Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dougk (talk | contribs) at 08:42, 2 February 2007 (Contributory infringement links to disambiguation page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Guidelines
Advice
Processes
Resources
Shortcut

See also:

What about torrents? Torrent search engines?

Hi, someone recently objected to my removal of links, saying that torrent sites and search engines do not distribute illegal links themselves. Would you say this is a valid line of logic? I'd say it makes Wikipedia look bad, and should be discouraged anyway.

IMHO something needs to be added to the Copyrights Policy to prevent such disagreements. --Kjoonlee 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from archives. --Kjoonlee 05:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, linking to a torrent tracker/search engine only points out a place where one can search for files, the same way google searches for webpages. Linking to such a site does not say that we encourage illegal activity, merely that we would rather they look somewhere other than Wikipedia. Instead of removing such links for third-parties who may believe this to be unethical, we should inform them of the points I made previously.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be a legal link in an article on torrent search engines, but normally we should not be linking from an article to a set of search results, anyway. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Note that a serch query will return different results with time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could the top anonymous contributer please give an example, I am struggling to understand what sort of thing you mean--BozMo talk 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the person who wrote the first two paragraphs. Here's the link. Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 September 3 --Kjoonlee 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webiste using wikipedia material without compliance to the GFDL

I'm not sure where to report this, but this site is using wikipedia material without following licencing requirments.--Peta 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can send them a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter asking them to give credit to Wikipedia -- Lost(talk) 03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the main place to not this is Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know where to report this-but there's a huge copyright violation on Yael Dayan's wikipedia page. I went to google her- and I found the same information on http://www.answers.com/topic/yael-dayan --Max 01:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually answers.com is a pretty well known mirror site of ours and is already listed in the link directly above your question. -- Lost(talk) 04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of application of GFDL

On the Copyrights page, it says this in bold:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers.

It is not, however, explicitly said that this applies to the whole of Wikipedia unless otherwise stated (fair use images etc). I think it should be made clear that it does, because otherwise someone who wants to be a jerk could argue that it applies only to the Wikipedia:Copyrights page itself, or is just an example or whatever. The argument may not be particularly valid, but stupid lawsuits can still take lots of time and money.

The notice that's shown on all pages and when editing does not mention the versions of GFDL that apply, but it should. It should say "Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" to avoid any potential problems in the future when new versions of the license are introduced. New versions may e.g. dispense with Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts altogether, as they have been criticized by Debian as being non-free. The license might also be made compatible with some Creative Commons licenses and the GPL, something that just can't be done otherwise. It'd be sad if at that time some disgruntled ex-Wikipedians of the competing future project Trollopedia claimed that "oh, we were only licensing this stuff under the GFDL 1.2, not any future version!" just to cause trouble. As the condition of allowing FSF to change the license you're licensing your work under is rather unconventional and yet is not prominently stated, who knows, they might even have a case. Don't they have all those patently silly warnings in products in the U.S. precisely because some people did patently stupid things with the products and then won lawsuits because the danger wasn't made "clear enough" (common sense be damned)? -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 10:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny coincidence, almost immediately after I wrote this, the FSF released a new draft of GFDL :-) Looking at things a bit more closely, at least some of my concerns appear unwarranted. The GFDL says "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.", so at least there isn't room for quibbling about new versions there. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 11:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is WP material legally copyrighted?

Due to a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (where some authors questioned the right to translate articles from other language WPs), I have spent some time trying to understand the copyright discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:Translation into English page, and on the archived talkpages for Copyrights. I have also checked this page, and its links. I still have not understood the absolute basics. Here is my first question; it is absolutely serious, although I do think that there should be an easy answer to it that I miss (since I suppose that the legally trained WP people have considered these questions with some care):

Is the Wikipedia as a whole, ore are its articles, legally copyrighted? If so, how, and where can I read the actual legally valid copyright note(s)?

As far as I know, a legally valid copyright note must contain explicit information on who (i.e., the name(s) of the physical and or juridical person(s)) claims the copyright, and the year of taking it. I do not know if there is any exemption from this in the form of implicit copyright notes with templates; if so, I'd like to have a short explanation of this.

I have worked with a software project for a number of years. We license under a GPL version. However, that means that we start any document by a notice Copyright (C) <name(s)> <year(s)>., accompanied with a couple of sentences summarising it, and a reference to the full copyright text. I've never ever considered the idea that a reference to the full text without any enumeration of copyright holders would be legally valid.

Now, of course I know that there is a note on edit pages, stating that authors agree to license their contribute under GDFL. However, I do not understand how such an agreement could be construed as replacing an actual copyright note, if there is no copyright owner and time mentioned anywhere. In other words, by submitting I clearly agree to licensing, but am I really licensing (in the legal sense)?

This is what one of the GNU documents our copyright page is referring to states about the GDFL 1.2: 

How to use this License for your documents

To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:

      Copyright (c)  YEAR  YOUR NAME.
      Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
      under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
      or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
      with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
	 Texts.  A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
      Free Documentation License".

If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

    with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
    Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST...

(You have the same text on the wikipedia here.)

Doing this explicitly does (I suppose) provide a legal copyright. I have found nothing similar to this anywhere (except someone, perhaps the author, who tried to make an explicit copyright note to a section of Biological patent she had written; the note and the section were promptly removed). There is a common way of ceeding copyright implicitly: When you submit an article to e.g. a journal, you may thereby yield the right to an explicitly named party, namely that journal. In this case, however, we assume the various authors to retain the ownership of the copyrights of their contributions, but agree on GFDL terms for this copyright.

In the archived discussions, some contributers claimed that since the rule of citing up to 5 main contributers of an article only is mentioned for modified versions, it does not apply to the verbatim ones. Now, as fr as I understand the GNU text, this is just because a verbatim version is supposed to start with that line

Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.

without which the license is just an information of what a license would look like.

Implicit authorship?

So if neither the authors, nor e.g. the Wikipedia foundation, are mentioned explicitly as copyright owners, could there be considered as implicitly given, i.e., possible to determin from the context in some legally valid manner? First of all, I do not know if the law recognises implicitly specified copyright holders or not; perhaps some wikipedian with legal training could answer that. Second, I don't understand where and how this is done here.

Perhaps it would be useful to write something somewhere like

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, each contribution is copyrighted under the GDFL by the person having made the contribution, at the time the contribution was made, as recorded in the history pages.

I think some people are of the opinion that this indeed is the correct interpretation of our copyright rules; so perhaps something like this is written in some legally valid document. If so, I'd very much wish a link to it. However, even arguendo there is such a note, and it is legally valid, I don't see how this solves most problems.

Notice that there also is right to anonymous contributions; and that contributions that are not anonymous in wiki sense, may be so in the legal sense, since you don't have to disclose your name on your user page. In other words, without some hard detective work you cannot deduce the name of from a history entry, in most cases. Does the non-named contributions enter the public domain? JoergenB 21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of your comment makes it hard to read, but I think you're asking if Wikipedia articles are copyrighted, if so who holds the copyright, and what you're allowed to do with articles.
The answers:
  1. Wikipedia articles are copyrighted.
  2. Copyright to the articles is held by the individual contributors. This copyright does not need to be stated explicitly; under United States law the simple act of fixing a work of creative effort into a tangible form (in this case, typing it into the edit box) establishes a copyright. The exact nature of this copyright and exactly who holds it in the case of a collectively-edited document like a wiki page hasn't been determined by the courts, but it still exists.
  3. By clicking the "save page" button, a contributor agrees to license their contributions under the Gnu Free Documentation License. The details of this license are quite complicated, but for the purposes of using Wikipedia content on Wikipedia, the important part is to maintain the list of authorship. For a translation from Wikipedia in another language, this can be done by a note such as "Translated from the French Wikipedia article fr:Matière fécale (http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mati%C3%A8re_f%C3%A9cale&oldid=10368554)" as the first edit summary.
I hope this helps. --Carnildo 01:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make point two more clear, the United States is considered the country where the material is published (although some countries may disagree, regardless most countries are under the Berne Copyright Convention and recognize copyright without an explicit statement.) Rmhermen 03:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers - and I'm sorry if my question is hard to read. I have one remaining unanswered question, and a couple of follow-up questions. The unanswered one is: Is an anonymous IP address or an alias user name in the history list legally valid author determinations? My guess (based on Rmhermen's answer) is that it would be a court or police matter to decide who really was the author, if the thing ever got legally tested.

First two follow-ups: If I understand your answers concerning what you call point two (the only important point here) correctly, you mean that an explicit copy notice is not necessary under present US law. This was clearly not the case in older days; so when did the law change, and what kind of copyright does material without explicit copyright notes default to? (My reason for asking: If we don't make valid specific copyright notes, perhaps this default is what the courts would find really holds for our material.)

Second follow-up: Is the GFDL 1.2 simply obsolete, in demanding an explicit line with year and author(s)?

Third follow-up: Can we use the GFDL 1.2 without complying with its specific demands for author specifications?


