Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 6

message: I can't think of a better place to ask this, so I'll come here.  Do we think that  applies to two dimensional works on non-flat surfaces, such as vase paintings?  I'd like to upload a number of Greek vase paintings to illustrate articles, but I'd also like to make sure we're clear legally before I do that.  Thanks, RobthTalk 06:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|pd-art}} 

message: There is a level of disagrement on the copyright status of images on Starfleet ranks and insignia.
The debate currently tries to determine weather or not redrawn rank insignias are releasable with a free licence.
I would like to invite all parties interested to join the debate.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia]]

message: Is the West Point military yearbook considered a work of the US Army for purposes of copyright? Would it be appropriate to tag an image from this yearbook with Template:PD-USGov-Military? ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright tag query 

message: As far as I can tell for years all contributors to Wikipedia have been contributing their own material submitting from a page which links to this one. This page clearly says "If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that..."
Note this says material, not text. Material includes images. Yet a few people put up their own images and claim they are under a more restrictive licence (e.g. Creative Commons). This matters hugely because when putting together a CD version 1.0 like the [Wikipedia CD Selection] whereas it is fairly clear you can name authors and creators by telling people where to find the author details (e.g. on which page on Wikipedia they are [Copyright & Disclaimer]) under creative commons 2.5 some people argue that you should have the (Nick) name of the author burnt on the CD. Getting a list like this together is a serious botting task which is all for the handful of non GFDL licences. There is no way of distinguishing CC licenses from the rest of WP except by hand-sorting.  
So is it fair to assume all WP images are GFDL unless the creators protest otherwise? It is easy excluding images on request but generating the list is a headache --BozMo talk 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't at all clear to me. I respect your point of view but somewhere there needs to be a less dogmatic discussion about what these licences actually say. There is a deal of difference between an attribution and an advert, and as an academic I am used to having to trace back through the reference pages on reference pages on reference pages to find the original (properly attributed) source for research for example. Valid attribution doesn't require advertising, just acknowledging and attributing.  --BozMo talk 09:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributors to Wikipedia

message: I plan on creating some articles for songs which my choir sings.  They are notable and I have heard them other places, and I believe that they are notable enough to become articles.  That is not my point however.  I was wondering if it would be against the copyright to include their lyrics in the articles to illustrate the message of the songs more.  Would it be fair use?  Thanks for your advice, zappa 23:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how old the lyrics are (if they are from before 1923, you're fine), how much you quote (if it's just enough to illustrate a point, you probably have a good fair use defense), etc. Same issues as any other material written by someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Song Lyrics

message: Where the project page says "Currently it seems dubious…", what seems dubious? The preceding sentence? If someone understands what this is about, and can write English well, please rewrite this very confusing passage. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not dubious, it's plain wrong. See Template talk:PD-USSR and the discussions linked there. The problem is that all we know for sure is that the reasoning that "works published pre-1973 were PD outside of the USSR because the USSR was not a member of international copyright treaties before that year" is wrong (one reason being that the UCC applied to all earlier works that were still copyrighted then), but we do not know what Soviet works would be PD by now. From discussions I had per e-mail with a foundation lawyer, it seems that works published in the former Soviet union must be considered simultaneously published in all successor states of the USSR because all these successor states were retroactively considered members of the UCC with an effective date of 1973 when the Soviet union was dissolved. Thus it is not even sufficient to look only at the Russian law (current and older) to try to figure out whether something would be PD, but one has also to take into account the laws of all the other successor states. And, of course, former Soviet laws. The issue is complicated even more because a number of these successor states (at least Russia, last amended in 2004, and the Ukraine in 2001) passed retroactive copyright laws. In view of all this, I have rewritten this section by completely removing it. I think anyway that this is not the right place to list country-specific PD rules. Such country-specific rules should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country. For a more in-depth view of some complexities of the "public domain", please see WP:PD. Lupo 08:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet copyrights 

message: Hi, I've significantly paraphrased a work for an article, History of machine translation, see discussion on talk page. I have made some enquiries and no-one I have spoken to thinks it counts as a copyvio. But I would like to get some more opinions, and if it is judged to be a copyvio I would like to see it 'd. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to examine your paraphrasing in light of Macmillan Co. v. King.  Quoting the decision there: The words so quoted are taken direct from the book. Instances of such quotation are frequent throughout the sheets. They are generally short, consisting of one or two words only; the words selected being usually such as would be likely to catch the attention and remain in the memory. Instances of [*866] entire sentences quoted are not so common, though there are several of them. The language of the book is sometimes followed, without being distinguished by quotation marks, though not for more than a few words at a time, so far as I have noticed....there is frequent quotation of words, and occasional quotation of sentences from the book; the topics treated are topics treated in the book, the attempt is made to reproduce in abridged and paraphrased form (so far as such reproduction is possible within the very narrow limits adopted) the author's treatment of the topics selected, and the author's order and arrangement of topics within the portions of the book dealt with is followed, except for a certain amount of transposition or repetition.It is true that the whole book has not been thus dealt with; but the copyright protects every substantial component part of the book, as well as the whole. Though the reproduction of the author's ideas and language is incomplete and fragmentary, and frequently presents them in somewhat distorted form, important portions of them are left substantially recognizable.If your paraphrase is less closely connected to the original than that, it's probably fine. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you say that currently it is too closely connected to the original? Basically I think the only things that could be said for "the same words" are the names of countries. - FrancisTyers 12:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraphrasing

