Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 3

message: How does Israeli Government copyright work? Superm401 | Talk 04:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
*According to the Copyright Act 1911, the government has copyright for 50 years after publication. Physchim62 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Government 

message: See explanations and discussions on meta:ESA images. David.Monniaux 29 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads up.  Given the recent policy change on the use of noncommercial-only licenses, we have to be much more careful about what we allow.  Does the ESA license fit under the new guidelines?  Prior experience says no; see the similar Art Images for College Teaching license, in the talk archives.  However, the terms listed on meta seem to be a little looser in terms of commercial use, so I'm not sure. — EagleOne\Talk July 1, 2005 02:22 (UTC)
:*I'd like to use some of their released SMART-1 images of the Moon on the crater description pages. Would it be possible to get an ESA copyright tag (template) that is along the same vein as the NASA image template? Thank you!! — RJH 16:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to that meta page linked above, currently ESA images seem to be free to use only for educational or instructional purposes, which is too restrictive a license for Wikipedia. NASA material is in the public domain (and can be used for advertising, for example) and is as such quite a different thing, in terms of copyrights. --Fastfission 19:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESA pictures 

message: I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that anyone can effectively change someone else's license for their work by modifying a template.  Should we begin recommending that people use the image templates, but add subst:?  That will still copy the template message exactly to the description.  However, if subst is used, the image desciption page will not change when the template does.   The advantage to this is that it guarantees their intended message will remain intact.  Disadvantages include lack of standardization and the fact that better wordings for the licenses will not automatically be used by licensors.  I don't think this plan would adversely affect the image tagging idea, becauses the images will still be categorized.  What do people think? Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 16:13 (UTC)
:I'd rather just protect the templates. We already protect pages for legal reasons anyway (e.g., Wikipedia:Copyrights). — Bcat (talk | email) 3 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
::Protection is better, so they can be updated when needed.  The whole point of these is to make image tagging easier.  If we need to go through all our images and redo the tag every time it changes a little... - Omegatron July 3, 2005 23:28 (UTC)
:::I suppose I could agree with that, if the admins could guarantee that the legal meaning didn't change when a template was updated. Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 02:20 (UTC)
I'd rather not have these templates protected.  If they are going to be included without using subst:, then the text of them shouldn't change at all, "better wording" is still different wording which changes the legal meaning, and if it does change any user should have the power to change it back.  For legal purposes we should probably be using subst:, and adding a signature. I was actually just thinking this a few days ago, then I ran across this.
I'd suggest using subst:, and adding a dated signature.  In addition to not allowing the meaning to be changed without an easily accessed audit trail, this would allow one to know at a glance who added the tag, and at what time the tag was added.  The latter is especially useful for fair use images, where the fair use status might change at a later date/time, and also useful in tracking down situations where the image changes but the image page doesn't (which unfortunately is possible in the current wiki system).  Also, if a second or third user wants to affirm the tag, she can add her signature right after the first one.  Yes, right now we need to focus on getting all the images tagged once, but in the future it will be quite useful to know that someone reviewed things and it isn't just the assertion of one person who didn't really know what she was talking about.
The disadvantage is that it makes the tags harder to read by a computer.  But when these tags were invented, we didn't have category tags.  Now that we do, those could be used for easier computer parsing.  Use of tags is a kludge in the first place.  Use of subst: is a little bit less of a kludge.  Ultimately the better solution is to have something built into the wiki software.  To do that properly we need a good specification, which addresses the needs of all Wikipedians.  Maybe now that we've had these tags for over a year the work on a specification can begin.  anthony 12:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst with image tag templates 

message: - For example, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed.  Note that non-commercial or educational use restrictions are not allowed as provisions in this tag.
:Then what do we use for something like :Image:@molecricket.jpg, which is from Public_domain_image_resources#Insects? - Omegatron 13:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Why is it listed on that page?  It doesn't seem to be public domain.  If indeed it can only be used for non-commercial use, then we aren't supposed to have the image here at all. anthony 13:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-profit or educational use 

