Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.../Archive 1

Church denomination logo

I would like to use the Cross Triumphant logo of the United Church of Christ on the UCC article. The UCC website [1] says that it is trademarked. I know next to nothing about copyright and trademark legislation. Please advise: will I have to write to ask for permission, or will it fall under fair use?

Thanks very much. aliceinlampyland 14:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Anybody read Japanese?

I want to post some pictures from the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA): specifically, images taken by the space probe Hayabusa. I am hoping that, like NASA, they will regard such images to be public domain. Their copyright policy is set out here but I don't read Japanese. Can anyone help? The Singing Badger 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

User Kwamikagami offers the following comments; anyone else care to give a second opinion on the translation and the status of the images? The Singing Badger 00:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Offhand it looks like the typical disclaimer: okay to use for educational purposes if credit is given, but not for commercial use. I believe that such copyrighted images are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Also, photos of people require their individual consent, beyond JAXA's copyright protection. kwami 23:47, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

I think it would be helpful in the apartheid article to include the full text of the definition of apartheid, from Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. However, at the bottom of the text of the Convention (at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm ), it says © Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland. Does this mean it would be illegal to copy the definition into our article? Thanks GrahamN 16:42 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

It would certainly be within fair use guidelines to use an extract of the text to illustrate a point. If you want to copy large swaths of text, e-mail their office and ask. :) --Brion

There are 2261 words in the convention, and I'd like to quote 397 of them. This is about 18% of the text. Does this amount to a swath? GrahamN 16:53 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

I wouldn't worry about it. For especially small works like that, "fair use" is more lenient. For example, textbooks routinely quote whole poems to show style; they certainly couldn't quote a whole novel, though. Besides, it's also pretty easy to argue that a legal definition is of utterly no use unless it's quoted exactly and completely. --LDC

Doesn't the price of such textbooks include a royalty for licensing the copyrights on poems? --Damian Yerrick

class notes

In a spanish web forum a user asked about the copyright situation of notes taken in a class. Any comments? --AN

Well, if the person doesn't feel qualified to organize the information herself and express it herself, maybe it isn't a good idea to do that particular article. The legalistic answer is that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. It would certainly be illegal to write down the professor's words verbatim and then put them on wikipedia. There's also the issue of plagiarism, which can be addressed by properly crediting the source, but again, it just raises the question of whether the idea was appropriate in the first place. --User:Bcrowell

patent drawings

Does anyone have any thoughts about using patent drawings as illustrations? I assume they're in the public domain from the moment the patent is filed, or they pass into the public domain when the patent expires, but I just don't know for sure. --ridetheory 1 Feb 2003

movie stills

Do you reckon using stills from a DVD counts as fair use? There's probably plenty of images that I could take from my DVDs that could be used for the relevant movie and even in other contexts. Mintguy

IANAL but I do know that stills from a movie are fair use when used to illustrate an article about the movie. --mav

There's been a small DVD capture on The Matrix article for some time now. I haven't seen any fuss over that one, so perhaps it's OK. Minesweeper 09:40 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Billboard chart rankings

So, after having adding Billboard chart rankings to bunches of albums cut-and-pasted from allmusic, I discovered the fine print. It says that the info is tagged so they'll know that it came from them, and that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed. (to see it, just search for an album that you know charted in the US and click on the Billboard rankings and Grammy Awards link) My understanding is that information, such as the details of an album/singles chart ranking can not be copyrighted, and so their threat doesn't apply to Wikipedia. (if anyone could copyright it, I would expect Billboard, not allmusic) Am I correct? Tuf-Kat

IANAL but I do know that any claim to be able to copyright information is totally bunk. They can, however, claim copyright on their particular formatting so long as it is somehow unique and an artistic expression. But if, on the other hand, they try to intentionally introduce typos in order to catch copiers then that is plain evil and probably only something they could use to scare people into not copying the information they have collected. The legality of creating booby traps like that seems really thin to me (like misspelling, on average, every 100th person's name in a phone book in order to prevent a competing phone book provider from using the same information - I don't see how that can be considered to be a creative expression). Just my 2 cents. --mav 07:09 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica hieroglyphs copyright

Copyright query: On Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org), hieroglyphs for certain gods are given as image files. Are these okay to use? Obviously, they're not copyrighted by the people who etched them on the walls of the Pyramids or whatever, but the images appear to be computer-generated, not photos or anything. I know letters can't be copyrighted, and I'm assuming that, since they couldn't copyright Chinese characters for example, they can't do the same for hieroglyphics. Is that right?

For an example, go to http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/saa.html Tokerboy 22:09 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

You wrote "I know letters can't be copyrighted", and I wonder what exactly you meant by this. While the letter "A" cannot generically have a copyright filed, a font designer could argue that an individual artistic representation of the letter "A" could be. The exact copyright status of fonts is a hot legal topic, with (as usual) the law being different from country to country. -º¡º

Your question is essentially the same as mine. Where is the line between calligraphy and simple reproductions of uncopyrighted symbols? Most importantly, which side of the line do the hieroglyphs at encyclopedia mythica fall on? Tuf-Kat

Beats me. Wouldn't the *safest* thing to do be either to email them and ask for permission or just create our own? -º¡º

I e-mailed him about the time I left the above message on October 2, 2002 and never heard back. I suppose I'll have to ask around to see if someone can draw me a Egyptian-looking falcon (etc.). Tuf-Kat

usenet FAQ

Sorry if this was discussed before but I did not find anything on the subject. I would like to know whether text from a usenet faq can be used on wikipedia. For example, http://www.faqs.org/faqs/gardens/roses-faq/part1/ (and subsequent documents) mentions authorship but not copyright. If the author´s permission is required, how can this be obtained for a multi-authored work? Thanks, Nafnaf

7. Disclaimer/Copyright

"The Rose FAQ" is copyrighted 1996. Before reprinting a FAQ article (or
major portions of one) for other than personal use, please obtain permission
from the author of the article.

I suggest sending the boilerplate request for permission to Bill Chandler, and seeing how it goes from here. Martin 18:34 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nowegian Statistical Central Bureau

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

The norwegian SSB (Statistisk Sentralbyrå/Statistical Central Bureau) has a license for its data which states (my translation, see this page for the norwegian version):

SSB gives permission to store electronically, print, copy and propagate material from our web site (text, tables and figures). This permission requires reference to the source from whence the data is taken ("source: Statistisk sentralbyrå"). The source citation must be in direct connection to each table and figure used.

My question is, of course, can data from SSB be used in wikipedia articles, while complying with both their license and the GFDL? -lazyr 14:09 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just because nobody is answering, I'm writing my not-so-educated ideas. (Don't take it as a legal advice, please.)

Say, you can put appropriate attribution with their data, making your edit compliant with both licenses. But GFDL allows others to modify the article. Attribution could be deleted by others. As soon as that happens, the article becomes what SSB doesn't want, but still GFDL compliant.

At the same time, I guess many would think there is a reasonable chance that the attribution would be kept. So, it could pragmatically be okay.

I think this is related to the issue of "fair use" if things like quotes are okay for Wikipedia to have. There has been a big discussion on mailing list (Wikipedia-l) during the last month or so, in case you are not aware of it.

Maybe you want to bring this question to the list, and see what people say? Tomos 09:36, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Copyright of a single frame of a film

I think this may have been discussed already but I can’t find where so I’ll check here .......
If I can’t find any source of a still picture to illustrate an article is it OK to photograph a part of a film off TV and use that (with a clean up in an image processor to get rid of the TV scan lines)? In other words, is a single frame from a film copyright?
A good example is Diana, Princess of Wales where I’ve searched the internet for hours for a public domain image but all images are either copyright or nothing is said on the subject. To show the “quality” achievable, here’s an example I photographed today (off English TV).
image:princess.diana.offTV.350pix.jpg
Adrian Pingstone 21:30, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is still copyrighted (your picture is an infringing derivative work). You could probably include it in an article using fair-use provisions. --seav 22:14, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think there is a loophole you can take advantage of. If an image is displayed for news purposes, it cannot be copyrighted. For example, if you record a news program, you can legally play it back in front of a stadium of people with no copyvio. I am not sure the reason for this loophole, and IANAL, but you might want to investigate that route. If you can't copyright a news broadcast, it stands to reason you can't copyright a single frame of that newscast. —Frecklefoot 16:34, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Beyond the standard fair use doctrine, there is no such loophole for news in US copyright law. AxelBoldt 14:02, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Right - certain uses of raw news footage would be OK under the fair use doctrine, but there's no blanket loophole, and the footage is still copyrighted even if usable under fair use. Certainly ABC News Tonight is copyrighted and playing it back in front of a large audience would be a copyright violation (not fall under fair use). Axlrosen 15:12, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Whatever you do, say what you did on the image description page and if you're relying on fair use, add a fair use rationale. See wikipedia:image description page. Martin 19:20, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OS 'free maps'

• The Ordnance Survery have some 'free' maps her - [2]. I would like to use these as the basis of locator maps on the London Borough pages, and can easily do the work myself. But is the licence there good enough for us? The page itself gives mixed indications. Morwen 18:45, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, the page states "You must not use the images for financial gain.". As people can take Wikipedia content and use it under the terms of the GFDL for commercial purposes, it would appear these maps may not be used. Angela 18:59, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

As I understand it, the current image policy does not require that images be GFDL, but does recommend (effectvely, require) that you clearly indicate origin and all restrictions, including non-commercial requirements, so that those needing a particular type of work can eliminate images they can't use. Note also that the Wikipedia license is explicit in saying "all text", not "all content", is GFDL. If you're arguing fair use, that needs to be argued in comments for every use of an image. Even images exclusively licensed to Wikipedia can be used but that's a very sub-optimal undesirable image, because it's not reusable and only serves to enrich the Wikipedia itself. That's good but not what we're really after if we can avoid it. Things like corporate logos are generally licensed only for specific uses, so there's no choice for them but to accept individual licenses (or try fair use) and tell people where to ask for a license for their own use - and if they are also an encyclopedia, they will be granted that permission as well. If you have a choice, better to use something else. JamesDay 22:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Posters

Can I use posters of movies here? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 11:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, if: you own the copyright to the poster; or it is in the public domain; or you obtained permission of the copyright holder (in a verifiable manner). Otherwise, no.

