Jump to content

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 24.62.236.10 (talk) at 13:24, 1 December 2007 (→External link question: new section). 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:

Recently, there have been several extensive arguments over the copyright status of various external links; see Talk:On the Jews and their Lies (status of a Martin Luther translation) and Talk:Fate/stay night (legality of fan-made translations). In my opinion, these arguments are a pointless waste of time. The Foundation is responsible for the content of Wikipedia itself, and, obviously, it is very important to ensure that text, images, and media posted to Wikipedia have an acceptable copyright status. This in itself takes up a lot of time and effort, but it is worth it. What is not worth it is squabbling over the status of sites that we aren't even responsible for. Just the fact that we provide an external link does not constitute an endorsement of the site in question. The argument over On the Jews and their Lies involves a tremendous amount of wasted effort by Wikipedians to determine the copyright status of something that we are not even hosting here. If someone wanted to put it on Wikisource, this discussion would be justified. But an external link just doesn't rise to that level. If the copyright holder has a problem, they can take it up with whatever site actually has posted the material. To put it briefly, it is not our job to police the entire Web, or to do the RIAA and MPAA's job for them. That's not what I signed up for. We can prevent copyright violations on our own site, and refrain from linking to obvious and blatant violations on other sites (e.g. it's pretty obvious that a site that publishes the full text of a Stephen King novel doesn't have the right to do so). But in cases where the issues are unclear, just leave the links in. It's not our problem. *** Crotalus *** 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also believe that the claims of "contributory infringement" are a red herring. Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry involved a defendant that did a number of unwise things: first posting the infringing material on its own website; then, when that was ordered to be removed, replacing it with links to another site with the same material, and then refused to take these links down when asked to do so. The case is simply not on point here; we do not make a practice of linking to blatantly infringing material, and I'm not saying that we should, simply that we can't reasonably be expected to spend the time and effort investigating dubious cases when we don't even host the material in question and never did. As noted above, Google has won several cases alleging contributory infringement, and our situation is closer to theirs than to the case cited here. *** Crotalus *** 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is weird. It is true that Wikipedia has no legal obligation to pre-emptively investigate the copyright of the material we link to. However, you seem to go further and suggest that any volunteer who chooses to engage in such an investigation is wasting their time and should stop. That is a weird position to take, as if trying to respect copyright is somehow a bad thing. If the investigation is such a waste then anyone is free to ignore the process, but if a likely conclusion is reached (e.g. either infringing or not) then they should still respect the outcome and remove the link if appropriate. Dragons flight 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply believe that this time would be more productively spent improving the encyclopedia rather than investigating issues that don't concern us, nor improve Wikipedia in any way. Sure, if there is strong evidence that a link is blatantly infringing, then remove it. But if the issue is not clear-cut — if reasonable editors could disagree — then I see no reason to take the strictest interpretation. What I am saying is that it seems people spent hours investigating the status of that Luther book posted on the Fordham University website. How does this make our encyclopedia any better? *** Crotalus *** 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you for discussing this issue on talk rather than only reverting. *** Crotalus *** 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't get is why it bothers you that people would spend hours investigating that issue? If I understand the talk page correctly, the Foundation actually received a complaint from the publisher. Such things should be looked at seriously and realistically in such cases the link should be removed unless the evidence for public domain is quite clear. It makes the encyclopedia better both because A) avoiding the promotion of infringment is the right thing to do, and B) it helps to avoid potential future legal problems. Dragons flight 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contribute to Wikipedia because I want to create free content, not help third parties police their non-free content. If there was an actual complaint from the publisher, that should be handled by WP:OFFICE or the Foundation's legal counsel (if only we actually had one!), not by untrained editors. I'd also be curious as to why the publisher complained to Wikipedia and not to Fordham University. It's not like this is some weird Russian website that won't respect a takedown notice; this is a prominent private university in the United States. *** Crotalus *** 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the person handling the OTRS complaint, the publisher stated that they were also complaining to Fordham. Dragons flight 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) It seems rather odd for a policy page to tell editors what is or is not a good use of their time. Why should you care how they spend their time? AGF doesn't seem to have anything to do with how we should look at possible copyright violations. And we shouldn't be directing people towards blatant copyright violations. No individual Wikipedian is under any obligation to spend hours investigating the content of external sites, but it seems very odd to reword the policy in order to imply that that would be a bad thing. ElinorD (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crotalus horridus wrote: "In my opinion, these arguments are a pointless waste of time. " Keywords there being your opinion. Frankly, you have given nobody here any reason to trust your opinions, and these pages are written by consensus, not editors trying to rewrite policy to push some personal agenda. You are completely outvoted, your ideas are impractical if not dangerous, and you certainly should not be trying to lecture other people on wasting their time when your continuous attempts to rewrite policy are a huge waste of time.

He added: "That's not what I signed up for." Fine. don't do it yourself. But stay the heck out of the way of the editors who do act responsibly and understand the importance of copyright law. DreamGuy 05:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of those editors who has spent hours on the question of the copyright of Luther's work On the Jews and Their Lies (over years, I might add): the issue is for me an ethical one. Because I work with Luther's work on a regular basis, I had good reason to believe that the work was still protected and that the publisher would not be pleased to have the work available freely on the internet. Since this is a work that contains a very acidic, antisemitic attack by Luther on the Jews and that it was used by the Nazis in their propaganda and it is the only known complete version in the English language, there are a number of other users who understandably would want to link th the document. This is the incentive for us to get the status right.
I think that such investigations should be (and are) very much the exception to the rule. Normally, if a site makes claims about the status of a work, we should take their word for it. As has been stated above, there's not enough time in the day, even for copyright holders, to check everything on the web.
Having said that, I think that we should not link to or investigate the status of pages that may be questionable. For example, when a work is clearly not that of the site that hosts it (works of long-dead figures leap to mind), which lack citation information or cite publication dates where protection may still be in force. (there are likely other smell tests)
I think this is important for us, since Wikipedia is now a site that consistantly ranks high in Google search results. Apart from the liability issue, we really should not encourage the violation of copyrights. All of this, of course, is my viewpoint.--CTSWyneken(talk) 10:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put I might add. Policies and guidelines are in place to avoid problems in the future (especially legal ones), even if editors or readers do not know or care of such possible problems or their consequences. And even when policies are not clear, conservatism should rule when copyright doubts arise.
I say remove the link from the article. If certain editors and users feel that this link must be included in the article, then they should take the time to investigate the issue before including it. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home)
I have no problem with being very careful about copyright issues regarding material hosted on Wikimedia sites. But, again, I don't see how policing external links for questionable (as opposed to blatant) copyright issues is in any way useful to us. On Talk:Fate/stay night, there has been a discussion, taking up many hours of editors' time, about the legality of fansubs. How does this argumentation in any way help the encyclopedia, since we're not hosting said fansubs and are not responsible for their content. If someone is on a personal crusade about copyright, they should do it somewhere other than a free-content encyclopedia. Our copyright policies should be designed to (1) keep Wikipedia out of legal trouble, and (2) ensure that the encyclopedia itself remains free in the GFDL sense. Nothing more than that. I have no desire to enforce alleged copyright claims on the part of third parties, any more than I have a desire to stand by the side of the road with a radar gun calling the cops on people who do 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. It's bad enough that we all have to put up with these nuisance laws, we don't need to make things worse for other people in the process. *** Crotalus *** 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I'm not saying, at least, that everyone has to do this, or, hardly anyone. But we should not stop editors from investigating the status of a work to which they link. In almost every case, it is simply a matter of contacting the publisher. As a rule, however, I think we can give a print publication a benefit of a doubt and an online one if well-cited. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the GFDL

See my talk page (towards bottom). Also, see talk pages of various editors who appeared on my talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do YouTube videos have any copyright?