If the consensus opinion is Don't bother, we know what we mean, and hopefully it will never be tested by a court anyhow, then I'll drop this - but I'll also find any discussions on particular points a waste of time. On the other hand, a 'consensus' stating Don't bother, these things are too hard to understand for laymen I cannot accept, without some guarantee that the professionals do have looked into it, found solutions, - and that their rules are followed, not voted away by a majority of laymen. JoergenB 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notices (or registrations) have not been required in the U.S. since 1989. There is apparently no difference legally in having the notice or note. Having the material registered does allow a slight advantage in court. Rmhermen 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By default, all rights are reserved. The copyright held by an anonymous individual is the same as one held by a known person except that the term of coverage is based of the date of publication rather than the date of death of the author. GFDL documents must have a notice declaring that fact, and be accompanied by information on the authors, but the form of that notice and how the authors are presented are not exactly spelled out. Wikipedia acts on the assumption that the declarion at the bottom of the page combined with the History page on each article is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the GFDL, though whether or not this is so is a point that could be argued in court. Dragons flight 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"when did the law change"? -- In the U.S., the law changed in 1989, when the U.S. became a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Does the non-named contributions enter the public domain? No. I think the copyright article needs to say something about this. Is an anonymous IP address or an alias user name in the history list legally valid author determinations? -- As long as none of the identities of any of the authors of a anonymous or pseudonymous work are revealed "for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first", then the copyright expires at the end of that term (in the U.S.). See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html . It seems to me that no "author determination" is necessary. In the absense of any evidence that some Wikipedia contributor copied from a pre-existing copyrighted work, we assume that contribution is the original work, and the contributor licenses it under the GFDL. Why would anyone want a "author determination"?
--68.0.120.35 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which license for attribution requirements?

Which copyright license would you guys recommend for an image if the main requirement is attribution (eg. the name of the original photographer)? The Free Software Foundation recommends the Free Art license over Creative Commons licenses, but I'm concerned about where the FAL states "DIRECTIONS FOR USE... if appropriate, specify the names of the previous authors or artists"[1]. This sounds like attribution is non-mandatory, unlike CC-by-sa which is explicit about attribution. I'm also not clear on how GFDL deals with attribution. With these licenses, should I / am I allowed to put in a note saying "you must attribute so-and-so"? Thanks. Shawnc 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe CC-by-sa is considered a "free license" and it would certainly meet your (and our) needs. You can always add another license later. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure

I've asked what I think is an important question over at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure, and I'd appreciate anyone's input. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is translation of a public domain article public domain?

A user has copy-pasted to the Turkish Wikipedia an article from a commercial site written in Turkish, this text was a translation of an article in the English Wikipedia. Is this submission to the Turkish Wikipedia a copyright violation?--InfoCan 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the English Wikipedia was under the GNU FDL, not in the Public Domain. The translation was a derivative work of a GFDL text and would have to be licensed under the GFDL, too. Reintroducing the text into another Wikipedia should be okay then. – Things would be different if the original text was really in the Public Domain: the translation is copyrighted and owned by the translator. Rl 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to copyrighted works

As contributory infringement

The sentence inquestion is knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Intellectual Reserve is a Utah federal district court case from 1999. This policy also is repeated at links normally to be avoided.

  • The example given (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry) is somewhat disingenious considering that in the USA, contributory infringement is almost never actionable with internet links. Otherwise the internet as we know it would cease to exist. I suggest you remove the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry reference since it is the extreme exception, not the rule. Whoever put it there, searched case law far and wide to find the one case that made their point. They ignored the thousands of cases that were laughed out of court. 71.139.23.245 07:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it says, knowingly and intentionally helping others violate copyright is illegal. The fact that it occurs through a hyperlink is irrelevant. Most links aren't actionable only because most links aren't intended to serve as willful infringment, but some are and we have to be mindful of that. Dragons flight 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is simply not a true statement under current US law. Stop spreading misinformation. 71.139.23.245 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop spreading misinformation. — Matt Crypto 11:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, in Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1344 (C.D. Cal. 2000), the court held that a link itself does not violate the Copyright Act, and in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1202 n.12 (N.D. Cal. 2004) the court said "Hyperlinking per se does not constitute direct copyright infringement because there is no copying." Also note that in Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) the court only found liabilty after the defendant was enjoined from itself posting the infringing copies directly, and replaced the material with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.38.151 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). is not true. In A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896, 920, (N.D.Cal., 2000), the court expressly found that Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry held that posting links to infringing websites did not contribute to infringement by those websites' operators. Thus, I removed the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry citation and added a "citation needed" note.-- Jreferee 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right they did not contribute to the infringment of the website operators (since they had already decided to infringe and were not connected to the defendants), but the court found they did contribute to the infringment of the people who followed those links and loaded the material they would not have had permission to access. Also, I think it is silly to add a citation needed note to the fact distributing copyright material sets us in a bad light. Dragons flight 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dragons flight I see that you have been giving this same legal advise to others for some time and I believe that you are being sincere. If your reading of Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry is correct, then the present copyright policy is not sufficient. Based on your statement of the law from Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, I have added the following to the copyright policy:

Linking involves instructing another's browser to go to another Web site. Before considering using links in Wikipedia, editors should:

  1. First attempt to obtain permission for linking outside of Wikipedia: By receiving prior approval from the linked site owner, editors may avoid a lot of potential contributory copyright infringement problems. Maintain a record of the permission--even if it is only a communication from you to the other website confirming that permission has been granted for the link.
  2. Periodically visit all sites linked: Even if a linked site presently contains no copyright infringing material, it is possible that such information may be added in the future. By visiting the sites you link periodically, editors may ensure that the linked site owners have not changed content in a way that might be a problem.
  3. In your article, include disclaimers for outside web site links: A website that is linked to will likely have rules different than Wikipedia regarding the site and may contain copyright infringing material under one or another law of a country. Because of the potential contributory copyright infringement problems, you may want to take the precaution both to warn those who may click on your link and disclaim any liability. When disclaiming liability for hypertext links, you may use a simple and direct message such as: "This article provides hypertext links to other websites only as a convenience. These links are not under the control of any of the editors of this article. The editors of this article are not responsible for any third-party materials accessed through any website linked in this article. The editors of this article expressly disclaim all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of any third-party sites."

-- Jreferee 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question which really needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disclaimers. Physchim62 (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As shedding bad light on Wikipedia

The policy presently states that linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. I have added a "citation needed" note to that sentence.-- Jreferee 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "sheds a bad light" wording at all — for one thing, it's POV. It seems like an unnecessary sentence to include at all. Can we strike it? Schi 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Point of View only applies to the main namespace. All of our policies are POV, and for good reason! Superm401 - Talk 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to YouTube etc. copyvio videos

This is a similar to the original question about torrents that didn't get answered because it turned out to be moot. I had a look through the archives to see if this has come up before -- I'm sure it must have. At any rate, I couldn't find an on-point discussion, so pardon me if this is an oft-answered question: are links to copyright-violating material -- in this case copyrighted TV episodes uploade to YouTube -- excisable as copyvio? Is there a passage in a policy statement that addresses this directly? --Rrburke 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the external links policy. In general, linking to known or probable copyvio material is forbidden, as it can be considered contributory copyright infringement by the courts. --Carnildo 06:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous statement of a non lawyer. Links are almost never actionable. 71.139.23.245 07:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right or wrong, it doesn't much matter, as the key issue here is Wikipedia policy anyway. The external links policy does indeed, as Carnildo points out, prohibit such links.
Also, please accept a friendly reminder to be civil. --Rrburke 13:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blaming Youtuble for provideing copyrighted material illegaly is like saying Wikipedia is inacurate.
I don't get where the issue of blame came into this. We aren't planning to sue youtube or blame them for anything. We're simply saying that we should not link to copyrighted works used illegally and that YouTube has a lot of this material ergo, YouTube links should be done with care. The issue of blame never arises Nil Einne 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Ministry of Foreign Affairs

I tried asking this at Wikipedia talk:Free image resources, but apparently no one knows. According to Wikipedia:Free image resources, photos from Expositions - Ministère des Affaires étrangères online photography expositions "are free for any use, provided that they are tagged with the following sentence: "Ministère des Affaires étrangères - Service photographique."([French] Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Photographic Service)]". What is the appropriate copyright tag to put on these photos when they are uploaded? — BrianSmithson 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{French Foreign Ministry}} should do the trick! 193.251.1.172 08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magnifique! Merci beaucoup! — BrianSmithson 09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next step

After forwarding a consent receipt via email to permissions, how do I acknowledge the source using the Template:Confirmations template? I have received consent for Image:Seymour Knox I.jpg and Image:Seymour Knox III, II, and IV.jpg. TonyTheTiger 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placing copyright on material copied from Wikipedia

I noticed that a commercial site in Turkey is harvesting articles from the Turkish language Wikipedia without attribution and backdating their pages to make it look like their version was written first. However their 'bot is incompetently written so some articles still have some Wikipedia code in them and, in one instance, the source of one article says "translated from the English language Wikipedia article ... dated July 2, 2006", while their date is February 22, 2005. The sites legal page states that all rights to the content of the site are reserved and may be used only for personal use. There is no mention of GFDL. What is the proper course of action? --InfoCan 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process --Francis Schonken 19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Suppose I contribute an article to Wikipedia (written entirely by me as of now). A friend wants to publish that in his blog. Does he attribute it to me or to wikipedia? -- Lost(talk) 12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, Wikipedia or both. That is, if you didn't need to invoke "fair use" or anything in that vein when you authored that article "entirely by yourself".
Note however that unless you also release the material written by you under a different license than exclusively GFDL, and/or via a medium different from Wikipedia, all the conditions of the GFDL license, as clarified in wikipedia:Copyrights, need to be followed.
If you contributed to Wikipedia as an anon, you might have trouble to demonstrate that you have the "right" to release that material with a different license. Conversely, when the material you contributed to Wikipedia is found outside Wikipedia without a free license that is compatible with GFDL, Wikipedia might have trouble establishing that there is no copyvio involved, and for that reason delete the material from Wikipedia.
(Assuming good faith, but for clarity:) note also that if you contributed unacceptable material that is permanently deleted from Wikipedia, it would be better not to implicate Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender issue

In the section on Celebrity photographs, it writes:

  1. Submissions from the celebrity himself or herself or a legal representative of the celebrity.

I think it should be changed to "herself or himself."

