka and where from, exactly... What is of interest to us is only the initial mug-shot of her and it’s legal status, including country of origin, the actual point in time, and all the accompanying circumstances. Nazi state was Wilhelm Brasse’s slave-labour employer (for further information see: Forced labor in Germany during World War II). The photographer was recompensed for his physical labour by being kept alive. So, is the image owned by the German Reich still, 65 years after the fact? Or, can the concentration camp photographer be perceived in relation to modern day release instead? Polish copyright law is pretty clear about that, and so is the American Fair use. With the proper tag, the images meet the bilateral criteria of display for illustration purposes regardless of where they originated from.
--Poeticbent talk 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I repeat a comment that pertains to WP:POL, specifically to: Wikipedia:Image use policy, particularly to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair use considerations; and to the Non-free use rationale guideline, linked therein as well: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline:
  

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Points of information

I've added an EL in the EL sec. of the article on Kwoka to the "Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Publications: Albums and Catalogues"; it provides precise publication information, including dates of publication of these photograph albums and catalogues, all of which are copyrighted by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland. [Books by Kubica already listed in References sec. of that and other related articles.] --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The "identity pictures" of Kwoka were taken in 1942 or 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced in the article on her). She died in March 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced...). The photographs were not taken prior to 1923 (see U.S. copyright law re: "public domain"), and they appear in an indoor exhibition at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland, which visitors are not allowed to photograph. The Museum publication by Kubica, containing some (but not all) of the photographs in its archives, was published in 2002 and 2003 (in German/Polish), according to the Museum publications information (see post just above). Sources cited in the Wikipedia articles on Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist give credit to Brasse as the photographer who took these particular photographs of Kwoka. He did not publish them. The Museum exhibited some of his photographs and some of the photographs in its indoor exhibits are published in its publications, none of which were published by or before 1994, according to its Publications Webpage. It is not yet verified when (on what date) the "permanent" "indoor" Exhibition of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners began to include the photographs that include the 3 poses of Kwoka (in these images). The exhibition was first mounted in 1955. --NYScholar (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg#See similar problems already discussed in other image created by uploader, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan [in Wikipedia Commons--corr. (Ed. NYS); see below], and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see listing of image below: have corrected the date, as explained there.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see below. corr. (NYS). --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

I notice a lot have been posted. Anyways, the fact they are in a book or museum doesn't prevent us from using these photos at all. Under fair use, we can use what we want, in limited circumstances, regardless of when and where it is published and/or displayed. In this case, we should have one, just one, photo of this woman and that is it. The YouTube and blog stuff are irrelevant, since neither are the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, who holds/held the copyright? In this case, the photographer, who is still alive. Therefore, a fair use rationale is needed, which we have. End of story, problem solved. No problem in the first place, really. Taking a photo of something (or in this case, using it in a YouTube video) without significantly modifying the work to the point it is in itself unique does not give the re-user ownership of the copyright. It still remains with whoever created the original work. There is no reason to delete either of these photos. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True, if Brasse does hold a copyright. But if the image is considered to have been created as "official documentary material" under article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, then there would appear to be no copyright to hold.

Equally if the photograph falls below the threshold of originality; or if it was published before 1994 without a clear copyright claim; or if the original copyright vested in the Nazi state, there might now be no copyright. Jheald (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was invested to the Nazi state, Germany still considers it copyrighted. I personally don't think we will know for sure, but we are getting close on reaching the 70 year mark of the start of the war. 2009-1939 is 70 years, and most European copyright laws have that year as a cutoff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in Wikipedia have to be consistent with copyright law in the United States and copyright law in the foreign country of the copyright owner (the current copyright owner) and also the copyright law of the country of the uploader (if uploader uploads it to Wikipedia Commons): see the links in Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia. What do the laws of Nazi Germany have to do with this current matter about images protected by the Museum's exhibits now? The Museum is in Poland and Wikipedia is in the United States. Please see the links at top of this page that go to the pertinent non-free use policies and guidelines in Wikipedia and that link to Wikipedia's copyright policies for articles and images. Those are the policies and guidelines that govern uploading images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to Wikipedia policy governing non-free content, including images: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. --NYScholar (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We haven't established this is non-free content yet. Jheald (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jheald, I personally go by the rule of "unfree unless otherwise proven." We have no proof anything was released and I didn't see anything in Polish law that would make these type of images public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the statements about Polish copyright law and "public domain" in the fair-use rationales etc.: the current Wikipedia article Polish copyright law is templated as a stub, and it lacks in-line citations; I've added a link to {{Wikisource in it a moment ago, after creating a talk page for it, and placed the missing citations template on the article; for more information about Polish copyright law, one can visit:

I had added the external links to the current Polish copyright law to the image page templates, but they have since been removed in at least one or both of the articles by later template changes. If one scrolls through the whole page in Wikisource, one can find current Polish copyright law sections and sources referenced. --NYScholar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zscout's comment above: I was writing a similar comment earlier but got knocked off the internet and it was lost. Wikipedia in such matters favors the most cautious position: if an image or other content is not indisputably "free", Wikipedia takes the position that it is not free and that uploading the image requires a fair-use rationale; a larger version containing the 3-poses has already been deleted from Wikipedia Commons due to "copyright violation"; the "fair use rationale" in each image relates to there being a need for a fair use rationale, given Wikipedia's policy aready linked above. --NYScholar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While foreign copyright law pertains to foreign media/images, United States copyright law is Wikipedia policy (with reference to foreign copyright law); the use of images must be in keeping with United States copyright law and other countries' laws that might apply to uploading such content; moreover, the policy statement re: these matters (linked earlier) in Wikipedia is identified in that policy as often "stricter" than U.S. copyright law. Wikipedia's aim is to protect itself from potential claims of copyright violation and any such potential can lead to deletion of an article in Wikipedia. That is my concern. --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The insertion and re-insertion of the images with questionable licenses and dubious claims re: "public domain" in licenses and so so place the article on Kwoka (which was nominated for deletion before August 28, 2008, in jeopardy. These are the larger concerns. The article does not need to have illustrations, especially if they put the integrity of the article in doubt. --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg

See listing of previous two images. Links to the problems there: See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg#See similar problems already discussed in other image created by uploader, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan, and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speedy deletion due to copyright violation. It is currently an orphan in Wikipedia [Ed. NYS): actually listed as such in Wikipedia Commons, just realized; but it is linked to articles in Wikipedia; corrected this below] and has been for some time (please see its editing history). I notified the uploader with template as required in the template notice. If this image requires a different nomination for speedy deletion template, please discuss here. It is been nominated for deletion for months. --NYScholar (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [updated this in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Had to relog in to Wikipedia Commons to check editing history of the image; it was nominated for deletion by another user in July 2008. [Will fix date above and in prev. post as well.] --NYScholar (talk)

There was no article on Maria Kotarba in Wikipedia listed in Wikipedia Commons file for the image when I checked it in first posting this listing; there were no files linked to when I first posted this listing. That has since changed apparently. I haven't time to see when precisely. --NYScholar (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the history and, despite the nomination for deletion, the photograph appears without proper templates indicating its nomination for speedy deletion in the article; please see its editing history. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the lack of listing of the article in the Wikipedia Commons image page confusing; maybe it's been corrected since I last looked at it. That does not change the situtation re: deletion nomination of the image (since July 2008) and speedy-deletion nomination now. --NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No; it still states "Links[:] There are no pages that link to this file." [Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg"]. --NYScholar (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The image on Commons only shows Commons pages that link to it, not en WP pages. For that you must look at the transclusion of it on wikipedia at Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg. The image is hosted on Commons, which is an image repository which all wikipedias can freely use, so you will have to argue it's deletion in the debate on Commons. Ty 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I leave that to others; I'm just giving the history here and provide the links to previous discussions and information. I've added some comments on my own talk page.--NYScholar (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)) [I had already recommended "delete" in that discussion. Please see it directly. --NYScholar (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Comment: if we decide to move it to fair use, please move it before deletion on Commons. Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If moved, it needs valid fair-use rationales for each of its uses in Wikipedia, and it also needs valid licenses (re: copyright and sources used to make it). --NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image is public domain. Period. This image does not belong on this forum. -Nard 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The validity of the claim of "public domain" is precisely what is being disputed. I don't see how that comment qualifies as definitive; it is that user's opinion, for which he provides no supporting evidence. --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball cards in 1950s Topps