Do videos on YouTube have any copyright? Is it all right to take screenshots of YouTube videos to use on a Wikipedia article? I would like to know. I am referring to YouTube videos of news reports or music videos. I've got a couple of images that are of the sort that I am unsure. Thanks in advance.--Kylohk 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of them have, I'm still a bit surprised that Youtube is here while Napster is dead. Ericd 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend assuming everything is copyrighted unless otherwise explicitly noted (more specifically, every work published after 1 March 1989 is copyrighted, see Hirtle's chart). For non-free content (which most music videos and news reports are, imo), make sure their use on Wikipedia is in line with the non-free content policy, and make sure you know who the copyright holder is. It might be tricky with content hosted on YouTube, but if it is music videos or news reports, the copyright holder is not the YouTube uploader, but the creator/hosting television channel/etc. of the music video or news report. --Iamunknown 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images in question are as follows: [[Image:Bus Uncle A.jpg]], [[Image:Bus Uncle B.jpg]] and [[Image:Bus Uncle C.jpg]]. They are screenshots of YouTube videos, which come from newspapers and a news channel in Hong Kong. They are used to identify the people involves in the The Bus Uncle incident, itself a YouTube video that was widely reported in the local media in June 2006. The three people are hardly celebrities, they are just given their 15 minutes of fame due to that incident. As a result, it will be extremely difficult to locate them in public and take a snap of them, in spite of the image being replaceable. So, what can be done to make those images Wikipedia compatible?--Kylohk 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmm, I agree that it would be difficult to replace those three images. My main concern is the identity of the copyright holder of the YouTube video. If we don't know the identity of the copyright holder, we can't assume that our use of their image is a fair use (and it is proscribed by our non-free content policy). I'm a little confused about the YouTube video: is it a news report by a television channel? --Iamunknown 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Images A and B are from the following video recorded by Sing Tao, a popular newspaper from Hong Kong, as shown here. Link. Image C is from Hong Kong Cable TV News. Hence both videos belong to the Hong Kong media.--Kylohk 08:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Logos

Can we use Wikipedia logos and copyrighted material on user templates? Technically, it's against policy (no non-free images on templates), yet common sense tells us that its probably the only exception of using non-free content on userspace. This issue was recently discussed here, and currently here. Any clarifications are welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} materials are completely unfree, my preference is to discourage their use as much as is practical. Hence I would avoid using them to be decorative (which I assume is how most user space templates would be used). But in general there isn't much consensus on this issue, and a woeful lack of direction from the WMF. Dragons flight 09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue that frankly the WMF needs to come to terms with in some manner. Personally, if I were "king" and in charge of the WMF, I would relax the usage of the WMF trademarks to make them available under the terms of the GFDL (at least the logo images themselves) and encouarge their usage within Wikimedia projects in as many different ways as possible, and not try to milk every last dime from the logos.
This seems to be the problem that the WMF is facing, as the only real tangible "asset" that the WMF has to sell, negotiate for and over, and to even restrict at all is the WMF logos. The rest, like the server farm and office equipment and space are really support for the projects. There is also an intangible "goodwill" which comes by being associated with things like Wikipedia, but what else can they "sell"? The WMF can't really make much money off of Wikipedia directly unless they start charging money for access to the server farm, which would really piss off a whole bunch of Wikipedia contributors. BTW, the GFDL doesn't prohibit the WMF from doing that.
So as a result of this struggle to find any sort of potential cash source for the WMF, the logos have a major interest by board members as something which could eventually be leveraged into bringing in a significant source of revenue that would not require the constant "tin cup". Legitimately the WMF is also going very slowly in terms of trying to resolve the logo issues in part because they don't want to make a mistake that future members of the WMF board will later regret. In this regard I think the current approach toward foundation logos is a wise move, where they can eventually move to a "more free" logo situation like the GNU or Linux logos and trademarks (which both have their own problems).
So to answer your question, the ability to use these logos is dependent upon the WMF board of trustees and their willingness to allow them to be used within the projects that they supposedly represent. At the moment, that permission has not been granted, and would be no different than asking to use the logo for General Motors or Shell Oil. And the use of these foundation logos is restricted to the same constraints that other corporate logos have, unless the WMF changes their policies. --Robert Horning 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you comparison of other company logos. My concern was based on an interesting discussion on whether Admins could maintain the Wiki Logo in their userspace, which also set off a discussion on whether any logo is permitted in the userspace.
However, I don't think the WMF's only intention of copyrighting its logos is for financial purposes. I believe they also did it to prohibit other encyclopedia projects from "copycat-ing" the project's logos. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Existing trademark laws protect anybody who copies a trademark or trademark logo, claiming affiliation when none exists. That really isn't a problem and in the case of a user incorporating a logo within their user page, as a clear affiliation does exist between somebody who works on say Wikipedia and describing their activities on their user page. While not an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation, check out this clear trademark violation for another "open source" project: Linux Financial Google search
BTW, I've seen television and radio ads using this obvious trademark that has absolutely nothing to do with the more famous computer operating system. The term earlier resolved into more formal and obvious trademark violations earlier, so I think some lawyers have gone into the fray over this issue. And yes, I did check and double check that they were using the name "Linux" and not something more "innocent" like "Lennox". This is precisely this kind of abuse that the WMF is trying to defend and protect against, and something which on the whole the Wikimedia community is supportive of having protection to try and stop.
Another risk is for trademark dilution, where the possibility exists that the term "Wikipedia" could become a generic word to mean any on-line encyclopedia. In this sense, your concern is 100% spot on that this does go beyond making money off of the logos and trademarks, although this is an issue that can be defended against. In nearly every usage of the term "Wikipedia", it is used in reference to a specific website operated by the WMF. If that changes in some way due to the abuse of the trademark by mirror sites, it could become a very real problem. However when I see websites like "wikibooks.net" or some other blatant abuse of trademarks where it isn't obvious that the site is a mirror and even goes to claim that they are the original source of the content, clearly there are some problems.
Still, even with these issues, I think that the WMF's policies regarding logos and trademarks ought to be something more along the lines of the Free Software Foundation, which has explicitly licensed the "GNU gnu" that can be found here: This is the logo of the Free Software Foundation, and it is a formal trademark just as this is: . The GNU logo must still be used in context, but its reproduction has been explicitly granted a "free document" license, while the WMF logo has not been given the same level of openness. The question for debate should be framed along the lines of when an open source type non-profit group produces a logo, what should be the level of protection of that logo and can "community members" use those logos under license terms that don't require explicit written permission from the trademark owners. BTW, another logo that also falls into this same category is this one, also under a free license: . --Robert Horning 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WMF have changed legal person as well, so there may be more decisiveness. OTOH it took them 11 months to agree to the Schools Wikipedia using the logo so don't hold your breath... --BozMo talk 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What license do I use when want to use a photograph of a copyrighted object