(Note this is not an official Wikipedia answer, and may be wrong. orthogonal is not a representative, official or unofficial, of Wikipedia. Note that this is not legal advice. orthogonal is not a lawyer. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer.) orthogonal 17:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What orthogonal said. Martin 19:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I thought all the posters can be used without permission, since they're used everywhere on the Internet. I think adding a poster to the movie topics would be a good idea, but since it's so troublesome... give up. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 05:28, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well...my question is...how do you get the right to use posters of movies, artwork or bands in a film? I am co-writing one with a friend and we both think that using certain posters in the main characters room would show a lot about his character that we don't want to just say...so how would we go about getting the rights to do so?

Copyvio?

Is a summary based on a web page considered a copyvio? An example could be Alternative metal and http://www.bobsmusicindex.com/Alternative-Metal.html . TopCamel 13:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, it is not a copyvio, that one would be if you copy it word by word. However it is good style to add the source of your text as well, e.g. in a References list, both for giving the author of the original source their credit, as well as to allow others to check the information in that article. andy 13:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Andyis correct. You can even copy a sentence from something without violating copyright.(unless that sentence is a one of a kind pasterpiece) ALWAYS INCLUDE SOURCES NO MATTER WHAT!!! Sincerly yours, Alexandros 14:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Exactly! You can certainly quote people, pages, web pages, etc. if indicated as a quote and cited from what/where. If you want to take something from a web site not as a quote, but as information, then reword it to your own words but still give credit to the source, as a listing in "References" at the bottom of the article. Knowledge is something you mostly gain from others. Your duty here is to reword what you read and credit where you learned -- Marshman 03:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

GFDL from other authors

If we copy text from an article from another source released under the GDFL, into a wikipedia article, are we required to link to the other site and mention that the original text came from that site? Alexandros

Yes. See Bacterium and anachronism and time travel and Hydatius for recently updated examples that are (IMO) 100% compliant. Do you have a particular article in mind? Martin 19:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Copyright Inquiry: Congressional Biographical Directory

Does anyone know if the Congressional Biographical Directory is copyright protected? If not, we could get lots and lots of stubby articles on various congresspersons, which'd be useful... john 08:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nope, they're copyright free, along with the images. Many articles on U.S. politicians are already based on these entries. See also public domain resources. --Minesweeper 09:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mario Kart 64 Box Cover Image

I have recently been editing the Mario Kart 64 entry in the Wikipedia and would like to include an image of the box cover. I have located one such image at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000DMAX/104-7522400-3171168 and could certainly find it elsewhere if it was needed. If I was to upload this to Wikipedia would this constitute "fair use" or would I have to directly request permission from Nintendo, Inc.? Thanks.

-SocratesJedi 01:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are Congressional Archives Copyvios?

Would it be a copyvio to use information (or copy-pastes) from http://bioguide.congress.gov/? It's a federal website, but the "copyright information" page at http://bioguide.congress.gov/copyright.htm only mentions the image; it mentions no copyright or license on the text at all. Ideas? --Golbez 01:56, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the text of that site is an official US government publication and thus public domain. Given that it doesn't say otherwise, it's a safe assumption. Just be really careful about the images. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The text of the congressional bioguide is public domain. However, you should attribute it as a source to give credit where due. If you like, you can include {{bioguide}} in an article which adds the text:  This article incorporates public domain material from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. older≠wiser 02:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Someone beat me to it. Okay. :) Thanks --Golbez 02:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been using those images; they're public domain. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:41, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they would specifically mention that "not all images are in the public domain" if that were not the case. I have not come across many that are, but in such cases, there is copyright information by the image. older≠wiser 20:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image - Elizabeth De Burgh

HELP!!! This is an URGENT query

This image i guess would fall under "Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means"

The time is "bruce and elizabeth.jpg"

I'd like to use it in a printed article...can i use it.?

I don't really know what to do next - does someone post to reply - or email me...

here's my email anyway - queen_sheba_1@hotmail.com

Another argument for using single comic book panels in Wikipedia

While browsing through some comic book-related entries in Wikipedia, I stumbled across the image in the Doctor Doom article. The text accompanying this image is obviously meant to be an argument in favor of using single panels of comic books as Wikipedia illustrations:

"Doctor Doom, in a last-panel appearance in Amazing Spider-Man #349. As it is a portion of a single panel therein used only informationally with no limit on the copyright owners' sales, it is deemed fair use."

It's an interesting-sounding argument, but is it legitimate? If an argument like this can be accepted as a reasonably defensible usage of "Fair Use" in Wikipedia, then I for one am willing to work to replace a number of the currently-disputed images with panels like this one.

Photographs of public domain objects

Suppose a person took a high-resolution photograph of an object in the public domain, such as the Mona Lisa or the Code of Hammurabi. Would the photograph be subject to copyright, and would it be permissible to use it on Wikipedia without permission from the photographer?

• If it is an ordinary photo, yes, it is copyrighted. If it is a reproduction (a copy), it might not be able to be copyrighted - there has to be some sort of original work (which may be as simple as minor cleanup editing). There's a fine line between a photo and copy that is hard to draw - if you're not sure that it's not a photo, don't use it. I am not a lawyer nor a representative of Wikipedia, and may be wrong. DDerby 15:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• This advice is in conflict with this advice [[3]] below, which states that no copyright violation exists on photos of two-dimensional works of art. --Iacobus 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

However this advice is IMO more accurate then the other, which I think misinterpretes the template:PD-art permission.Okino 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Copyright_question, thanks, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

American Civil War era photos

Is there a chance, that the American Civil War era photos are NOT in a public domain yet? Specificly, I'm thinking about these. The librarian wrote to me: we are unable to grant permission to individuals or groups wishing to mount images from our collections on their websites. Instead, we ask that links be created directing researchers to the site of the original images. Can we use them then? Pibwl 00:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All Civil War era photographs are in the public domain. In fact, any photographs published before the 1920s are public domain. Kaldari 21:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WRONG! All PUBLISHED US Civil War era photographs that were published prior to 1923 and after 2003 where those published after 2003 were never registered for copyright are out of copyright. Unpublished photographs by authors dead for more than 70 years are out of copyright. Any US Government authored photographs are also out of copyright.

That librarian may well be talking complete rubbish about copyright, but if the photographs were published between 1923 and 2003 then it is perfectly possible that they are still in copyright. Even if published after 2003, then if the author died after 1934 (perfectly possible for someone of the US Civil War era), then the photographs are still in copyright. David Newton 20:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

AP Photos

Can we use photographs from AP news stories on Wikipedia? For example, this image. Kaldari 21:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Photo licenses from the Associated Press (and other news services like Bettmann, Reuters, and Sygma) are available for a licencing fee, depending on usage. —Xanderer 03:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian government and copyrights

I know that the work of the U.S. government is, in general, public domain. However, I am wondering if it is the same case for Canada. If not, does anyone know what works of the Canadian government can be used? I'm asking this because the Canadian government sites also seem to have a lot of valuable information. Thanks in advance. --Ixfd64 03:54, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Music recordings

Do copyrighted music recordings fall under fair use when an excerpt is used to illustrate the recorded musician's (or band's) style? If so, do guidlines exist regarding length (either raw duration or percent of the total work)? Cmadler 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

See Template:music sample. My impression is a 30 second clip should suffice. pfctdayelise 14:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Translations of public-domain works?

Recently, someone posted the complete preamble to the Japanese Constitution to the Constitution of Japan page... in Japanese. I moved the text to the talk page for now, but it would make sense to replace the preamble with a suitalbe English translation. I assume the constitution itself is in the public domain (or certainly fair use applies to quoting it within the context of the article), but am unsure about translations. Is an English-language translation of a public-domain document copyrightable? Or should I wait and hope that someone who knows a bit more Japanese than I can do their own translation? Colin M. 02:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright question

I placed a question here, but it occurs to me that it was not the right place. If someone could take a look, I'd be grateful. Trollderella 18:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this permission general enough for us to use?