1950s Topps is an article about cards made by the Topps company in the 1950s. Currently it has one (non-free) card image for each year, shown in the list together with the size and the number of cards released that year. I think there should only be one example card at the top of the article. I added a card at the top, but did not remove the images from the list yet. Comments? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had considered not using any baseball card images since I provided the reader and external link to a gallery of images. Instead of any one card image I thought that the company logo from that era would be best. Libro0 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Having a logo of the company makes no sense when you are talking about the product they are producing. It would be like having an article about a Boeing 737 and instead of photos of airplanes you just have the Boeing logo. It is a bad idea. Most other articles that show a company's products show images of the company's product. You would expect that in an article about the company's products! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They vary fairly widely in style and approach (photos vs. drawings, portraits vs. action shots, etc.) and I think complement the article. It makes it clear that baseball cards and the like have their own fashion or style and evolve over the years. Especially if you can see and compare them in an even broader time context. Wiggy! (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about we keep time card images, but also put the 1950:s Topps logo at the top. The logo is good especially if the article grows to cover everything about Topps in the 1950:s. I'm not sure if the use of so many non-free images is ok, but it's not obviously wrong either. Maybe some image-deletionist will come along and tag them all for deletion, but that's a later problem. I suggest that we either keep the images small like now, how put them horizontally over or under the list. Two questions: 1) Are the images we have good representatives for each year? 2) Can somebody find the 1950:s logo? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These Logos

These images fail wp:nfc, replaceable and convey little information

• Image:Albania FA.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Albania.svg
• Image:Andorra FA.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Andorra.svg
• Image:Belgium urbsfa.gif decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Belgium.svg
• Image:Luxembourg ff.png decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg
• Image:Scotlandfootballlogo.PNG decorative only and can be replaced with Image:Flag_of_Scotland.svg

Fasach Nua (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would contest that those logos are not decorative on their respective FA's articles. The logo of a national FA is as important as a club's logo. – PeeJay 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Absoloutely there is no reason to have club logos either, the national teams are bit easier to deal with as they have an obvious replacement Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2#1, you are correct the club logos do fail Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2#8, and should also be removed, a point well raised. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you completely doolally? National teams don't have a free alternative as an identifier. If you mean the nation's flag, then that only helps to identify the nation, rather than the nation's national football team. As for club logos failing criterion #8, I don't see why that is. For most clubs, the club badge is integral to their history, and the inclusion of the logo allows a visual accompaniment to the history of the badge. – PeeJay 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most international teams fly flags over their stadiums, the badge is just one of many ways they identify themselves, if you want a really solid way to identify the team, why not use the country code? If you were on an article, say Austria national football team, and it didnt have the logo, do you really think many readers need a corporate logo to identify it, I think including "national football team" in the name goes along way to helping people to identify the team, I cant even think what you could possibly misidentify these teams as. If the club logo is discussed, put it in the section discussing it, putting it in an infobox makes people think it is okay to abuse copyrighted materials on WP, which it isnt. However I am only interested in sorting out the international teams at this point in time Fasach Nua (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

National team crests are not the same as flags, and they convey more complex and accurate information than a simple flag would. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are not the same as flags, flags are used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, they are free and meet the criteria for inclusion, does the use of non-free crests meet the criteria for inclusion? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairly explicitly. "Team and corporate logos: For identification." It's a team logo, quite simply. matt91486 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, there are no images anywhere in the world that could better represent these national teams than their respective logos. I'm fairly sure Fair Use policy allows the use of these logos in cases such as this, provided that we don't go overboard and start using the logos willynilly about the place. One use on the national team's article isn't going to hurt anyone. – PeeJay 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not hurt anyone, but it does hurt the wikimedia foundation, as their use pushes the goal of a free encylopedia further away. I do not accept your statement that there are no images that can better represent a team, certainly organisations like FIFA and UEFA are content to use national flags, and they have a certain ammount of experience in th world of international Soccer Fasach Nua (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

National FAs should be viewed in the same way as companies. I doubt very much that anyone would argue against the use of the McDonalds logo or the Nike logo on their respective articles, so why argue against the use of national football association logos. – PeeJay 13:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem removing logos from WP, I haven't come across a single one that is necessary, (although that is not to say there aren't any). There are soccer articles that dont use a logos such as Ireland, Saarland Scotish history, and they are perfectly fine articles. There is no doubt the articles look better with logos, but they are just there for decoration, and serve to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The examples you picked are dubious at best. A historical team which presumably doesn't have an easily tracked down image, a non-sanctioned regional team, and a historical article on a team, for which fair use wouldn't be applicable. Your argument is not really strengthened by pointing that out. matt91486 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that FIFA is the world governing body for soccer, and the fact Saar and Ireland are both recognised by FIFA, is generally enough sanction for most people. Ignoring your issues with FIFA, and indeed the original motivation behind not including copyrighted materials. The main thing to note with these three articles are they are about international football teams, and the reader is able to easily identify them without having to resort to copyrighted images, if it is possible to write completely free articles around these teams, it is possible with any team. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What? My issues with FIFA? I never said Ireland wasn't recognized by FIFA. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at. Fair use EXPLICITLY ALLOWS team logos. So I'm not sure how this is possibly a discussion. The FA emblems serve as team logos. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. It's all well and good that you want free images, but you can't decide to suddenly go around deleting any image that you want, even if it clearly meets fair use license requirements. matt91486 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with matt. This entire discussion is completely ill-founded. – PeeJay 08:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. This is way off base. It is a well established practise with accepted rationale here to use logos in an appropriate manner where it suits. "Defeat the purpose of Wikipedia"? C'mon. I hardly see it's impending collapse. And ultimately the purpose is to inform people and share knowledge. Why in the world should the primary virtue be to bulldoze it flat into a sterile landscape of sameness? Canada's football team. Canada's hockey team. Canada's curling team. Canada's baseball team. Canada's basketball team. Canada's basketball team. That does not inform or teach. It numbs. It causes confusion. It sucks the joy out of learning and exploration. It even smacks of a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation. The argument here is based on a narrow and close-minded interpretation of the rules that flies in the face of accepted practise. A no logos approach is extreme and while the use of logos may not suit your personal taste its been clearly demonstrated that the use of logos is accepted here through a concensus bound by its own specific rules and policies which cannot simply be ignored. Get past the wikilawyering and the copyright paranoia and adopt a common sense approach. I'm sure that if the threat to Wikipedia from logos was so serious we would see prompt and deliberate action taken. In the mean time a deeper understanding of the spirit of this place might be helpful. Wiggy! (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A "well established practice" is not a valid reason, the goal of wp is to create a free encylopedia, and to use replaceable free images is the antethisis of the goal of the organisation. To add non-free content to avoid a "sterile landscape" is unacceptable, the use of non-free content is based on neccessity, not decorative value. As for your accusations of "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" would you also level these accusations at FIFA who demand the uses of these free images to represent the teams at every sporting event they partake in? Your final barrage of cliches, is well off topic, address the issue rather than anattempt an illthought out attempt at undermining the person that raised it. I absoloutely agree on one point, a deeper understanding of this place is essential. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Logos should not be removed from articles on clubs, companies, etc., period; they clearly serve as an important identifier of the respective organisation. —Nightstallion 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos here is a well-established practice "with its own rationale" that is "bound by its own specific rules and policies" - I'd think that would make it valid (and no cherry picking). The use of logos is legitimate and its unfair to ignore that and try to impose your own POV on their use, because what you've put forward amounts to little more than that. The use of non-free content is accepted here under specific conditions and that seems to escape you. You might want to go have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content which accommodates the use of logos and other useful bits that can legitimately add something to the landscape.

And why would I level accusations of any sort at FIFA? That's got nothing to do with anything here. It's a red herring argument you've dragged out more than once. You're not getting any takers, give it up, or go get it properly sorted out in a broader context. Wiggy! (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you quoting yourself? it is just bizare, using quotes from yourself to back your own argument is an unhelpful approach. Wikipedia:Non-free content does not accomodate the use of non-free content that "add something to the landscape", it accommodates necessity, non-free content is only used if it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and there is "No free equivalent", these logos fail both these tests.

You havent addressed the issue, why is the use of flags to represent international football teams a "deliberate attempt to spread misinformation" if done of wikipedia, but if FIFA does this at every' football international it is not? As for a broader context, this has been clealy dealt with, and is already documented in Wikipedia:Non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I quoted myself because you conveniently left out relevant bits of my comments when you quoted me. Take the whole point, not just what suits you. If you do that I won't have to be repeating myself to you.

Wikipedia:Non-free content accomodates the use of non-free content and specifically addresses the use of logos. Policy, guideline and consensus all support the use of logos. You appear to be deliberately ignoring that. Refer to 2.1.3.2 Acceptable use/Images/Logos. Then follow that to the guideline on the use of logos and understand that, while there is some debate about their use, it is acceptable to use them and that use is supported by concensus. That addresses the issue directly and anything else is your POV and unnecessarily pointy editing.

You have also misapprehended the meaning of "no free equivalent" in this context. Logos are intended for team identification. It is usual that they are owned by the team and are protected. The guideline for logo use acknowledges this and recognizes that there is no free equivalent for a logo. Given that the use of the logo is acceptable, ignoring that and trying to substitute a national flag or country code is unnecessary and insisting on it in the face of policy and guideline boils down to deliberately attempting to spread misinformation.

The use of sports team and other logos is clearly acceptable through policy, guideline, and consensus. If you continue to ignore that to push a POV built around a misunderstanding of the current non-free content policy your edits come down to being nothing but acts of vandalism. Either get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view of the world or leave this go.