Hi folks,

so, what kind of attribution/license do I use when I want to upload a photograph of a copyrighted object. In particular, I'd like to photograph an album packaging to illustrate a critical commentary on the album package, or upload an already existent photograph that forms part of an album review that has been released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 (review: http://www.velcro-city.co.uk/album-review-10000-days-by-tool/ image: http://www.velcro-city.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/05//.thumbTool1.jpg)?

Thanks in advance for the help :) Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph/scan of a 2-dimensional object (i.e. an album cover) would be covered by the same copyright as the object itself. Last time I checked album covers could be used under fair use on Wikipedia. A Creative Commons license including NonCommercial is considered non-free on Wikipedia. —David Johnson [T|C] 13:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL version 2

Just today GPLv3 was finalized, taking the focus of the Free Software Foundation off its primary software licenses, and perhaps kicking the ongoing revision of GFDL v. 1.2 into high gear. A preliminary draft of GFDL v. 2 has been online for some time [1] and I'm wondering whether the Wikimedia Foundation is involved in that process, and if so, to what degree. The license of all wikipedia content is such that new versions of the GFDL apply *automatically* to the content once they are finalized. That being the case, I'd think this would be of paramount interest to the community. As I understand it, when GFDL v. 2 goes into effect, the content of wikipedia will become simultaneously available under GFDL 1.2, GFDL 2.0, and GSFDL 1.0. The GSFDL relicensing will happen as a provision of GFDL 2.0 since none of the wikipedia content has cover texts, invariant sections, or anything else of the sort. There's also the possibility that wikipedia will become available under the as yet undrafted GNU Wiki license, again automatically as a provision of GFDL v. 2. Any comments? Deranged bulbasaur 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding student publications in U.S. public schools. What kind of copyright restrictions would scans of these publications (eg. cover) have? Would its contents be free use as well? I wasn't sure since U.S. public schools are funded by the government, but the works are student-produced and published by a private company. Thanks! Arsonal 06:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, this is a tough one, and one that has some very interesting implications. Quite often, the school districts (or even universities in the case of public university student newspapers) haven't really thought this one through themselves. Yearbooks are even worse.
What makes this very complicated are the overlapping copyright claims from nearly all of the participants involved, including the private, for-profit companies that are often used for more than just printing. Quite often a yearbook publisher will even provide copyrighted clip art, style guides, and additional editorial help where they can claim a share of the copyright on the book.
So here is who I would say has a claim of copyright on many student publications:
  • The Students - they are the ones who write the content, but since it isn't a "work for hire" and have seldom explicitly signed away their copyright claims, they may still retain copyright. Just like all contributors to Wikipedia retain copyright even through this is written by volunteers.
  • The Faculty Advisor - If a faculty advisor is working with the students... especially if the students are assigned to the teacher as a part of their official class schedule (some student publications are considered elective classes), the faculty member/instructor may even out right claim all copyright for everything produced. I've been shown some copyright case law that would suggest that nearly everything you turn in to an instructor as a part of a class assignment becomes the property of that instructor (especially university professor) including copyright as soon as you have handed the assignment to that instructor. I've pissed off some university professors myself by asserting my copyright claim explicitly on my homework assignments, which is another issue still.
  • The Educational Institution - This could be the individual school itself or the school district, board of regents, or whoever is legally responsible for establishing policies and funding the organization. This one should be obvious but it does have some interesting implications.
  • The State Government - This may be surprising to many in the USA, especially as the feds don't claim copyright. But many state government do claim copyright over materials produced by "employees" of the state government, which indirectly will also include school district or state university personnel. As a voter and citizen I think this is stupid, but as a matter of actual legal fact state governments do often assert intellectual property claims over just about anything done by state employees. And there is case law to back this one up.
  • The Publishing Company - As I mentioned above, the publisher may have a strong copyright claim, and may even be the most blatant in terms of who is formally claiming copyright inside of the cover of the publication. They may have even formally registered the copyright with the Library of Congress or other national registration entity. In reality, however, they may have the weakest claim of all in terms of substance which is copyrightable which has been contributed.
  • Photographers/Illustrators - This is is one copyright claim that you can't ignore either. In many cases for cover art, the photo may have been taken by one of the students. Or it could have been a professional photographer. The same with illustrations. And don't even get into problems here with logos and mascots, as this is an even larger mess to deal with.
The point of listing these claims is that you need to get permission to copy the content from all of the copyright claimants, not just one or two categories listed above. And rarely are there any formal documents assigning copyright from any of those involved in this process. There are multiple reasons why project like Wikipedia are concerned about copyright and licensing, and it is precisely this rats nest of overlapping copyright claims which many school publications have in many cases deliberately chosen not to deal with. The purpose of the activity was to produce the original publication, and that seems to get accomplished. But subsequent reuse and republication is nearly impossible, at least without invoking some sort of fair-use doctrine.
So the ultimate answer here is that you should consider school publications to be the copyright equivalent of nuclear waste: Something that may be important to preserve but highly toxic if you try to do anything with it. And legitimate publications want to stay clear of even getting involved with it if possible. --Robert Horning 21:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When spoken words are printed somewhere, does the copyright belong to the speaker or the publisher? Or indeed if its spoken publicly is it automatically in the public domain?

Most speeches are prepared beforehand. The copyright holder is whoever wrote the script. The actual speech could even be considered a performance and thus be subject to neighbouring rights.
Less clear are impromptu speeches, i.e. speeches given spontaneously without a prepared script. As these are not fixed in a tangible medium, I think they might indeed not be copyrighted. But again, the speech can be considered a performance, which is subject to neighbouring rights, and recordings or broadcasts of the speech are subject to the recorder's (or broadcaster's) neighbouring rights. In some countries (e.g. Russia), even improvisations, such as impromptu speeches, but also jazz improvisations, are subject to copyright.
The copyright of a transcript of an impromptu speech might indeed belong to the transcriber, if such impromptu speeches are not copyrighted. Publishing a transcription of a prepared speech is subject to the consent of the copyright holder of the speech/script. On the issue of interviews, see also the (somewhat dated, but still useful) Compendium of Office Practices II of the U.S. Copyright Office, section 317.
So, no, public speeches are not PD by default. HTH. Lupo 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial War Museum photographs from World War II

The Imperial War Museum has a large collection of photographs from WWII. I believe I can upload these as it satisfies the following:

Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes (from UK copyright law)

Am I correct? Oberiko 13:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only under "fair use", if you can supply a fair use rationale for each image uploaded. The allowance to make copies for educational purposes is a "fair use"/"fair dealing" provision. It does not mean the images were in the public domain. (Of course, some images from the IWM may indeed be PD. If you can show that an image from the IWM is actually PD in the U.S., you may upload it as {{PD-US}}.) Lupo 07:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifiers?

