Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 8

message: (Discussion continued from Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Car_manual_external_links)
A few days ago I reverted the addition of http://www.analogstereo.com/ to several sites e.g. BMW 7 Series, then reverted my revert since I was not sure. I was about to remove all references in all articles - there are currently 97 articles containing this. From one point of view it contains usefull downloads of manuals, from another it may be a multiple copyright violation. Let me knnow, I've got an AWB script set up to delete them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Car manual external links

message: I Don't know if this is the correct spot to ask a question but ... When I want to include a section of text about a product with an image of that product, and I go to the creators/owners site to look for images. I see a nice image and then Email them and ask if I (and wikipedia;hence the rest of the world) can use that specific image. What if they tell me they don't care and that I and others can do with it as they please. Doesn't that mean they've released the image in the public domain?Rex 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <Sigh>, I'll re send the email then ... Rex 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It doesn't have to be public domain though, the GFDL is also fine. >Radiant< 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question concerning an images copyrights ... 

message: I thought this was ok because the image, and the whole book, as part of a whole series of works by different artists and businesses, was "Gift of the artists and DC Comics (the specific image used is the story-cover under "Scott Kolins, Dan Panosian, Joe Kelly, John Workman, Wake up, 2001 
Kolins, Panosian, Kelly, Workman 
Wake up [Page 1]" about 1/4 of the webpage down. So I applied . That's been challenged.
I also note a variety of related options - first I am in contact with the artist and he made no objections of the pictures, second there are a number of comicbook related copyright options under Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use but the above seemed to me the most straight forward.
I wanted to use this art for part of the article on Scott Kolins - it being an example first of his pencil work (as almost everything available is actually colored and inked) and second a statement of his commitment on the matter of 9-11. Yes I know my name is similar to the subject of the page - I am in fact his brother - but we went through all that with the article (see the talk page) and I've tried to have a hands-off approach since it developed enough since I got warnings that it just didn't look right for me to be involved. This copyright problem got brought to my attention as I uploaded the image. Frankly if it were one of the other pictures at stake I wouldn't make a fuss but this is the only released work of the pencils (the specific style of the art that he is most involved with though as stated in the article he's done all the steps at various times and the art present he did all of) I've seen with even a hope of copyrights being ok for wikipedia - and I really thought this was right on target. But I'm no lawyer. However the person who flagged it admitted it was a gray area but had recieved secondary opinions that it wasn't ok. He pointed out the art wasn't created by the government and I had used a notice specifically only for creations of the Fed government.
I'd welcome any guidance on how to make this situation right. If my involvement is questionable and someone else wants to pursue the matter fairly that would be fine too. Thansk for your attention.--Smkolins 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are comments also here under "Comic Book Art and Political Cartoons" which says in part " donated 335 original drawings to the Library." Scanning up and down the samples one can examine a variety of statements about copyright status - they range from " Gift of the artist" to "Gift of the artists and DC Comics" as in this case, to "© 2001 Tribune Media Services, Inc., all rights reserved Gift of the Artist". Perhaps this information can be helpful clearing up this matter.--Smkolins 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all,  is used for works produced by the US government. Unless the artwork was done by an employee of the US government, it can't be . Second, in virtually all other cases, copyright automatically applies to any creative work at the time of its creation. The copyright holder may transfer the copyright to another entity, including the US government, but it remains copyrighted. If the artists 'gave' the works to the library, the library would be the copyright holder. Releasing a copyrighted creative work to the public domain requires an explicit statement from the copyright holder (I'm not sure what form the statement would have to be in to be effective). Copyright holders may also license the items under copyright. To be treated as a free image on Wikipedia, the creative work needs to licensed under the GFDL or an equivalent license such as some of the Creative Commons licenses. -- Donald Albury 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of ''Image:0001v.jpg'' 

message: My excuses in advance if this not the right place to ask this question. I would like to cite some statements of ancient writers, like Herodotus. But i know the citaions i find on the internet are translated from their origin languages (Latin or Greek). Do I violate the copyrights of the autors when citing the translated citations in my article?! If yes, does it remain a violation if i referred to the site as a source?! 
This is an example:
They begin with the ear of the victim, which they cut off and throw over their house: this done, they kill the animal by twisting the neck. They sacrifice to the Sun and Moon, but not to any other god. This worship is common to all the Libyans. (book IV.168-198).
It is originally said by Herodotus, but now it is translated and i copied it from the site who posted the translated version on his pages (This one). Thanks in advance, Read3r 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translations are subject to copyright. A translation made by an author who died more than 70 years will generally be in the public domain, but more recent works remain copyrighted. You can cite and link to such translations on the web but quotations from the translations are subject to 'fair use' rules. Quotations must be short and essential to the context. -- Donald Albury 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations of ancient writers and their translations