Finally, this needs to be sorted out through discussion, not through inconsiderate and aggressive editing. It is inappropriate for you to stalk me through my contributions to delete images to suit your view when a discussion is still in progress. I don't particualrly appreciate the attempt to browbeat me. Wiggy! (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos must still comply with wp:nfc, ragardless of the additional guidelines in their use. The guidelines make no referenece to national football team. There is no blanket policy allowing a

As for the demand "get 2.1.3.2 sorted out to match your view", this celarly supports my view, the prable states "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content", these logos still fail criteria #3 & #8. Neither of these issues have been addessed, and the wp:nfc is the consensus view.

You will have to cite how I am brow beating you over this issue. I note you have undone my cleanup of various German football articles in clear opposition to wp:nfc, for which I have issued you with warnings over your conduct. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that these articles were in full conformance with wp:nfc, notably the section explicitly addressing logos. Showing the historic logo of a team is valid and encyclopedic use. There is no evidence of consensus to support the interpretation you're taking - in fact rather the opposite. Wiki-etiquette is Bold-revert-discuss. You have not followed that path. You have been requested to take this to talk, but instead have pushed your edits again. That looks like disruptive editing. Fasach Nua, please don't do it again until clear consensus for your edits has been established. Jheald (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The club logos should be kept. Else use for the American company, McDonald's. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The flag is used by the sports governing body to represent the local organisations, is there a similar policy implemented by the govening body of fast food to use thaa flag to represent McDonalds? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a question up for debate here. We use logos to represent companies, sports teams, etc. That's very well accepted and not something subject to case-by-case review. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the balance of arguments I think that these logos do fall within WP:NFCC and as such they will be kept. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua. some people would acknowledge your bravery of raising such an issue. But as you can see, most people (including myself now) do NOT. It's actually the opposite. Listen to the basic and extremely important facts seeing as this is a specific encyclopedia site. The national flags represent the nation itself. Thats why they are used on the WP pages of the actual country. Using them to represent national football teams is not valid. They are not specific and do not completely apply to the national team. Some people (players) may want to be established as a member of the national team rather than a member of the actual nation. Thats just as well seeing as there are numerous foreigners in many teams. Be reasonable. Using the national flag causes confusion, arguments and further disparities like I just mentioned with foreigners. Its not suitable. Even if it is immediately known what the national team is and where it is from, its still necessary to have the logo. Just as it is necessary to have a picture of the subject on their WP page. People may want to simply know what the logo (or subject) looks like etc. Logo's all the way!

And I really hope you can oversee this when opposing to further FA candidates. No offense, but you unnecessarily raised an issue which diminished the chances of the Croatian national football team being promoted as a FA. It is legal etc to use these logos, the national flags do not count as suitable replacements. I expect this to be resolved shortly by the time I issue another nomination! Domiy (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metro martin carrera.gif

I'm bringing this logo here to be on the safe side, because it actually does seem to fall within Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria--more than many logos, I would image, since the content of the logo itself is discussed in the article. However, the image was listed at WP:CP on June 27th, and the IP editor who tagged the image here was quite correct in noting that "iconography and typography of Sistema de Transporte Colectivo de la Ciudad de México owns copyrights and its replica is not permitted without authorization of STC-Metro, check-it in the bottom of website http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/red/linea1.html". Yup, it says that at the bottom of the website. That same IP editor has requested deletion of the related image at Mexico City Metro from commons. Given the "whois" check on that IP, I wouldn't be surprised if the objection were not somewhat (or someone) official. Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC?". No. Part of the reason for the strict rules in WP:NFCC is to ensure that that law would allow us to use the non-freely licensed work even if its copyright holder isn't happy about our use. (Although I suspect most logo usage is on the weaker side on that point). Public discourse requires that we sometimes be able to take from some copyrighted works in order to identify and discuss things. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hans Island 003.jpg

I have marked this photo for fair use review, because, i'm not sure weither it falls under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images.6:

A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos.

The author apprently has sold the rights to danish press-photo agency PolFoto. The use of the photo in the danish navy magazines was an part of this agreement. Since the photo is from 2002, i am not sure weither it falls into the category of "historical archives of press photos". --Hebster (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this, but do we really need the picture? --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lose both the Danish and the Canadian flag images -- NFCC #8. I can't see that either of them give the reader a significantly improved understanding of the subject of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:TV Theme - Pingu.ogg, Image:TV Theme - Pingu (dance version).ogg

Both files are copies of the complete recording, not a part of it. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A small part of the recording should be cut out. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are too short to cut. I removed them from the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:DRA5.jpg

Copy of a QSL card. Claimed fair use on 3 articles. Seems stretching it a bit, as this particular station or QSL card is not discussed. Please review. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable and/or not needed. I will removed the image from the articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Perfectstrangers.jpg in Bronson Pinchot

What do you think about this use? Is it motivated. My gut feeling is no, it should be deleted, but I'm not sure. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polkadotpuss3.jpg in Measles

There is no fair-use rationale for using this image in Measles, and I doubt that a valid one could be found. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Completely unnecessary. I removed it from Measles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif in M1 carbine

Please discuss at Talk:M1 carbine#Malcolm X photo. howcheng {chat} 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Frederikshavncoat-arms.jpg

An more free version of similar quality and size now exists on commons (as Frederikshavn logo 02.png) and thus i think that this is in contradiction to WP:NFCC criteria 1 (No free equivalent) and should be deleted. Further-more this is no-longer in use on any articles. --Hebster (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the orphaned fair use template to it. It will be deleted soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Various images used at Hairway to Steven

This article is packed with cover images, including spotlights of the back cover listed with each song. These seem excessive by WP:NFCC. (Since this is not my primary point of contribution, I sought feedback at media copyright questions before listing it here. Presuming the use of the front cover is legitimate, at question here is

• Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Back.jpg, back cover.
• Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Sleeve 1.jpg, inner sleeve
• Image:Butthole Surfers Hairway Sleeve 2.jpg, inner sleeve
• Image:Hairwayfront.jpg, also labeled "back cover".
• Image:Butthole Hairway 1.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 2.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 3.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 4.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 5.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 6.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 7.jpg, detail
• Image:Butthole Hairway 8.jpg, detail

These are all used to illustrate one album, and none of them is accompanied by commentary. I'm not sure if these should be tagged {{dfu}}, but given that the problem may be more readily apparent when they are viewed in aggregate, thought to bring them here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely excessive. Remove that all except for the front cover I say. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them from the article and tagged them {{orfud}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ne me quitte pas#Original meaning

This section gives the entire lyrics of the song translated into English. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Ne me quitte pas#Alleged copyvio as to whether including them is appropriate. Please join the discussion there. —Angr 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Microsoft Update in Windows XP.PNG

Uploaded image resolution is 1600 x 1200 x 24BPP. Image size is 123KB. This appears to breach WP:NFCC #3b. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've accordingly tagged it as Template:Non-free reduce. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A screenshot is only a tiny part of the original work (Windows Update), so we don't need to make it smaller for NFCC reasons. Still, the important parts would be shown more clearly in a lower resolution. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original image. The absolute resolution is high, sure, but that doesn't mean the image should be resized down so that the text is unreadable. I don't have Windows XP anymore so I can't create a more suitably-sized image, but I'm sure someone will get to it eventually. Warren -talk- 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reticulah.jpg

This is a directly scanned page out of a book still under copyright. The page does not satisfy criteria 1 of WP:NFCC policy. It would be relatively straightforward to create a free equivalent of this image, and therefore it should not be used. Chaldor (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Will tag appropriately. howcheng {chat} 07:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hand of God goal.jpg

I realize this image has been reviewed previously, and I'm not arguing for deletion, but I believe this requires a second look, as the current rationales are based on a misinterpretation of fair use in my opinion.

This image qualifies as fair use, not because of what it illustrates, but because the photograph itself was at the center of the controversy, as this was the only image, still or moving, that conclusively showed the Hand of God goal was indeed a handball.

So clearly, it needs to be in the Hand of God goal article. However, it should not be in Argentina and England football rivalry, as the latter article does not discuss the photograph itself, and the photograph is rather irrelevant for the Argentina and England football rivalry.

It seems that the current rationales are written with using the photograph to merely illustrate the subject, which is not fair use. Fair use is permitted for discussion of the image.

For the same reason, while it should stay in the article, it should be moved down to the section discussing the media reaction, rather than at the top. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and remove the image from the rivalry article and delete the corresponding rationale. So in effect, I'm withdrawing the review, but I would still appreciate any feedback. --Mosmof (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:BrianUNM.JPG

I've questioned whether this image meets WP:NFCC#1 on a couple of occasions, but in both cases, the image was kept without any real discussion of NFCC. Quite simply, the image is non-notable and does not serve any purpose that couldn't be replaced by prose.

And the following points in the rationale seem awfully specious:

• It is used in Wikipedia only for informational and educational purposes, and is not used for profit.
• Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article
• Since he no longer attends UNM, any picture of him as a student at UNM is an unrepeatable historic event.
• The image is from a Media Guide, it was intended for mass distribution in order to promote the UNM.