Stovetopcookies 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside assistance

I need some outside assistance and other editor opinions at Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg. There is a User:Durin who, I believe, is carrying copyright status verification to an extreme, wanting personal contact information and private phone numbers for city employees who have verified the copyright status of these flags. That, I believe, is taking things waaaay too far. For that matter, this user seems nice enough, but the project he has about policing fair use images has, in my personal opinion, gotten way out of control to the point that he appears to be stalking the every edit of certian editors, policing user pages for the slightest bit of copyright violation indications, and mass removing images from user pages and other locations. His justification is to enforce the policy and prevent lawsuits to Wikipedia- however some of the image sources (Republic of Turkey, Iraq, etc) probbaly have better things to do than file lawsits (which they would lose) against Wikipedia. I mean no offense to this person, it just seems that we should all remember the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Anyway, extra comments on this flag issue would be welcome. -Husnock 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not asking for personal information or private phone numbers. I am asking for a contact point to be able to independently verify copyright status if such is necessary. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images specifically states "Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag". Husnock has generically indicated the City of Corpus Christi. I believe this to be insufficient, as it requires a person who wishes to verify the status to contact a number of people before contacting the right person who can handle this request at the City of Corpus Christi. In this particular case, I am contacting the City Secretary of Corpus Christi to verify the copyright status of this image. That information is publicly posted ([2]) and is not a "private" number. In fact, quite a large set of numbers of multiple offices within the City of Corpus Christi are posted on their website. Thus, I find Husnock's claims that posting this information would expose them to harassment, stalking, etc. to be without basis.
    • You should be aware that a great number of U.S. government websites are blocked to me as I am currently in the Middle East. My only option to confirm this image was to provide the e-mail I recieved which contained a full name, personal e-mail, and private office line of someone who researched this for me as a favor. I am sure they would not appreciate me posting thier name and number on the web. -Husnock 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As noted, their information is already posted on the web. What we need is the title and name of the person who made the release, so we don't have to cast about within the city government trying to find the right person. --Durin 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, I do not believe that the release that has been made is sufficient to our policies here. Quoting the release (posted at Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg), "With regards to using our city flag, our city does not place any restrictions on recreating our flag or hanging our flag in public places. There are also no royalty fees that you mentioned. Based on what you told me about the website you work for, there should be no problem with using the city flag in the way you described." This strikes me as a permission for use on Wikipedia type release. I believe this person needs to be contacted using the e-mail template located at Commons:Email templates, and clarify just what their release is. Husnock claims they are releasing it for any purpose, but it does not strike me as that. This is why it is important to have this contact information to help clarify situations like this.
    • This gets back to my original point that there is a point where this can be taken to far. Any source or image can be beaten to death on this site to the point that someone will always think its not verifiable. I also have to wonder why I draw so much attention for posting simple flag images, an administrator on this site for several years, when there are those out there who really are committing copyright violations harmful to this site. -Husnock 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple; any problem is a problem regardless of source. This is, from my view, a problem. I don't hold you in any higher regard than myself, and I don't hold myself in any higher regard than a first time user. Arguments that this isn't a problem because there are worse problems elsewhere are not particularly valid from my view. --Durin 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, Husnock has used a tag that has been deprecated for more than half a year. The tag he has used is {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. But, that tag has been replaced by {{No rights reserved}}. Husnock claims that it's ok to use {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} because the image is not a 'new' image, but the application of the tag is new. --Durin 14:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I was asking you to explain the difference between the two tags because another user, long ago, had mentioned that the "norightsreserved" was only for new images. I never said I thought that was true, I was asking if it was. -Husnock 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past e-mails with personal details removed (or changed) is allowed as copyright verfication. Durin you are taking this too far it almost seems like you have a grude against the user. Date of contact, name and position should be all that is required, you should be able to remove everything else. PPGMD 02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all. I believe Husnock asked for permission to use on Wikipedia, which is improper. I believe he did this in a number of cases, and I am using the flag of the City of Corpus Christi for a test case. I wanted to clarify the permissions that the city gave, and requested the contact information to followup. Husnock refused to provide this information...not even the name and position as you suggest he should give. Result; I've sent an e-mail to a potentially unrelated office requesting clarification; in effect I'm on a wild goose chase trying to clarify permissions he requested. There is no grudge here; I'm a strong advocate for adherence to copyright, and my track record shows this. Husnock is simply one of literally hundreds of users (possibly more than a thousand now) that I've come in contact with on copyright issues. Two days ago, I asked Husnock to clarify what exactly he asked for of these various agencies that hold copyrights to the 50+ images he has modified as a result of contact with these agencies. He has edited substantially since then, including creating and extensively editing a new article. My question remains unanswered. I've requested again that he answer the question. --Durin 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I gave Durin the web address where he could contact the city. The reason I did not give the name and contact number of the employee was it was a friend of my late grandfather who had done me a favor. The only contact I had was a direct private office line number, her personal yahoo e-mail account address, and her real full name. This is why I would not post such things. Also, this section was meant to get the opinions of other editors, not for Durin, or I to further debate this. I suggest Durin and I cease edits here and let other editors take a look at the situation as a whole. A good solution would be apolicy page on displaying flags on a user page, since I started this contacting of the cities so I could totally free images of thier flags to display on my page without violating copyright or fair use laws. -Husnock 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it unreasonable for us to state and clarify our positions. As to a policy page on the display of flags; this would create a special exception to our fair use policies and would potentially open the door to all sorts of exceptions. The fair use policy is written to be easy and clear to understand; if it's not free license, then it's under fair use...no exceptions (except in very rare cases...which to date have only been for the main page). City flags in the U.S. do not fall under any law that automatically places them under a free license. Contrast with state flags that do. So, if we create a special exception for city flags where there is no supporting law (which would violate law to begin with), where do we draw the line?
      • Also, this discussion started four days ago. Three days ago I posted a message about it at the far more active WP:AN. In that time, we've received input from three people. I doubt we're going to get much, if any, additional traffic. --Durin 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatibility between WP:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

Hello.

It looks like that the statement "In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)", contained in WP:COPYRIGHTS is not compatible with WP:FUC "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information".

Which of the two policies rules over the other?--Panarjedde 16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements appear to reflect a lack of consensus in the community that extends quite a bit farther :-/. Rl 16:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they aren't compatible. In particular there are those that take could be created a bit too far. There are cases where fair us promotional images are deleted because they "could" be created by a free user. But the could would be very very rare, such as the case of a picture of a CMOS chip in a $3,000 professional camera. Yes we could create one, if I user wanted to take apart his expensive camera, but it's just not practical. Another would be a cut away image of the Lamborghini V-10 engine, yes it is possible to take a picture of a V-10 engine in the car, but the promotional image is much more encyclopedic because it shows the internals, something that is not practical for a Wikipedian to reproduce. PPGMD 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that there is no consensus. But, for what is worth, I support the removal of fair use images that are replaceable, even when this is difficult to do so; after all, we are striving to produce a free encyclopedia, not a fair use one. If this rule means we will miss a picture of a CMOS chip in a $3,000 professional camera, or of a cut away Lamborghini V-10 engine, well, it is not such a big loss.
However, I see there is no consensus. So, what is people expected to do?--Panarjedde 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of fair use images, with exception of dead people, almost all the news images can be replaced under that reasoning. PPGMD 02:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to try and bring thes policies into line. Any ideas please?--luke 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Wikipedians

I'm not a fan of the directions in the section "If you find a copyright infringement". What are "rank-and-file Wikipedians", what is their "job", and why isn't it to be vigilant for copyright infringements? Who are the "others" that will examine the situation and take action if needed? Shouldn't we be encouraging all Wikipedians to, if they choose, be involved in the process? This language seems to discourage Wikipedians from contributing to a part of the project, and implies that only elites of some mysterious sort can substantively contribute in the copyright field. Schi 23:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word(Art)

Can a title made with WordArt and then saved as a .jpg/.png be uploaded under GFDL? what about if it is trying to emulate the "Steely Dan" of this album (for a WikiProject)? NauticaShades 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we presume PD?

In Image:Lapanka zoliborz warszawa Polska 1941.jpg. All we know about the photo is that it was taken in occupied Poland 'secretly'. Author is unknown. It is logical to assume that the author was a member of Polish resistance, and wanted to disseminate the photo (for taking of which he risked his life) without any thoughts for the copyright; he might have died during the war and and in the 50 or so years afterwards. Can we assume public domain or do we have to stick with fair use?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly, it's not public domain. Clearly, it is an abandoned copyright. There are many proposals for laws that would put such an image in the public domain, but as far as I'm aware, they all remain merely proposals. It is clearly fair use in the legal sense. I would hope that Wikipedia has the good sense to consider it acceptable fair use under our policies. - Jmabel | Talk 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to be copyright it had to follow the copyright rules in 1940s --for USA, it had to be registered at US Copyright Office. That was not done so it was never under US copyright, then or now, I believe. Rjensen 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think (but am far from sure) that that only apply to stuff first published in the US itself. Unless it as PD in Poland itself before a scertain date (wich escape me at the moment) I think the usual life +70 (or if author is not known 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication (wichever is shorter)) rule apply. --Sherool (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Subbmission?

