Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 3

message: If I understand correctly, if I take a photograph of a magazine cover to include in a Wikipedia article about that magazine, that's fair use.  What if I copy an image of the same magazine cover from the magazine's website for the same purpose? Exploding Boy 12:33, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Also fine. Jamesday 21:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another internet image question

message: The proposal from Eloquence doesn't seem to have been well accepted, so I've largely restored the previous fair use and tagging text, but still kept the proposal around for anyone who wants to use it. Hopefully whatever content selection method we come up with for the print Wikipedia will make this all a moot question, by letting people who want or need GFDL-only content get that subset easily. Jamesday 22:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Eloquence proposal updated

message: :It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police every article for possible copyright infringement [...]
That's just not true. It's the job of all Wikipedians to do whatever they can to make Wikipedia better. That's why wiki works: everybody takes responsibility for the quality of the content. --ESP 03:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "rank-and-file Wikipedians" 

message: I notice that Wikipedia contains many articles on bands and albums giving all the appropriate information. Is it copyright infringement to copy band album names, track listings and times, and record label information to Wiki articles? Are there any references online that address this issue? I assume there is no infringement since so many such articles already exist, but I was curious why this is legal. Thanks. -- Jrdioko 03:57, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
In an article about the work, fair use is not a hard argument to make. It's really hard to refer to a work without giving its titles and that applies to all of the individual tracks being considered. Jamesday 07:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Music and Copyrights

message: How can you get the right to use these images Boeing X-43 on Wikipedia in such a short notice? I am new at Wikipedia and would like to know how you get in touch with the owners, in this case NASA, and get their authorization so fast. Am I totally lost or what, please help me?
:As I understand it, images on USA government sites (TLD .gov as in nasa.gov) are free for use. A note of course should be given where it is from on the image page. — Jor (Talk) 16:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One should be careful though; all images which credit only NASA are PD. NASA may however include pics from individual astronomers/space agencies in their articles, and they are not free, just like our 'fair use' images are not GFDL — Sverdrup 19:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The products of US federal government employees produced in the course of their work is in the public domain. Federal sites are generally pretty good at indicating when this does not apply, as is done for things like NASA/ESA projects, where an image credit is requested. That's compatible with the GFDL license authorship requirements, so it's not problematic to accept that request. US state government works are not included in this. In other cases, fair use can be used to  respond quickly and news-type items are a well-accepted fair use situation. That can be followed with a GFDL permission request as time allows. Jamesday 05:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: If you do find that permission is needed, check out Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. -- Wapcaplet 23:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Authorization

message: I do not know what the law about this in the US, but here in The Netherlands (and therefore probably in other EU countries as well), placing a picture of a person on a website (for other reasons than "news") not only requires permission of the copyright holder - it also requires consent of the person(s) on the image. What's the law about this in the US? What's Wikipedia's current practise? Abigail 09:49, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
In France it also requires consent of the person on the image, but if the picture doen't cause prejudice (for instance the person is naked, or kissing someone else than his/her wife/husband....) it's OK as nobody can sue a person when there is no prejudice. It's different if you make a commercial use of the photo as the person can argue that you make money with his work (modelling for your photo).
Ericd 11:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The US laws are generally called "right to privacy" and "right to publicity".  They're complicated, but are similar to your description of Netherlands law. anthony (see warning) 01:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of people 

message: Question: Copyleft means that the Copyright is inherited and lasting without limitation in time (?). Therefore, is a Copyleft material both Copyrighted and "Copylasting"?
Is it due to the near relationship between -right to -left that "left" is used, when a more properly term would be -lasting?
// Rogper 16:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyleft does not ensure anything about the duration of copyright. It does use the full duration provided by law, unlike, say, the Founders Copyright of the Creative Commons project, which is for 14 years renewable to another 14. Legally, think of copyleft as a copyrighted work with a restrictive license prohibits you from publishing a derivative work outside you own organisation unless you release that work under the same license. Some copyleft licenses may also restrict use within the organisation. Jamesday 05:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyleft

message: :Image:Clyde Cowan.jpg is available by lanl.gov under a BSD-style license - that is, anyone can copy it but it must retain the source info. Is this ok for use in wikipedia? →Raul654 22:53, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
: There are two BSD licenses. The more recent one, almost certainly the one in use, is compatible with the GPL. I assume that anything compatible with the GPL is also going to be compatible with the less restrictive GFDL. Jamesday 04:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be right, but that assumption is not safe. It may contain restrictions that are compatable with the GPL but not with the less restrictive GFDL. It all hangs on the difference between "the preferred form ... for making modifications" (GPL) and "a machine-readable copy" (GFDL). PhilHibbs 20:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clyde Cowan

message: I know this has been asked before, but - what is our policy for matierals that are crown copyrighted? In particular, I'm thinking of http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/t_images/dowding.jpg from http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/line1970-79.html . →Raul654 00:26, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
:That image appears to date from WW2, the time from which he's most famous. As a result, it's probably in the public domain today (probably because I'm not certain that it is from WW2 - if it is, it's PD). Jamesday 11:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Crown copyright

message: Is it OK to copy stuff from ibiblio ? Their disclamer seems to permit that: All software, documentation, research data, and other materials ("Materials") submitted for installation on the ibiblio.org Internet Server will be deemed in the public domain, except for any express restrictions included in such Materials by the submitting party. Can someone confirm that if there is no express restriction in the article, it can be copied verbatum? If it's covered in the faq, please give a pointer.
:Is all of the material copyright clear and otherwise legal? Exceptions for "fair use" may apply suggests that there will be some fair use material there but on the whole it seems that it's generally PD. Check with care and use is what I'd do myself. Jamesday 11:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it OK to copy stuff from ibiblio? 