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.

I am having trouble parsing this. Does with no Invariant ... Back-Cover Texts modify this document or does it modify copy, distribute and/or modify? Is this intended to mean Wikipedia has no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts? Or is it intended to mean none can ever be added? --Una Smith 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it. Wikipedia has no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. However, if I modify and publish a part of Wikipedia, I can add my own if I wish. Yes? Could someone direct me to where people are discussing the pros and cons of publishing "best of" Wikipedia on CD or paper? The "book"? Thank you. --Una Smith 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This quote here about the no invariant sections qualifier was something proposed by none other than Richard Stallman himself on Foundation-l several years ago. The idea is that if you force a front cover or other invariant sections, there are huge sets of rules that come into play that really complicate the GFDL. So to keep things simple, this wording was suggested as a way to allow the most "freedom" for reuse of Wikipedia content. Unfortunately it has its own problems and even this is widely mis-interpreted.
BTW, Yes, you could make a modification to Wikipedia content and include a front-cover text, back cover photos, and make a Wikipedia book that would have qualifiers according to the terms of the GFDL, that to those who you hand it forward from your point need to have those invariant sections. They could still go back to the original Wikipedia if they want to bypass these invariant sections, but at that point they are not using you as the source of the material.
There are still so many unanswered questions about what happens when you make a dead tree version of Wikipedia (especially authorship claims!) that the whole mess is practically begging for some formal legal action over the topic. In other words, a legal tinderbox ready to ignite but not quite happening yet. IMHO this is one reason (among many) that printed versions are not more widespread. --Robert Horning 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on translated content

Not sure this is the right place for this. The article Etienne Kuypers is currently up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etienne Kuypers. A substantial part of the article is a translation of the Dutch language website EtienneKuypers.com. The content of the website is copyrighted ("Alle rechten voorbehouden", all rights reserved). The author of the article has denied being the subject of the article, so is not the owner of the copyrights to the website. The question is: does a direct translation of copyrighted content qualify as a copyright violation? AecisBrievenbus 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, translations are derivative works and hence require permission/licensing from the holder of the original copyright. Dragons flight 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure that he is the subject of the article, but that isn't really relevant, as the content from his website is not GFDL. Dragon's Flight, thank you for your clarifying answer :-). Joblf (or one of his socks) will probably come up with a new version of the article that isn't literally translated though, so I listed it on AfD to be done once and for all. SalaSkan 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity photographs section

I find that the wording here is vague and confusing:

"This is based on the image guidelines at IMDB"... what, exactly, is "this" alluding to? is the section describing conditions/sources under which celebrity photos are ok to use? if so, fair use or freely licensed use?

"Legitimate photographs generally come from three different places with permission". "Legitimate" means what? fair use? free license?

I thought I understood Wikipedia policy to be that press kit photos of living celebrities are not acceptable Fair Use and such uploads are Speedy Deleted. Likewise, "Used by Permission" is unacceptable for a GNU/GFDL free license. Now, after reading this section, I don't know what to believe. Am I wrong or has the policy recently changed? If not, it seems that calling such photos "legitimate" is misleading. JGHowes talk - 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit outdated yes. I changed it a bit although I wouldn't mind if that whole section goes. Garion96 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we remove this? It is confusing to people. One person thought it was an exhaustive list of acceptable sources... If there are no objections I will remove it in a week. - cohesion 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. - cohesion 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikipedia's GFDL is violated, where/who do we post this info?

For sites that copy wikipedia wholesale articles and don't keep it under the GFDL, where and to whom should we complain? Thank you. --Rajah 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_Forks, especially Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_Forks#Non-compliance_process. Sancho 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can West German election posters from the 40's be uploaded?

This site has a number of West German campaign posters from 1945-1949, showing the main political parties opinion on the territory de-facto annexed by Pland and the Soviet Union; e.g. they want it back and want that the survivors of the ethnic cleansing be allowed to return to their ancestral homes.

I was planning to write an article on the early years of that territory (i.e. the years when Germany was under Allied occupation 1945-1954, and I thought some of the campaign posters wold be relevant to use, to show that Germany at that time had not yet accepted that the territories were lost. They were by West Germany called "German territories temporarily under Polish and Soviet administration" or somthing equivalent. (The polish Communist regime had invented the term "recovered territories" to justify the Polish claim on the territory)

Is there any way for me to be allowed to use the pictures on wikipedia on the article in question (or in Generral)? If there is, what must I do? Thanks. --Stor stark7 Talk 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The posters will still be under German (and US) copyright, so they could only be used under fair use. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some advice on the threshold of originality

How original does something need to be to be eligible for copyright? If possible, I would like the opinion of a lawyer; would this be something to ask the Wikimedia legal counsel about? The following are examples of works that may or may not be eligible:

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)File:Dallas North Tollway.png(6)File:Fort Bend Westpark Tollway shield.svg(7)File:Samhoustontollway.png(8)File:GSPkwy Shield.png(10)(11) --NE2 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in my copyright expertise. However, at first glance all or nearly all of those look copyrightable. User:NE2 knows this already, but for anyone else, there are somewhat related discussions of road signs and ancient coins over at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. Nobody has proposed a good answer to this legal question yet, though. Perhaps, like the photographs of coins question, this one should go to our (I used the term broadly) lawyer, Mike Godwin Wikidemo 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking just the opposite, how is the outline of a state and letters copyrightable? From 37. C.F.R. § 202.1(e), most of these don't pass (a) of that. The only ones that I can see that appear copyrightable are 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. --Holderca1 06:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CFR is deliberately modest in saying what is not copyrightable. The Supreme Court, in Atari v. Oman (quoting Feist), in ruling that the look and feel of the 40 X 40(?) pixel original Breakout game has enough originality to be copyrightable, says: [T]he requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Arrangements of pre-existing elements are generally copyrightable. However, there is a subjective originality test as well. If a sign is hand painted or designed that means someone actually made it and their choice of where to paste all the sub-parts is a creative one. If it's a template spit out of a machine or created by rote, then nobody made the arrangement. So the actual application of lettering to the template doesn't add to its creativity. #1, 3, 10, and perhaps 5 have that problem. I can see someone arguing that for #2 and #9, but I think there was some creative arrangement in choosing just how big the circles would be, where and how the outline of the state would fit in, how the lettering integrates into the image, etc. Again, I'm no expert and I wouldn't form a strong opinion out of applying the regulation directly, or Supreme Court cases decided on a different type of image, unless I read up on what the respected authorities had to say and scoured case law and found that there's nothing else on point. If I had to make a call without outside guidance of a legal expert I would take the conservative approach for Wikipedia and choose prudence over anything where one could argue both sides. Meaning, it might or might not be copyrighted, so to be safe assume it is. Wikidemo 07:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like this: File:PGBT.png. It contains the US flag which in itself cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, but does the artistic representation of the flag allow a copyright? --Holderca1 13:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem creative to me, someone had to make them probably, and since they are (all?) done by state and municipal governments I don't see how they would be considered PD. cohesion 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it agreed that Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg is ineligible? It seems like there's just enough creativity to make it eligible, but if I'm overruled I accept it. --NE2 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created (4) along with most of the NY parkway shields. I had contacted the NYSDOT once before, as the shield is theirs (it is used on Long Island parkways maintained by the state). In general, they do not enforce copyrights on shields under their control, which is why I uploaded them the way I did. (2) is different because this is considered privately controlled (by the Thruway Authority), so I declared it Fair Use instead. --WhosAsking 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts regarding works made by the USSR

