User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • And, now, the final section of media file policy in admin coaching.
  • Let's start out with some review. In your own words, explain freedom of panorama, De minimis, and derivative works. Consider why they are significant and how they tie in to media files.
A:
  • FOP: The legal provision that allows someone to take a photograph of a building or object permanently located in public space. For example, if someone takes a picture of an average building downtown, there is no provision given to the building designer to claim copyright infringement on that photograph. In the US, buildings are given FOP, but public artworks are not. So for example, graffiti designed as art has a copyright to it, as do public sculptures.
  • DM - when an image technically speaking is part derivative, but the derivative is so "trivial" as to render it irrelevant. Generally this means that the reproduced copyright is below the threshold of creativity necessary to show a substantial similarity. For example, a song playing in the background of a video I've taped at a bowling alley: if after very close observation, I notice it belongs to a famous artist, but can only tell because of the way a few chords fall in line, because the rest is indecipherable - this is not a CV. It is always necessary to show that the copyrighted work is not the main purpose of the main work as well - this provides the unusual situation in which a derivative of the original may in fact be a copyright violation:
Take for example, a photo of Hillary Clinton, which has a very low resolution poster for Avatar in the background - 20th Century Fox has no right to sue for copyright violation. However, if someone were to crop the picture of Clinton to only focus on the poster, or if someone used the image to demonstrate the poster in an article on Avatar: this is a copyright violation.
  • DW - An easy one! A work which is derived from another work. The maker of the derived work can rightfully claim this is a copyright violation. An obvious case would be to bring a video camera into a movie theater and stream it live over the internet - obviously the movie studio has a right to take exception to this. Most examples are less nefarious though - such as the one I brought up to you of someone taking a picture of an airplane wing with the company logo on it. A less obvious example is fan art. However, see FOP and DM above.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work. A quick caveat: derivative works must have attribution information. Use metadata to your advantage and observe the type of media file (collages, retouched photos, cropped photos, ect. all tend to be derivative works). Any derivative work (or suspected derivative work) missing attribution information should be nominated for deletion at WP:FFD, or for more serious cases involving non-free content, deleted under F9. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy in RL at the moment, but I'll have some exercises posted within <8hrs from now. I really do appreciate your patience! -FASTILY (TALK) 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright well hurry up already! Just kidding: I'm patient; I just lost my employment recently (stupid downsizing), so I have a lot of free time on my hands. Take your time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you the best of luck through your search for a new job. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The following questions are about what we just discussed, De minimis, Derivative Works, and Freedom of Panorama. Should be fairly simple.
YesY1. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-self}} (public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
A: Each one of those pictures is a derivative work (haven't we been over this? it's ok if not.).
Lol yeah actually. It was a question I've asked you before. The file I describe above is a derivative of files licensed under a non-free license. Therefore, all derivatives of those original files MUST be tagged as copyrighted/non-free (with whatever license is applicable). Don't dual license (e.g. PD and non-free something, cc-by and PD) - it legally doesn't work and can be [deliberately] misleading to people who wish to modify/re-use works. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
YesY2. Let's say the user in question one obtains the images from an online source instead, creating a collage. They select the license, {{non-free character}}. What do you do?
A: At very least, it fails WP:NFCC#3a, such as if it's posted to the Disney article. If it's posted to the cartoon article, it also fails WP:NFCC#1.
Not a very specific question, but it's good you're looking for specific examples. I think you meant WP:NFCC#3b above, but eh, if you're in the 3 range it's close enough for me. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
YesY3. An editor takes a photo of a publicly displayed non-free work of art in Shanghai, China, and uploads the file to Wikipedia under the license, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. What do you do, if anything?
A: The file is free in China, but not in the US. Because Wikimedia's servers are here, it is our policy at the moment to require it be free in the US. I'd put the file through PUF or FFD.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Carefully re-read the FOP in general and then FOP on China. China allows complete freedom of panorma. This means that photos of any creative works (namely buildings, statues) displayed in a public location are fair game, they can be licensed in any way the photographer chooses. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Responses on three issues:
  1. I commented on that file on your talk page. Twinkle lists the policy incorrectly, which was throwing me for a loop. I'm pretty unhappy about that one right now.
    No worries, hopefully that will be changed soon. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. No, I meant 3a, there are multiple fair use images within that image...
    Well, er, that would make it wrong. 3a applies to multiple individual files. 3b applies when multiple images are stitched together into one file. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. For the China issue: the file must be PD in the US, not just in the home country: per commons:COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. Where does it say on that page that it doesn't have to be PD in the US? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    I've read those pages before. They can be verbose and confusing, which is why I didn't include them in my admin coaching curriculum. I think that example could have been better worded; PD was used as the license in the example for simplicity's sake. In summary, the section dictates that any creative works produced in foreign nations must have bear the same license/copyright status and have a license compatible with the Wikimedia Commons. Check it out: "For a photograph to be acceptable for upload to Commons, it must be public domain in France, the UK and the US, or there must be an acceptable copyright license for the photograph that covers the UK, US and France" -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    OK, there must be an acceptable copyright license - does that mean we would have to mark it as fair use for the US, but PD/free use in China? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    No, for a media file created in another country to be valid on Commons, it must meet the following criteria, no exceptions:
    • Must be a freely licensed under a license compatible with Commons (i.e. no NC license, restrictions on derivatives, no restrictions on usage)
    • The photo (and all derivatives) must be licensed under a license acceptable to the copyright laws of the country it was created in (aka FOP). The license must also be acceptable to the US copyright.
    Does this make more sense? If you feel we need to spend more time on this topic, please do let me know. It's actually a fairly important aspect of media files that shouldn't be missed out on and I will be more than happy to go back and review this with you if need be. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    The license must also be acceptable to the US copyright. - but it's not acceptable to US copyright because the FOP doesn't apply here, right? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, but you see now, FOP in China applies to everything - Commons:COM:FOP#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of. Let's have a look at another example, say Costa Rica. Costa Rica's laws on FOP declares works of art acquired by authorities displayed in public locations to be fair game. One can go to Costa Rica and snap photos of any work of art they please, and license it however they please. However, taking a picture of a building or a street and licensing it under a free license is prohibited. Any such photo would not be acceptable to Commons, but could be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free. As you can see, the FOP page on Commons is limited in it's scope. Items checked in green can be licensed however the photographer desires. Items checked in red, on the other hand, cannot be licensed however the photographer wishes. Does this make more sense? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    I understand it's free in China, but it's not free in the US where the servers are housed, because we don't have FOP for artwork here. Thus it is not an acceptable license in the US. All files uploaded must have an acceptable license in the US. If the servers were housed in China, there would be no problems, but they're housed in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    Fuck me sideways with a pineapple. Excuse the language, and feel free to use this. I failed to read my own question properly, missing "non-free artwork". I've been working under the assumption that the artwork was free D: Please accept my sincere apologies. I'm honestly happy you picked up on that and didn't just drop it when I stopped making sense in terms of the question, duh. I feel doubly bad now that I'm supposed to be coaching you in the fine aspects of media file policy when my own slip-up lead to an assertion of a gross misrepresentation of policy. Yes, you are right that a photograph of a non-free work of art in China should be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free, and not to Commons, where it would be out of scope. Of course, for a free work of art, it's fair game. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 04:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    Haha, I was hoping you'd see my point here, although I didn't expect such a trite and dramatic apology. Anyway, just cuz you asked, I got a gift just for the occasion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)