message: I uploaded an image without knowing its copyright status. I recently learned that status. How do I assign that status to the image?
EvaXephon 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the image page, click "edit" at the top, change.  Just like any other page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I learn the copyright status of an image, how do I assign that status to the image? 

message: I've created a tag for prospective use of morgueFile images on Wikipedia, . Their license is a little confusing, and I'd like advice on how I've represented it and generally whether or not their images can be used here. If someone could drop by Template talk:MorgueFile, that would be great. Melchoir 20:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site itself seems to be a bit dead right now, but if Template:MorgueFile is correct, the images cannot be used on Wikipedia.  The license prohibits distributing images on their own, and it has a clause prohibiting uses "which may be considered offensive, indecent or objectionable", a very broad, vaguely-worded prohibition on certain types of use.  Wikipedia requires that images be freely distributable, and that they can be used for any legal purpose. --Carnildo 06:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  morgueFile 

message: In the section "Using copyrighted work from others" it says, "If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use" ... you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)." What names and dates? The name of the wiki editor and the date of the edit? Where do you note it - in the article or in the Talk page? Or should this instead read something like "you must cite the source"? Nurg 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noting "names and dates" in fair use

message: I listed  on TFD as it's a license tag that says "This media file is copyrighted to an Indian domain and all rights reserved by that domain" -- basically, that our use of the image is a copyright violation.  It was closed as a 2-2 no-consensus "keep". --Carnildo 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, I would say, is the problem with Wikipedian polls: they're totally unrepresentative of Wikipedians and therefore can give outright absurd results at times.  I've updated the template appropriately, so I suppose all this means is that we have one extra worthless template lying around on Wikimedia's hard disks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a group of Wikipedians vote to violate copyright? 

message: I started work on a page, Wikipedia:Can I use this work?, that will hopefully be useful once it's done.  I'm basing it mainly on this chart.  Any thoughts? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: very good idea. Emphasize that most items copyright `923-63 were not renewed and became public domain. Rjensen 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good work.  But, in general, the biggest difficulty is knowing the original date (and place) of publication, if the author's date of death doesn't do the job.  The chart might want to address unknown pub dates as it does unknown date of death (which is, after all, much less likely to be unknown). Finally, I'm not aware that there is a clear answer to the question of whether US law is the sole determinant. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of forgot about that, as you can see.  :)  If the original date/place of publication is unknown, then pick the least favorable possibility (i.e., be conservative).  As for US law, it's the sole determinant for the purposes of the English Wikipedia (except that our policies may, of course, be stricter).Anyway, I'm contemplating improvement of the current copyright upload form to give this little quiz instead of just letting people pick from a list (how many people would read the page I created anyway?), but that's a very long-term project. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD flowchart 

message: Is the wikipedia logo, that image of a sphere made up of puzzle peices, copyrighted?  What are the requirements for using it on derivative wikis? Nygdan
:The Wikipedia logo is copyrighted (and most likely trademarked as well).  If you want to use it somewhere, you need to get permission from Jimbo Wales or the board of the Wikimedia foundation. --Carnildo 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is indeed copyrighted, but at least some instantiations were released under the GFDL by the author. It is also apparently trademarked. But regardless, it's friendly to not use it, so that there can be a clear separation between Wikipedia proper and other projects (even though they might use the same content). — Matt Crypto 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No work based on the logo can be released under the GFDL.  You would need either explicit permission or a fair-use justification to use any such work.And by the way, Nygdan, it's conventional to place new sections at the bottom.  You can use the plus sign to the right of "edit this page" to add a section more easily. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree; I believe that some instantiations of the logo were released under the GFDL by the designer. IANAL, but trademark law likely prevents them from being used outside of how the Wikimedia Foundation wishes them to be used anyway, so it makes little difference. — Matt Crypto 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure the Foundation required that all copyright to the logo be handed over exclusively to them.  That would mean that if User:Nohat or User:Paullusmagnus created alternative versions, those would be derivative of the Wikimedia-owned logo.  Or else the Wikimedia-owned logo would be derivative of them, in which case they would have had to hand over the copyright on the base work too if they were to fully transfer ownership.  So either way, no go.  Where are these GFDLd logos?Trademark restricts nothing that wouldn't cause confusion for consumers.  If trademark were the only issue, the logo could be used freely as long as no association with Wikimedia was implied. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless they were GFDL'd before copyright was assigned to the Foundation. — Matt Crypto 05:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently all new logos must not be GFDLd.  Old ones may have been grandfathered in, but some things would suggest the Foundation doesn't accept that, or at least User:Anthere (vice-chair of WMF Board of Trustees) doesn't think it does.  It may be that they're wrong, of course, hoisted by their own petard when Nohat uploaded it to Meta; it seems likely to me, in fact.  They certainly own the copyright, so they don't have to follow the GFDL in distributing their logos, but others can reuse them without permission in a non-confusing manner. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Logo