There are some great pics of The Cat Empire here [4]. They would be great for the article and photos of members. They're marked copyright, with this interesting disclaimer:

These photographs are not for sale

You may help yourself to photos for your own pleasure

If you wish to use them on a website I'd be grateful if you would acknowledge me and link to this site

You must not use them for commercial gain

Does the no commercial gain clause kill it? Stevage 15:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. To be usable on Wikipedia, images must be salable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Works Progress Administration -- verbetim copying from us government sources.

As a (former) government agency, I assume that these items are not copyright. What if something produced by this agency (WPA writers project) has then been re-published by a non-US government publisher? Can it still be used? What about using digitized text originally taken from these sources? Can that be used? What if the digitizing agency claims copyright? Finally... this well sourced article from a book produced by the National Park Service. Can I use this for an article? User:Kunzite/Chalmette_Monument(I assume I can because of the following.)

"Please note: This report is a NPS publication, which is normally considered to be in the public domain. However, this report may contain illustrations that are copies of materials NOT in the public domain, for which one-time reprint permission was obtained prior to publication. Persons wishing to use these illustrations of non-NPS origin for any purpose beyond educational perusal must obtain their own permissions from the owners of the original materials."

I have questions about the images.... most of them are US government, but the book contains several illustrations which are from before the public domain cutoff date, but which are owned by historic associations or collections. However. What is the status of these images? One of the illustrations is from a book published in 1907. But it is low quality. There is a digital reproduction of the book online, but the library that digitized it put it under copyright (?!?) Would that image still be usable?

Thanks for the help. I'm trying to expand our paltry Louisiana history article selection and there are some nice sources that are either out of (c) or made by the WPA but only available as reproductions. --Kunzite 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) User:Kunzite/Chalmette_Monument

"What if something produced by this agency (WPA writers project) has then been re-published by a non-US government publisher? Can it still be used? What about using digitized text originally taken from these sources? Can that be used?" Yes and yes, assuming no modifications. Slavish copying of a PD source doesn't confer new copyrights on it.

"What if the digitizing agency claims copyright?" Then they're lying. Ignore them.

"Finally... this well sourced article from a book produced by the National Park Service. Can I use this for an article?" Sure. Be sure to note at the bottom that the article is based on the NPS book, just as a courtesy (there's probably a template somewhere for that).

"I have questions about the images.... most of them are US government, but the book contains several illustrations which are from before the public domain cutoff date, but which are owned by historic associations or collections. However. What is the status of these images? One of the illustrations is from a book published in 1907. But it is low quality. There is a digital reproduction of the book online, but the library that digitized it put it under copyright (?!?) Would that image still be usable?" Yes. Again, slavish copying doesn't grant copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright in Bolivia

Are sources from the Bolivian government in the public domain? I'm specifically thinking about pictures from the Galeria de Presidentes de la República de Bolivia (Gallery of Presidents of Bolivia). I don't spot any copyright notes on the site; maybe a Spanish-speaking user could help me out here. Punkmorten 08:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Bolivian government images are not in the public domain. Until someone establishes that they are, it must be assumed that they aren't. Copyright notices are not necessary to have copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Republishing Magazine Lists

I thought I saw somewhere a guidelines that republishing magazine lists intact, such as Forbes' 500 Richest People, might constitute a copyright violation. Is that true? If so, I'm concerned with Baseball America Top 100 Prospects 2006. --mtz206 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Such lists are potentially copyright violations. I've prodded the article you link to. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rare Books from the Missouri Botanical Garden Library

This website:

• Rare Books from the Missouri Botanical Garden Library

has high-resolution digital photographs of pages of old books, available for download. Are images from the website eligible for {{PD-art}}? The language on that template, and the language at Wikipedia:Public domain#Uncreative works, certainly seem to suggest that they are.

However, I'm troubled by the language at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Public domain art, which suggests that I would have to also list the license used by the people who digitized the images. Well, according to their copyright statement, they assert copyright over the images and do not allow any redistribution except as necessary under Fair Use. In fact, they are in the business of selling prints of some of the images.

So, what's the deal? Melchoir 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would call that copyfraud. They are U.S.-based, and certainly do not hold any copyrights over e.g. Köhler's Medizinal-Pflanzen in naturgetreuen Abbildungen mit kurz erläuterndem Texte, published 1887 in Gera-Untermhaus in Germany. BTW, scans from this work are also available at other websites, see in particular [5], [6], [7], and [8] for many more scans of other old works. Although I don't know when this Franz Eugen Köhler lived (the dates 1883 - 1914 are found numerous times on the web, but 1883 cannot be his birth date if that book appeared in 1887; 1914 could be the year he died; or these dates are again publication dates) I'm pretty sure this work is PD worldwide. It certainly is {{PD-US}}, but I think even {{PD-art-life-70}} would be OK. (I'm pretty sure they don't even hold a collection copyright on the collection as a whole as it again was Köhler or his publisher who made the selection back in the 1880s.) Usual disclaimer: IANAL etc. As to listing the license of the digitizers: you should give a source anyway. I usually use a phrase like "Immediate image source: [URL here], who claim copyright" and then give the original source including the publication date. Lupo 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also call it COPYFRAUD --Historiograf 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And of course, don't forget to look at commons:Category:Koehler1887! Lupo 14:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick reply! Koehler is just the tip of the iceberg at that site, and many of the authors have been dead for over 100 years. For more recent authors, I'll keep the other tags in mind. And, yes, I think I'll be uploading to Commons. Melchoir 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Flickr

Which flickr copyright tag should I look for if I want to find images that we can use in a wikipedia article. Has anyone explored this? Also, if I have a flickr photostream and I want to share photos for inclusion in wikipedia, should I use the sharealike tag? --DDG 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Any free Creative Commons license is fine; that includes Attribution and/or Sharealike. For full details, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creative Commons Licenses, Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses, and Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags. The tags you want to avoid are NoDerivativeWorks and NonCommericial, as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Non-free Creative Commons licenses. I think that's about all. Melchoir 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Old postcards

I collect old postcards and I think some would be very suitable to illustrate some pages. Many were of them were published between about 1898 and 1920 (in the UK and abroad) and are usually anonymous in that they have no artist/photographer named so they are probably OK to reproduce, would this be correct?.

What about later postcards (say up to the 1940s) were the company publishing them no longer exists and where there is no photographer named? Tony Corsini 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything first published before 1923 is in the public domain, and should probably be marked with {{pd-art}} or similar. After 1923 but before 1978, unless they were in the public domain in their home country as of 1996 (unlikely), they'll be subject to copyright for 95 years after their publication date. After 1977, their copyright expires 70 years after the death of their author (or, if the author is unknown, the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation). Anything "created by a resident of Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, San Marino, and possibly Yemen, and published in one of these countries"[9] is public-domain as well.

So basically: if it's before 1923, it's fine. After that, almost certainly no dice. And yes, that even applies if the company went out of business; typically corportaions will auction off all their assets, including intellectual property, and give the proceeds to shareholders when they shut down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I thought this might be the case. Fortunately I have a lot of good stuff published before 1923 that I can go through.Tony Corsini 09:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that nothing is in the PD in Europe (e.g. UK) if the creator is'nt dead 70 years --Historiograf 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not relevant to things published before 1923, however, at least for our purposes, since we follow US copyright law. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What is relevant is that if they were published in the UK, they are foreign works from the point of view of U.S. law. It is not clear whether pre-1909 or pre-1923 is the requirement here - see WP:PD - due to a discrepancy between U.S. court decisions. Certainly pre-1909 is fine, but foreign works published between 1909 and 1923 may be deleted - see Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Albert_Einstein_Swss_Patent_Office_clerk_1905.jpg. TheGrappler 11:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The source (WP:PD#_note-0) seems to suggest that there was an isolated decision in one circuit, but the ruling is generally viewed as incorrect among copyright experts and is not reflected in other circuits' rulings. Note that the footnoted statement was that "any work published before 1 January 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain". But you're correct that works first published after 1909 outside the US without compliance to formalities might be treated as unpublished works under US law. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

While the Catholic Encyclopedia is on the list of Public Domain sources here at wikipedia, and the article points to NewAdvent as a location of the encyclopedia, that site says:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII

Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company

Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight

I have googled like crazy to try to find the answer to this - but does this mean I could not paste the public domain text from a page like this Mary into another work? Is the "online edition copyright" valid? Is it valid if the formatting is stripped out? Can someone just copy the entire enyclopedia from that site and post it, like has been done here and is being done here ? 217.227.99.168 08:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Merely copying something is not sufficient to bestow new copyright on it. Neither is something like proofreading or simple stylistic conversions. The aforesaid involve no creativity, which is the "sine qua non" of copyright (see, most notably, Feist v. Rural but also previous similar decisions, and more specifically Bridgeman v. Corel although that has no mandatory authority). The Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain, and so are any copies of it, in totality. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo-shopping images

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KateRobsonBrown.JPG seems to be a straight photoshop of this http://www.hta.gov.uk/images/photo13.jpg. This is what you get when you combine the two - http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/photoshopsketch.jpg - I notice that other editors have challenged this editor over his "sketches" in the past. 1) Is this a copyright violation ? Even if it's not it seems a very slippy road for Wikipedia to go down.