message: I am hoping for some opinions from people knowledgable about United States federal law, including copyright law. There is currently a dispute regarding the use of an image of the emblem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (, ). User:Patchbook has stated that the use of :Image:Policelight.jpg violates Title 18 United States Code (). Other users are stating that this is not the case, and as a U.S. government image, it is public domain. I'm a neutral third party who stumbled onto the dispute, but as a Wikipedian I am of course worried about a possible violation of the law. Can any experts here help shed some light on this issue? --Ginkgo100 talk 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. The statutes which User:Patchbook has used clearly do not apply here, specifically United States Code Title 18 . Ginkgo, image clearly does not violate copyright, and certainly does not violate any title 18 laws. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Copyright-wise, it's in the public domain. There may be non-copyright restrictions on use, such as a prohibition on impersonating an FBI officer, or a prohibition on using it to imply an association with the FBI, but those aren't things Wikipedia would be doing. --Carnildo 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There wouldn't be any copyright violation because such things as badges aren't covered by copyright law. (Copyrights have expiration dates, in any case, and an organization wouldn't want its symbol to lapse into the public domain for use by just anyone.) Symbols such as the FBI's badge would be protected by trademarks, if they are protected at all. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and not Title 18, is where one should be looking to find out if there are any restrictions on this particular image. Whyaduck 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Title 18 does prevent some (obvious) uses of government seals, LEO badges, etc. Mainly you can't defraud or deceive people using these symbols, i.e. having an LEO badge as a collectors item is fine, using it in an encyclopedia is fine, use of a LEO badge by non-LE officials to arrest people, not fine. I'll look into the USPTO to see what restrictions, if any, there are. Thanks for the suggestion. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is an image of a police badge titled "police light"? Rmhermen 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because at first the logo was to be that of a police cars light. SGGH 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about U.S. federal law 

message: If fair-use of corporate logos require them to be used in low-resolution only, why does wikipedia allow .svg images as corporate logos. Shouldn't the usage be restricted to low-resolution raster images. If this discussion has taken place before, can someone point out the discussion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has, probably somewhere in the archives... Nil Einne 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector graphic images as corporate logos 

message: This question arises every so often but I don't know if it's ever been clearly discussed. Am I right that when USgov PD is used, it should always clearly be a work originally produced by the US gov? The cases I'm thinking of are primarily of photos of people regarded as criminals, terrorists etc. Often the US government releases photos but where they come from is not clear. In some cases, it seems likely they may have been taken by people associated with the people pictured. While the US government may not care about the copyrights of those they consider criminals and terrorists, my understanding and personal opinion is we should.
I'm pretty sure I've seen this before when pictures have been released e.g. of alleged Al-Qaeda members when it seems unlikely the work was produced by the US goverment. The specific case that brought this to mind is this :Image:Barzan ibrahim.jpg. The photo is from the playing cards. Where it came from is unclear. Possibly it was an old photo from when the US was still friendly with Iraq in which case it would be USgov PD. Alternatively, it could have come from somewhere else. Should the copyright status of this be disputed?
Nil Einne 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. There should always be a specific source on every image. If there isn't tag it with  (no source date). If a source isn't provided, it should be deleted in 7 days. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US gov PD 

message: I was trying to fix up the Beastie Boys pages by uploading the single cover for one of their singles. I obtained the single cover from amazon.comn's page, but I am not sure what license to give it. I have yet to find any info about copyright status. Do you know what I should do about the licensing? Maplejet 14:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These images can only be used under fair use. The appropriate tag here is probably . However, please see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Superm401 - Talk 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would add this text () to the image description page. Superm401 - Talk 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Websites like amazon 

message: This web page: 
is a direct copy of our Scouting article, but there is no way to contact the outfit by snail mail or email. It has a copyright notice on its page. How to handle this? Rlevse 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We found an email addy. Should I notify someone at wiki?Rlevse 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being taken care of at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#Justrec.com. If you have new contact info, add it to the section, noting your source. Superm401 - Talk 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I added to the info there, but why? It looks like just a tracking log and nothing ever gets done about it. Rlevse 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright of the contents of Wikipedia articles belongs to the editors of each article. Technically, only editors who have contributed to an article have standing to complain about infringements on their copyright. If you are not one of the authors, post a note to the talk page of the article and to any relevant project talk page to inform such authors of the alleged infringement. -- Donald Albury 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a major author. THe other web site copied the wiki article.Rlevse 00:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process gives you steps you can follow to deal with the infringing site. Good luck! -- Donald Albury 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice but if they choose to ignore all the letters they can and we without the legal money to fight it can do nothing else about it.Rlevse 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The complaint messages might do the trick. You won't know until you try. Document what you do and the results at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#Justrec.com. If a site continues to blatantly infringe after being notified per the Non-compliance process, we can see if there are any other options. -- Donald Albury 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll give it a shot, but not keeping my fingers crossed.Rlevse 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VIOLATOR HOW REPORT