Could I get an actual discussion on the merits on this image's non-free image rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2008

Inasmuch as there is a free image of Urlacher at Commons: Image:302343997 76a1a28f71.jpg, this use fails WP:NFCC#1. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the the article’s only critical commentary on the image is that Urlacher sets a weight lifting record at the University of New Mexico; this is perfectly clear without the image. —teb728 t c 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Teb created an IfD. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Walt Brown (creationist).jpg

Does not seem to fit with the fair use rationale. Just wanted to see opinions. We66er (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not much of a rationale. It doesn't address any of the WP:NFCCs. Doesn't explain why a free image can't be created. --Mosmof (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable. I removed the image from the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:MerkelMax.jpg

• Image:ADM Mike Hudson, RAN.jpg

I know this may seem a bit odd, my bringing these here, since I wrote their FUR. I encountered both of them working at the copyright problem board and believed that since the subjects were dead a fair use could be made. I based my FUR on Image:Paul Hill.jpg. Since that image had been around a while, I presumed it was properly done. Now, however, one that I questioned at MCQ has been nominated for IfD, and a responder there indicates of that image (a similar situation, with same rationale):

**Allow me to point you to [12] which discusses the famous JonBenet Ramsey photo which was widely distributed, mainly this quote from David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press:

• • The fair use arguments for ignoring ZUMA's [the copyright holder of the JonBenet photo] assertion of rights to control the image are very weak. Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news.

  • Our usage of this is not even close to fair use by U.S. standards at all. howcheng {chat} 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)}}

If that's correct, then these aren't fair use, either. Since that contributor is an admin at commons, I don't doubt he knows quite a lot more about fair use allowances than I do. :) Other than these, the vast majority of my image experience has been with album covers, which are relatively uncomplicated. Most others issues I've broached at MCQ. I bring them here for review, because it seems a bit odd for me to write a FUR for them and then delete them because of an inadequate FUR. I am also going to separately list one that I uploaded myself, because I suspect is may have a stronger claim to presence than these, though I don't know that for sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out Fair use. A small image used for educational purposes by a non-profit organisation has a very strong claim to fair use. Ty 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be true if Wikipedia weren't one of the top ten visited sites in the world (i.e., our usage of the material reaches a wide audience, as opposed to a teacher reprinting copyrighted work for use in a classroom of 20 students). Additionally, our non-free content criteria are intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. laws allow because it is inconsistent with our mission of providing free (as in unrestricted) content to everyone. howcheng {chat} 02:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cajkovski zlatko.jpg

The last image used to illustrate the article Zlatko Čajkovski was listed at WP:CP and deleted, as not only was it a plainly copyrighted image featuring this man, but it featured two others, as well--one of whom was alive. I found this photo at the Croatian Wikipedia and uploaded it with a FUR, since the permission at the Croatian Wikipedia likely does not cover us. If the images above fail FU, this may also. I list it separately because it is under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported at its source. I don't know if that makes a difference. I bring it here for evaluation from more knowledgeable image editors. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg

This question was raised at WP:CP, but we no longer handle images there, so I'm moving it here for review. The contributor who raised the matter there said:

“

• Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg (history · last edit). The problem isn't the screenshot image itself, which comes from [13], but the images within the screenshot, which may be subject to copyright. See, for example, Image:HamasLogo.jpg, one of the images in the screenshot. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

”

I am notifying him that the discussion has been moved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the logos are surely copyrighted. I don't see how the image improves the article anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(Please keep this section live for now, it's being debated on article Talk. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) )

• Comment: Are pictures of a logo really the same as the logo itself? Suppose someone took a picture of a billboard, to illustrate what a billboard was, and the billboard contained the iPod logo which has been copyrighted... does that really make the picture of the billboard copyrighted? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem rather silly if that were the case. Forgive me for this breach of WP:AGF, but based on this diff, I believe that User:Malik Shabazz's motivation for reporting the image was not out of concern of violating copyright, but rather because he doesn't like it that the JIDF agrees with the choice of image. I hope you will look into the matter further, and discover whether the image really can be considered to be in violation of copyright. I hope to restore the image or replace it with an undoubtedly ok alternative. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of our motivations, a precise opinion on the copyright aspects would be appreciated. Thank you. HG | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that in the situation you describe the billboard would be considered a derivative work that should be replaced by a free alternative. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct. A picture of a logo in a given setting, e.g. a picture of an advertisement that contains a logo, is not a derivative work. It is a new work. Misuse of a logo in this circumstances would be a matter for trademark law, not copyright law (if the logo was use to misrepresent something). This is not the case here. A logo can be used to identify... which is the case here. Oboler (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:LOGO#Negative logos: "Logos should not be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative." --John Nagle (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you do realize that Hamas is officially designated as a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, and the United States, right? It is not as if the context is any more negative than its normal use. If we are to read WP:LOGO#Negative logos excessively literally, then IMHO the logo should not even appear on the Hamas article page. After reading the entire WP:LOGO#Negative logos section, it appears that the intent of the policy is to prohibit parodies of logos, the defacing of logos, and the placement of logos alongside negative items with which the logo is not normally associated. The logo in the image is doing none of those things. It is simply associating the logo with Hamas and, since the logo is the Hamas logo afterall, there is nothing unusual or malicious about this association. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Michael that it's hard to put Hamas in a negative light. The main part of logo policy seems to be: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons." In this instance, though, is the logo being used (by JIDF) to promote the JIDF agenda? What do you all think? HG | Talk 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading WP:LOGO#Advertisements. It is not as if this were a Nike Swoosh or the Coca-Cola logo where it might be used to promote a particular brand or product. In fact, the logo is not the main part of the image, and the image is not trying to promote the subject of the logo. You are correct in that it "promotes" the JIDF by illustrating what it does; however, I again think that the intent of the WP:LOGO#Advertisements policy is to prevent the use of corporate logos to promote a brand or product, not to prevent Wikipedia from illustrating the views of a particular company or organization. Perhaps we can get a few of the editors of the WP:LOGO policy to explain the intentions of the policy as well as how the policy ought to be interpreted vis-a-vis this image. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOGO starts by referring to WP:NFCC, which is the controlling policy. There's no indication that the use of the Hamas logo in the JIDF article satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:NFCC, particularly #1 and #8. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that brings us back to the previous argument... Lawyers, a clarification on the copyright status of the image would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]], the logo's usage in an Faceboog group description by parties unknown, then captured by the JIDF and uploaded to their site as part of a screen shot showing various groups on Facebook, is a fair use by JIDF. It does nto need to conform to any WP (I don't comment on whether it does or doesn't - just that this is not a consideration). The inclusion in Wikipedia need only confirm that the image may reaosnably be used to talk about the JIDF, either because permission is granted, the image is in the public domain, or because it is fair use. There doesn;t seem to be any idea here. Oboler (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oboler, please read WP:LOGO and WP:NFCC concerning the use of images on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the JIDF does and what their attitude is toward copyright. We must comply with Wikipedia policy in this matter. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Do we have a source for this picture? I just looked at the JIDF's Facebook page [14], and this isn't a screenshot of their page. It's a copy of a picture on their page which is apparently a screenshot of some page elsewhere. Of what is this a picture? --John Nagle (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Nagle, the photo comes from here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The origin: it apparently comes from the JIDF Facebook group. I found a similar image in the "Notes" page, indicating that they tried posting several versions. (Perhaps picked up by their minifeed?) But how is this germane to the copyright aspect? HG | Talk 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Ok. I get it, see next cmt. HG | Talk 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is derived from other material; the underlying works may be copyrighted. We have to track it back to the original source. I found the source of the "bed" cartoon shown in the image.[15]. It's by "Nabucho", a cartoonist for the Arab-European League, part of a series they ran in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above discussion of the logos may be irrelevant. For the image taken as a whole is non-free. As such any use of it on Wikipedia must conform to Wikipedia’s Non-free content criteria policy. But it fails WP:NFCC#8, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” The article could say in text that JIDF targets Facebook groups like the “Hezbollah,” “Based on the facts… There was no Holocaust,” and “Hamas Lovers” groups. The image would not significant add to that. A use could probably fulfill US fair use law, but Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is substantially more restrictive than that. —teb728 t c 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your statement? On what basis do you claim that "the image taken as a whole is non-free"? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#Policy: "'Non-free content' means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I've regarded the copyright status of the screenshot itself as a non-issue. The author specifically left it "for Wikipedia", and I've assumed that it will license the photo if somebody asks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The license at the source is “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.” Wikipedia does not accept either noncommercial or no-derivative restrictions. Nor does Wikipedia accept permission for Wikipedia only. Wikipedia accepts only free licenses—licenses that allow use by anyone for anything. Without such a free license a copyrighted image must fulfill WP:NFCC. The image correctly recognizes its non-free status with a {{non-free web screenshot}} tag and with an attempt at a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 07:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Where does it say that Wikipedia cannot display non-free content, even if the author gives express permission for it to be used in Wikipedia? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-withpermission for example: “Wikipedia does not accept images that are … licensed only to Wikipedia…. There are several reasons for this policy, but the short version is that Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content and having images encumbered by restrictive licensing schemes runs counter to that mission.” (This is part of the boilerplate text it gives you when you upload an image by someone else with either permission or a free license.) —teb728 t c 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the link. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note for clarity, I have been editing at the article in question. I agree the image is non-free, but take issue with the claim that it adds nothing to the article. We have a relatively large section devoted to the JIDF's actions on Facebook, and this image provides a visual example of some groups they've interacted with. Certainly the image is relevant to the material which would be surrounding it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience with other images, WP:NFCC#8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic") is interpreted strictly to mean "only if the image conveys information that cannot be conveyed by words alone". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New photo was uploaded here - may we get some expertise on whether this is fairly within the public domain now and if it can be used here? If not, what about other photo sharing sites? This was up in a Facebook group, for fair use by the public. It is now up on a photo sharing site. I think this photo is import and would like to figure out a way to get it back into the article with all the proper permissions. It seems that since it was originally on the JIDF site, it was a problem, so now that it is on a public photo sharing site, that it is alright? --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the tinypic.com Terms of Use, and their license does not amount either to a release into the public domain or to a free license.(What's more, unless the image was posted on tinypic.com by a representative of JIDF, the posting appears to be a violation of the tinypic.com Terms of Use and a copyright violation.) In any case it doesn't affect the image's status on Wikipedia. By Wikipedia policy fair use images are highly restricted here. —teb728 t c 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I went back to the original link and it appears that they have updated it, created a Flickr photo stream, and licensed it for anyone to use? Seems like they are certainly paying attention to things here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo copyrights