message: I just uploaded :Image:Pizza Pops.jpg for use in the above article. Could someone check and make sure I used the correct copyright tag. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore this I had forgotten about Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and I posted the question there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pizza Pops]]

message: I just uploaded two copies of newspaper articles as reference for a new article I started.  Would someone check and let me know what I need to do from a permissioning/citing/tagging perspective?
Thanks.
--Irishkevin2 06:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I would suggest you use a format such as JPG in the future, since most browsers won't display PDF files inline (so you have to click on them and wait for Adobe Acrobat to load, then go back to the article).  Second of all, the articles you uploaded are copyrighted, and it's illegal for us to host them here, so I'm going to put them up for deletion.  However, you don't need to upload the actual materials to serve as references—you can just add citations using a standard template such as .  While online or otherwise easily-accessible resources are useful so that readers can find the information more easily, they're not compulsory, any more than in print sources.Hope that helps. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm afraid not.  The content must be released under a free license such as the GFDL or a suitable Creative Commons license.  It can't be only for use on Wikipedia, and it can't be only for commercial use.  That's the idea behind free software. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspaper Articles

message: If I take an article I wrote, using versions where I had been the sole editor, I don't need to bother with this, do I? - SoM 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? Do you mean an article you wrote somewhere else that you would now like to move to Wikipedia? It's not a problem to use it, but you might want to make a note on the talk page giving a link to the original source and saying that you yourself are the original author. Otherwise someone might google a sentence or two of the Wikipedia article, find your original source, and tag it as a copyvio. Angr (t • c) 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other way round - some articles I originally wrote for WP that I'd now like to use somewhere else. Preferably, with as few hoops to jump through as possible. - SoM 15:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. That I don't know. I don't see why it should a problem, though. Angr (t • c) 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You still hold the copyright to the articles you wrote and can distribute them freely without abiding by the GFDL.  You just can't stop other people from distributing them as long as they do abide by the GFDL.  You don't have to inform people it's released under the GFDL, either; only people who actually want to use it under the GFDL have to do that. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much what I thought, but I wanted to be sure. Ta. - SoM 04:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking something 

message: I would like to write a couple articles about some members of my family, but of course I'd need references to back them up.  I have a number of articles and obituaries for members of my family, but in some cases they are just very old clippings from newspapers that don't have any information as to the newspaper publisher and are post-1922.  Given that they are articles about my own family, are they still subject to copyright laws?  I'm going to assume "yes", but even the obituaries?  After all, my own family would have been the author's source of information... it'd be a reference loop: I'd reference him; and he'd theoretically have referenced me. Thisisbossi
:Setting aside our general discouragement against anyone writing on a topic with whom they have had a personal relationship, simply using something as a reference for information does not implicate copyright, because facts are not copyrightable.  What is copyrightable is the manner in which facts are expressed.  A word-for-word, letter-for-letter copy of an obituary is going to be copyright infringement.  A fact-for-fact use of an obituary to write an article in your own words is not.  If you're missing the publication information from the obituaries, then you're just going to have a problem verifying the information, but it's not legally necessary to give credit to a source from which you have learned a fact.  That being said, if an obituary is the only print reference in which information about these individuals can be found, you might have a problem meeting our notability guidelines for articles about people.  See WP:BIO.  Postdlf 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Especially an obit in an unknown paper. A New York Times or Pravda obit would probably be pretty good evidence of notability in and of itself. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help.  I understand the concerns with regards to writing about kin, which is why I want to provide verifiable sources along with any articles I modify or create.  I'll see if I can track down these sources.  --Thisisbossi 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With date and location in hand, it shouldn't be too hard to work out what newspaper something actually came from. Not trivial, but well within feasibility. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Articles from Unknown Newspaper 