Current Wikipedia policy on works made by the Soviet government is considering these works copyrighted and not appropriate for Wikipedia. But it should be noted that all state property in the USSR was constiturionally declared all-people's domain, an analog to western public domain. These works (for example, photographs from space) could be used freely by any citizen for any purpose unless the information is secret. So these items should be considered public domain at least in Russia. After the breakup of the USSR there were attempts to transfere some intellectual property to private companies, but those schemes are mostly illegal and are contested in courts.--Dojarca 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are three view drawings of aircraft PD-ineligable ?

A deletion discussion is taking place at [2] which appears to be arguing that three view drawings of aircraft are ineligable for copyright. Megapixie 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy write an Plagiarism Question

Is it appropriate to use material from a particular source, but to credit that particular sources citations in the article instead of the author? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays

Since we are now receiving copyright opinions and advice from the Foundation's attorney, we need a place to keep track of them for use as precedent (and so he hopefully doesn't get asked the same question 1000 times). So here it is: Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays. -- But|seriously|folks  21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate if someone with more familiarity with copyright issues and Wikipedia could take a look at the discussion at User_talk:Andi064#Joanne_Catherall_EL. I removed an EL for a fansite that had lyrics on it with no obvious "reproduced by permission" notice on it that I could find, and it got reverted by another editor, who justified the inclusion on the provided link. Would appreciate someone more knowledgeable about the subject helping make the decision on how to proceed. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for expert opinion on DRV

We've got a Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 17#Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development of an article deleted for being a copyright violation of a State of California webpage. That webpage says "© 2004 State of California", but links to a condition of use page that says "In general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." Can someone with more knowledge than those of us who are deletion focused give us an opinion? Thanks. GRBerry 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is not copyrighted and could be used. However instead it should be strongly edited for encyclopedic style, etc. Rmhermen 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deals with pre-1989 law, so I'm having trouble finding the answer. Say an organization created a design (yes, a highway shield). Does every publication of that design have to include the copyright notice for it to be copyrighted, or does only the very first publication require it? --NE2 11:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the answer in [3] and especially [4]:

With respect to copies and

phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the omission of the copyright notice described in sections 401 through 403 from copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright in a work if -

[(1) it's on most copies, (2) registration is made within five years AND a "reasonable effort" is made to add it to all previous copies, or (3) it's been omitted by a third party under certain conditions]

So the answer seems to be that "no more than a relatively small number of copies" must include the notice. The only question is its applicability to highway shields:
  • Are highway shields publications? Nevada seems to think so, and common sense also suggests that they are. But law, common sense, etc...
  • Are the other conditions met? The process of making highway shields often goes through a third party that makes the signs, but the authority is the one that actually designs the shield. If I take a book to Kinko's to get it printed, that shouldn't affect any copyright I hold on it; again common sense etc. Another possible problem is whether signs are "more than a relatively small number of copies"; that's probably true, but it depends how many maps of the road were published by the authority. Even if that is a problem, we should be able to check renewal records if the road is old enough, but would the combination of the expiration of map copies and the omission of a notice on "real-life" copies add up properly? There may be an annoying loophole here. --NE2 11:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's probably easier to consider a specific case: the New Jersey Turnpike. [5] was taken in 1969. This shows the same design as at present (Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg; assume it's not PD-ineligible). The sign was not put up by the Turnpike Authority, but the shield was either provided by them or made with specifications given by them. What conditions would have to be met for it to be public domain? --NE2 11:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The printing of highway signs is prima facie a publication, since the design is reproduced and put on public display. If there are no © marks on highway signs, and no effort has been made by the state to put © marks on them since 1978, it's pretty clear that they were published in their primary form without a copyright notice. It seems to me that if you can show that (a) a certain highway sign design was used before 1978, and (b) that sign does not have a © mark, then it was never copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the state hired an outside design firm to design the sign, it would be a work for hire, and would be treated as if the state created it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Why the 1978 date though? I thought the cutoff was 1989. --NE2 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky. If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, and it was published without a copyright notice, it's in the public domain. If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, and it was published without a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain only if the author failed to subsequently register that copyright. (This is difficult to determine.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How useful will [6] be? It should be easy to get each name the authority used; would it be enough to search author and claimant for those? --NE2 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I can't tell for sure, but this seems to be complete for copyrights registered after 1977 (which is what would be important in this case. I'm not sure how to ensure you're doing a thorough search (Is the claimant the State of New Jersey, or the New Jersey Department of Transportation, etc.), but this could work for 1/1/1978-2/28/1989 signs. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do a combined search and not just a claimant, it searches the entire record, so one would think a copyright for the New Jersey Turnpike shield would contain the words New Jersey Turnpike somewhere in the record. --Holderca1 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the claimant searches only the beginning of the field; does the combined search fix that? --NE2 13:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free forever

"Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."

Is the word "forever" appropriate? GFDL restrictions (I won't call them "freedoms") on a work will, like other copyrights, eventually expire, so current versions of Wikipedia will in time enter the public domain. Of course, then they really will be "free forever", so maybe this doesn't matter ...