The "author" of the screenshot has released it with a GFDL license. The issue of the copyright logos in the screenshot, such as Image:HamasLogo.jpg, still remains. Could somebody knowledgeable about such matters help us out? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issues remain. The logos are still non-free. Also, image still does not improve the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the image does not improve the article. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Are not the logos of Hamas[16] and Hezbollah[17] already on Wikipedia? In the case of Hamas, "Fair Use" was argued for the following reasons-

for fair use on Hamas.

-This image is a low-resolution image of the logo of a political party. -This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. -this image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. -Use of the logo visually identifies the company and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.

In the case of Hezbollah[18], we have "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship."

What gives? This current ruling does not seem consistent w/ the ruling of the past. Furthermore, the logos and artwork in question in this photo are of extreme low-resolution. Again, it is my firm belief that this image does help enhance the article as it helps explain what the organization does. It's a shame anyone would dispute this fact. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg

This image, despite being under copyright, is being used all over the place, and I wonder if having it in nine separate articles is within the spirit of our non-free content policy.

I cannot argue with its inclusion in Guernica (painting), of course, nor in Pablo Picasso, as it is perhaps his seminal work. What concerns me are the other seven. Two days ago, it appeared in eleven articles but had FURs for only four. I removed the image from the other seven articles; five have since been restored with rationales. However, these new rationales are largely copied from the previous ones, and thus may not apply. In particular, the rationale for use in the article Spain says "Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s)," but it doesn't really, and there are plenty of free images of Spain available.

I would like a review of this image's use in Wikipedia and whether the claimed fair uses are appropriate.

-- Powers ^T 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I do agree that Guernica is used more often than usual and more often than other works of art; I disagree that it appears in inappropriate places - it isn't being used in any inessential or trivial articles.

Guernica is an essential and pivotal work of mid-20th century art; it graphically depicts and represents both history and the history of art. The painting is one of the most important paintings by one of the most important painters of the 20th century. It conveys powerful and historical information beyond the ordinary information conveyed by a work of visual art. It has become a symbol of Spanish heritage and culture; as well as a symbol of Western art and culture.

It was a politically charged message against Fascism at a crucial moment in history. Consequently it appears in a few important and historical articles including Spain, Spanish art and The Spanish Civil War. It appears in Guernica (painting), Pablo Picasso, the History of painting, (the history of) Western painting, as well it should and in Goya's The Third of May 1808 (FA) and in Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) the place that exhibited the painting in the first place in 1937.

This is a crucible of Modernist art, and while it probably should not appear in any other articles beyond where it is now, I don't think the painting is overextended. Modernist (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is potentially valid in those articles, but this depends on the text in the article. Where there is no text about it, but just the image and caption, as in for example Spain and Spanish Civil War it isn't justified. In fact there should be text about it in the articles, as it played a significant role and had an international repercussion. Ty 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree with Ty that the text in Spain probably doesn't justify its inclusion there; the caption in Spanish Civil War which reads - was painted as a representation of the bombing of Guernica, serves as a link to the article on the bombing. The image appears as a thumb in the section Atrocities during the war - seems apropos...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it as justified in its current use in that article. There's hardly anything on the bombing itself. Ty 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is more on it below in the "The war: 1937" section, to which the image should be moved (the article is hugely under-illustrated, but has two pictures left & right together). I'll do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Powers point about the Fair Use Rationales is valid several can be reworded better, I'll change them. Most seem fine to me...Modernist (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the wording wasn't the best in some of the rationales, but it can be difficult to understand what rationales are acceptable and what some of the wording that seems to be acceptable actually means. In the article Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) where the painting was first shown, there is definitely wording in the article that specifically refers to the painting, and it is a central part of the article (and Exhibition) with a parallel to the artistic (and soon to be real) conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia at the Exhibition. With the central themes of the exhibit (and article) best illustrated by artwork produced by 3 states which later collapsed it is impossible to illustrate the article without using some of this work. If Fair Use doesn't apply here, where does it? But how does all that fit into our pre-packaged rationale boxes? Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B.: The two articles that currently have not had the image restored are Biscay and Around the World in 80 Treasures. Powers ^T 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• N.B. They weren't restored because they weren't essential or necessary IMHO. Modernist (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't really matter what the reason was; I just thought it important to mention for the historical record. =) Powers ^T 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg

• [See below: two images deriving from same YouTube source and blog copying from earlier Wikipedia version of YouTube; materials are unauthorized uploadings of photographs of an indoor exhibition in the Auschwitz-Birenau State Museum, which prohibits visitors from using cameras (both still and video) and photographing such exhibits from its photo archives and other holdings. U.S. copyright law, not Polish copyright law, governs uploading of images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