--- I want to make an article about TD (Tails Doll). My favorite SOnic the Hedgehog character. Someone made an n article, but it only gave the out-side gaming info, it was like two centimters long! I was woundering if it wouls still be okay to write and article, as long as it gave true info and was longer than that one? (Of corse.)

User:Tubezone

I'm being harrassed by this user because I'm not an admin and suggested that he needs to provide evidence that the creator of Image:Brpkmap.jpg and other similar images gave permission to license them appropriately. Can someone help? Was I too hard on him? Does he need more evidence? Thank you. --NE2 06:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you're not being harrassed. The two of you are simply disagreeing. If Tubezone has Bill Gustason's permission to upload said image, he should forward the e-mail to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. However, the cut-off text in the lower left corner makes me think that it is actually a scan from some book, and unless Gustason were the author of that book and indeed drew the sketch himself, he isn't the copyright holder and thus his permission would be useless. Also, Tubezone should understand that also non-admins are entitled to care about image copyrights. Lupo 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think it's a scan from a book, but an edited screenshot from a mapping program. That would make it unfree. --NE2 09:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I'm not the one that brought up the copyvio issue. These images have been on WP for months. If you look at User:NE2 edits, he pulled my images practically out of a hat to target, and I still don't know why. Here's the text of what I put on NE2's talk page:
When I uploaded the image, the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions tag was not offered on the upload page as an option. GFDL seemed to be the proper category. There are a few other points and questions I want to bring up here.1. Except in cases of obvious vandalism, it's at least polite to put a warning on the author's talk page when you tag his contributions for deletion. 2. Putting comments on my talk page that I might be a liar is a personal attack that is prohibited by policy. See WP:NPA. 3. Looking at your contributions for today, my images.. (some of which have nothing to do with roads or railroads at all, and you had no reason to presume to have copyright problems) are the only images you bothered with at all. Any reason for that? 4. You are not an admin, and do not have user authority to rule on copyright issues. So I am going to restore the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat tag on the images Bill Gustason gave permission to upload. If you do not agree you can take it to IfD and we'll let the admins decide. 5. The other images are from Mexican tourism authorities. I don't think I'll have a problem either getting permission or a legal ruling that as Mexican government issue, they're available for free use. Tubezone 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, does this qualify as harrassment? When these deletion notices turned up on my watchlist, I assumed a bot or admin had done it, and it had admin authority to tag them, like User:OrphanBot. As it is, NE2 had no reason to even bother them. I do not question that he has a right to bring up copyright issues, my point is that he's targeting my contributions without a good reason to do so. NE2 did not post a warning tag on my talk page, nor point out to me that he's not an admin, rather, he tagged these images without any comment to me and, it seems, assumed I would take the tagging as that of an admin or bot and respond likewise. NE2 is neither admin nor authorized bot, and I have a right as an editor to pull his deletion tags and replace with valid use copyright tags, if the ones NE2 put on aren't valid.
I am still puzzled as to why my images are being targeted by NE2, or why anything I've written so far would even in the mildest sense be considered harrassment.
However, the cut-off text in the lower left corner makes me think that it is actually a scan from some book This has been shrunk and fiddled with numerous times, but if it's really a problem, I'll just scribble up a diagram myself. IMA, I can get probably better pix of Brighton Park Junction off Trainweb, or just walk down there and take a freaking picture myself. I still want to know what NE2's problem is with me. Tubezone 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at articles and saw a map that I had seen before. I went to the image description page and the information was incomplete. Thus I checked through all your images and found a few more with incomplete information. --NE2 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd just left me a note that you thought that map was out of a book, I would have fixed it, since it apparently IS out of a book (I had no idea, since I didn't make it originally) I will replace it. I would ask in the future that you assume good faith on my part. Tubezone 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my recent edit to the fair use section

I believe this is the correct interpretation, this old paragraph that said that fair use was acceptable as long as no free licensed work was available is clearly out of step with the more recent changes to WP:FAIR wich I should take presidence on fair use matters. See also Wikipedia talk:Fair use#how to bring WP:FUC and WP:C into line?. Hopefully this will cut down on the confution about wether or not applying the {{subst:rfu}} tag to images is within policy or not. --Sherool (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No good to make such a significant change without allowing for discussion first. You seem to have made the change, then posted to "discussion." Please undo the edit, then we'll discuss the change here. Thanks. Badagnani 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been debated plenty see archives of WT:FAIR, mailing list archives, policy vilage pump archices, the talk page of publicity photots essay, Wikiproject fair use talk page , various RFC's etc and naturaly the speedy deletion criterea to enforce it... Fair use policy is detailed on WP:FUC not here, I just fixed the inconsistency between the two that was most likely a caused by a simple oversight in the first place. --Sherool (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Maybe you missed the call for a discussion here, but I had asked for it deliberately after seeing JW's intervention elsewhere in an ongoing RfC in which the longstanding policy figured prominently: We need to try and bring thes policies into line. Any ideas please?. That was most certainly NOT intended to provoke a unilateral change in one of the most important policy pages on the encyclopedia. The meaning of my question is plain...you have pre-empted discussions elsewhere also. This is surely not right. I hope to be able to raise this elsewhere, but in the meantime this was an unfortunate edit. Please reflect on your actions. ...luke 08:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I was trying to point out there have been pleny of disucssion. Not spesificaly here, true, but only because it obviously makes more sense to debate fair use related policy changes on the talk page of the fair use policy. Do you rely think we need to repeat the whole debate just to fix the inconsistency between the two now that the fair use policy have been changed and speedy deletion criterea to enforce it have been added? WP:FUC is unlikely to be overturned any time soon, both Jimbo and Danny seem to favour the current version and the foundation do tend to take a more active part in the forging of copyright related policies than most of the other (for obvious reasons). I'm not trying to kill furter debate on the issue, but as long as WP:FUC is as it is I think it's simply a matter of common sense to keep the policy pages internaly consistent in order to minimise confusion, and like it or not WP:FUC describe how things are corrently working... --Sherool (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you find copyright Image"

Can people just change language of this policy without a disscussion? User:Alex_Bakharev carfully changed language (see comparison here) which nullifies a point I have presented in talks going on right now regarding various users systamaticly tagging fair use images which are in need of justification. Hackajar 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is right if understood in the correct context. It was meant as a friendly introduction, and rarely are friendly introductions wanted in policy that is left to be interpreted, as seen here. Obviously it wasn't ever intended to forbid someone from performing cleanup operations. (Note: I still agree with you on the fair use thing; we should be able to use promophotos under fair use, but this didn't really make a good argument. Nice try though.)--Jeff 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask for advice

For the article "Nord Stream" and for some bio articles I would like to use some images from the Nord Stream AG image gallery. All this images are protected by following copyright notice: "The content and design of the Web site is subject to copyright. Pages and contents may only be duplicated with the prior agreement of Nord Stream AG, unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations." How to understand this part of "unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations"? Does that mean that for using in Wikipedia the prior agreement is needed or not? Thank you in advance. Beagel 08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question about referencing radio interviews

Hi, is it allowable to reference radio interviews? If so, is it allowable to upload a radio interview into a free hosting website, and use that as the reference? User:GuardianZ uploaded a radio interview into the free hosting website GoEar.com, [3] and used that as a reference in the Midnight Syndicate article. Let me know if this violates the copyright policy. Dionyseus 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is no different that linking to any other website that hosts an interview or podcast or movie info such as IMDB. Since the editors arguing the reference do not like that it was originally hosted at a website that the editors did not like due to it's other content, I requested permission from the owner/subject to host it on a non-affiliated site. I uploaded it directly from [4] to the new site HERE which contains no pop-ups or subscription fees. It plays automatically and it streamed via Flash, not downloaded to one's hardrive. I have used the site before for other projects and it is a good site. The ONLY reason that Dionyseus doesn't like it is because it disputes some of the propaganda that he and Skinny McGee are trying to get away with adding to the article in question. There are no copyright issues involved. The radio interview was broadcast live and the subject of that interview has made the recording of that broadcast including station ID publically available. GuardianZ 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let those who know about these policies make a decision. As for the reason, I want to make sure we're not infringing on copyrights. Dionyseus 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boomp3.com

I just found links in a couple of articles (Amelia Earhart and Joseph McCarthy to http://boomp3.com/, a site that allows anyone to upload audio recordings. While the site does display the message "Please do not upload copyrighed files", I suspect that not everybody pays attention to it. We need to watch this site to see if it will cause any copyvio problems. -- Donald Albury 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed shortcut?

The shortcut used to be WP:C, but it was just changed to WP:CR, along with many changes to other pages using that shortcut. Why was this done? This seems like a big change to happen with no discussion beforehand. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unavoidable breach of copyright on talk page of controversial articles?