message: I assume that images with watermarks are a serious no-no on Wikipedia.  Is there a stated policy somewhere on this, ie "no image used on Wikipedia shall have an embedded tag or watermark"?  :Image:Mustang2005 convertible.jpg is the one I have this problem with, and the fact that it's of disputed copyright status...  --SFoskett 22:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:You assume wrong.  Whether or not there is a watermark is totally irrelvant to copyright law.  According to the Berne Convention, works are copyrighted when put into a fixed form.  Whether or not there is a tag is meaningless.  We use works here at Wikipedia based on legality, and as noted, watermarks don't affect this.  Some images with them may be used under fair use, and others may be licensed.  The image you provided, however is an orphan.  Was it unused when you found it, or did you delete it from an article? Superm401 | Talk 22:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
::I didn't mean legally a no-no, just aesthetically!  *grin*  It was in use on Ford Mustang and I removed it because of the content - the watermark claims a copyright, and there was no notice of the license on the image.  Also, the original poster was just link-farming.  So others have no problem with watermarked images?  --SFoskett 02:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
***As far as legal images go, generally the most informative win out.  Obviously, if two were functionally equivalent, one without a watermark would win. Superm401 | Talk 04:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
***Since the watermark in this case says where the image came from, you can send it directly to WP:CP--nixie 02:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermarks 

message: - for all images being used under the fair use provision of Philippine copyright law.
:Bad precedent.  Images must be usable under US fair use law, because the servers are in the US. Superm401 | Talk 15:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
::Wikipedia has servers in France and Amsterdam, with plans for Belgium and South Korea. TheCoffee 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the English Wiki isn't on them, is it? Anyway, this tag is nonsensical if we don't have servers in the Phillipines, especially so because fair use is context dependent. It only means, "If this server were instantly moved to the Philippines, this would be fair use." --Fastfission 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philippine [[fair use]] tags

message: It is highly recommended that all government images use the Philippine government tag (), all Philippine fair use images use , and all public domain images taken in the Philippines use .
:The above recommendation is disputed. Superm401 | Talk 15:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Additional information on Philippine copyright may be found on the Philippine copyright law article and on this website:
*
The only rationale I can think of for having separate country language tags is to aid in the re-porting of Wikipedia content to other places. But I think it's a bad path to go down, since there are hundreds of different copyright policies which could be contended with to figure out that criteria. As far as Wikipedia's own legal status, "the United States is all that matters" is correct. As a general point, of course, we don't want to be U.S.-centric, but as far as legality is concerned, the servers as hosted in the U.S. --Fastfission 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comments

message: Images from the website of the European Union are listed under the "Any-purpose" copyright section. However, the "audiovisual services" section of the EU website contains this rather explicit license, saying:
:This material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and education purposes.
:For any other use, prior clearance must be obtained from the Central Audiovisual Library of the European Commission.
:In no case may this material be sold or rented.
:NB: Pictures containing buildings and artworks may only be used to meet the needs of current news coverage.
:Credit © European Community, 2005
                                                           
Since the European Commission, in the photo library of its own separate website, also limits its licensing to non-commercial use with credit given, it looks like more or less standard practice for the EU.
It looks like a parallel case to the UN case mentioned above, and this tag, too, should probably be moved the deprecated tags section. / Alarm 01:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU images 

message: The following interpretation by  on GNU licenses has been removed from the project page and posted here by Lupo 17:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC).
:"Contributors should think very carefully before placing an image under a GNU license. These licenses are not intended to be applied to images, and whilst they can be used for images, doing so will present a lot of very inconvenient and probably unintended problems for the licensee.
:"In particular, GNU licenses require that a complete copy of the license be distributed with every copy of the work (the image). The GFDL even goes so far as to require the license be included within the work. Thus, unless the image you uploaded has the license contained within it, nobody will be permitted to make verbatim copies of the image. If there is no practical way to embed a copy of the license within the image, then nobody will be able to make derivative works either. Hence the image cannot be copied at all."
::There's no requirement that the derivative work must be an image, therefore the part about "Hence the image cannot be copied at all" is incorrect. anthony 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The good news here is that you can fit the entire text of the GFDL into the image comment of a JPEG file. --Carnildo 20:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't use GNU Licences for Images 

message: Template:PD-awio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:PD-awio. Thank you.kmccoy (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:PD-awio 

message: I'm a little confused with the rules Wikipedia seems to use for PD images.  For published books, everything copyrighted before 1922 is public domain ( 1963 if the copyright wan't renewed). U.S. government-produced stuff is PD.
Wikipedia seems to use PD-old, PD-old-50 and PD-old-70 tags where the author died 100/50/70 years ago.  Are these rules because photos are treated as unpublished manuscripts? (in this case it has to be 70, not 50 years for the U.S.).
I'm wondering about the case of a published photo. I've always assumed if the book's copyright has expired (i.e., is now PD), the entire contents are PD, including photos. Is this true?
Dananderson 16:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of complicated criteria for when things enter into the public domain. Any works which were published before 1923 is now in the public domain (in the United States). After 1923, things get a little complicated. For things created before 1923 but not published, things get a little complicated. This page I've found very helpful, esp. the "Is the work protected?" section. As for photos published in a book which entered into the public domain because of age, by default they will have also entered into the public domain. --Fastfission 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Copyright and Public Domain of Published Photographs 