BuilderQ 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "forever" part is appropriate for the freedom of the work on Wikipedia, but it doesn't apply to the "subject to certain restrictions". Eventually, the work will be public domain, and not subject to restrictions, such as the requirement to acknowledge the copyright holder, or to echo the GFDL on derivative works, etc. Sancho 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image of a painting from 1834

I found an image in a book of a painting from 1834. Can I use this image as public domain? Sancho 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. I found the answer at Wikipedia:Public_domain. Sancho 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers/partial moves

If I move a discussion from my talk page to another user's talk page, is it technically a violation of the GFDL? The attribution for the edits in the discussion isn't preserved in the history there. Likewise, is "summary style" (moving paragraphs in an article to a separate page when they get too long) a violation of the GFDL? Melsaran (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested in copyrights and public domain should take a look at this article: Copyfraud and the lengthy paper by Jason Mazzone that is cited in the article.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota government works

Based on [7], which states "Government information shall exist in the public domain to the greatest extent possible", am I correct in saying that most or all works of the Minnesota government are in the public domain? If so, should we create a tag such as {{PD-MNGov}}? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a statement of principles, which has absolutely no legal meaning. If you can come up with a law that implements this, then maybe there's something worth considering. --Carnildo 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring here to Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg in particular. There's some more discussion and arguments at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 28#Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg. Enlightening comments would be welcome. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to [8], the font used for the "Alberta" in en:Image:AB-provincial highway.png is "restricted to provincial government departments and agencies". I know that fonts are generally not copyrightable in the U.S. (is that true in Canada?); what exactly does that mean here? Can I create an SVG version, or do I have to use a publicly available font that looks similar for a public domain version? --NE2 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, raster copies of fonts are always public domain, but vector copies of fonts are not always public domain. So, I would guess that an SVG version created entirely from a raster copy could be public domain, but if you used a copyright font to create it then it would not be in the public domain. Still, I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you a definitive answer. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fonts are indeed a very tricky point of copyright law, and courts have ruled in seemingly contradictory ways, depending on what specific case you are citing and how the copyright law is interpreted. A "font file" on a computer can be considered copyrighted, particularly when you can demonstrate that some algorithmic process or "programming language" is involved in creating the rendering of the font. But it gets worse.
Scans of a page full of a font can't be copyrighted (with royalties paid) by the typographer. This was deemed as copyright abuse as it would make virtually all written words subject to font copyright royalties, essentially making the font creator the arbitrator of what could be reproduced if it was created using that font.
On the other hand, even some very simply "rastor fonts" such as those used on electronic signs have been held as something subject to copyright. Think here about a simple time and temperature sign that may also send a holiday message like "Merry Christmas" or "Drive Safely" depending on the season outside of a small business. If you can document that you created a unique typography for a sign like that which is only 7 pixels high and 8 pixels wide, you can register copyright for that typography with the Library of Congress and require the sign manufacturing company to pay royalties for that font. Fortunately there are only so many ways you can render the letter "A" in an array of 7 x 8 pixels. This does get more complicated when you are dealing with larger sign sizes however. One manufacturer of a stadium sign was successfully sued for displaying a font that had not been licensed by the typographer for use in that venue. This is a raster font I'm talking about here, not just the "font file", and something that was used for public display (player information at a baseball game).
So the rest of the fair use principles would have to apply to the use of the font, considering potential economic damages to the typographer (are you making a competing font that looks identical?), use in different non-competing media, non-commercial use (a consideration), and the rest of the ideas in Fair use. And perhaps most importantly.... do you have a bank account that is large enough that if you were to be found violating a copyright that it would be worth the time to take you to court? Most organizations and companies with enough money to worry about this generally stay well on the safe side the law and often give in to even the threat of a potential lawsuit for copyright violation by seeking settlement or payment of royalties, even if it isn't needed. And that is American law.
P.S. Most of the "fonts" on your personal computer have been licensed for the applications that you are using them for, including any word processors and documents that you might create with them. Read the fine print if you don't believe me on this issue. There are some genuinely "free" fonts, but it can sometimes be very difficult to find them, particularly if you are looking for fonts of non-Latin characters like Chinese or Thai. Don't presume that "raster copies of fonts are always public domain", because that is only in some rare exceptions. Certainly typography companies would have you to believe otherwise, and this isn't a clear issue of law on this point. Generally you can find type faces and glyphs of most font type styles of Latin characters simply due to the expiration of copyright on those font faces (i.e. published first prior to 1923). But like documenting any expired copyright, beware and make sure you can document that it does date back to those early dates. And don't expect typographers to make it easy for you to identify what fonts really are in the public domain. --Robert Horning 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At WikiProject Schools we are trying establish some basic guidelines on the copyright and reproduction of school songs, hymns, prayers, etc. As far as I can establish from studying the various Wikipedia guidelines, copyright expires between 50 and 70 years after the author's death. I believe therefore that it is possible to publish in full the song lyrics to for instance the La Martiniere School song on the La Martiniere Lucknow page as the author died in 1909. However, we currently have two good articles Auburn High School and Baltimore City College both of which reproduce lyrics written in the twentieth century. I have tried posting notices on both talk pages about the copyright status of these songs but have not received any replies. In addition I note that there is an entire category dedicated to something called fight songs at Category:Fight songs. I've only looked briefly at these songs but a lot of them seem to have been written quite recently and would appear to be infringing the copyright laws. Some songs are anonymous. What are the copyright laws in this case? Does copyright expire a given number of years after first publication or performance? Can anyone provide a brief outline of the copyright situation which we can put on the main project page to ensure that we are not permitting the publication of any copyrighted material? Dahliarose 12:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that if in doubt, presume that a song is copyrighted and you can't reproduce the lyrics of that music. However, you can assume that songs which were first performed prior to 1923 (in the USA) are in the public domain... other claims of copyright not withstanding. Songs written before 1964 may be in the public domain, as American copyright law prior to 1964 required explicit copyright registration and copyright renewal. Some books and music has been explicitly identified as in the public domain using these laws, but it can be a legal mess to sort through.
Generally speaking, the current copyright law is life of the composer + 75 years.... with the potential (such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act) which strongly suggests copyright may actually be perpetual. Also known as the Disney effect, where any time the copyright for any Disney content might enter the public domain, copyright law is modified to expand how long copyright protection is enforced. But courts have ruled that anything which already was considered in the public domain can't have copyright reasserted later.
For any music written after 1964, you should simply mark any of those pages as having a copyright violation ({{Copyvio}}). It will be the year 2040 at the earliest before these will enter the public domain, and copyright is assumed as soon as it is placed on a tangible medium (aka actually written down or recorded). Even if the author of the work explicitly releases copyright to the public domain, that fact may be hard to prove. Certainly I would be very wary of including the lyrics of school "fight songs" on Wikipedia pages because of the current copyright laws.
The schools themselves may have copyright authority over these songs, but I've seen problems even with that presumption. In one case, the copyright was held privately by the head football coach (so he could make a bit more money on his own), or simply held by the student/faculty member that originally wrote the song and the school didn't bother getting a copyright assignment. For this reason, I would even be wary of trying to get permission from the school to grant a GFDL license over the lyrics of these songs. --Robert Horning 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting webmasters to switch CC licenses of images

I've been searching around Google, looking for webpages that are free to share, distribute and modify. Many have very nice images, but are either CC licensed with NoDerivs or NoCommercial. I've been emailing webmasters, asking them permission to release them without those parameters. How will most webmasters respond? If they distribute them with a CC license in the first place, would they be just as willing to let it be on Wikipedia?--Alasdair 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the one case where I tried - Image:LIC Yard-9-21-04.jpg - I was successful. --NE2 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the talk page?