Some articles are so hotly disputed that no addition will be provided unless long excerpts are posted on the talk page to ensure that nothing is misparaphrased or misquoted. When this involves excerpts from another encyclopedia then I think this is a copyright infringement. But I think this is unavoidable or at least I do not know how to avoid it. I intend to do it again to enable me to use other encyclopedias as a source. See here for an example. [5] Andries 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the quotes are short, it is probably fair use. If they are long, it is a copyright violation. Obviously, this is something that could only be decided in court, so be careful; link where possible. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author's publication of text on WP and elsewhere

Here's the situation: an expert in a certain field has written and published a text elsewhere (on the web and in a book); (the copyright license is not explicated elsewhere, but it isn't explicated as GFDL(-compatible) either) Few years later, he decided to contribute the text in question to Wikipedia, and performs more-or-less a copy&paste of it. I can verify his identity (and I know him more-or-less personally). Is the situation considered a copyvio? If yes, whose rights are violated? If not, does it imply that the wikipedia's copy is free to reuse, while the other one is not? Duja► 10:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright on his texts originally was his. If he didn't grant the publisher an exclusive license to publish his texts, and if he didn't transfer (parts of) his copyrights to the publisher, he is still free to re-publish his texts here or elsewhere under whatever license he chooses. If he re-publishes here under the GFDL, he is still free to publish it also at yet other places; the GFDL is a non-exclusive license. IANAL and all that. Lupo 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Duja► 11:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, somewhat more elaborate answer:) Please make the copyright holder(s) of the text send a permission (in the sense of Wikipedia:Example requests for permission) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org".
I don't see very well how otherwise one would demonstrate that a certain user account can be identified with the copyright holder(s)...
  1. Is the Wikipedia user account operated by the author? (...how would one establish that without at least some e-mail communication? - forwarding/CC-ing such communications to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" wouldn't be too difficult I suppose)
  2. Is the author the exclusive copyright holder? (...might be the book publisher as mentioned by Lupo)
Who are or are not your acquaintances is irrelevant to the copyright issue, it doesn't establish verifiability of the copyright status of a copied text. But if you know how to reach the person in question, you're very well placed to send him a request as explained in Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
Re. "re-use": the situation after GFDL has been applied to said text by the copyright holder(s) would be dual license (maybe even triple license, if the prior web version is licensed differently from the book). Which means: if you copy it from a source that makes the text available under GFDL (...Wikipedia), you'd need to follow these license conditions (...Wikipedia:Copyrights), which includes republishing it under GFDL. If you copy it from the book, follow the copyright conditions of the book (typically something like "permissions need to be obtained from publisher..."). If you copy it from a web resource without apparent copyright indication, write/mail the site owner about it, etc. Wikipedia doesn't "intervene" how you obtain such permissions outside Wikipedia, and for the content copied from Wikipedia, if GFDL/WP:C is followed, Wikipedia doesn't need to "intervene" either.
Note that when re-using you'd always need to mention where you got it... that is no GFDL exclusivity, that is just general copyright law. So, where you got it will also define which conditions need to be followed (depending on case: GFDL, or publisher's permission, or whatever that applies for the source where you copied from).
Note that copying some external text into Wikipedia, with the copyrights cleared, does not result in "rights" over Wikipedia's content. The text may subsequently be "edited mercilessly", or even rejected and removed from the page where it was posted. After modification in Wikipedia, a thus altered version of the text can *only* be re-used under GFDL/WP:C (other/prior copyright holders of previous unaltered versions can not impose different conditions/permissions unilaterally on the modified "Wikipedia" version). --Francis Schonken 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest may, or may not, be applicable here too. Depends on case. If the content of the author's contribution would be controversial, or blatantly self-promotional, etc... WP:COI would apply automatically. --Francis Schonken 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, will do the request for permission just to clarify the matter. There's no WP:COI whatsoever, the article in question is Fortran language features. Duja► 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shows the downsides of discussing examples "in abstracto":
You could have asked and I'd have provided you full disclosure, instead of digging through the diffs and contributions

. I know very well that the article is far from perfect; I did spend some time on wikification myself, but gave up after about a third of it. I thought the reference was at the end, but I have never came to the end (re article size). I don't think it really qualifies as a manual, although it is an (overly) comprehensive language reference, akin to C syntax. I'm not sure how the article structure and intention matches WP policies — there are just a few similar ones, and it is a borderline case. But my original intention was to ask in abstracto — there is no point in fixing flaws of the article if it has to be deleted as a copyvio. Duja► 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who holds copyrights of US state seals?

Does anyone know who holds copyrights of US state seals? What is their copyright status? / Fred-Chess 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are still within the term of copyright, the state would hold it but many probably have other kinds of legal protections. Rmhermen 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial use only

It seems that Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted matirial that is allowed for non-commercial use, but I can't figure out why this decision was made. Isn't Wikipedia a registered charity, and therefore non-commercial? --Arctic Gnome 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia wants to create freely reusable material. Matter which can only be used on Wikipedia but not elsewhere is not freely reusable. Rmhermen 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are discussions about this all over. Basically there's currently a jihad against most copyrighted photos. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Proposal_for_Simplification_of_Policy_regarding_Promotional_Photos. I don't believe Rmhermen's citation of Wikimedia goals is correct (at least, he provides no link to policy). Wiki policy when it comes to copyright is decided by users and consensus, like all other policy issues, and there's not been any consensus made at all when it comes to certain kinds of copyrighted non-comm images like promotional photos of people.--Jeff 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No this is the official straight-from-Jimbo reasoning on non-commercial media: mailing list post Rmhermen 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It's useful and informative. I see Jimbo didn't directly address the issue of promotional photos of people though. I still think non-comm promo photos should be allowed. Jimbo only cites inanimate objects as examples of non-comm images that should be deleted. That I don't have too much of a problem with. --Jeff 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup. Rmhermen, you may be interested in a reply to Jimbo's post by Erik Moller, a Wikimedia board member. [8]. In it he states clearly that there are such things that should be whitelisted fair use, and that includes publicity photos. Therefore, one could guess that Jimbo's intent was not to eliminate fair use publicity photos. --Jeff 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I found that neither useful nor informative. It was just Jimbo ranting about how much he hates non-commercial-use-only images and how we have "tolerated" them for too long. He never gives a reason for why a non-commercial web site can't use non-commercial-use-only images. The examples he gives are images where it would be easy to get a free alternative, but what about for non-commercial-use-only images that would be impossible to replace, like images of dead people? For those, why does Jimbo want us to fall back on a fair use justification when we are aloud to use them as much as we want according to the copyright holders? --Arctic Gnome 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it seems to basically signify is, because WP content is licenced under the GFDL, we're warranting that it can be used by anyone, for any (non-defamatory) purpose. if we host material that's subject to copyright restrictions, then we can't make that assurance on our content, which limits what Wikipedia material can be used for in an arbitrary way that's hard to police internally, and will invariably lead to conflict externally from time to time. So where possible, material licenced for non-commercial use is to be replaced by material that is licenced for all use; when this isn't possible then questions get asked around "do we really need it", "can it be shown some other way", "is there a fair-use justification" and so on. Hope that helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, I disagree with what you say. First off, Images are almost never licensed under GFDL. Most of the time, if an image is freely licensed, its creative commons. Images and Text are wholly separate. Secondly, I disagree with your rationale for why Wikipedia can't host copyrighted images because it's dismissive and I think you're just wrong about what it will lead to. It's very easy to establish straightforward, simple policy on the subject that is clear cut and easy to police.--Jeff 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that while images don't have to be licensed under the GFDL, they do need to be licensed somehow that is compatable with the GFDL. If they can't be used that way, they really can't be hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is the exceptional rule of fair-use images, but that is something very exceptional and not justification for using non-commercial use only images freely within Wikipedia. Text and images are not seperate issues here, BTW, as they are both covered under the same part of law. I will admit, however, that the issues with images seem to be much more problematic. --Robert Horning 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FT2, that explains a lot. Nevertheless, in the back of my mind Jimbo's rant against non-commercial-use-only images makes me think that he's planing to make Wikimedia commercial one day and get rich off of our work. --Arctic Gnome 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cool thing about "making Wikimedia commercial" is that he can't have a monopoly on the content if he does that. There are people such as Gracenote, who used a community donation system to build up a free music album and track list database called CDDB. That they went "commercial" and then closed off their database to people who had contributed to building this database in the first place. If there are worries about what Mr. Wales might do in the future, it is certainly tainted with this experience and others like it. Fortunately, the GFDL protects against that, together with copies of the content database that are free to download, giving the opportunity for 3rd parties to come in and set up a fork of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects that would remain available in essentially the same form that Wikipedia can be accessed today.
BTW, there is nothing stoping you from "making a profit" off of Wikipedia right now, if you wanted to go through the effort. But making the effort to "publish" Wikipedia, put it on CD-ROMs, and other similar projects is exactly what it would take. What is important here is that nobody has exclusive arrangements for the usage of Wikimedia content. --Robert Horning 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I can't speak for Jimbo, I'm strongly opposed to a more relaxed fair use policy and use of non-commercial images. This has nothing to do with wanting to make wikipedia commercial in the future, but more to do with wanting to keep wikipedia 'free' content. Non-commercial use (& no derivatives) and fair use is not free content. There may very well be just cause to print or make available wikipedia e.g. to poor people in Africa. Non-free content complicates this matter given the great project itself is non-commercial, it's likely to be a mess). While non-commercial use may seem better then fair use, it's still not free. We greatly restrict fair use and by banning non-commercial, we ensure these restrictions apply to non-commercial as well. By having these restrictions, many people including me believe we encourage people to find replacaments and discourage people who have the content from licensing their content restrictively and thinking that's enough. It's your content and you can do what you want with it, but we don't your restrictive content unless we it fulfills our fair use criteria. If people still choose to restrictively license their content, that's sad but in the end we haven't really lost that much, but when people see the light, that's good! Nil Einne 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman

I reprotcted Wikipedia:Copyrights too much legal stuff and can't really be messed around with, that should be permanent Jaranda wat's sup 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End copied bit
I'd like to see this page unprotected - adminstrators don't have any special legal knowledge, and this has not to my knowledge been the subject of serious vandalism to the degree that it needs protection permanently. - brenneman 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Jaranda's reasoning. This is one of those few pages that in practice should just about never be edited. >Radiant< 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Owns?