message: An editor seems to be claiming copyright of her submission, here: Biological patent. What's up with that? -Freekee 05:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the authorship statement at the bottom of the text and added a cleanup tag.  Dragons flight 05:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may have been a copyvio, although not from an online source. The editor was anonymous, and it wasn't a statement of authorship so much as a copyright notice, perhaps listed from the source publication. Lana Nimri is a known expert on IP rights in Arabic countries, a attorney and member of Arab Society for Intellectual Property. Unless she came here personally and edited the article anonymously, the text doesn't belong there at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience if someone signs something by adding a copyright notice after their sig then they are almost always the original author.  That the text doesn't seem to be copied from the net seems to support that.  But by all means feel free to write to Lana Nimri to confirm.  I suspect though any meaningful cleanup is going to dump much of the text anyway.  Dragons flight 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless we can determine that the author posted her own work, shouldn't the text of the article be removed also? -Freekee 03:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: copyright of contributions

message: Do we accept it or not? I though we didn't and commons don't, but I notice the various  type license tags are still around. They have that little "This is an unfree license" message on them, but they don't seem to have been "retired" like  and  where, and I notice the "must allow modifications" clause have been removed from the  template too. The reason I ask is that I ocationaly run across images with statements along the lines of "This image can be used freely as long as it is not modified" and then tagged with  or whatever, and I'm abit unsure wether that's ok or not. And isn't there entire classes of crown copyright that also does not allow modifications and stuff? Just curious about wether we have a policy against it or not, I would think such a restiction would be incompatable with GFDL and therefore not allowed, but I can't seem to find anywhere where it's written down that images must allow modifications to be allowed, so maybe I'm just confused... --Sherool (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not free, so no, they're not allowed.  The cc-nd licenses are kept mostly as traps to catch any images uploaded under those licenses.  The Crown Copyright tags are intended as "fair use" tags with the copyright holder listed on the tag.  The whole issue of "no derivarives" has been pretty much ignored because images with that as the only restriction are much less common than restrictions of "no commercial use" or "educational use only". --Carnildo 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No modifications" type restrictions on images 

message: Just came across a screenshot from Plan 9 from Outer Space tagged as PD-US so my gut reaction was to change it to movie-screenshot, but then I sniffed around a bit and the entire movie is available from Google video labeled as Public Domain... Is this some kind of special case, failure to renew copyright before some key point in time or whatever? Because I can't figure out why it would be PD, the director didn't die untill 1978 so by the "normal" life +70 rule this one should be copyrighted untill 2048. Is Google way of base here or have the movie been released into the public domain at some point deliberately? --Sherool (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact :Category:Public domain films is full of rather suspect cases, I'm guessing the intent is to only put stuff into the 1888 - 1924 range subcats, but it's full of movies from the 40s and 50s too. --Sherool (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything published/released prior to 1963 for which the copyright was not renewed by the author is now in the public domain.  It's a Wonderful Life is a notable example of such a film (though it is still under licensing restrictions only because it is derivative of a work that is still copyrighted).  I have no specific knowledge of whether this is also true of Plan 9.  Copyright renewal is now automatic, which is why there's a 1963 cutoff.  Postdlf 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the films in the category that I checked explained the issue in the article. See  for all the different copyright expiriations. Rmhermen 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that would probably explain it yes. I got the 1923 date confused with the copyright renewal stuff since that's the only year mentioned on the  template. --Sherool (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might do well to have a distinct template for this, explaining the basis on which these works are PD. - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1959 movies in the public domain? 

message: Query on usage: Assuming a user used Virtual earth to locate a point on the planet, zoomed in and rotated the image to a specific viewpoint, then made a screenshot image, using Ctrl, Alt, PrtSc, and overlaid the cropped image with marks and indicators to give information about a place on the image, then saved that combined image again as a new image.  Would that final image be permitted for use on wikipedia? If so under what licence? Richard Harvey 06:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the original, undoctored image have been copyrighted or public domain? If the original was copyrighted, then the user can't claim authorship of the modified version (a derivative work). If the original was public domain, then the user can claim authorship of the modified version and license it as he will (though he should still mention the source of the original and point out it's PD). Angr (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtual Earth appears to basically be a ripoff of Google Earth, incorporating satellite data (presumably all free) to form a composite image.  Unless the composition is novel enough to warrant copyright, it should be okay, but I'm uncertain on that point.  The composition is done by computer, but after all, the computer program requires creativity to write.  I'd guess it's no good if it's a composite image, but IANAL. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to assume the original content is not copyrighted. If you do want to add maps or whatever, I would suggest you look into NASA World Wind. AFAIK, most of the content there is free or released under the NASA Open Source license. However I don't know this that well, so look into NASA's copyright section before you add anything. Nil Einne 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any work made by an employee of NASA in the course of his duties is in the public domain, as with any US federal agency.  I suggested that Google Earth's stuff (meaning the satellite images only, which I didn't say) was presumably free because all NASA images are free and therefore there's no reason not to use them.  Actually, though, I think they did in fact license it, because I recall reading copyright notices as I scrolled around, way back when.  I would personally suspect that the copyright on any satellite image taken perpendicular to the Earth's surface is just as uncopyrightable as a picture taken of a public-domain image from a perpendicular angle, but it hasn't been tried in court, so we might not want to rely on that. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Virtual Earth