AND

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg

Please see the questions already posted in the talk pages of both images and in the related article(s). If this is "FUR" (WP:FUR), I am posting them here for review. I looked for a place to post them right before seeing a ref. to "FUR" in a recent edit summ. by Piotrus; this appears to be what is intended. I welcome review of these images. If they can be kept, fine; if not, fine. --NYScholar (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear if the images are not in public domain. If not, than FUR is acceptable. The museum has no right to prohibit the display of those images under Polish law.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When trying to figure out if the images are free, we have to look at both US Law and what the law of the country of origin this. That is how it works on here and the sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. These images are copyrighted in Poland, since the photographer is still alive and has copyright protection of his work from the time he dies and 70 years after that. Some claim that works like these under duress are not copyrighted in Poland; no such provision exists in the copyright laws of Poland. So the uploader is correct that these images related to Czeslawa Kwoka are copyrighted. The problem I am seeing that the claim is now that these images were from videos that are from youtube (which I have never seen, so I can never vouch for it.) I think only one image of Czeslawa Kwoka should be kept, since both depict this girl in prison uniforms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec): Sorry; but it is also not clear that these images (one is a cropped piece of the three-pose image) are in "public domain" in the U.S. [or in Poland]; U.S. copyright law governs the content of Wikipedia. There is full discussion and related links to relevant information posted in each image talk page. This review cannot take place independent of the discussion already placed on the image page; it took a lot of work and time to develop it, and it needs careful consideration with respect to both Wikipedia media/image inclusion policies and U.S. copyright law, which applies to Wikipedia's uploading of images to articles and other Wikipedia space. --NYScholar (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [added accidentally-omitted words. --NYScholar (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Addition: Contrary to a statement made by another user above: The Museum is not prohibiting "display" of the photographs; it exhibits them (which is a display of them, for visitors to the Museum to look at); but the Museum does prohibit visitors from bringing cameras (both still and video) into its indoor exhibits and from photographing its exhibits. It also protects its indoor exhibits (Museum property) and photo archives, photographs of the exhibited photographs, and publications by the Museum from copyright violations through a clear copyright notice on its official website. The above user confuses the matter. --NYScholar (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to US Copyright Law, works published from 1923 until 1977 without any sort of copyright notice fall into the public domain. Plus, about the US and country of origin, that is how I was told policies work on here, regardless of law. I think we are tougher than actual law. That is why we have many photos from WW2 licensed under fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping one photo under FUR sounds reasonable to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of what Wikipedia policy relating to images in Wikipedia???? This is not a personal matter but a policy matter. Your statement does not seem "reasonable" at all in view of the copyright infringements and lack of licensing of the image and false fair use rationale claims of "public domain" etc. --NYScholar (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the uploader has been claiming that the images are not copyrighted in Poland and that they are, therefore, in the "public domain" in Poland, which I contest, and consider irrelevant in relation to U.S. copyright law and the sources that the uploader has actually used in copying, editing, and then uploading these 2 images to Wikipedia; please see the editing history of each image. --NYScholar (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If one hasn't seen the videos in YouTube, one is not able to comment on them. They are easily accessible via the URL cited in the image page(s) (various versions) and via any simple YouTube search or Google search for these particular photos; they are copied from YouTube and a blog--a self-published site that copied the 3-pose version w/ the Museum's exhibit captions intact from the YouTube source posted in an earlier version of Wikipedia and gives only a URL to this very Kwoka Wikipedia article (earlier version) as its source: feedback plagiarism loop. --NYScholar (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog image was at one point actually "hot-linked" in the fair use rationale. It may still be; I tried to change it to "nowiki" format but it was reverted at times; it may still be nowiki format, so one can just copy and paste it. Due to its being a self-publication, it is no longer listed as a source in the article on Kwoka or Brasse or The Portraitist, and neither are the spurious YouTube videos. --NYScholar (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am disputing the inclusion in Wikipedia of both photos, not just one of them, and I am asking for review of each one; one comes from the other, but the uploader has identified them differently, even though the source is YouTube in both cases, bec. the blog took it from Wikipedia which took it from YouTube (in earlier version of this article); see the URL to Wikipedia as the "source" given in the blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article in which both images appear (one in infobox and one in section), even though they both come from same 3-pose photograph exhibited in the Museum and posted w/o permission in YouTube and other Websites and blogs and message boards: Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog is "TACSE", self-published; blog post gives Wikipedia as source at a time when YouTube version was in Wikipedia: <http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp2.blogger.com/_CkVCzqsazOk/RtlNY3kUTSI/AAAAAAAAAGE/akPPl2SIAco/s320/czeslawa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tacse.blogspot.com/2007/09/lori-schreiner-and-i-collaborate-for.html&h=145&w=320&sz=10&hl=en&start=3&um=1&usg=__B-2MbEWAZO3UhdXA1VK2jeVjJRA=&tbnid=I01WMQUF6vibgM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCzes%25C5%2582awa%2BKwoka%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-34,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN>: Poeticbent (the uploader) has identified this blog (which I actually had provided as a source before realizing the unreliability) as the source of the 3-pose image; but this image was originally taken from YouTube video, which took the image without license or authorization from the Museum exhibit which does not allow photography and/or from elsewhere on the internet that did that...unclear and unreliable source; lack of license to feature the photo in YouTube or in blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've provided the URL in nowiki format to this and other YouTube videos w/ the images from the Museum exhibit uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec" before, but it has been continually deleted from the speedy-deletion and fair use rationale templates by the uploader et al.: e.g., <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAcoG3ju0vw>. Please consult the talk pages of both images for this information and the editing histories of the image pages for both images. I can't keep repeating information I've already given. It's accessible. The YouTube videos have been flagged, but are still online. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption in the TACSE self-published blog reads: "Wilhelm Brasse photos via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czes%C5%82awa_Kwoka." In Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia itself is not permissible as a source. --NYScholar (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of these images is permissible in Wikipedia; I am aware that they duplicate each other, however, and that is more reason why the same image (1 of the 3 poses) does not belong in the same article; I've seen arguments about that before (e.g. piece of a book cover used in both an infobox image of an author and in a section in same biog. article of that same subject (person). Here the repetition is not justifiable either. But in neither case is the image within fair use according to Wikipedia's policies on non-free images, because the images are actually copyrighted and from the Museum's photo archive (items in an exhibition which visitors to the Museum are prohibited to photograph at all), not in the public domain, and not free or out of copyright in either the U.S. or in Poland. The photographer is living and 91 years old. --NYScholar (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, relax for a moment please. I am watching the video now and from what I am seeing, it is just a slideshow of pictures from the museum. I personally never been to the museum, let alone Poland itself, so I personally cannot comment on their specific policies when it comes to photos. Regardless of all of that, the original copyright holder of the photographs has been identified as Wilhelm Brasse and he is still alive. They are still copyrighted in Poland, but not in the USA. Plus, I am checking to see if we have policies about museums and photographs on one of our sister projects. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already documented the Museum's policies in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs and already done so in the image talk pages; photography (cameras, both still and video) are explicitly prohibited from use in indoor exhibits; this is indoor exhibit of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. Couldn't be clearer. Please consult the talk pages of each image. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photos are credited to Brasse, who took them in either 1942 or 1943; they are not out of copyright in the U.S. --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the U.S. Copyright Law and provision of fair use and Wikipedia's own policies relating to them (which are in some cases relating to images even stricter than U.S. copyright law, see: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues. --NYScholar (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If the images have no copyright notice, then the images are PD in the USA, as I mentioned above. But they are still copyrighted in the country of origin, so we both know it is going to have to be used under fair use here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photographs from the same exhibit have featured copyright notices in publications of the Museum advertised and featured on the website of the Museum (I've quoted them in both the image page and in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs. There is no reliable source to prove that this particular 3-pose photograph made by Brasse has no copyright notice on it in the Museum's Photo archive materials published in books later (much later, in 2004, e.g.); in The Portraitist (2005) Brasse identifies his own photographs as such; re: public domain: see Cornell: [PDF etc. I think too much guessing is going on here. But I agree, it is copyright in the country of origin and proper fair use notice would be required to claim fair use, but in such a rationale in Wikipedia the actual source of the image must be given, and that is actually a blog citing Wikipedia and a YouTube video which basically infringes the Museum's intellectual property (the Museum provided the captions for its exhibit of this particular photograph (as with the others) and also in its own publications (e.g., 2004); and it does not permit visitors to photograph its indoor exhibits (which this one is). --NYScholar (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube video was made after 2004, and uploaded just a few months ago, according to YouTube. In 2006, a person claimed to photograph this photograph at the Museum in 2004 in Wikipedia Commons, but the uploaded image was deleted from WC for "copyright violation." (That person created the Kwoka article too.) It's the same exhibit. --NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyrighted film made in Poland, The Portraitist (Portrecista), TVP1, 2005) includes the work of Brasse; it is a commercial film, screened at film festivals and for sale via contact with its distributor's website. The photographs are part of the film's poster (see the W. article; this is copyrighted intellectual property, and Brasse is the subject of the film, intereviews with him are the content of the film as well as visual illustrations of his work in the film; copyrights pertain there as well. --NYScholar (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I already told you the photo is copyrighted in Poland, the country of origin, so that is no longer the question. The question now is should a photo from a museum be allowed to be uploaded here. I don't have the answer to that question now, and I won't have one for at least a few days. I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your post: "I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways." Someone just deleted the image from the film (the press kit photograph; featured in the distributor's press kit materials) which did have a proper fair-use rationale. Without any clear explanation of why. Please look into that now as well. That fair-use rationale was entirely proper and gave all the necessary information required by Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean in the quoted portion? Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain. Status of those photographs did not change after Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 was enacted. (See: Template:PD-Polish). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this already; what evidence is there that this particular photograph (credited to Wilhelm Brasse was "printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994"? No source to support that cited anywhere in the articles about Brasse or Kwoka or the film about Brasse, The Portraitist; that is an assumption not a fact about this particular photograph of 3 poses of Kwoka; the image has been published since 1994 with a copyright notice attributing it to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, which exhibited Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners beginning in 1955, which is a "permanent exhibition" in the Museum, and which visitors are not allowed to photograph, because it is an "indoor" exhibit. This is legalese without factual sources to establish its relevance to this particular photograph. --NYScholar (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The museum published a photographic book with photographs of Auschwitz prisoners from this area of Poland, etc., in 2002 to 2004 (various editions). Not 1994. The photographs in the book come from its Photo Archive. The book is copyrighted. If someone uses the book as a source of the photograph (which is possible; without acknowledgment) that is a copyright violation of the publication copyright. How do you know when this photograph first was "printed": where was it first "printed?" And who printed it? "Author"? "Publisher?" "Date of publication/printing?"--NYScholar (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish Copyright Law has been amended re: intellectual properties since 1994; I've linked to the law already in the image talk page(s). U.S. copyright law pertains, however, in relation to Wikipedia's uploading of images re: "fair use" claims, whether or not "public domain" and so on. You need to supply evidence to support your claims. --NYScholar (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[I'm located on the East coast of the U.S., in New York; it's too late to be up anymore re: this; I'm going to bed. --NYScholar (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break

The legal position would appear to turn firstly on the date of first publication of the image, ie not when the work was created; nor when the work was first publicly exhibited; but when authorised copies of the image were first generally distributed so people could own them.

NYS says this first occurred in 2002 in a book by Helena Kubica [19]. But I haven't yet seen his evidence for the claim that this was the first publication of this image. He also doesn't give a page reference that the image was published in this book. The picture subsequently appears to have been distributed to the press in the United States in 2005-6.