--Charlesknight 08:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a copyright violation. The sketch would be a derivative work of the photograph even if it were actually sketched, since it's nonetheless based on the copyrighted image. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Images of a Chemical

A naturally occuring chemical is sythesized in a lab, and a pile of the chemical is placed in front of a white background. A picture of that pile is taken and published in a scientific journal. Is the picture protected under copyright, or does it lack sufficient originality (ala Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.)? --Alecmconroy 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It would quite possibly be sufficiently original. The minimum threshold for creativity is very low; the shape of the pile, the angle, lighting, etc. could easily be enough to merit copyright in the case you mention. At best, it's a borderline case; difficult judgments about what actions served functional purposes as opposed to creative purposes would have to be made. I would recommend that you not upload such an image. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Comic Art

If I make a photograph of an original piece of comic art I own, am I then the copyrightholder and can I release it to and use it on Wikipedia under GFDL? More specifically, things like cells (cartoons) or drawings (comics) made by the original author: if they are my property, is the copyright on a photograph of the particular work mine, even though the copyright on the character is still owned by the artist (or his relatives or so)? Fram 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of a work does not confer copyright privileges. Copyright remains with the author of the work. Any work based on a copyrighted work is, at best, a derivative work, and is subject to the same restrictions as the base work as well as the additional restrictions of the derivative portion. A simple photograph of a two-dimensional piece of art involves no creativity and does not confer any copyright at all on the photograph beyond the copyright on the base work.

Or in short, no, you have to get permission of the copyright holder, who is most likely the publisher in the case of comic books. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos from Iran

I tagged several images whose copyright holders are in Iran on WP:IFD as having an invalid fair use claim. The uploader posted on my talk page that the US has no copyright relationship with Iran and thus we should be free to do use them. This link [10] claims that anything "created by a resident of Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, San Marino, and possibly Yemen, and published in one of these countries" is "not protected by US copyright law because they are not party to international copyright agreements". What is Wikipedia policy on the matter? If the US doesn't respect the other country's copyright laws, do we have to respect them, or should they be considered copyright violations? BigDT 17:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The US doesn't respect the copyright of such works. Wikipedia, however, does, or at least is supposed to according to a statement of Jimbo. Whether they should be respected according to their own nation's copyright terms, or according to (undoubtedly more stringent) US law, I'm not sure. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a diff from Jimbo or a link to the actual policy on the subject? BigDT 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo said here that Iranian copyright should be respected. I'm not aware that this has been written down in Wikipedia policy anywhere. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. BigDT 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be time to write it down somewhere. The topic seems to crop up from time to time, e.g. in January 2006, February 2006, and again in July 2006. Lupo 10:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Done so at WP:PD#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S.. Lupo 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not a signatory of the Berne Convention, meaning they do not recognise International Copyright. List of Berne Convention signatories is here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&search_what=B&bo_id=7

So does this mean we don't need their approval? --Commking 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're saying. US copyright law does not respect Iranian copyright. Wikipedia does respect Iranian copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Iran does not respect any international copyright, of any other country. They have not signed the Berne Convention. Therefore, why would Iranian copyright apply outside of their own borders? --Commking 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask Jimbo. Why shouldn't we respect the copyrights of individuals to at least some extent, provided they don't actively infringe our own copyrights? Just because they happen to be a national of a country that doesn't protect our copyright? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indivduals I agree with you upon. But my question if more of a legal one, rather than one of respect. But what about the companies, or the Iranian Government (current politics aside)? Why are we then treating Iranian Government material as copyright, if they themselves say it doesn't apply? --Commking 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't say their work is in the public domain. They just say others' works are. And as a legal question, Iranian works are not subject to copyright, but our policy is stricter than the law. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot from Video US Government Website

I'm using a screenshot from a video on the official US Government's White House website[11]. The video is of Pres. Bush addressing a large public gathering on a US military base. No copyright information is listed. Should I list the licensing as fair use, or as a public domain US Gov't creation? --Alecmconroy 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

probably PD.Geni 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority map

Can I use it in the "Big Dig" page -- it's a map of the closures resulting from the Big Dig closure [12]. The Mass Archives [13] state that "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use." But I don't know if the Turnpike Authority constitutes the "Massachusetts government," so I'm asking if anyone can clarify. Thanks! Geoff.green 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Tower

Could someone please take a look at the history on Freedom Tower. OrphanBot has removed a large batch of images from the article twice now. From what I can tell the images are tagged as being promotional. Not sure what else is needed to determine if they are or are not acceptable for the article. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence they are in fact promotional.Geni 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Does promotional fall under fair use? If so, what tag is needed to make OrphanBot happy? --StuffOfInterest 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's complicated (ie the strict answer to your question is no) You need to show that images were released as part of apress kit. IT a question of following wikipedia policy rather than how to "make OrphanBot happy".Geni 15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Part one of my question was to establish legality with part two being to work with OrphanBot. Since, as you said, the most likely answer to part one is "no" then I guess OrphanBot is already happy. It would be best if the person who originally uploaded the images said where he found them. Thanks for the clarification. --StuffOfInterest 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Images created with DeLorme Topo USA software

I was working on an image created with DeLorme Topo USA software, at Image:GN System Map.jpg. The Topo USA software has the following listed in the help file:

Web Site Map Display Rights. You may display on your personal, business, or institutional Web site static map images derived from the System, provided that you include the Legend indicated below and that you provide a link to the DeLorme Web site at www.delorme.com from any page that shows a DeLorme map image. If you subcontract a Web Developer to display map images, said Web Developer must purchase a license.

Legend. Any System output that is provided to a third party must include the following credit and copyright notice: “© 2004 DeLorme (www.delorme.com) Topo USA®”. You may not remove, alter, or conceal any copyright or trademark notices appearing on any System output except that when creating a mural map, you need only retain a single legend with scale for use in the field.

With those restrictions in mind, is it legitimate to use the output of Topo USA within Wikipedia, such as in the map I've drawn? The contents in the help file would seem to indicate so, but I wanted to make sure these license terms are compatible with Wikipedia. Also, I'm not entirely sure of the license tag to be applied. I chose "Windows screenshot", since it's a Windows program, but I'm not 100% sure if that's accurate. Let me know about this -- thanks. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds dicey. I'm not sure what "If you subcontract a Web Developer to display map images, said Web Developer must purchase a license" is supposed to mean. The license seems to be sort of free, aside from that bit, except that it's probably not irrevocable. Note also that the restrictions seem to be contractual, not copyright-based: you agreed to them when you agreed to the EULA, so it would be illegal for you to violate them but not, strictly speaking, for Wikipedia to do so. What exactly does the program do, anyway, given that you apparently aren't using their map data? And what's your justification for using the map from the 2004 Guthrie book? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Simetrical. I would go even further and say that if you cannot remove a copyright notice, the image is non-free and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. BigDT 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Guthrie map is a copy of a Great Northern system map from... the 1950s, I'm guessing. Actually, I've decided I'm not going to bother with this image. I should have checked first before creating it. I was wrong -- inexcusably and unforgivably wrong -- to create and upload it. Add this to the block I'm probably going to get. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're just kidding or not, but just in case you aren't, don't worry - nobody is going to block you for a good faith effort to upload an image.  ;) Just tag it with {{db-author}} to let an administrator know that you would like for it to be deleted and all will be well. BigDT 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comic Book Statistics

Per [this current discussion] on the Wikiproject: Comics talk page, editors would like input regarding fair usage of specific statistics regarding superhero abilities derived from official handbooks of the major comic book publishers. For example, in the article Thor (comics) under "Powers and Abilities" an editor has added that the character can lift/press in excess of 100 tons. This statistic is from a publication called the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe which gives brief descriptions of the histories and abilities of characters published by Marvel Comics. While this may seem trivial to some (or even fanwankery), these precise statistics have been added to a number of pages and the wikiproject is trying to create a policy regarding them.

The question is basically surrounding a) whether a precise (read: quoted) statistic from a copyritten published material can be used on wikipedia without citation or b) with footnote or citation or c) whether they are completely disallowed.

The argument for fair usage appears to be that these statistics are used as part of research into a subject only, the same way a quote from Moby Dick would be used to demonstrate or expand on an article about that novel.

The argument against fair use appears to be that fictional statistics such as this are specifically the property of the author of the fictional handbook and therefore belong solely to the copyright holder.

Any assistance or answer would be appreciated. -Markeer 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, it would be advisable to limit the number of such statistics you add. While one or two statistics like that would be too minor to merit copyright by themselves, as you add more you start to get into fair-use territory (describing how strong the Hulk is is useful for allowing the reader to understand the character), and probably copyright violations sooner or later. In all probability, Marvel prints books and so on that consist in large part of just this kind of factoid, and if you include too many of them you're going to slowly start infringing on their market.