message: What should I do when I come across images like this one? (be warned: that's a porn photo)  It's certainly possible that the copyright owner has released rights; it's just far more likely that the copyright tag is a lie.  Should I put it up for deletion?  Delete the copyright tag?  Or simply leave a message on the picture's talk page?  Thanks for any help; I've been seeing a lot of such images lately.  Also, whatever the answer is, it might be helpful to say it explicitly in some help page or other (sorry if it's there and I just missed it).  --Allen 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the license tag is clearly wrong (say, an image tagged  when the original website says "all rights reserved"), I strike out the tag and add  and a comment as to why the license tag is wrong, and watchlist the image until it gets deleted.  For an image with no reasonable use on Wikipedia (such as most porn), I tag it with  instead. --Carnildo 23:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, "No encyclopedic use" isn't a speedy criterion so the above tag is invalid. Instead, go to the source provided, make sure it doesn't say anywhere "All images may be used freely for any purpose" (which of course it won't), then do a strikethrough of the claimed license and replace it with . Angr (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  may not be a speedy criterion, but it's still pretty good at getting rid of gratuitious porn. --Carnildo 08:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what to do with implausible copyright tags? 

message: I have a photograph I took myself which I would like to use on an article I'm writing. I don't mind uploading it onto Wikipedia, but I don't want people to be able to use it for commercial purposes or on other websites.  I looked through the different copyrights, but can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Then again, I could have just missed it... Does a copyright like this exist, or can I make up my own?  Thanks in advance!  Editor at Large 19:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't allow images with that sort of restriction.  The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia that follows the free content philosophy: people can freely modify the content and use it elsewhere.  Images that can't be re-used or used commercially get in the way of that goal. --Carnildo 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carnildo is quite right. However, if you license your image under the GFDL only (and not under Creative Commons), then the only way someone can use your image commercially (or at all) is if they attach the entire text of the GFDL with it. This pretty much guarantees your image will only be used in an encyclopedia, and not for example on a tee shirt, because no tee shirt manufacturer is going to print the entire text of the GFDL on the back of the tee shirt just so he can use your picture on the front. Angr (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be a bit more widespread than that.  The GFDL works for websites and for large printed works such as books. --Carnildo 08:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thank you! Editor at Large 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could also include it on a CD/DVD etc I believe Nil Einne 11:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighting my own image 

message: The article on Tony Tether was copied directly from a US government website. I've seen things like this multiple times. Although the material appears to be in the public domain, it doesn't seem proper to copy-and-paste into Wikipedia what others have written. Are their any policies or guidelines about this? Thanks! -Medtopic 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done often with this sort of public domain material. Of course, it should be edited for NPOV and encyclopedic style, as well, it needs to be wikified. Rmhermen 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In academia, it would certainly be improper.  Here, we usually give attribution if the borrowing is substantial (see my newly-created :Category:Attribution templates; I know there are templates somewhere for government works too). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attribution is certainly encouraged. Sorry I forgot to mention it. The tag for 1911 texts was one of the first instituted on Wikipedia. Rmhermen 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki guidelines on copying non-copyrighted material

message: I see this template being used to tag certain images . Is this compatible with WP copyright policy? There is no statement about being able to use these images for commercial or non-commercial use. Can somebody clarify this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a little tag on it saying "NOTE: The following conditions may not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives." (The "or prohibit derivatives" part was just added.) "Educational or not-for-profit purposes" covers noncommercial use pretty well. Otherwise I guess you have free rein. ("This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that they stand on their head while singing 'O Canada'.") Angr (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. But my question was related to how do we deal with these images and their conflict with the GFDL. Clearly these images do not fit the license we tell users of WP. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what the conditions are that the person has written in. Creative Commons Licenses aren't exactly compatible with the GFDL either, but we still allow CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. So long as there are only reasonable conditions of use (author must be attributed, derivative works must be licensed the same way, etc.) and not general restrictions on use (no commercial use, no derivatives, etc.), they're okay. If you come across an image with this tag whose conditions seem incompatible with being free content, I guess either tag it for speedy deletion under I3 if that applies, or else take it to IFD for "discussion" (although discussion at IFD is pretty rare). Angr (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images? 