According to our talk pages here, the image may also be currently displayed as part of the permanent exhibit in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. This exhibition has apparently been in place since 1955; though presumably it may have been re-made a number of times since then. Now, public exhibition doesn't count as publication; and we don't know how long the image has been included in the exhibition. But prima facie it's at least possible that the image may have been published in a catalogue of that exhibit prior to 2002.

If the image was first published in 2002, then it might be copyright to Wilhelm Brasse. On the other hand, original copyright might have vested with the Nazi state, which organised and directed the work of the Erkennungsdienst at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz museum itself in 2007 was in dispute with one Dina Babbitt over copyright ownership of sketches and paintings she had been forced to make for Mengele. [20] If the original copyright was owned by the Nazi state, it's not clear to me who that would now rest with. Another question is whether these photographs in fact attract copyright at all: the current EU requirement under Directive 93/98/EEC (enacted in Poland in 2000-2002) is that for full protection photographs must be "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality". Do standardised mug-shots qualify? Finally, note that the same directive also institutes "publication rights" for previously unpublished works in which the possibility of copyright has expired (being 70 years pma etc.). Such publication rights in the EU are granted to the first publisher, for 25 years. However, they do not apply in the United States.

So, if the work was first published in 2002, and if the work is considered sufficiently original to qualify for copyright, and if Wilhelm Brasse is considered the legal author, then it would appear to indeed be under copyright (both in Poland and the U.S.A.)

If any of those conditions aren't met then things are more questionable.

In particular, if the work was legitimately published before 1994, then things turn very closely on whether it was published with a clear copyright notice (identifying the copyright owner of the photo, not just the book it was contained in). The relevant U.S. law then becomes the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restores U.S. copyrights in non-U.S. works, if they would be copyright in their home countries as of January 1, 1996.[21] According to Polish law, [22] for photos before 1994 this will be the case only if the photos were published with a clear copyright notice. Otherwise they would be public domain in Poland, and therefore also in the United States.

(Note added) One other thing. Under Article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, the following are excluded from copyright: "official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols". This image looks as if it might qualify as "official documentary material", that being on the face of it the very purpose for which it was created. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some other points

You tube, etc. At least per US law (Bridgeman vs Corel), there won't be any additional copyright in the faithful reproduction of a 2d work. So the only copyright we need to consider is the copyright in the original work.

Museum photography policy. We don't have a contract with the museum. If the image is not copyright, the museum does not acquire any rights in it merely by putting up a sign saying "no photography".

Museum ownership of the copyright. On the face of it, unless anyone can add better data, there seems no reason to assume that the museum would own the copyright. If copyright exists, it might be held by Wilhelm Brasse, or by whatever body has inherited the copyright of the Nazi state; but there seems to be no a-priori reason that such copyright would be owned by the museum. In Europe, if the copyright had become extinct before first publication, then the museum might have a 25 year publication right; but such a right would not apply in the United States.

Fair use. The copyright position seems at least murky. But if the image were copyright, there seems to me a reasonable fair use case per WP:NFCC. The detail picture identifies the subject of the article, and is the picture the recent artwork has been based on, which is identified as the main source of the article's wikipedia notability. It therefore very much is right on the spine of the subject of the article. The full picture (from which the detail is taken) conveys the full context of the original picture. But before jumping to conclusions, I think we should investigate more the actual copyright situation first. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some responses

"But if the image were copyright": If? Another part of the same exhibition of photographs has already been removed from Wikipedia Commons for "copyright violation" and another photograph from the same exhibition uploaded by the same uploader to Wikipedia Commons is also currently disputed. I placed the link to it in the talk page of these images. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a whole host of unverified assumptions being made about the indoor exhibition from the Photo archive of the Museum in the post by Jheald. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum makes its position about ownership of its exhibitions very clear in its website; that position is already documented (with reliable sources from the Museum) in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs and in the talk pages of these images. The Museum states that it does not allow photography by visitors of its indoor exhibits. There is no published catalogue with the particular photograph that the uploader uploaded to Wikipedia being cited by the uploader. If there were such a catalogue, it would be a printed and copyrighted work with copyrights of the publisher of record (the Museum). (The Museum makes no reference to any such published "catalogue" of its exhibition Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners (which contains these photographs containing the 3 poses of Kwoka, and of many others.)

The Museum's copyrights for its exhibits are not in the "public domain" in the United States (as claimed by the uploader and others citing Polish copyright law w/ respect to 1994), which is not complete citation of current Polish copyright law (I provided the links to it in the image page for others' convenience a few days ago).

All "fair use rationales" in Wikipedia image pages are required to state the actual source used for the image and why uploading from it to Wikipedia is permissible in an image uploaded to Wikipedia. I dispute the description page of this image in Wikipedia.

The current image page refers to use of a YouTube video featuring still photographs from the Museum exhibit.

There is no doubt that this photograph is part of the exhibition called Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners.

"There is no reason to assume....": This is not an "assumption":

• The captions included in the image w/ the 3 poses are clearly and undisputably photographs of the Museum's exhibition in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners, over which it claims ownership rights in its website and which it disallows visitors to photograph (still or video), as it does all its "indoor" exhibits.

Another photograph from its Photo Archive and featured in the exhibit is also posted on its official website with a clear copyright notice and credit to the Exhibition Department photographer for the Museum. (It is a photograph of a photograph, produced by the Museum's Exhibition Department photographer credited.)

The Website features a copyright notice with the dates 1999 to 2008. I have provided this information with URLs for further investigation already in the talk page of the image. Both this 3-pose photograph and the one copied and uploaded to Wikipedia taken from both YouTube and a blog are Museum archival photographs that make up the exhibition in Block no. 6. The Museum features a portion of the larger exhibition on its own copyrighted Website, and I have provided a link to the Museum's Website for verification of that. There is also the matter of the copyrighted documentary film about Brasse, made in 2005 and distributed commercially. I have provided the credit to Rekontrplan Film Group and its website location in The Portraitist; the video clip advertising the film on Rekontrplan Film Group's official Website contains stills of the photographs from the exhibition of photographs (and other items) in Block no. 6. Fair use rationales (if that is the route for any of these images) need to identify sources used to upload the images (what source[s] they were taken from by the uploader of the images). In the past (I haven't checked it again today) the fair use rationale and identification of sources used have not been presented correctly.

One of several remaining questions is: what is the source used by the uploader to copy and upload this image (3 poses) and the close up part of one of the poses (part of the same photograph) to Wikipedia. It appears to be a derivative work not original with the uploader but taken from Website content. Wikipedia has clear stipulations about the problems about uploading potential copyright infringing material from Websites to Wikipedia.

The film about Wilhelm Brasse featuring archival materials and iconography (according to its distributor) is a commercial property and has its own copyright as well; fair use rationale for the use of the image of the movie poster is provided in The Portraitist image; click on its image page in the infobox image. That is a clear situation of fair use with proper Wikipedia procedures followed in the creation of the fair use rationale and licensing information.

These images uploaded by Poeticbent do not have a proper fair use rationale and proper licensing information in the image pages.

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Final comment

Firstly, I would like to thank User:Jheald for this professional assessment of the images in question. I can really appreciate your knowledge since copyright law is a stuff of life for me being a professional artist. By the same token, for those who might have difficulty understanding the premises of copyright law due to its complexity, I suggest you expand on your knowledge by additional reading. You can start by visiting the web site of photographer Dan Heller for his in-depth article on the subject of releases.

To put it in simple words, copyright protection notices displayed in books, in film, and in public exhibits of historic photographs and paintings refer to layout, original copy text, vision, as well as the release concept. The actual historic 2D images (unless they are transformed in a creative way) fall into a separate category. For example, the picture taken of Mona Lisa does not make one an owner of Mona Lisa copyrights. Similarly, the picture taken of Mona Lisa painting by the museum photographer does not include copyright on the image appearing in the photograph. The museum exhibits are copyrighted, the Mona Lisa painting is not. In that sense, the copyright tag by the distributor can, but doesn’t have to be honoured with a mention, in the face of law.