If not the Wikimedia Foundation, who exactly owns WP articles' copyrights, anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.35.171 (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The people who wrote them. --Sherool (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was Wikipedia published? ~ Kristin— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.79.2 (talk • contribs)

Every day from January 15, 2001 to the present. It is an ongoing project. -- Donald Albury 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fair use images of art and modern artists

While I consider artwork of older artist like Leonardo da Vinci to be in the public domain with attempts by museums to copyright his work to be silly, I can't say the same about more modern artists who have died in the latter half of the 20th Century or are even still alive.

Of particular concern was the exmaples of artwork by M. C. Escher. Citing "fair use" here I think goes way over the top, and is a reason to strongly consider citing most of the images in that article as a blatant copyright violation. In the case of Escher, copyright is clearly asserted and republication of Mr. Escher's lithographs and artwork can only be done with (in this case propritary and non-GFDL compatable) licensing.

It is precisely this situation that I helped to draft on Wikibooks the Fair Use Policy, which would out of hand completely dismiss images like this. BTW, this policy on Wikibooks was based on the Italian Wikipedia official policy on fair use, which I find to be a very reasonable in terms of interpreting fair-use and permitting most of what is being used right now under fair-use on en.wikipedia.

The reason why I mention this category is that I find frankly almost all of these images to be in violation of copyright, at least if fair-use is the only justification to their inclusion within Wikipedia. Yes, perhaps the "critical commentary" about them may have some minor justifications, but that is really stretching the application of fair-use here. Under this sort of inclusion it is sort of suggesting that copyright doesn't apply to Wikipedia.

I also consider notices like Image:Hand with Reflecting Sphere.jpg#Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act to be downright offensive. If you know that the image is in violation of copyright, it needs to be deleted. Pure and simple. It is a copyright violation. Demanding that the copyright owner first make a request and turn it into a WP:OFFICE is requiring far too much from the copyright owner, and is in effect saying that Wikipedia doesn't care about copyright at all. If notices like this appear elsewhere, it should be replaced with {{copyvio}} instead. Seriously. I can't think of justification to keep images like this if the copyright is seriously in question. --Robert Horning 10:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would for the most part agree with you. However "Hand with Reflecting Sphere" warrants its own article. The use of the image there fits my understanding of fair use. Its use in the Escher article is less likely to meet fair use, in my opinion. (I am not a lawyer.) Dsmdgold 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to study up a bit more over fair use, but IMHO even using it in seperate articles specifically about the artwork is really skating on very thin ice, legally speaking. If I were an artist who had art work displayed on Wikipedia like most of these in this category, I would demand its immediate removal as a blatant copyright violation. If I were to publish any of the articles in dead-tree format, I would feel inclined to gain formal permission from the copyright holders first, but that would also imply that they are incompatable with the GFDL. I certainly would be watching by back legally and worrying that even one of the artists whose artwork is depicted in this category might not feel it warrented to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.
BTW, are there clear examples of something like this in an encyclopedia (like even Encyclopedia Brittanica) where the publisher didn't first gain explicit permission to reproduce the representation of the artwork? I'm fairly certain that even EB has used explicit permission to license these images for their own encyclopedia, even though in that case propritary licensing is used. --Robert Horning 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure EB doesn't use fair use at all, and indeed it's questionable if fair use applies to EB. My understanding of fair use is that it will probably be acceptable to include the artists work, at a low resolution when an article is talking in detail about the painting. Compiling all the artists works in an article on the other hand is definitely wrong Nil Einne 12:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, how low is "low-resolution"? I'm still not convinced that even in this situation it applies accurately, and my quesiton still stands: Can any other publication (non-internet encyclopedia that is widely used or even some other reference publication) be demonstrated that uses artistic works like this under fair-use guidelines? I can think of some art works that have guides and publications about them, but they have all been "used with permission" through a licensing arrangement by either the artist or an agent resonsible for that artwork. Or they are all books about classical art works where copyright doesn't directly apply. This is specifically about contemporary artists and their works, which I seriously don't think a legitimate example can be demonstrated from something by a major publisher. That is IMHO a pretty low bar to provide a counter argument to what I'm saying. I'm also strongly suggesting that this puts Wikipedia in a position for a major legal "bulls-eye" about this class of images. Just one significant publication is all I'm asking for that gives an example of a major publication displaying contemporary art works without explicit licening. I don't think you can find one. "Public Art" might be reasonable (for example, a statue in a public park paid for with public money), but that would be public-domain art, and not fair-use of that content. --Robert Horning 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car manual external links

(Discussion continued from Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Car_manual_external_links) A few days ago I reverted the addition of http://www.analogstereo.com/ to several sites e.g. BMW 7 Series, then reverted my revert since I was not sure. I was about to remove all references in all articles - there are currently 97 articles containing this. From one point of view it contains usefull downloads of manuals, from another it may be a multiple copyright violation. Let me knnow, I've got an AWB script set up to delete them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

If a photograph is published in a volume which is not copyrighted, is the photo in the public domain? MisfitToys 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: NO!
More complicated answer, it depends on a whole number of factors. If the volume is published by the U.S. Government (or other similar entity with similar PD publications) the answer is "maybe".
If you are fairly certain that the images were originally published prior to 1923 (in the USA) it is likely that the image is in the public domain. Otherwise you have to use the "Life+70" rule and find out when the photographer died.
Current copyright law doesn't require formal copyright registration, and presumes that every "creative artwork" including drawings and photos fall under copyright as soon as they have been put into a "fixed medium", whatever you want to call that. At that point, the "author" must explicitly grant an artwork to the public domain in order for it to be so, and even then you run into some problems.
Besides all of this, how do you know that the volume you are talking about is not copyrighted? Is there an explicit disclaimer that says "this work is not copyrighted"? I have (very, very rarely) seen that done in a very few books. If you can't find a copyright notice, that doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. It just means you don't know. All you can do then is put it in a lock box for 200 years to presume that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years, and even then it isn't a firm guarentee. --Robert Horning 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note: it's a 2006 publication with no copyright or publisher info, just a note of who assembled the material. Various photographers are listed, but without identifying which ones took which photos. Thanks for the replies, anyway; I wasn't planning on using the photos, but mainly wanted to know the answer for future reference. MisfitToys 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question concerning an images copyrights ...

I Don't know if this is the correct spot to ask a question but ... When I want to include a section of text about a product with an image of that product, and I go to the creators/owners site to look for images. I see a nice image and then Email them and ask if I (and wikipedia;hence the rest of the world) can use that specific image. What if they tell me they don't care and that I and others can do with it as they please. Doesn't that mean they've released the image in the public domain?Rex 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Unless they specifically state that they release the image in the public domain, they have not released it as such. "We don't care" is not a legal statement. >Radiant< 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<Sigh>, I'll re send the email then ... Rex 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to be public domain though, the GFDL is also fine. >Radiant< 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

status of Image:0001v.jpg

I thought this was ok because the image, and the whole book, as part of a whole series of works by different artists and businesses, was "Gift of the artists and DC Comics (the specific image used is the story-cover under "Scott Kolins, Dan Panosian, Joe Kelly, John Workman, Wake up, 2001 Kolins, Panosian, Kelly, Workman Wake up [Page 1]" about 1/4 of the webpage down. So I applied {{PD-USGov}}. That's been challenged.

I also note a variety of related options - first I am in contact with the artist and he made no objections of the pictures, second there are a number of comicbook related copyright options under Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use but the above seemed to me the most straight forward.

I wanted to use this art for part of the article on Scott Kolins - it being an example first of his pencil work (as almost everything available is actually colored and inked) and second a statement of his commitment on the matter of 9-11. Yes I know my name is similar to the subject of the page - I am in fact his brother - but we went through all that with the article (see the talk page) and I've tried to have a hands-off approach since it developed enough since I got warnings that it just didn't look right for me to be involved. This copyright problem got brought to my attention as I uploaded the image. Frankly if it were one of the other pictures at stake I wouldn't make a fuss but this is the only released work of the pencils (the specific style of the art that he is most involved with though as stated in the article he's done all the steps at various times and the art present he did all of) I've seen with even a hope of copyrights being ok for wikipedia - and I really thought this was right on target. But I'm no lawyer. However the person who flagged it admitted it was a gray area but had recieved secondary opinions that it wasn't ok. He pointed out the art wasn't created by the government and I had used a notice specifically only for creations of the Fed government.