So I'd say a reasonable number of them is fine, but observe some moderation. Add stats and the like to The Hulk, related articles, and infoboxes, but don't create Factoids and statistics about the Hulk. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Elizabethan printed texts

Have a look at this. It's the title page of a printed text of a play by Shakespeare from 1600. Obviously, Shakespeare has no copyright. As I understand the Bridgeman Art Gallery ruling, the photograph of the text (made by the pay-for-access site Early English Books Online) cannot have copyright either. But can the Library that holds this specific copy of the text (easily recognisable from the handwritten annotations on it) have copyright? Or are 400-year-old texts automatically public domain regardless of owner? Barney Jenkins 13:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Library has no copyright the texts are PD --Historiograf 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

when where the handwritten annotations added and which country is the Library in?Geni 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The annotations are 17th and 18th century, so they're probably not relevant. The library is in the USA. Would it make a difference if it was, say, a British library? Barney Jenkins 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe (depends how you feel about being the test case that finds out). In any the image is PD.Geni 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Barney Jenkins 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The nationality of the library would make no difference with respect to American law. It might affect redistribution in other countries, however. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In the library is non US and the uploader is non US then there could in theory be a problem.Geni 09:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For the uploader, maybe, but not for Wikipedia. We're still hosted in the US, and under US copyright law it would be fine despite being foreign. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2-dimensional images of ancient art

Perhaps I am being thick-headed, but I sense a discrepancy between what I understood to be copyrightable (pictures of three dimensional objects only, since they presume skill in manipulating light and position) and what is not copyrightable and by default in the public domain (namely pictures of frescoes and ceramic art when detailed enough to obviate its- 3-d aspect). So is it legit to use pictures from this website, say, or is it not? And under what tag? And on Wikimedia or only on the English-language Wikipedia? Thanks for any help. Haiduc 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's legitimate, under {{PD-art}}, and on any Wikimedia project that doesn't have specific rules against it due to local copyright issues or whatnot. Such images should be uploaded to the Commons. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the {{PD-art}} and the rules behind the public domain proclamation it makes, it does not tell the pictures on that site are copyright-free, but that the author of them does not need to solve the copyright issues with the author of the photographed work (sculpture, painting or so - the ancient objects are public domain of course, but not their modern photographs). Thus, the photographs themselves are copyrighted and the copyright is of the photographer, if he does not declare them public domain himself. Okino 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

images which are available for non-commercial use

I know that these are not recommended. User:Timur lenk uploaded some from [Ron Wise's Banknote Collection] and mistakenly tagged them as his own images. See Image:HUF_10_1975_obverse.jpg for one example. Can someone tell me what the correct copyright tag for these is? Or do they need to be deleted? Is there an easy way to find all of the images which have been mis-tagged? Where can I point Timur lenk so he knows how to correctly tag images in the future? Thanks Ingrid 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

non comercial images should be deleted on sight.Geni 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless they can be used as fair use, which banknotes undoubtedly can be in an article regarding the banknotes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. In many cases we should be able to create our on images.Geni 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not possible. Anything based on the note is derivative of it, so the copyright of the base work is still relevant, and simple two-dimensional scans fall under the same copyright no matter who takes them (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Anything used to illustrate a banknote will be unfree if the artwork of the banknote is unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The numismatics project has templates like {{NZ-Currency}} explaining the rules about using various currency images. My question was specifically about a case where the owner of the scan has not given permission for it to be copied except for non-commercial use. On top of that, the image I found was definitely incorrectly tagged, since the tag says that the creator releases it into the public domain, and there's no way that the person who copied it to wikipedia could be considered the creator of either the scan or the image. I've told User:Timur lenk that the situation needs to be fixed, but I'd like to be able to be more specific. Ingrid 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The owner of a scan gains no copyright in it, since scanning is not creative. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So, am I understanding that I can copy scans off any random website, and the only issue is the copyright of the item which was scanned? Should any credit be given to the scanner/website owner? If so, how? Ingrid 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct, although do note that it only applies to scans (which attempt to reproduce the target exactly), not things like photographs of three-dimensional objects (which involve decisions as to angles and lighting that are creative). You should provide your source on the image description page, both as a courtesy and so that others could perhaps get more useful things from the same place, although it's not strictly required if there's sufficient information on the page for a third party to verify the work's copyright status. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yakko's World"

This is a song from the animated TV series Animaniacs, for which someone has written an article and included all of the lyrics. Since the song is about the countries of the world, and the song is obviously copyrighted by whoever owns the music publishing rights for the show, is relisting the countries in an order different from that used in the cartoon, an acceptable compromise, or should the article be dleeted altogether? --FuriousFreddy 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A different ofder would not be copyright.Geni 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the song consists pretty much entirely of an ordered selection of countries, changing the order would of course remove almost all creativity from it. It would also be pointless for the purposes of the article, because then you wouldn't have the actual lyrics. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain one can discuss a song without actually listing the lyrics. I've done it on the other hundreds of song articles I've edited. --FuriousFreddy 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I think the article isn't unreasonable even without the lyrics. I was just questioning the usefulness of pseudo-lyrics with the countries rearranged. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly editorial reviews

Can we use editorial reviews from Publishers Weekly? They allow quotes anywhere as long as you make proper attribution. --Dejo.eh 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would need to see exact terms of the lisence.Geni 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Any license for content used on Wikipedia must irrevocably permit redistribution, modification, and sale, with no requirements other than attribution and/or copyleft. Any license for content incorporated into the actual text of Wikipedia must not impose any requirements however trivial that the GFDL does not impose. In short, it's extremely unlikely, even without looking at their license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

Could someone advise as to whether song lyrics are acceptable for inclusion on WP, specifically here. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrightable and only short snippets are acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia, unless the poem is old enough to be in the public domain (or is freely-licensed). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you discussed each line of the lyrics sufficiently it might be okay to include them. But that's not really in the scope of Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Museum Website Text

Earlier today, someone posted an entry about Jimmy Clanton that was immediately tagged db-bio. I switched this to db-copyvio because he IS notable, but the text of the entry was cut and pasted from a museum website . However, I noticed that the copyvio notice specifically mentioned commercial interests. So is it OK to use descriptions from museum websites? Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery is another example of this, though they do include a link to the copied resource. Garrepi 06:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

you should probaly list it on WP:CP using Template:Copyvio.Geni 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Two copyright questions:

Quick copyright check In 1996, journalist Sarah McClendon (b ~ 1910, d 2003), published a book containing a bunch of photos that I would like to use, if possible, to illustrate her article. The book itself is copyright 1996, all rights reserved.

1. Some of the photos are childhood photos of McClendon herself, apparently taken between 1910-1920. The attribution on the photos is "From the collection of Sarah McClendon." My assumption is that I can not use those photos without obtaining permission, because (a) I have no proof they were published prior to 1923 and (b) no proof that their creator died before 1934. Correct?
2. Some of the photos have attributions that suggest that they were created by US government employees. Can I safely assume, based on attribution, that they are public domain, or do I need to do some more work? Examples include:
   1. Photos of McClendon shaking hands with various Presidents, attributed "Courtesy of the White House." I feel fairly confident that those are PD.
   2. Photos of McClendon shaking hands with various Presidents, attributed "Courtesy of the <Johnson|Kennedy|Carter, et al> Presidential Library." I feel fairly comfortable that those are PD, but I suppose it's possible that the Presidential libraries acquired the ownership of copyright images (for example, maybe a press photographer or random citizen donated them) and then allowed McClendon a license to use those images for her book.
   3. Photos of McClendon during her term as a Naval officer (approx 1943-44), attributed "Courtesy of the US Navy." Like case 2, above, I'm a little nervous about using these, but I would like to - they're images I can't get anywhere else.

What do people think? Thanks, TheronJ 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy of the US Navy seems pretty safe there would be no logical reason for the US Navy to have images from other sources. Personaly I think you analysis is spot on.Geni 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The best solution is to ask the US government agencies. / Fred-Chess 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can i use this image

The image, Image:The Parranda of San Pedro.gif in the bottom of the website where the image is, [14] says, "Copyleft © 2005-2006, Algunos derechos reservados." But it doesn't say which rights are reserved, what tag can i put.

Caracas 2000 13:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does "Algunos derechos reservados" translate to "other rights reserved?" If so, I don't think you can use the image without a fair use rationale or getting explicit permission from the author. It's his/her right to set up the license he/she wants, and "other rights reserved" isn't a true copyleft, or at least isn't a flavor of copyleft that necessarily allows free use. TheronJ 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Algunos derechos reservados" means "Some rights reserved", just like the typical English text seen after a "copyleft" notice. I can't find any more specific information about the license. —Bkell (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Text of I Have a Dream

The Martin Luther King speech I Have a Dream is copyrighted by the King estate. On several occasions the estate has sued to block publication, including a famous case with the USA Today newspaper. However, a website claims to allow use of the text. Please advise and comment on the Talk page. Thanks, Cacophony 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely, positively, and most unfortunately copyrighted. TheronJ 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum

The National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, UK, has one of the world's largest collections of maritime art and objects. It also has an on-line gallery featuring many 2D works by long-deceased artists. And strict copyright notices and terms of use of the site and images.[15]

I am in the UK, the physical originals are in the UK, and the gallery's server is in the UK. Bridgeman v. Corel does not apply in the UK. Can I legally upload these pics to WP (seems unlikely)? Can someone outside the UK legally upload them? And if they are uploaded, can I legally view a page on which they are used (cos if not, how the hell can I avoid accidentally breaking the law?)