The instructions here (section "If you find a copyright infringement") need some co-ordination with the procedure given at WP:CP. In particular, WP:CP doesn't seem to say anything about notes on the talk page. Kappa 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The instructions here say "A note should be made on the talk page"[reply]

Proposed change to {{PD-Art}}

Hello I have proposed a change to {{PD-Art}}. At the moment the template ignores one of the basic property laws, by making it sound like if the uploader is in the USA, they may release a work into the Public Domain, even though the copyright is legally detained by a person in another country. If you are interested in discussing please see Template talk:PD-art#International issues, Thanks. Jackaranga 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on there was too long, sorry, so I reduced it to 3 lines 3 line version, please read if possible, PD-Art on wikipedia and on the commons are almost entirely different, needs to be corrected. Jackaranga 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This text should not be changed for legal reasons."

This text should not be changed for legal reasons.

Shouldn't that be "For legal reasons, this text should not be changed."? The current version almost implies that we can change it, as long as our reason is not a legal reason. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to simply "This text must not be changed." Sancho 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution to photographer in PD photo

In the article Bathhouse Row, images are added that are in the Public Domain. If you click on the images on the website from which they are taken, the images have the photographer's name on them. Example: [9] However, the images used in the article have been taken out of a PDF document and the attribution text is missing. Is this O.K. or should the attribution information remain on the photos in the article? Thanks. --Mattisse 15:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an image is in the public domain, any modification may be made to it, including the removal of the attribution information. Adding the attribution information to the image description page would be helpful though, in order for future uses to investigate themselves the licensing of the image. Sancho 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

A question about lists that I posted elsewhere a week ago has gone unanswered. (Not even "What a stupid question!") Could somebody take a look? Thanks. -- Hoary 09:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you may be aware, in some countries (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules), photographs of 2 dimensional works that have fallen into the public domain still attract copyright. On the commons it specifically says:

When should the {{PD-Art}} tag not be used?

  • Where the photograph was taken in a country (such as the UK) where faithful photographic reproductions of 2D works of art are generally considered to be protected by copyright, or in a country (such as a Nordic country) that provides 'simple photograph' protection.
  • My concern is that this fact seems to be totally ignored on en.wikipedia, under the assumption, that in the USA people can do what they like, because if the photography had been taken in the USA it would attract no copyright. Personally I believe it is illegal for Americans to violate European copyrights, however this is very complicated for me and I may be wrong.
  • However I believe the goal of wikipedia has never been to steal European work under cover of legal confusion

On this page it specifically says:

Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself.
and Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world.
  • If wikipedia prefers to honor the copyrights of countries like Iran, that have no copyright relations with the USA, then why ignore copyrights contracted in the UK for example. Furthermore this is supposed to be the English language wikipedia, and we can assume many users are in the UK, why make them risk legal problems by viewing images they are not allowed to view ? This is a basic lack of courtesy.
  • {{PD-Art}} is clearly violating the policy on this page, and should be changed to something like what they have on the commons.
  • Also I find the attitude of pick and choose the easiest option hypocritical: we have templates for images that are PD because they are from a country that has released them into the Public Domain earlier than might have been the case in the USA. For example on this page there is mention of Russia, or Algeria etc. If we are honoring this fact, is it not very hypocritical to not honor the fact that photos taken in the UK are subject to copyright ?
  • The commons has gone to much trouble describing the specifics of the PD-Art template, yet here the policy is Who cares this is the USA, ignore all other countries.
  • Wikipedia should call itself the American wikipedia, if it deliberately chooses to violate British copyrights, and display images that the viewing of, could get British people into trouble for. In case anyone was wondering, the English language actually developed in England, and I think stealing British Museums' works while simultaneously claiming this is the English Language wikipedia is hypocritical. Jackaranga 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were recent similar discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Template_talk:PD-art regarding this question. Sancho 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Lighthouse Ministry

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but the current statement in the policy --

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 [1]).

fosters an overbroad implication, to say the least. Only one case has made this finding, and two others have explicitly made the opposite finding, and a raft of other cases have implicitly made the opposite finding. Rather than suggesting striking the sentence entirely or writing a lot of other text, I'd like to propose a somewhat more moderate and accurate wording:

Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in one district court case in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]), although other cases have suggested otherwise.<ref>See, e.g., ''Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.'', No. CV 99-7654 HLH(BQRX), 2000 WL 525390 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000); 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483 (C.D. Cal. 2003); ''Bernstein v. J.C. Peny ,Inc.'', No. 98-2958 R EX, 1998 WL 906644 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 1998).''</ref>

If Wikimedia's policy is simply to take the absolutely most conservative reading, that's fine; however, the policy should not incorrectly state the rationale as if it were decided law in the US that linking is contributory infringement. It is not. --lquilter 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:GSFDL

I've opened a discussion on the next generation of our license at Wikipedia:GSFDL comments from as many as possible are requested.Geni 02:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a picture

Just a quick sanity-check: for an uploaded photograph or scan of an original photograph: the copyright is that of the original, not the editor's photo or scan of it, right? So an editor couldn't claim a more permissive copyright status ("I took this picture-of-picture and assert {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}") than the original has without some sort of justification for over-riding an original's copyright status (one that doesn't seem to allow republication)? DMacks 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Rmhermen 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The free encyclopedia

Imagine the following. Wikipedia has an article on Subject X, an organisation copies it somewhere on their websiteand credits it to Wikipedia (to comply with the GFDL), and several years later the article is deleted on grounds of non-notability. Would the organisation then be in violation of the GFDL? After all, the article doesn't exist anymore on Wikipedia, so there is no way to check who wrote what. Melsaran (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have your copyright law and GFDL requirements sorely mistaken. You don't have to credit Wikipedia if you copy something from Wikipedia (although you are encouraged to do so). But you do have to credit at least five authors... the five "leading" authors of the article if you do make a copy of it. The exact metric for what makes somebody one of the five leading authors is not in the GFDL, so that is something up to interpretation.
Or more to the point, an article is copyrighted not by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, but by the individual authors and contributors. If you violate copyright, you are violating their copyright, not the WMF's copyright.
If an organization is violating the terms of the GFDL (removing authorship information entirely or claiming the work as their own), its status on Wikipedia is irrelevant. Even if the article has been deleted due to non-notability or some other crazy criteria, it still has copyright status with those original contributors. And BTW, deleted articles are still maintained in the Wikipedia database, just not "published" for everybody to see. If you want to "prove" legally that the article did exist at some point in the past, you could get an "administrator" to pull up the edit history and article content, or even "undelete" the article temporarily. The only reason an article is currently "permanently" deleted is due to a blatant copyright violation or some other critical problem, such as disclosure of private identification information like an SSN. And that takes more than a mere admin to perform that sort of deletion. --Robert Horning 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers and GFDL

Hello,

recently a user changed the {{R from merge}} template to display a warning that basically says, "don't use this template". He claims a GFDL problem, referring to a mailing list discussion (see Template talk:R from merge#Template and the GFDL).

However, all instructions, such as WP:MM, refer to this template and encourage (if not require) its use. This seems very confusing.