I'd welcome any guidance on how to make this situation right. If my involvement is questionable and someone else wants to pursue the matter fairly that would be fine too. Thansk for your attention.--Smkolins 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments also here under "Comic Book Art and Political Cartoons" which says in part " donated 335 original drawings to the Library." Scanning up and down the samples one can examine a variety of statements about copyright status - they range from " Gift of the artist" to "Gift of the artists and DC Comics" as in this case, to "© 2001 Tribune Media Services, Inc., all rights reserved Gift of the Artist". Perhaps this information can be helpful clearing up this matter.--Smkolins 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, {{PD-USGov}} is used for works produced by the US government. Unless the artwork was done by an employee of the US government, it can't be {{PD-USGov}}. Second, in virtually all other cases, copyright automatically applies to any creative work at the time of its creation. The copyright holder may transfer the copyright to another entity, including the US government, but it remains copyrighted. If the artists 'gave' the works to the library, the library would be the copyright holder. Releasing a copyrighted creative work to the public domain requires an explicit statement from the copyright holder (I'm not sure what form the statement would have to be in to be effective). Copyright holders may also license the items under copyright. To be treated as a free image on Wikipedia, the creative work needs to licensed under the GFDL or an equivalent license such as some of the Creative Commons licenses. -- Donald Albury 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations of ancient writers and their translations

My excuses in advance if this not the right place to ask this question. I would like to cite some statements of ancient writers, like Herodotus. But i know the citaions i find on the internet are translated from their origin languages (Latin or Greek). Do I violate the copyrights of the autors when citing the translated citations in my article?! If yes, does it remain a violation if i referred to the site as a source?! This is an example:
They begin with the ear of the victim, which they cut off and throw over their house: this done, they kill the animal by twisting the neck. They sacrifice to the Sun and Moon, but not to any other god. This worship is common to all the Libyans. (book IV.168-198).
It is originally said by Herodotus, but now it is translated and i copied it from the site who posted the translated version on his pages (This one). Thanks in advance, Read3r 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are subject to copyright. A translation made by an author who died more than 70 years will generally be in the public domain, but more recent works remain copyrighted. You can cite and link to such translations on the web but quotations from the translations are subject to 'fair use' rules. Quotations must be short and essential to the context. -- Donald Albury 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about U.S. federal law

I am hoping for some opinions from people knowledgable about United States federal law, including copyright law. There is currently a dispute regarding the use of an image of the emblem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ([9], [10]). User:Patchbook has stated that the use of Image:Policelight.jpg violates Title 18 United States Code ([11]). Other users are stating that this is not the case, and as a U.S. government image, it is public domain. I'm a neutral third party who stumbled onto the dispute, but as a Wikipedian I am of course worried about a possible violation of the law. Can any experts here help shed some light on this issue? --Ginkgo100 talk 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The statutes which User:Patchbook has used clearly do not apply here, specifically United States Code Title 18 [12]. Ginkgo, image clearly does not violate copyright, and certainly does not violate any title 18 laws. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright-wise, it's in the public domain. There may be non-copyright restrictions on use, such as a prohibition on impersonating an FBI officer, or a prohibition on using it to imply an association with the FBI, but those aren't things Wikipedia would be doing. --Carnildo 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be any copyright violation because such things as badges aren't covered by copyright law. (Copyrights have expiration dates, in any case, and an organization wouldn't want its symbol to lapse into the public domain for use by just anyone.) Symbols such as the FBI's badge would be protected by trademarks, if they are protected at all. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and not Title 18, is where one should be looking to find out if there are any restrictions on this particular image. Whyaduck 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title 18 does prevent some (obvious) uses of government seals, LEO badges, etc. Mainly you can't defraud or deceive people using these symbols, i.e. having an LEO badge as a collectors item is fine, using it in an encyclopedia is fine, use of a LEO badge by non-LE officials to arrest people, not fine. I'll look into the USPTO to see what restrictions, if any, there are. Thanks for the suggestion. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an image of a police badge titled "police light"? Rmhermen 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because at first the logo was to be that of a police cars light. SGGH 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Title 18 and opinion on FBI Image use

My concern has nothing to do with copyright. My concern is not about use of the image of the FBI badge, or seal, or term FBI in general, for informational Wikipedia articles. I believe that to be lawful under current law.

I suggest individuals go to the official FBI website [13] and examine "A LAST WORD TO THE WISE" at the bottom of the page. You will find an official posting indicating the position of the FBI on use of the name and logos.

My concern stems from using the FBI badge logo for personal or group ID, or awards in Wikipedia. This would appear to violate USC Title 18, PART 1, Chapter 33, Section 709 [14], which restricts unauthorized use of names of federal agencies. The section authorizes the US Attorney to prosecute unless the parties have written permission of the Director of the FBI.

Since the Wikipedia law enforcement group and individual members of it are using the badge likeness, it infers endorsement by the FBI which is what the federal law mentioned strictly addresses and prohibits without authorization.

An option would be to either formally request permission for the Wikipedia law enforcement group to use the FBI badge logo from the Director of the FBI, or to formally request a legal opinion from the US Attorney. Both options might cause unwise scrutiny to Wikipedia.

Another option would be to design a generic emblem to replace the FBI badge logo for the use of your Wikipedia law enforcement group which would not be in conflict with the laws.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is NOT to be construed as legal advise.Patchbook 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI link you included is completely out of context. I suggest editors who believe there is any credibility in user Patchbook's claim, to first read the above previous discussions, then follow the link he provided to an FBI page [15], of which the following is quoted:.
Obviously businesses who want to deter piracy (film distributors and the like) need to apply for official permission to use said seal to deter crime. This is not the seal we are using, and would have no use with such an anti-piracy seal, as Wikipedia is free to copy, with the license, thounsands of times. The goal is free knowledge, we don't retrict it's copying. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of public domain material whose use is not free in certain countries. The FBI seal is free of copyright under 17 U.S.C. 105: its use is obviously not free in the United States, but is in other countries. See {{Nazi symbol}} for another class of works whose use is restricted in some countries, or Image:U.S. one dollar obverse.jpg for an image whose reproductions cannot necessarily be freely distributed in the US. Physchim62 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI link to the Cyber Taskforce was just one example of the numerous warnings posted on various FBI official sites regarding use of FBI logos and wording. Since Wikipedia is legally headquartered in the US, more attention to the laws of the US are always wise. The matter was referred to the Wikipedia Foundation legal staff, and the US Attorney to resolve, and the FBI logo has since been replaced with a more appropriate logo and disclaimer by the Wikiproject-law enforcement group, so the issue is now mute.Patchbook 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where put acknowledgement ?

Top of Wikipedia:Copyrights says "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version .. acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). .." If wikipedia content is copied to another wiki, can wiki#2 have the acknowledgment on the talk page? --24.85.26.49 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you'd follow the 1st point regarding "Record information" of the transwiki procedure (see m:Help:Transwiki#Begin transwiki: "On the [...] talk page, copy and paste the original page's history log under a new heading [...] If there are only a few authors, you can note them in your creation edit summary instead") there wouldn't be a problem;
  2. Otherwise, if you want to take advantage of the allowed exception ("a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement" as quoted by you above): in that case "direct link" supposes you put it on the page where the copied content is pasted. (Having to click to a talk page before being able to click the link to the Wikipedia article would be an "indirect link" wouldn't it?) --Francis Schonken 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vector graphic images as corporate logos

If fair-use of corporate logos require them to be used in low-resolution only, why does wikipedia allow .svg images as corporate logos. Shouldn't the usage be restricted to low-resolution raster images. If this discussion has taken place before, can someone point out the discussion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has, probably somewhere in the archives... Nil Einne 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US gov PD

This question arises every so often but I don't know if it's ever been clearly discussed. Am I right that when USgov PD is used, it should always clearly be a work originally produced by the US gov? The cases I'm thinking of are primarily of photos of people regarded as criminals, terrorists etc. Often the US government releases photos but where they come from is not clear. In some cases, it seems likely they may have been taken by people associated with the people pictured. While the US government may not care about the copyrights of those they consider criminals and terrorists, my understanding and personal opinion is we should.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this before when pictures have been released e.g. of alleged Al-Qaeda members when it seems unlikely the work was produced by the US goverment. The specific case that brought this to mind is this Image:Barzan ibrahim.jpg. The photo is from the playing cards. Where it came from is unclear. Possibly it was an old photo from when the US was still friendly with Iraq in which case it would be USgov PD. Alternatively, it could have come from somewhere else. Should the copyright status of this be disputed? Nil Einne 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There should always be a specific source on every image. If there isn't tag it with {{subst:nsd}} (no source date). If a source isn't provided, it should be deleted in 7 days. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Websites like amazon

I was trying to fix up the Beastie Boys pages by uploading the single cover for one of their singles. I obtained the single cover from amazon.comn's page, but I am not sure what license to give it. I have yet to find any info about copyright status. Do you know what I should do about the licensing? Maplejet 14:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images can only be used under fair use. The appropriate tag here is probably {{albumcover}}. However, please see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Superm401 - Talk 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would add this text ({{albumcover}}) to the image description page. Superm401 - Talk 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL Notice