The NMM's collection would be extremely useful to WP. The issue has already come up with Image:Van Soest, Attack on the Medway.jpg. This pic has been OK'd by an admin on Commons and another on en.Wiki, but neither offered more explanation than "PD because of age and Bridgeman", or answered my questions, so I can't tell whether they are right or just incomprehending. I's like to ask this Q of the experts, and ask them to push it to Legal if necessary.

Because if it is deemed legal to raid the gallery, I shall do so. And I have no desire to land either myself or the Foundation with a test legal case. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bridgeman is still fairly relevant, although if anyone with experience in UK law wants to chime in, that would probably be helpful. The Bridgeman court reached the following relevant conclusions.

1. Although US law does protect foreign copyrighted works in some circumstances, this protection only extends to "original works of authorship," whether or not the law of the foreign jurisdiction requires originality. (Bridgeman, 36 F. Supp.2d at 193-95).
2. A photographic reproduction of another work is not "original" under US law, regardless of how much skill was required to create it. US law therefore will not recognize an alleged UK copyright, such as the one at issue in Bridgeman, over a photographic reproduction of a work in the public domain. (Bridgeman, 36 F. Supp.2d at 195-97).
3. So far, those conclusions aren't enough for wikimedia commons, which requires that material be freely distributable. See here. It's arguably enough for Wikipedia, which claims to be "primarily" subject to Florida law.
4. However, the Bridgeman court also analyzed UK law. Citing a British copyright treatise, the court concluded that modern UK law will not protect copyright in a photographic reproduction of a public domain painting. (Bridgeman, 36 F. Supp.2d at 197-99).

The upshot is that Bridgeman does say that you're entitled to copy it under UK law. It's up to you whether you believe it, though. TheronJ 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: After mulling it over, I have two more thoughts --

• As a matter of best practices, rather than legal requirements, I would recommend that you contact the museum for their opinion. Bridgeman and the UK law treatise that Bridgeman cites both suggest that the museum doesn't have a protectable interest in its reproductions of public domain works. However, if the museum (1) put a lot of work into making the reproductions, and (2) doesn't want you to distribute them publicly, it is probably worth considering whether that's something you personally want to do, even if it is legal.
• In any event, if you do upload them, I would definitely recommend including a note in the copyright discussion explaining that the Musuem claims copyright and that you're uploading them regardless pursuant to Bridgeman and the treatise.

Thanks, TheronJ 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wanting to contact the musuem, but didn't want to drop WP in it, given there's a pic already uploaded.

The problem is, Bridgeman can say that the the sky is purple with green spots: it wouldn't give it any legal force over here (modulo IANAL). I think your answer boils down to, you don't know, but Wikipedia's willing to take the risk if I am. Which of course you're not in a position to say unless you're on the Board. *sigh* Thanks for your help, though.

This episode has made me review the concept of "local wikipedias" that gets mentioned so blithely. What local wikipedias? The wikis are divided by language: law is divided by country. Unless there are separate wikis for the UK, US, RSA, Oz, NZ... that I've missed, and indeed unless en.wiki can't be read and edited in Germany, Brazil..., then the whole idea of local wikis as a get-out clause is nonsense. Is there a discussion on this you could point me to, or are we all just pretending the problem doesn't exist?

Sorry to sound ratty, when you've gone to the trouble of replying. But I am up to the ears with being told "Bridgeman says it's OK in the US". I know it bl**ding does. I'M NOT IN THE US: THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING! Hrrmph. JackyR | Talk 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Bridgeman concludes that copying is ok in the UK as well as the US, citing the British copyright treatise Hugh Laddie, Peter Prescott, & Mary Vitoria, The Modern Law of Copyright and Design § 3.56, at 238 (1995). (See Bridgeman, text and n. 45). Now, you're right that a US decision will not have a substantial effect on a British court. But Bridgeman isn't irrelevant, either. I agree that if there are any UK copyright lawyers here, their opiniuon would be better than mine, but mine is the only one I have to offer you. TheronJ 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

IANAL etc but as far as I can see the answer to your question is that while the legal opinion of I've seen suggests it is legal the only caselaw I know about says otherwise. Thus I would suggest not copying the pictures unless you are prepared to risk being a test case (I probably wouldn't).Geni 11:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well 'tis now in the lap of the gods. I composed an email last night to the NMM, meaning to let it sit for a while for me to ponder and perhaps send to you guys for comment. And then accidentally hit Send instead of Save. So. Anyway, I'll keep you all posted... :-) JackyR | Talk 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Television Screenshots

A policy quesiton for you: I run a site that contains screenshots of a television series that a friend and I have spent years on assembling. Many of these images have since been taken and uploaded/added to Wikipedia. Is this permissible? Obviously, I am upset that I have not been creditted for these images which my friend and I took the time to "grab" from encodes. Basically, do I have recourse to begin removing said images? I started pulling a few that I immediately recognized, but stopped to get some clarification before I begin this laborious task. JPG-GR 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have a copyright in screenshots captured from a television show, so I don't think you have a copyright objection. (I guess if you want to argue that your decision in what moment of the show to capture represents a creative decision). If you want to make that argument, you can add {{Db-copyvio-<url of the page from which the content was taken>}} to the pages. (Alternately, you could argue that the pages should be deleted because they (and you) are violating the copyright of the show itself, if the poster hasn't suggested a fair use rationale). Alternately, if your main objection is that you haven't been credited as the source, you could always just add a "source: url" line to the text for the images. TheronJ 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're on pretty thin ice, since you don't own copyright to the images - Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. suggests that under US copyright law photographs of artwork do not contain enough originality, I would imagine that screen captures would fall under the same bucket (a screen cap requiring less work than a photograph). All fair use images should provide a source however - so by all means add a URL to the images. Megapixie 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can user copy his/her own website into Wikipedia?

Hello. User X posted what appeared to be a copyright violation in that s/he copied the entire contents of a webpage into a Wikipedia article (in this case, Softbill). When asked about this, the user states that s/he owns that website (softbill.org) and so can copy in his/her work. What is the Wikipedia position on this? Is this some requirement to demonstrate ownership? And what is the position on thereupon linking to that user's website at the bottom of the article? Any insight would be useful here. Thanks, Oscar 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You could always ask them to add a note at the bottom of the page in question at the website in question saying "This document is released to wikipedia." if they own the website in question it should be trivial - or contact them via any contact details available on the website. Megapixie 14:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Press releases of a public organisation is copyrighted?

The purpose of a press release is that the public know about that point of view. The organisation want its point of view to be copied, and the press agency which report it is not the author of the press release, it can not claim copyright (They just report a fact regarding a point of view, facts are not copyrighted). My opinion is that is no copyvio here, but my addition in Transnistria article was deleted for copyvio. I suppose censorship is the true reason.--MariusM 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is assumed, we can't just release other peoples material into the GFDL. You would have use the material as the basis for a new work. Megapixie 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

[16] states that "All pictures on this special web may be reproduced with copyright mention IAAF 1998 and a link to the IAAF web site http://www.iaaf.org". Is this okay for Wikipedia, can we use the images? Punkmorten 07:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}? Punkmorten 12:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the grant of reproduction rights is irrevocable, then that restriction is certainly compatible with the GDFL, although you would have to write a "secondary section" with the attribution, then designate that section as an "invariant section" in the copyright notice. GDFL experts, can you opine on whether (1) Punkmorten is required to restate the IAAF restriction in GDFL-compliant terms and (2) whether the IAAF's grant of reproduction rights is sufficiently irrevocable to qualify for inclusion of the material on Wikipedia? TheronJ 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The grant has already existed since 1998, so maybe? Punkmorten 07:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Could I get more input on this please? Punkmorten 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PA Consulting Group

Can someone take a look at this discussion in the PA Consulting Group article. The PA marketing department are currently driving it and citing an internal approval to release copyright on their website. I'm not convinced that the internal approval is verifiable, based on the assertion that the editor represents the firm.

TIAALR 07:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

could you provide a link to where the dislaimer is?Geni 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Scans of letters

While cleaning out CAT:CSD, I stumbled across the contributions of Waxxywilly77 (talk · contribs), who has uploaded numerous scans of letters and other documents. Most of these were licensed for non-commercial use only, so I deleted them per CSD I3, but several of the images have been tagged as {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} or, in some cases, tagged as {{GFDL-presumed}} by the uploader. However, these are mostly letters written to the uploader, so I'm not sure if they in fact have the authority to license them thus. This is where my own knowledge of copyright law fails me, so I'd like some advice from others who understand the relevant laws, and how they apply to letters, better than I do.