message: I'm looking for some help determining whether a few images are in copyright or not. It's a bit long but I'll try to keep it as short as I can.
* I'm looking for a photo for the Jim Hall (boxer) article. He died in 1913, so any photos of him were obviously taken before then.
* This photo is the one I've seen used most often. The "Dana Photo SF" on the print refers to Dana Studio in San Francisco, who specialised in boxing photos from 1900-1916. The photographer, Percy Dana, was born circa 1865. There doesn't seem to be any indication of when the photo was published.
*  says images published before 1923 in the US are PD only in the US.  says the same thing, and the author died 50 years ago (1956). I haven't yet been able to determine when Dana died (he would have been 91 in '56), but I'm not sure if it is OK to assume the photo was published before 1923 (since the photography studio closed in 1916).
* Alternatively there is this ("circa 1895", no info about the ownership of the photo though), this (published in 1910 - but in Britain) and this (no info i could find)
So in short my question is whether (1) it is OK to use the first, under the assumption it was published before the photography studio closed and/or the subject died; (2) either of the second lot i've listed (in particular, the British one) are OK; (3) it's best to make no assumptions and try to find a new photo/concrete info; or (4) this is completely the wrong place to ask this question... Thanks — AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the 1910 Britain photo, with .  Any work first published before 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain under US law. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Thanks Simetrical. — AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  old(ish) photos 

message: Site wikivx.info mirrors Wikipedia in several languages (English, German, French, probably more). URLs are <article-name>.<language-symbol>.wikivx.info, e.g. http://word.en.wikivx.info/ . There is no remark on GFDL on these pages. Looks like a violation of GFDL? --Anastasius zwerg 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of the page, I see "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article 'Word' it is used under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may redistribute it,verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the GFDL." —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, the place to take these up is Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Mirror violating GFDL? 

message: I just want to double check to make sure that all pre-1923 publications from the United States are now in the public domain. Is that true even if the author died less than 70 years ago? I found some really nice line drawings of Cordyceps in a 1911 issue of Mycologia, published at that time by the New York Botanical Garden. The author of images is Fred J. Seaver, who died in 1970. I just want to be absolutely sure these would be considered public domain images before I go through the trouble of scanning them. Peter G Werner 02:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes all are PD. Rjensen 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only all U.S. publications but all publications anywhere in the world before 1923 are PD in the U.S. (except maybe in the 9th Judicial Circuit). Here's a handy table:  Rmhermen 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are all pre-1923 US publications public domain? 

message: One other question about public domain. I'm told that US government publications are public domain. I was thinking of doing some hi-resolution scans from Handbook to Additional Fungal Species of Special Concern in the Northwest Forest Plan vols. 1 & 2, published by the US Forest Service. Both volumes are without copyright notice and have no page clarifying the copyright status of the images within. Each image, however, is tagged "Photo courtesy of <author>". Here's a link to one of the publications in question. My question is, does this "Photo courtesy of...." mean that the photographer has retained copyright, or is the publication simply acknowledging the photographer? Peter G Werner 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these pictures are credited to David Arora, an independent mycologist born in 1957. He doesn't seem to be a U.S. government employee, and thus I would assume that the credit lines actually are copyright acknowledgements. Lupo 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with most of the names credited and most of them aren't government employees (most are academics affiliated with various universities). That's beside the point – I'm wondering if once the photographers have contributed something to a government publication whether that image then is public domain as well. (I'd note that I'm sure that they retain rights to the original full-resolution image – I'm just referring to the version of the image that shows up in the government publication.) Looking more closely at one of the pages (scroll down to the bottom of page 6), I'm now inclined to think that most aren't copyrighted. The image I just referred to reads "Copyright Michael Beug" across the image itself, while most of the other images in these books have no such notice. That would seem to designate that the images in these two books that are copyrighted are the exceptions. Peter G Werner 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: US government publications are not public domain.  Works prepared by an employee (not counting contractors) of the United States federal government in the course of carrying out their official duties are in the public domain.  Unless you can verify that this is the case (for instance, many government works will note which parts are PD), you can't take stuff from a government publication. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in US Government publications noted as "courtesy of..." 