message: I've been bold and started a WikiProject to try and reform Wikipedia fair use policy, and a large part of this is in re-writing the fair use image copyright tags. Those who are interested or curious are invited to see what we're up to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. --Fastfission 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject:Fair use

message: The  tag should be phased out -- it is overly vague and gives the impression that any posters are automatically fair use. There are a few specific types of posters which could be used in generally fair ways, but otherwise there is nothing special about posters as a medium. Those which are currently tagged "poster" should be shifted into a more specific sub-categories:  (for movies and films),  (for specific sporting events), and  (for generic "events"). Of course, all should be low resolution and should only be used in the absence of adequate "free" alternatives. If the "poster" in question doesn't fit into those categories of use, they should just be tagged  for now (and treated like any other image). --Fastfission 22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poster tags

message: I have uploaded two copyrighted images provided by the copyright holder "for use in print and web graphics" on their media resources page. These images are obviously provided for publicity purposes but no license, restrictions or non-restrictions are mentioned. I'm concerned that these images may not be appropriate on Wikipedia. I need an opinion. Is there an appropriate template? If not, should I create one? The images are:
*Science_Museum_bernoulli_exhibit.jpg
*Reuben_H._Fleet_Science_Center_Exterior.jpg
They were found at:
*http://www.rhfleet.org/media/images/
Rsduhamel 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images provided to media 

message: There may be a need for a new Iowa (IA) template.  When loading :Image:Iowa Pleistocene snail penny.jpg I noticed variations of existing templates didn't seem to fit quite right.  Below is the source's policy.  It's not labeled as copyrighted nor PD, just gives freedom with an optional request.  (SEWilco 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa Free Use template? 

message: Ok, what copyright status are pictures published in Somalia after the fall of the government?  Since there hasn't been a government there since 1991, I would think work there would be un-copyrightable, unless some other nation or international law claims jurisdiction.  Anyone know?  What would the appropriate tag be?  Saswann 11:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can either assume that the previous laws are still in effect because they have not been formally revoked, or a new government will pass a law to retroactively cover a gap, or you can take up the question with the warlords of the present system of government. (IANAWL)  (SEWilco 15:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the former government ever entered into an intelletual property treaty. And, there is no "present system of government." Warlords don't make a government. Somalia officially has no government. RJII 16:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia 

message: I'm trying to sort out the licencing to use for :Image:New_orleans_msi_aug31_2005_dg.jpg, It is from http://www.digitalglobe.com/ with the following conditions:

1. Editorial Use Only. DigitalGlobe products made available in the “Images For The Media” or similar
area of the DigitalGlobe website may be published for editorial use only, in hardcopy, electronic or
in broadcast format, provided that credit is conspicuously provided to “DigitalGlobe” on all such
products as set forth below. For purposes of these Usage Rules, “editorial use” is limited to a
publication relating to a newsworthy event, or which is otherwise in the public interest.
2. Attribution Rules. All DigitalGlobe products published or otherwise used pursuant to these Usage
Rules must be attributed to DigitalGlobe as follows:
    * For print, presentation and Web materials:
      Credit to DigitalGlobe must appear next to or beneath the photo.
    * For broadcast:
      Credit to DigitalGlobe must appear on-screen throughout the entire air-time of the product.
Additionally, if the products are referenced verbally during the program, they must be verbally
attributed to DigitalGlobe.
3. No Commercial Use. Except for the limited rights set forth in these Usage Rules, DigitalGlobe
retains all rights to the DigitalGlobe products, and any commercial, promotional or other use
requires the express written consent of DigitalGlobe, Inc.
4. No Alteration. No image published or otherwise used pursuant to these Usage Rules may be modified,
altered or supplemented in any way without the express written consent of DigitalGlobe, Inc.
5. Limited Grant of Rights. The rights provided in these Usage Rules by DigitalGlobe may be revoked
at any time by written notice of DigitalGlobe.
I've tagged it ... --Wangi 12:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DigitalGlobe sat images