(Another issue with these images is that they are mostly unused and do not seem particularly encyclopedic, and thus may fail WP:NOT. However, I'm more interested in the copyright aspect right now.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Something is covered by copyright as soon as it appears in a tangible form. I'm pretty sure there is no transfer of copyright when a letter is sent (just think of all those publications of authors letters and the like).Geni 16:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Geni is correct (I have direct experience with this issue). The letter itself (the physical object) is owned by the recipient, so he can sell it as a souvenir or whatever, but the copyright is retained by the author. Chick Bowen 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I've listed these images at WP:PUI. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Library of Congress Images

I'd like to use these three images from this page of the LoC website. Can I? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes - upload to the commons and include the information from the following pages:

• http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/var.1977
• http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/var.1960
• http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/var.1961

The images are public domain in the US (published before 1923) - and likely (though I can't find biographic information for the artists in question - but the work in the LoC seemed to span 1879-1899 for A.S. Seer and 1878 to 1879 for J. E. Jackson) that they died before 1935 making the work PMA + 70 (public domain in countries with a copyright term of life + 70 years). There are several other nice posters in catergories linked from the above. Nice find. Megapixie 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Adding them in! Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Commons wouldn't let me choose 1923 as a date, and I didn't want to use an uncertain dating, so ....

[[17]] [[18]] The third turned out to be uploaded already. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I use Will Smith pictures found on google

Can I use Will Smith pictures found on google so I can change the the will smith photo that is on now???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azdude30 (talk • contribs)

Almost certainly not - the images are all likely to be copyrighted - and you should assume so unless it explicitly states otherwise (i.e. "This image is released under the GFDL", etc). They are also very unlikely to be WP:Fair use as well. Megapixie 06:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I move copyright-free images from other Wikiprojects?

I'd like to use [19] and [20], but am not sure how to copy over the licencing. What should I do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Both images are already in the commons and can be used here (see below).

• 
• 

Megapixie 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! How d'ye find that out? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the images both of them have the commons template "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." - the version of the template in other languages looks similar by clicking on one of the links in the template it takes you to the commons version of the image (which we can use from here). Megapixie 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall thave to remember that! Weel, in any case, thanks! The Dwarf page, even if I have to tweak the captions tomorrow, already looks a lot better! Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

diagrams based on copyrighted material...

i believe it is related to [21].

i made [22] as a vector image, while using [23] as a reference. i used no other reference. after a while thinking about it, i believe i could be breaking US Law on Derivative works. especially the phrase "...art reproductions, and condensations" seems to apply. i would volunteer to remove the picture immediately, if you see the same problem. -- ExpImp^talkcon 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this exact image ? [24] If that's the case - then I would say that it's not a derivative work (though the original photograph actually is). You have produced a diagram based on the photograph (based on information and facts in the model) but it isn't a tracing of the image, thus it's a new work. You are merely representing the uncopyrightable facts present in the image rather than the art of the image itself

also from [25] (bolding is mine)

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

What do other people think ? Megapixie 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Flipping back and forth between the images, it's difficult to see a nearer resemblance between them as opposed to any other spine cross-section. If the resemblance is unclear, and given it's a factual work, I don't see a problem. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear from you, but would like to get some additional opinion on this. Btw: Yes, I was talking about this specific picture, it is also linked from the Wikipedia-Image-Page. So i can create objects BASED ON copyrighted material? What about a map, based on a satellite image? Or a map based on another map?-- ExpImp^talkcon 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty much case by case. I think the case above is clear cut. To quote the WP:Fairuse policy section:

For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free.

If you are tracing then that's wrong. If you are redrawing something factual - to convey the same information then that's okay. I'm no lawyer - but I know copyright infringement when I see it. Megapixie 11:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tracing" is Tracing? I have a computer, no translucent sheet, but you have all worked with graphics programs, everything there is like a translucent sheet. YEAH, i might have used an electronic translucent sheet, then simplifying, and remaking it for clarity and symmetry. On the other hand if you mean by "Tracing" running a command called "trace" and it gives you a vector version of the picture, NO, i haven't done that. I made it by hand (read mouse), but, as said before, using [26] as a reference.-- ExpImp^talkcon 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• You drew a diagram based on a photograph of a spinal cross-section, right? Someone would have to look at the case law to be sure, but my instinct is that it's not copyright infringement because you're not copying a substantial part of the creative work involved in the photograph. Someone made the cross section, arranged it, set the lighting, and photographed it. From that, the only information you're taking is the information found in nature itself -- the arrangement of the spine and surrounding structures in the human body. My guess is no copyright infringement as long as your diagram doesn't capture any original choices made by the original image creator. As I said though, it would be smart to look at the case law. TheronJ 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the following phrases:

1. "the creative work involved in the photograph" - what is the creative work ? pressing the button ? choosing the motive ?
2. "capture any original choices made by the original image creator" - what are the original choices ? choosing the motive ?

please explain. thanks. -- ExpImp^talkcon 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm speaking at a very high level of generality, and I caution that until someone looks at some cases or a copyright treatise, I wouldn't take this as gospel, but, my understanding is:

• Copyright primarily protects the original expression of the creator. In this case, there may besome creativity in creating the spine cross section (deciding what body to use and where to cut, for instance), and is certainly some creativity in photographing (deciding on the lighting, the angle, the film effects, etc).
• In order to decide whether copyright infringement has occurred at all, the courts normally look to see whether there is substantial similarity in the copied elements (which can be a small portion of the whole). So if I read Harry Potter and I decide to write a book about a boy wizard, I'm ok. However, if I give him a mean aunt and uncle, a friendly headmaster patron, a smart female friend and goofy male one, etc., I'm likely to lose.
• In this case, I don't know enough about the spine to say whether the original portions of the photo have been copied. If a similar diagram of any cross section of the spine would look more or less the same, then my guess is that there is not such substantial similarity as to show copyright violation.

Thoughts? TheronJ 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a standard vertebral segment. I did a Neurology course last year, and all features depicted are entirely typical. Theres a minor error in the vector version in which a nerve turns into its own sheath, but it's otherwise textbook-standard. However, I should point out that's not an actual vertebrae: That's a model, of a type common in classrooms, and probably made circa 1960, give or take a decade or two. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Altering copyrighted material

Any guidelines for alteration in a fair-use copyrighted image? I'd like to edit Image:Soyinka and Cheney-Coker.jpg to make Syl's face a little more visible; particularly in the thumbnail version at Syl Cheney-Coker the shadow is a problem. Is this acceptable? Chick Bowen 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Altering fair use images is within the bounds of fair use. However per the recent alteration to WP:Fairuse criteria #1 of fair use - states that no fair use alternative could be reasonably created. This image may not meet that criteria. Megapixie 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what we consider it to be an illustrating. As an image of Cheney-Coker, it does not. As an image of the two great writers together, I think it certainly does. Cheney-Coker has returned to Sierra Leone and is unlikely to be photographed with Soyinka or at all. Chick Bowen 16:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's figure it out, though, because I don't want to edit the image if we're not going to use it. Chick Bowen 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents from YouTube?

I've found some info that I wanted to include in an article... but I've found it in an interview that's available from YouTube. Well, of course I know that YouTube is a) not necessarily completely kosher when it comes to copyright, and can b) potentially delete videos (leading to dead links). So I wonder if references to YouTube videos are generally discouraged? If so, should I simply mention the interview (even though I know only the name of the show, not the date of its screening, etc.) without mentioning YouTube? Or would that infringe some copyright as I've actually never seen the "original" interview, only the YouTube version? To make things more complicated, the YouTube video is most likely not the entire interview--even though the matter in question is dealt with "exhaustively" (it's just a little detail), I can't really claim I've watched the entire interview... etc. etc. :-) Thanks! --71.232.94.99 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided links that infringe on others copyright are to be avoided. If you know the name of the show that's probably enough to incorperate the content of the interview into the article - i.e.

"In an interview given on the CNN crossfire television show, Saddam Hussein revealed his love of Vanilla ice-cream".

A little more context might be helpful (which article, which YouTube link ?) Megapixie 08:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Captured images from GoogleEarth

I would like to update an article about a World Heritage Site in Chile and include several small images I took from the ground. However, there would be considerable benefit in seeing the extent from the air / satellite and the Google Earth view is just perfect. I have asked (as well as one might) Google if this is possible and get the standard response which says you can put images ont he your (own?) website. Would I be able to use such images in the English version of Wikipedia? Many thanks. smmudge

Hello, first off you can sign your name by typing ~~~~. Secondly Google Earth is very good - however we can't use their images, they are all copyright. However NASA visbile Earth ( http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ in particular http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.php?categoryID=2250 ) has a large number of images that we can use. There are further images linked from here http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ I hope that helps. Megapixie 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint about ~~~~. I have checked both NASA websites and I am afraid neither have anything of any use... the resolution of the visible earth view does not show what is required. If you would like to compare yourself, check out Humberstone, Chile in both GoogleEarth and NASA and see the problem. Looks like no simple solution here. Thanks. 89.241.16.35 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nedpress.nl

There is an image from nedpress.nl that I want to include in an article. This picture sells for two prices:

     *One price is "only for private personal use".
     *The other is for "unlimited printed or internet publication or commercial use".