I have modified the GFDL notice to say that it must link to a local (on the redistributor's server) copy of the GFDL. This is based on the GFDL requirement that "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies" [emphasis added]. This fits with guidelines at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Superm401 - Talk 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted;
  • Keep the link to the gnu.org page on fdl (that's where you start to make the copy isn't it?)
It doesn't matter. They can copy from WP:GFDL, or anywhere else. All GFDL copies should be the same. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't, layout-wise. Gnu.org offers 4 or 5 layouts (depending on circumstance, not all of these are even suitable for the same goals, eg print vs. web); the WP:GFDL copy (with its wiki layout) is only relevant in MediaWiki surroundings. Besides, the longer you're making the text on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page the less likely it is going to be read and followed. --Francis Schonken 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the layout is different, but layout doesn't matter. We can be brief, but not if it means actively saying the wrong thing. Superm401 - Talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People need to follow the GFDL, every letter of it, it's not as if we're going to spell out every letter of it on this "copyrights" page (or say here that such-and-such paragraph of the GFDL is more important than such-and-such other paragraph of the GFDL).
Unfortunately, no one follows the letter of the GFDL, not even Wikipedia (they're a distributor too). We can't spell out every letter, but we can avoid giving people incorrect advice (like linking to an external copy of the GFDL). We also do need to tell people what's most important, and that's what we do at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks . I put back the link as a reference, but we still need to tell people to use a local link. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not your/our problem - I'd rather have people copy an article of Wikipedia with a copyright notice that includes *that* link to the gnu.org website, than no link at all. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - it is linked several times from the Wikipedia:Copyrights page and we don't repeat all the content of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks on Wikipedia:Copyrights. Why would we need two separate pages otherwise? --Francis Schonken 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course copyright violation is our problem. If it isn't, why do we have this page and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks? I prefer any link to nothing too, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing which one we should recommend. I believe the GFDL requires a duplicate of the license, so we should indicate that here. As for WP:MF, we certainly aren't repeating all the info. The problem is the current version contradicts WP:MF, and I have explained why I think WP:MF is right here. Superm401 - Talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have a link to the GFDL text, and can read it for themselves. --Francis Schonken 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should, but they won't, and if they do, they won't understand it. If they do understand it, they still won't comply. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not your/our problem - If they copy it as is, with the link to the gnu.org page, that's still preferable to having no link at all. The problem is that there's no consensus for the change of the Wikipedia:Copyrights page, I have listed several reasons above for being opposed to this change, so I revert it. Please find consensus before change on policy pages. --Francis Schonken 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point here, but the problem is no one pays any attention to copyright issues. For instance, I constantly ask for help with WP:MF but people (somewhat understandably) just aren't interested. However, I'll post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to try to get some more input. Superm401 - Talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, no one else was interested. I will make the changes I described at 08:58, 19 January 2007 again if no else objects. Superm401 - Talk 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIOLATOR HOW REPORT

This web page: [16] is a direct copy of our Scouting article, but there is no way to contact the outfit by snail mail or email. It has a copyright notice on its page. How to handle this? Rlevse 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We found an email addy. Should I notify someone at wiki?Rlevse 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is being taken care of at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#Justrec.com. If you have new contact info, add it to the section, noting your source. Superm401 - Talk 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added to the info there, but why? It looks like just a tracking log and nothing ever gets done about it. Rlevse 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright of the contents of Wikipedia articles belongs to the editors of each article. Technically, only editors who have contributed to an article have standing to complain about infringements on their copyright. If you are not one of the authors, post a note to the talk page of the article and to any relevant project talk page to inform such authors of the alleged infringement. -- Donald Albury 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a major author. THe other web site copied the wiki article.Rlevse 00:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process gives you steps you can follow to deal with the infringing site. Good luck! -- Donald Albury 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice but if they choose to ignore all the letters they can and we without the legal money to fight it can do nothing else about it.Rlevse 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint messages might do the trick. You won't know until you try. Document what you do and the results at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#Justrec.com. If a site continues to blatantly infringe after being notified per the Non-compliance process, we can see if there are any other options. -- Donald Albury 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a shot, but not keeping my fingers crossed.Rlevse 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you advise I proceed in this situation?

Hi,

As I understand it, fair use of an image is considered permissible for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs.

The use of Norman Rockwell's painting of Ruby Bridges in the Norman Rockwell article probably meets the criteria but the use of the same image in the Ruby Bridges article does not meet any of these criteria.

It seems to me, therefore, that the image should be kept but the use of the image in the Ruby Bridges article should be removed.

Do you agree? Should I just be bold and delete the image or should I start a discussion somewhere? If the latter, where should that discussion be held?

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A 'fair use' rationale must be made separately for each article in which a non-free image appears. So, yes, I agree with you, an image may meet the 'fair use' criteria in one article, but not in another. The problem is that while I think a 'fair use' rationale could be made for the image being used in the Norman Rockwell article, it has not been stated on the image page (putting a template on the page does not create a rationale). I do not see grounds for 'fair use' of the image in the Ruby Bridges or Timeline of United States history (1950-1969) articles. I will remove the image from the Timeline article, as I think that is hopeless for any 'fair-use' rationale. You can go ahead and remove the image from the Ruby Bridges article, if you wish, but you may get some flack for that. In any case, a rationale for 'fair use' of the image in the Norman Rockwell aricle nees to be added to the image page. Do you want to do that, or would you like me to do it? -- Donald Albury 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this problem illustrates the long standing problem here on Wikipedia with the use of "fair-use" images that don't have explict copyright permission. I have been running a one-man campaign against any fair use of modern artworks (like these Norman Rockwell paintings) for Wikipedia articles, as the rationale behind their inclusion is very shaky at best and blatantly abused at its worst. These are images that clearly have copyright, and in order to use them in this fashion they simply must have permission of the copyright holder. Particularly in this case they really don't belong in Wikipedia at all, because they are reproducing the entire piece of artwork, although admitedly at a "lower resolution" than perhaps what you would see if you saw the art work "in person".
In addition, by even having these images available in the Wikipedia database it causes problems. Once here, there are few tools to guard against these images being included in possibly infringing pages like mentioned above. I also believe that this is a very slippery slope to be standing on legally, as you can justify nearly every possible copyrighted image or painting on some sort of "fair use" basis, effectively eliminating copyright as a concept altogether for images. --Robert Horning 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I would also like to see 'fair use' more strictly limited than it is now, I'm not sure the English Wikipedia is ready to do so, per the current debate at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. -- Donald Albury 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages containing a copyright notice

The page User:Stevenstone93 raises an interesting issue that I can't find an appropriate policy or guideline on. This user has added a copyright notice to his user page. There is no doubt that he is the writer of and copyright holder of this content. However I am not sure whether the copyright notice is appropriate. Does anyone have an opinion about this? It seems to me that the copyright notice might implicitly or explicitly be incompatible with the GFDL status of the page, but others disagree (see current discussion on WP:AIV).

I think its a problem because the copyright notice doesn't acknowledge the GFDL status of the text and at the least would mislead people into believing the page was not under GFDL. At worst it might be directly contradictory with the GFDL license? I can see several possible outcomes:

  1. There is no problem with copyright notices on GFDL text, no action necessary
  2. The user should be asked to remove the copyright notices if they are incompatible with the GFDL
  3. The user should be asked to remove the text since it is copyrighted in a manner incompatible with the GFDL

Can anyone with more knowledge of the GFDL provide some guidance? Thanks, Gwernol 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that there is no problem. In so far as Wikipedia edits can be copyrighted (spelling corrections, for example, probably can't be), the copyright belongs to the editor. It is covered by the global GFDL license which each editor accepts when submitting content, and so the editor in question has licensed his or her copyright. Ownership is tracked by the page histories, which are open to public viewing. In short, copyright notices are pointless on WP, but harmless in userspace. Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor wishes to overtly assert copyright of his or her page, IMHO they should also overtly state that it is released under the GFDL, by using one of the licensing templates, such {{NoMultiLicense}}, {{LicenseFreeUse}} or {{LicenseGPL}}. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalbury (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As stated on WP:Copyright, ...you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.. So, that means that everything you write, you retain copyright of, but once material is released under the GFDL license, that cannot be rescinded. In short, GFDL does not mean no copyright.--Jeff 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the GFDL recommends you put a copyright notice on GFDL material, and mandates that such notices be preserved by redistributors. Wikipedia doesn't strictly comply with this, which is okay because work is copyrighted automatically. However, there's nothing wrong with a copyright notice on a user page. Superm401 - Talk 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about templates?

So for example, over at my wiki, Im using the Wikipedia Community Portal template, because I like it, not using the same wording, just the layout coding. Do I need to credit for that? Brenton.eccles 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After perusing the GFDL, it seems you should credit them; see section 4.b at WP:GFDL. B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version (this would be you) , together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement. (this would be the designers of the template you're using). How you go about conforming to this requirement is anyone's guess. It would take research in the page history, or you could probably get away with copying the pages edit history.--Jeff 00:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Again. I'm afraid I should revise what I said above. I quite accidently ran into this today at Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. Note on licenses: Please note that the GPL is for software and its derivatives and the GFDL is for text documentations or other forms of text and their derivatives. This means that the interface design of Wikipedia and all other portions of the MediaWiki software are licensed under the GPL, but the actual contents of Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL. That seems to say that the design of a page is licensed under the GPL, not the GFDL, so that changes entirely everything.
Creative Commons GPL 2.0 license summary It does not appear that the GPL requires any sort of attribution. Yay for you.--Jeff 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributory Infringement

Ok, just noticed the link on contributory infringement (see the external links section) is actually pointing to a disambiguation page. This probably deserves a SOFIXIT, but since the page is protected for now, I'm unable to make that change, and I'd like to get some other opinions first (oddly enough, the template on the page is only sprotected). I'd suggest changing the link to go to Copyright infringement, but the problem is, this article doesn't even mention contributory infringement. I suppose that's the easy one to fix, though—it's just a matter of adding a new section and starting (with as a bare minimum), the information establishing precedent for it. What would be the best approach, though? I'm not trying to revive the debate from November, but rather correct an internal link to a disambiguation page. (Also, would someone mind changing the protected template to the proper template--it caught me off guard for a second, until I saw the history...) dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 08:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights&oldid=105050678"