message: If a (copyrighted) book attributes an image to the government in the caption, is it appropriate (or even desirable) to use a scan of that book as a wiki image, since the image is Public Domain even if the book is not? These are rather old so I doubt digital versions exist. Secondly, how should the image be cropped? I presume that ideally it should be cropped to only show the image, but how would I justify the attribution if the caption is omitted? --Mmx1 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "the government" you mean the Federal Government of the United States, I would say it's appropriate to scan it and tag it . For the source, I would say "Scanned by user Mmx1 from ABC, where it is credited to XYZ." Then for ABC I would give the complete bibliographical information of the book (author, title, year, publisher with location, ISBN, page number), so that anyone wishing to verify the information knows where to look, and for XYZ I would copy the attribution as it stands in the book. User:Angr 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding copyrights 

message: Aparently, a Japanese court has made a ruling about public domain and pre-1953 films. I doubt it has anything to do with anything that we do, but I thought it might be worth sharing. Cheers.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something that may or may not matter to Wikipedia 

message: Why is this page protected? --Karldoh 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that policy pages are normally semi-protected.  I think the idea is that if you're that new, you probably don't know enough about policy to edit policy pages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't have any plans to change WP policy, but my account is older than 4 days which seems to be the sprotect rule. --Karldoh 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Sculptures in public places that may be equally relevant to this page; rather than duplicate my question, I'm just linking here. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sculptures in public places 

message: This isn't a question about copyrights, but rather a suggestion for changing the copyright policy page. I recently created an article by copying some text from a personal website (which I was using because it provided an accurate summary of various biographies of Dionýz Ilkovic) that didn't say anywhere it was copyrighted. After reading this policy page, it seemed fine to do that because the page only talks about not copying from work that states it's copyrighted. But that article was then deleted for copyright violation, and it was explained to me that "All work, whether they be paintings or text on websites, are protected by copyright unless the author explicitly releases those rights." While I'm not disputing this rule/policy, I do think it needs to be stated more clearly on the Copyright policy page, because as I said, I never would have guessed it had it not been explained to me on my talk page. --Edward Tremel 00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the current version clearer?  (For future reference, comments go at the bottom of the page, not the top.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumption of Copyright

message: The subsections of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image guidelines and the entire Wikipedia:Copyrights#Comments on copyright laws by country seem much too specific for this page, and duplicate info at Wikipedia:Public domain (except for the "Celebrity photographs" bit, which would duplicate stuff from WP:FU if it weren't flat-out wrong).  Shouldn't we either attempt to maintain a comprehensive list here of what country-specific copyright law is, as at Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules and Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country, or leave the comprehensive lists there and refer the reader there?  This duplication of some info but not all is kind of pointless, as well as confusing. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift some of the redundant stuff out? 

message: Some recent contributions taken from Memory Alpha have been defined as copyright violations by various people, and some fairly robust messages left on the contributors talk pages. I'm pretty sure these aren't copyright violations per se, but a license compatibility issue. Wikipedia uses GFDL licensing, while MA uses Creative Commons licensing. Are MA lifts copyright violations or not? exolon 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Memory Alpha is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which is incompatible with the GFDL (which permits commercial use).  Therefore, any use in Wikipedia is a copyright violation. --Carnildo 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory Alpha 

message: My attention was drawn to Martin Dillion article earlier. I found most of it was a copyright which I removed. At the same time I found that there were 5 images uploaded by Dhruvsk. All of them had been tagged as as . Of these I was able to find that 2 came from here and one was a CD cover shot or from . These three I have deleted. I have not yet been able to find :Image:Martin DillonTails.jpg or :Image:MartinDillonFidelio.jpg but they do not look like user created images. Because I am not sure where they come from I did not know if I should remove the GDFL-slef tag or not. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put them up on WP:PUI. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Dhruvsk]] and [[Martin Dillon (musician)]]

message: We have been having a discussion at the WP:RS talk page regarding "convenience links" (ie citing to the original document or image, but providing a link to the website that contains a copy because, say, the original is not available on-line) and a question has come up that is probably better asked here... 
A private web-page includes a copy of a copyrighted document or image ... there is no disclosure or indication that the copying page has been given permission to copy the document or image. Now, I think most of us would agree that the web-page is probably in violation of copywrite laws. My question is this... To what extent are we limited using this page as a convenience link? I know we are not the "copywrite police", nor (I think) are we in direct violation of the law since we are not placing the document or image on Wikipedia, but simply providing a link to it. But do we have an obligation to the copywrite holder to link to an approved version? I suppose I am asking if we would be in "indirect" violation (and does such a concept exist?) Blueboar 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US, courts have supported the view that knowingly and intentionally linking to material that infringes copyright is a form of contributory infringment.  Essentially they found that you can't get around the fact it is illegal for you to host something by simply directing traffic to some other site that is illegally hosting the same material.   There is not really a bright legal line on how much care one should take in choosing links in order to ensure that targeted site is legitimate, but I would suggest that if reasonable people look at the site and they feel it is unlikely to be legitimate, then we probably shouldn't be linking to it.  Dragons flight 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This very project page prohibits linking to infringing works.  It can generally be assumed that the copyright holder has not released his rights, and any third-party posting of a work is presumptively infringing. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect copyright? 