To speak of You Tube anywhere around here is overly courteous already. It does not matter, who took the picture of the picture of Czesława Kwoka and where from, exactly... What is of interest to us is only the initial mug-shot of her and it’s legal status, including country of origin, the actual point in time, and all the accompanying circumstances. Nazi state was Wilhelm Brasse’s slave-labour employer (for further information see: Forced labor in Germany during World War II). The photographer was recompensed for his physical labour by being kept alive. So, is the image owned by the German Reich still, 65 years after the fact? Or, can the concentration camp photographer be perceived in relation to modern day release instead? Polish copyright law is pretty clear about that, and so is the American Fair use. With the proper tag, the images meet the bilateral criteria of display for illustration purposes regardless of where they originated from.
--Poeticbent talk 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I repeat a comment that pertains to WP:POL, specifically to: Wikipedia:Image use policy, particularly to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair use considerations; and to the Non-free use rationale guideline, linked therein as well: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline:
  

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Points of information

I've added an EL in the EL sec. of the article on Kwoka to the "Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Publications: Albums and Catalogues"; it provides precise publication information, including dates of publication of these photograph albums and catalogues, all of which are copyrighted by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland. [Books by Kubica already listed in References sec. of that and other related articles.] --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The "identity pictures" of Kwoka were taken in 1942 or 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced in the article on her). She died in March 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced...). The photographs were not taken prior to 1923 (see U.S. copyright law re: "public domain"), and they appear in an indoor exhibition at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland, which visitors are not allowed to photograph. The Museum publication by Kubica, containing some (but not all) of the photographs in its archives, was published in 2002 and 2003 (in German/Polish), according to the Museum publications information (see post just above). Sources cited in the Wikipedia articles on Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist give credit to Brasse as the photographer who took these particular photographs of Kwoka. He did not publish them. The Museum exhibited some of his photographs and some of the photographs in its indoor exhibits are published in its publications, none of which were published by or before 1994, according to its Publications Webpage. It is not yet verified when (on what date) the "permanent" "indoor" Exhibition of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners began to include the photographs that include the 3 poses of Kwoka (in these images). The exhibition was first mounted in 1955. --NYScholar (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg#See similar problems already discussed in other image created by uploader, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan [in Wikipedia Commons--corr. (Ed. NYS); see below], and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see listing of image below: have corrected the date, as explained there.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see below. corr. (NYS). --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

I notice a lot have been posted. Anyways, the fact they are in a book or museum doesn't prevent us from using these photos at all. Under fair use, we can use what we want, in limited circumstances, regardless of when and where it is published and/or displayed. In this case, we should have one, just one, photo of this woman and that is it. The YouTube and blog stuff are irrelevant, since neither are the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, who holds/held the copyright? In this case, the photographer, who is still alive. Therefore, a fair use rationale is needed, which we have. End of story, problem solved. No problem in the first place, really. Taking a photo of something (or in this case, using it in a YouTube video) without significantly modifying the work to the point it is in itself unique does not give the re-user ownership of the copyright. It still remains with whoever created the original work. There is no reason to delete either of these photos. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True, if Brasse does hold a copyright. But if the image is considered to have been created as "official documentary material" under article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, then there would appear to be no copyright to hold.

Equally if the photograph falls below the threshold of originality; or if it was published before 1994 without a clear copyright claim; or if the original copyright vested in the Nazi state, there might now be no copyright. Jheald (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was invested to the Nazi state, Germany still considers it copyrighted. I personally don't think we will know for sure, but we are getting close on reaching the 70 year mark of the start of the war. 2009-1939 is 70 years, and most European copyright laws have that year as a cutoff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in Wikipedia have to be consistent with copyright law in the United States and copyright law in the foreign country of the copyright owner (the current copyright owner) and also the copyright law of the country of the uploader (if uploader uploads it to Wikipedia Commons): see the links in Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia. What do the laws of Nazi Germany have to do with this current matter about images protected by the Museum's exhibits now? The Museum is in Poland and Wikipedia is in the United States. Please see the links at top of this page that go to the pertinent non-free use policies and guidelines in Wikipedia and that link to Wikipedia's copyright policies for articles and images. Those are the policies and guidelines that govern uploading images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to Wikipedia policy governing non-free content, including images: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. --NYScholar (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We haven't established this is non-free content yet. Jheald (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jheald, I personally go by the rule of "unfree unless otherwise proven." We have no proof anything was released and I didn't see anything in Polish law that would make these type of images public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the statements about Polish copyright law and "public domain" in the fair-use rationales etc.: the current Wikipedia article Polish copyright law is templated as a stub, and it lacks in-line citations; I've added a link to {{Wikisource in it a moment ago, after creating a talk page for it, and placed the missing citations template on the article; for more information about Polish copyright law, one can visit:

I had added the external links to the current Polish copyright law to the image page templates, but they have since been removed in at least one or both of the articles by later template changes. If one scrolls through the whole page in Wikisource, one can find current Polish copyright law sections and sources referenced. --NYScholar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zscout's comment above: I was writing a similar comment earlier but got knocked off the internet and it was lost. Wikipedia in such matters favors the most cautious position: if an image or other content is not indisputably "free", Wikipedia takes the position that it is not free and that uploading the image requires a fair-use rationale; a larger version containing the 3-poses has already been deleted from Wikipedia Commons due to "copyright violation"; the "fair use rationale" in each image relates to there being a need for a fair use rationale, given Wikipedia's policy aready linked above. --NYScholar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While foreign copyright law pertains to foreign media/images, United States copyright law is Wikipedia policy (with reference to foreign copyright law); the use of images must be in keeping with United States copyright law and other countries' laws that might apply to uploading such content; moreover, the policy statement re: these matters (linked earlier) in Wikipedia is identified in that policy as often "stricter" than U.S. copyright law. Wikipedia's aim is to protect itself from potential claims of copyright violation and any such potential can lead to deletion of an article in Wikipedia. That is my concern. --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The insertion and re-insertion of the images with questionable licenses and dubious claims re: "public domain" in licenses and so so place the article on Kwoka (which was nominated for deletion before August 28, 2008, in jeopardy. These are the larger concerns. The article does not need to have illustrations, especially if they put the integrity of the article in doubt. --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg

See listing of previous two images. Links to the problems there: See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg#See similar problems already discussed in other image created by uploader, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan, and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speedy deletion due to copyright violation. It is currently an orphan in Wikipedia [Ed. NYS): actually listed as such in Wikipedia Commons, just realized; but it is linked to articles in Wikipedia; corrected this below] and has been for some time (please see its editing history). I notified the uploader with template as required in the template notice. If this image requires a different nomination for speedy deletion template, please discuss here. It is been nominated for deletion for months. --NYScholar (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [updated this in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Had to relog in to Wikipedia Commons to check editing history of the image; it was nominated for deletion by another user in July 2008. [Will fix date above and in prev. post as well.] --NYScholar (talk)

There was no article on Maria Kotarba in Wikipedia listed in Wikipedia Commons file for the image when I checked it in first posting this listing; there were no files linked to when I first posted this listing. That has since changed apparently. I haven't time to see when precisely. --NYScholar (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the history and, despite the nomination for deletion, the photograph appears without proper templates indicating its nomination for speedy deletion in the article; please see its editing history. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the lack of listing of the article in the Wikipedia Commons image page confusing; maybe it's been corrected since I last looked at it. That does not change the situtation re: deletion nomination of the image (since July 2008) and speedy-deletion nomination now. --NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No; it still states "Links[:] There are no pages that link to this file." [Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg"]. --NYScholar (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The image on Commons only shows Commons pages that link to it, not en WP pages. For that you must look at the transclusion of it on wikipedia at Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg. The image is hosted on Commons, which is an image repository which all wikipedias can freely use, so you will have to argue it's deletion in the debate on Commons. Ty 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I leave that to others; I'm just giving the history here and provide the links to previous discussions and information. I've added some comments on my own talk page.--NYScholar (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)) [I had already recommended "delete" in that discussion. Please see it directly. --NYScholar (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Comment: if we decide to move it to fair use, please move it before deletion on Commons. Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If moved, it needs valid fair-use rationales for each of its uses in Wikipedia, and it also needs valid licenses (re: copyright and sources used to make it). --NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image is public domain. Period. This image does not belong on this forum. -Nard 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The validity of the claim of "public domain" is precisely what is being disputed. I don't see how that comment qualifies as definitive; it is that user's opinion, for which he provides no supporting evidence. --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball cards in 1950s Topps

1950s Topps is an article about cards made by the Topps company in the 1950s. Currently it has one (non-free) card image for each year, shown in the list together with the size and the number of cards released that year. I think there should only be one example card at the top of the article. I added a card at the top, but did not remove the images from the list yet. Comments? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had considered not using any baseball card images since I provided the reader and external link to a gallery of images. Instead of any one card image I thought that the company logo from that era would be best. Libro0 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Having a logo of the company makes no sense when you are talking about the product they are producing. It would be like having an article about a Boeing 737 and instead of photos of airplanes you just have the Boeing logo. It is a bad idea. Most other articles that show a company's products show images of the company's product. You would expect that in an article about the company's products! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They vary fairly widely in style and approach (photos vs. drawings, portraits vs. action shots, etc.) and I think complement the article. It makes it clear that baseball cards and the like have their own fashion or style and evolve over the years. Especially if you can see and compare them in an even broader time context. Wiggy! (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about we keep time card images, but also put the 1950:s Topps logo at the top. The logo is good especially if the article grows to cover everything about Topps in the 1950:s. I'm not sure if the use of so many non-free images is ok, but it's not obviously wrong either. Maybe some image-deletionist will come along and tag them all for deletion, but that's a later problem. I suggest that we either keep the images small like now, how put them horizontally over or under the list. Two questions: 1) Are the images we have good representatives for each year? 2) Can somebody find the 1950:s logo? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)