Is there really a GFDL issue here? If so, the documentation should be updated soon. How should mergers be performed when not using the template? Could someone clarify? --B. Wolterding 13:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNU FDL- 4.B

In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either ... you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

i think there should be added: "and if the author of the material has given permission to not-showing his name after the title", following GNU FDL- 4.B:

unless they release you from this requirement.

more full quote:

4. MODIFICATIONS In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: ... B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, 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. ...

quote about title:

1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS ... The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

now at Wikipedia:Copyrights is writed thus:

Contributors' rights and obligations If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

and nothing about that wikipedia-writer must write author names after title of the material, and so wikipedia-writers ca easily terminate gnu fdl license by not writing/showing/listing at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five) "on the Title Page" (For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.15 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same is writen here (not by me): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.15 (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) russian wikipedia:criticizm of wikipedia:?nonobservance of gnu fdl -4.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.15 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if I found a web site that verbatim copy from Wikipedia without GFDL provided?

I found a website Panyathai (http://www.panyathai.or.th/wiki), they copied hundreds or thousands of Wikipedia articles without providing source or GFDL link. They say only "Thank you Wikipedia" and that's all. What should I do in this case? I contact the website owner last two months but they haven't got me back. --Manop - TH 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MIRROR#Non-compliance_process and meta:vigilante GFDL enforcement. Martin 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website utilizing Wikipedia data, GFDL restrictions?

Regarding the GFDL license of Wikipedia, I have a question for which I could not yet find a direct answer. Perhaps someone here could help me?

Say someone downloaded the wikipedia data (from http://download.wikimedia.org/) and set up a website which answered some specific kind of users' queries based on the data, using some advanced, proprietary, secret algorithm, and did not release the code. Would this be a breach of the license? (Of course, the system would acknowledge and link back to the original article(s) from which the original data was taken.)

Let me give a concrete example: The wikipedia contains a lot of data on various sports, such as yearly final standings of the NBA. One could write a piece of software which analyzed this data and, based on users queries, output some reprocessed versions of it. Would setting up such a website (say, for making money by selling ads) and not releasing the source code violate the copyright?

From reading the license and various discussions on the net my guess is that this is perfectly legitimate use of the wikipedia data. For instance, I found the following quote: "Generally, a summary (or analysis) of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail, at which point it becomes an abridgement and not a summary." Nevertheless, I am not completely sure and so I thought I'd ask the experts, i.e. you.

Thanks a lot for any help/comments!

--Phoyer 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may use whatever super secret software you want. That is not a problem. The resulting summaries it generates would either have to be licensed under the GFDL, qualify as fair use, or in the extreme case be so reduced as to not include any copryightable elements of the original. For the latter case, I would note that isolated sports results are an example of factual elements that can't be copyrightable. Dragons flight 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos on "useful objects"

Discussion copied to Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems#Logos on "useful_objects". Please reply there.

As I understand it, objects whose "useful purpose" outweighs their creativity are automatically considered PD-ineligible. For example, the creative element (e.g. colour and shape) will not affect the nature of a pen or a bus, whereas it will affect the nature of a sculpture or a painting.

There are a lot of "PD-ineligible" images here however, which contain the manufacturer's logo, which by itself IS copyrighted. My question therefore is "If an image of a 'useful object' contains a copyrighted component, should the image remain PD ineligible?". I suspect not, but I'd appreciate some more input here. There are a lot of these images being moved to Commons, when I think they should actually stay here under fair use.

A couple of examples:

Thanks, Papa November 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awful fair use rationale

Can someone look at the fair use rationale on [[10]]? I don't even know where to begin...Compaqdrew 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Tagged as bad rationale. Papa November 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons question

Is content taken from daviswiki.org OK? or COPYVIO? It is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution License" which when clicked on the bottom of their pages points to version 3.0. Carlossuarez46 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's okay, as long as attribution is provided. --Carnildo 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For text it is not okay. Only text in the Public Domain or under the GFDL is allowed. Images under Creative Commons are allowed. Garion96 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tobe more precise, images under CC-BY-SA or any subset of those restrictions are OK; that includes CC-BY. But CC-NC is not acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, text under CC-BY is allowed, because the CC-BY license permits us to re-license it under the GFDL. --Carnildo (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's yet a consensus on that. I would steer clear of it, because CC-BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode) says, "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work." GFDL is more restrictive than CC-BY. Also, we don't really have any means to note which text is CC-BY. An explicit identification, along with a link to the license, would be necessary for each use. Superm401 - Talk 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat offenders

I have edited language on the project page to include this unambiguous statement, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project." A statement of this sort may be required by a provision of the DMCA:

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and"

We have the policy, but not the statement. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word "copyrighted" to "infringing", which I think is a technicality. It's okay to post non-free content that complies with the non-free content policy, and GDFL content is, technically, copyrighted (but "free" if posted correctly).
We could tweak it to draw a distinction between different kinds of violations. For example, some administrators block users who persistently load non-free images without including a use rationale, which is not necessarily infringing. But perhaps best to just leave the statement broad and leave it up to administrators' discretion to deal with when it comes up. - Wikidemo (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of Referring to Flickr Images

I wanted to ask if all the images located here [11] are infringing or circumventing Wikipedia's image copyright vetting system, by referencing them to Flickr. The images were originally uploaded directly to wikipedia, but the copyright status was questioned [12] and hence the uploader had changed the rationale to point to Flicker [13]. I am completely new to this and wanted to get some external input. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Examples of Good Practice with GFDL

I am planning to start a wiki which I would like to 'seed' with a number of articles derived from wikipedia. Originally I just assumed all I would need to do this would be to put my own wiki under the GFDL and reference wikipedia as the source of any derived articles. I have now realised it is far more complex than that; so complex I don't actually understand what I am required to do. Do I need to find the last five editors of each article and refer to them under the title? Do I need to change my system so it does not allow anonymous edits in order to keep a track of history? etc etc. It would be far easier to understand if there were some pointers to examples of good practice. Clearly these could not be guaranteed to be compliant, and they would have to be dated ('this was a good example as of November 2007'), but they would still be very helpful in trying to interpret the mass of conditions in the GFDL (how on earth does anyone enforce the 'more than 100 printouts' type of conditions? If you have no invariant or title pages, where is all the required information supposed to go? etc)

Marinheiro (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (It is possible that what I am trying to do is meant to be discouraged by the license; if so, it would also be helpful to know that. I would rather comply with the spirit than just the letter)[reply]

The problem is that that would probably count as outright legal advice which would be problematical.Geni 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is trying to insert language into Wikipedia:Citing sources which advocates archiving sources using the http://www.webcitation.org/ site. Although the homepage of that site says it "can be used by authors, editors, and publishers of scholarly papers and books" the new "Citing sources" language advocates that Wikipedia editors submit sites for archiving, regardless of whether the Wikipedia editor has any authority to do so under the copyright laws. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a link to a website like this which automatically redirects to any other webpage considered a link only to ultimod or is it considered a link to the redirected webpage?--24.62.236.10 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights&oldid=175047768"