message: I would like to upload some black and white photographs from a book published in England in 1926.  No photographer is credited, and the publisher G T De Frane and Co. Ltd no longer exist.  The book, however is the anual journal of the Buckinghamshire Archaelogical Society who do still exist here , they do not seem to answer emails! Will these fotos still be in copyright? Any ideas Giano | talk 12:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but if no author or photographer is mentioned, how is one to know? Giano | talk 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're protected until 95 years after the publication date, unless they were in the public domain in England in 1996. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 70 years PMA only applies to unpublished works and works published after 1977.  Works from before then, if still in copyright, are generally given protection for 95 years after their publication. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks - looks like I can't upload them then! Giano | talk 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old photos 

message: Wikipedia considers some of it's projects like the CD to be commerical projects, and also requires that photographers release rights to their images for publishing. Being that the CD and the books would be considered commerical products wouldn't that mean that Wikipedia would need to obtain a model release from the photographers for all photos featuring people for both it's CD and book?  PPGMD 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, one does not need a model release for a photo of a public figure or a person participating in a public activity. Imagine what that would do to newspapers! - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends.  Almost everywhere, you don't need a release for a public figure.  For ordinary people in public places, it varies from one country to another. --Carnildo 06:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least in the US (which the I believe the foundation is based in), it's my understanding that I need a model release for using pictures of a person in public (other then a public figure) for commercial purposes.PPGMD 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model Release 

message: Just to make sure, images tagged with the copyright tag seen here are eligible for use on user pages, correct? -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; the question is moot. As intimidating as that copyright template is, it's from Commons. -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there's also the template on this image. Some clarification for those more knowledgeable about copyright would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I imagine that the (non-copyright) restrictions in question would have to do with not showing disrespect for national emblems, but I could be mistaken. Does anyone know more on this? - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coats of Arms on User Pages 

message: A question has come up regarding a photo I've uploaded, and I'd appreciate some feedback, especially from a knowledgable administrator. I've checked the archives and didn't find specific info regarding my question. The question is, when an entity releases an image as a part of a news release, can it be used on Wikipedia under Fair Use? It seems to me in reading the US copyright code that it can. If a copyright holder releases an copyrighted work for general distribution where republication is implied, then they cannot discriminate then or later as to where it is published. The image in question is part of a Northrop Grumman news release regarding the flight of a new type of radar. The image was subsequently published in a number of industry publications, and is still available in the News Release section of the Northrop Grumman website. Thanks! Akradecki 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People keep kicking this one around. Some people seem uncomfortable with the merely implicit license this gives. I think that's copyright paranoia myself. I'd like to see us come up with a clearer policy on press release materials: after all, it isn't just a matter of "is it legal?" but, if legal "do we want to do this?". After all, it would be perfectly legal for us to use "non-commercial use only" materials, but we choose not to do that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News release images?

message: There is a personal website with a copy of a news article and at the bottom the news agencies' copyright notice clearly says that unauthorized publication is forbidden.  The personal website makes no indication of permission to copy.  Do we assume that it is not a copyright violation? --HResearcher 09:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, it is almost certainly a copyright violation, unless that site has a clear fair use justification. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal websites with copied news articles 

message: Is there an essay anywhere on Wikipedia that contains a standard rebuttal to the common objections of "I don't think the copyright holder is going to sue Wikipedia, so we shouldn't worry about the fact that this image is copyrighted" and "We should keep this image until the copyright holder complains, because it's a good illustration for such and such an article"? —Bkell (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is an essay, but essentially those arguments are the same as "Theft is no problem, the only problem is getting caught." If those are really someone's views, there isn't much chance of convincing them on a moral basis, but the policy is clear: the Wikimedia Foundation owns the site, and does not welcome copyright violations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to common objection 

message: Is it a simple work of innovations?
:It require no special effort, all original (not based on someone elses work) creative works you make are automaticaly copyrighted by you. --Sherool (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you "publish" them and as long as you create them on your own time (not employed to create them). Unpublished original work falls under slightly different rules. Rmhermen 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you obtain a Copy right? 

message: A good deal of content was taken from here. It was marked as "copyright www.purplesage.org.uk/profiles/elecampane.htm". I didn't see any indication that this was done with permission, but was hesitant to just remove it, in case I'm mistaken. Waitak 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Elecampane]] 

message: Hi, someone recently objected to my removal of links, saying that torrent sites and search engines do not distribute illegal links themselves. Would you say this is a valid line of logic? I'd say it makes Wikipedia look bad, and should be discouraged anyway.
IMHO something needs to be added to the Copyrights Policy to prevent such disagreements. --Kjoonlee 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about torrents? Torrent search engines?