message: I've downloaded a picture from the Kinnie company website and placed it in the Kinnie article, claiming it to be fair use (tagged the image page with ). However, I'm confused what the appropriate policy is on Wikipedia regarding 'verified fair use' status. I get the impression that somewhere on Wikipedia fair use status of images is discussed, and images can be listed there. But where is that place? How do you get people to rule on its status? Abigail 13:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The verified fair use system was a proposal from early 2004 by someone largely opposed to the use of fair use works here and has been mostly ignored. The tags might still be encountered on one of the images which used the system. If you want a view on whether a use is fair or not, this page or the talk page of Wikipedia:Copyright problems are the most likely places to get a reliable answer. The verified fair use system didn't really solve anything - it's still necessary to filter images if you're outside the US and the tagging systems now widely used instead make that fairly straightforward. Jamesday 11:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of <nowiki>[[Image:Kinnie bottle 2001.jpg]]</nowiki> 

message: Would Margaret Bourke-White's often used photograph of B-36s for Life Magazine be considered fair use?  Here's a copy I would like to use http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/mbw/images/b36_bourke_white.jpg  Stargoat 16:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on where and how you want to use it. If it was to accompany the article about her and was placed in teh context of being a famous image of hers which appeared on the cover of Time, that use appears likely to be fair. If it was used to illustrate an article about B-36s, that would be somewhat less likely to qualify. In either case, a link to Time and/or to the galler page where someone could purchase a limited edition print would assist with the fair use argument. Jamesday 12:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oft used photograph 

message: I have a potential problem in that I want to scan an advertisement (image & text) from an eight-year old issue of BYTE magazine (BYTE folded two years later, in 1998, BTW) and include (parts of) the scan in a Wikipedia article about the product advertised. Would such a scan of an advertisement be un-copyrighted (there is absolutely no copyright notice in the ad) and/or fair use? --Wernher 02:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scan of old advertisement 

message: thumb|Starfleet academy logo (redrawn)
I'm a little confused under what tag this image would fall into.
It appeared on the "Star Trek" television series on multiple occasions, and the image itself isn't copyrighted to my knowledge. However, this version was re-drawn by another person, and I have her tentative permission to use it.
Help appreciated
--IKato 06:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redrawn Logos 

message: I'm a sometime semi-professional music photographer. I do make money from commercial licencing of some of my old images to magazines, books etc., often through commercial picture agencies. I own the copyright to all my images and register them with the Library of Congress. I would like to donate some images to the Wikipedia. I believe that I'm happy with the GFDL for the images that I'll upload as they will be 72dpi, 400px tall images that are entirely unsuitable for publication, and the publication-quality images will not be covered by the license and remain only available from myself or my agents. Am I right in thinking this or am I putting myself at risk of losing control of the images? 
I'm curious about the (slightly more restrictive) Creative Commons licenses that would guarantee me credit and possibly restrict commercial use? Are these acceptable to Wikipedia?
I'd appreciate thoughts. Palnu 19:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not really my cup of tea, but I've been able to dig up m:Guide to the CC dual-license. Note that this refers to dual-licensing, which means that the images will still be available under GFDL. Once upon a time it was possible to grant copyrights - "permission", if you will - exclusively to Wikipedia, but I gather, going over old discussions, this is no longer possible, and images thus uploaded are being phased out. -- Itai 03:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitable Licencing of my own images 

message: When writing articles about specific ships and information is used from the Naval Vessel Register is it necessary to obtain permission from the DoD prior to its use because in the disclaimers they say they make no guarantee that the information is on a public domain or is it acceptable to used the information without asking and leave a citation?--YanA 22:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NVR is just factual data in table form, not copyrightable even if the DoD were to try, which they won't. Use away. The disclaimer is presumably just a blanket CYA, in case websites have photos by news orgs or some such that are not PD. Stan 06:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrights and Public Domains 

message: From the user's rights & responsibilities sexn:
"Wikipedia does use some text under licenses that are compatible with the GFDL but may require additional terms that we do not require for original Wikipedia text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). When using these materials, you have to include those invariant sections verbatim."
What is going on here?  Where does this occur, and how are such additional terms noted?  +sj+ 22:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. I'd never noticed that before, yet it has been in since 18 June 2002. I've never noticed articles on Wikipedia that have Front or Back-Cover Texts etc. There may be examples of Invariant Sections somewhere, but I can't remember where. I'm not convinced that allowing this is a good idea, but I guess there must be a good reason for it since it's survived in the policy for over two years. Angela. 06:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-GFDL text in WP?

message: I think we need a common sense statement at the top: All Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. It is preferred that images obtained under a free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain). In cases where no such images are available, then fair use images are acceptable. This is pretty much the de-facto policy already. →Raul654 20:30, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps  All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. It is preferred that images be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable until they are. That should better encourage people to try to be as free as practical given the limitations of copyright law and our desire to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Original content because there's plenty of non-original text in the Wikipedia in the form of quotes used under fair use. Jamesday 04:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Major piece missing