If I buy the image for the latter of the two prices, would the copyright status be free license or fair use? Also, what would be the appropriate licensing tag? Thank you. Lionheart1979 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a really good question. The easiest way to get an answer would be to email them and ask them for a price to relicence it under the GFDL for unlimited commercial reuse/alteration and re-publication and sale. I suspect what they don't actually mean "unlimited publication" - they mean unlimited publication but no re-sale/re-distribution. But it would be interesting to find out. BTW - the image link didn't work. Megapixie 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The image link is fixed. Lionheart1979 22:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

contents from other wikipedias

How about content from other wikipedias (i.e. in other languages)? I've never seen a footnote linking to a different wikipedia, even though some articles were clearly translations. In a way, the link to the other page should be in the left column anyway. On the other hand, that opens the door for circular citations without any real source... So what's the general policy? Should I mention which contents I get from a different(-language) wikipedia? If so, how? Thanks. --128.119.59.80 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a little side-box for links to other wikipedias. I suspect, though, that you could use the standard "Colon before the standard link". Let's find out: de:William Schwenck Gilbert Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Success! Just put [[:de:William Schwenck Gilbert]] (or equivilent for your language and name of article) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

UK hydrological data

I'd like to create a river infobox, with data like source height, flow, catchment area etc, like this, for the River Tame, Greater Manchester. The data is (near enough) at this page at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's website. The copyright statement is here, and claims "no information contained on the site may be used for commercial purposes, unless the Natural Environment Research Council has given its prior written permission." Now, all I want is a couple of pieces of data, but I guess that in the long run a number of UK river articles on WP might dip in. Question: can the river data be restricted in the way that the NERC claims, or is it OK for us to use it? Mr Stephen 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is generaly said that you can't copyright facts so from the POV of copyright you should be OK as long as you do not copy their layout. However there is thequestion of wether they can force you to follow their agreement. I doubt it but at the same time I doubt there is any case law.Geni 12:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: This site publishes articles, scientific research, maps, and the like. That's probably what they mean to protect. That said, why not just write them and ask? They probably won't mind a few basic facts, being more concerned about very advanced research. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It looks like it's safest to ask, so I'll study the example letters over the weekend and fire one off on Monday. Mr Stephen 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since NERC is a government funded public body, I think it has a duty to make some data collected with this public money available to the public... I am not sure how this would "fit" here but if there was a reference / link to NERC as the supplier, they may be happy(ish). 89.240.212.149 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Uk though so availible to the public does not mean copyright free.Geni 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MRI images

Are MRI images ok? They are of myself. Not sure who owns the copyright; me (I paid for them)? the radiologist? Isthmic spondylolisthesis 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The radiologist would own the copyright of the images. The real question would be if they contain enough "artist value" to be copyrighted. That I'm not sure of. Anyone else ? Megapixie 00:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Could it even be proven whose MRI it was? If not, I think they're uncopyrightable. If one MRI looks much like any other, barring surprises not in the planning of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

the bar for creative imput is pretty low so likely protected by copyright. Could be argued that it counts as commisioned work I suppose.Geni 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Without a pre-agreement with the radiologist, that you will not retain copyright of the images, the copyright would default to him - wedding photographer style. I suggest you contact the radiologist and ask him if it's okay to release the images under the GFDL, I'm sure he wouldn't object. Radiologist should be credited on the images description page though (Moral rights as author). Megapixie 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What do these terms mean?

Hi, I would like to use this image [27] in the Maserati MC12 article. I used picfindr which was recommended on public domain images for searching for free images. I read the terms and conditions of the website [28] and I think it would be suitable for Wikipedia. I'm not 100% sure so I'm asking :). Please tell me which image tag I should use (or if it's not appropriate licensing for Wikipedia). Thanks, James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think part 1 here http://morguefile.com/forum/faq.php#1 where it says - "you cannot sell prints" sinks it as far as wikipedia is concerned. Which appears to refer to the license that you link - in particular "Subscriber may not: (a) sell, license, sublicense, rent, transfer or distribute any Photo on a standalone basis". We cannot use these images under GFDL. And the image in question wouldn't pass fair use criteria #1. Megapixie 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright thanks. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PD-old

{{PD-old}} images are free even if scanned from a newer book, right? Punkmorten 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

which country are you in? In the US current case law says they are still free as long as they are a slavish copy.Geni 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clearer - as long as the image is reproduced without substantive artistic input - i.e. a photograph or a painting is fine. But a photograph or painting that has been altered in a recently published source - i.e. to add Elvis or substantially retouched (to restore missing sections / add information) - counts as a new derivative work, and the copyright is considered to be for a new work. Megapixie 22:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Images from: Nature Publishing Group, Journal of Neuroscience

We would like to start a wikibook based on lecture notes, we wrote 2 years ago. As these notes are for internal use only, we did not care about copyright: We used lots of figures from Nature (Neuroscience) and Journal of Neuroscience. Does anybody have experience with these publishers and using their content (images) in Wiki{pedia,books}? Perhaps even how to request this content and which tags to use? Rmaertin 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

the odds of any of the content being released under a free lisence are effectively nill so we can't use it. If the raw data could be obtianted we could create our own figures (assumeing you mean diagrams).Geni 14:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nature seems to allow free (as in beer) usage of certain contents for educational/academic purposes. also on websites. Could this be translated to a fair use license?Rmaertin 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

no wikipedia stuff needs to be free enough for anyone to use in whatever way they want.Geni 16:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture of a copyrighted text

The article for John 3:16 uses a picture of the text in the NIV translation, which is a copyrighted text. Is this fair use? Name not given Image:John316.jpg

In any case, there's no reason whatsoever why we couldn't use an out-of-copyright bible. God knows there's enough floating around. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

typeseting is covered bgy copyright and there are a whole load of other messy issues so I would tend towards no.Geni 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

These images of Sea Urchins from the Sea Urchin Genome Project

[29] They say they're free for use, but some have copyrights? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

BC Archives Images of People

I am doing an article about Adam Grant Horne, a Scot who died in Canada in 1901. There are 3 photos of him that BC Archives has online at 1, 2 and 3. Since he died over 100 years ago, the PD-Canada copyright template ought to apply although I suppose that require knowing who the photographer is and when he died. The BC Archives Terms of Use purport to limit how the photos can be used. Their request for permission form requires that the person seeking permission agree to terms that are not Free. Before approaching them for permission, I would like to know what Wikipedia policy is when old images may be public domain but the holder of the image wants to impose limits on use. KenWalker | Talk 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

confirm it is the public domain then find someone in the US to copy it normaly.Geni 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

These turn-of-the-century vocal score artworks on Wikipedia Commons

Image:Cover of the Vocal Score of Sidney Jones' The Geisha.jpg Image:Cover of the Vocal Score of Sidney Jones' King of Cadonia.jpg Image:Cover of the Vocal Score of Seymour Hicks' The Earl and the Girl.jpg

Are they suitable? (If more information is needed, I can get it.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They should be okay if they are pre-1923 (PD-US) - but they might not be usable on the commons. If you can work out who was credited for the art we can probably work out when they died (www.findagrave.com). Megapixie 00:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. They *do* have little attributions. (and I think the latest is 1904, but don't have them out at present. I remember one's 1898, one's 1904, and I can't recall the other, but did check it wasn't too late))

TV screen shot question

I'm thinking about uploading a screen shot from a news program showing Comrade Artemio making a series of demands to the Peruvian government via propaganda video. A number of these exist, such as [30] and [31]. I guess I would tag with with the TV screen shot fair use tag. My question is, could I use the picture on Comrade Artemio and Shining Path? Both articles actually mention this video, but neither of them is actually about Cuarto Poder, the news show that the clips are from. --Descendall 01:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the chances of any free images existing are aprox nill and the articles do talk about the video I think a fair use case could be made.Geni 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the thing that I've never understood is if TV screen shots have to be in artcle about the actual TV program, or if they can be in articles about the subject of the TV program. --Descendall 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded Image:Artemio.jpg and Image:Artemioandfriends.jpg. If anyone takes issue with my fair use rationale, fix it or delete it. Thanks. --Descendall 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1930s Zionist film poster

It looks like Orphanbot is about to clobber a 1930s film poster that has the {{Movie poster}} tag on it; it's not at all clear what additional information it needs. The poster is for a 1930s Zionist film and is lettered in both Romanian and Hungarian. It's an obviously historically significant object; its copyright status is almost certainly lost in the mists of time. Is there some way to save this? - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is/was the articles the poster is/was being used in - Jew/Zionism, etc - are not directly related to the poster. If the poster was being used on an article about the film it illustrates, then that would within our fair use policy. As it stood, it wasn't fair use. Megapixie 11:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, if it were being used in an article about the film it would be fair use. But that is not the only way one can make fair use of what is, essentially, a political poster. When you say "it wasn't fair use", are you saying that it violated a Wikipedia policy, or are you making the stronger claim that this use would not be legally defensible use under "fair use" doctrine? Because there is no point to my trying to address your assertion until I know which of two assertions you are making. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about fair use policy. Megapixie 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostafa Tabatabainejad

Mostafa Tabatabainejad is a UCLA student who was Tasered in an alleged instance of police brutality. The incident was recorded on a cell phone camera by an onlooker, and later distributed on YouTube. Clips of the event have appeared in many national media.

I realize we're not generally supposed to link to YouTube, but in this instance, since the individual recording the event put his/her video online, is it acceptable?

Footage is here. Dylan 15:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case I would argue for yes.Geni 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Does using offical summaries the Nicelodeon gives out as teasers count as copyvio? I am currently working the article to featured status and their are people on both sides of the fence here. Cnriaczoy42 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. Megapixie 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)