Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright

message: I think that all the articles could be illustrated with at least one picture; after all, comics is a graphic medium.  The thing I am unsure of is, can we use any copyrighted/trademarked images?  Some of the articles have cover scans.  It that "fair use"?  ike9898 23:25, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
------
IANAL, but after reading fair use, Wikipedia:fair use, and Wikipedia:image description page#fair use rationale, I have come to a pretty firm "yes" vote. They are fair use. I suggest the following recommendations:
#All scanned image files we use should be of a medium-small resolution.
#All scanned image files we use should have an image description page that reads something like this:
:#Comics is an inherently visual medium consisting of the combination of pictures and words, so encyclopedia articles on comics-related topics are especially enhanced by the presence of images.
:#This image is a low-resolution scan of a copyrighted work, and could not be mistaken for the original page of which it is a scan.
:#This image is being used for educational purposes only. It does not, in any way, inhibit the copyright-owner's ability to sell merchandise related to this image.
:#The copyright on this image is owned by Foo Bar Corporation, 1994.
:#The character depicted in this image was created by John Doe.
:#This image was pencilled by Jane Doe, inked by John Q. Public, colored by Joe Blow, and lettered by Richard Roe.
:#This image was originally found in Awesome Super Duper Comixxxxxx #874 (June, 1942), on page 39.
The last three would be recommended, but not strictly required (since, at least in the Big Two, everything belongs to the publisher anyway and creators are irrelevant - speaking of which, we need an article on the creators' rights movement). Comments? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
-----
I have had a bit of experience contacting comics artists and publishers about using repros alongside critical articles or interviews. The consistent response has been yes, go ahead and reprint images, but do not reprint an entire work (or a significantly long section of an expansive piece).  These are all "alternative" comics people--no Marvel or DC--but based on my experience, it seems unlikely that well-credited cover images or images of single pages or panels would offend the copyright owners. I am not a lawyer, either--I'm just generalizing from experiences I've had with print publications.  As to the attitude of "mainstream" companies or Manga publishers--your guess is as good as mine.--BTfromLA 01:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we go for it ? I quicky checked in some EU-comics articles (authors and characters) and there are almost no images. I can scan a few from my collection. Is it ok to do it ? Lvr 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures for comics articles

message: I've given the page a rewrite to absorb information from other policy pages, any comments on it as it stands now? Hiding  talk 13:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I was directed to take a look at this page... I think this is really good work. I made a few changes, which are explained in the edit summaries... I doubt anyone will object to them. Once this is done I'd love to see it used as a model for pages in other fields of interest. --Gmaxwell 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another comment: Would this page be the wrong place to suggest to editors that it would be useful to try to include some non-fair use illustrations in such articles when we can? For example, in an article about a comic series beyond the cover and some images for commentary it would be good if we also had free images of the author working, or perhaps people at a convention dressed up like the characters. Not only would such illustrations provide a wider outlook for our readers but they would help us avoid the article becoming totally unillustrated if used someplace where fair use can not be claimed (or if future legal action causes us to remove fair use images). --Gmaxwell 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll excuse me if the thought of including a pic of people dressed up as Spider-Man at a con made me burst out laughing (and it would STILL be fair use, since the Spider-Man costume and all closely-related visuals are trademarks of Marvel). As to images of people working - how many prominent characters have been worked on by only one person? And where the hell would you get pictures (let alone PD/GDFL pics) of people typing or drawing the actual comic anyway? - SoM 17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: heh I laughed at that too, don't worry. I'm sure that some of our genius editors could figure out how to include such thing in good taste.  :)  As far as the latter case, perhaps you call them up and ask if you can come take some pictures. Such pictures exists for some TV programs. I didn't say it would be easy, only encouraged. --Gmaxwell 14:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is really good

message: When the caption is mentioned, what exactly is being discussed - is it the tag within the grey frame (Monobook skin) on the page (see right), or is it the text on the image page itself? - SoM 17:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that info should be in both places, or is that unworkable? Hiding  talk 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a bit m:instruction creepy if we don't need it, plus it's horribly clumsy if you have (e.g.) six images on a page, all using } witht he length of the thing. - SoM 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption: Clarification? 

message: I looked this over very briefly and it looks very well thought out. One thing that came to mind is the ALL RIGHTS RESERVED on the copyright notices though. All rights reserved is no longer actually a meaningful phrase for U.S. copyrights, legally speaking. I'm afraid it might also give the wrong impression that we have the ability to say what rights are reserved or not. If what is really meant is "our usage of this does not indicate that it is in any way not protected by copyright", then maybe something more directly to that effect would be appropriate. But it was just a thought I had. --Fastfission 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrugs* The Marvel notice came from a "fan-site authorisation" program they briefly ran... in 2003. I only changed the end date to 2005, being as it is the current year - and the indicia on current Marvel Comics STILL makes a point of including the words "All rights reserved." So no-one has told Marvel's lawyers. - SoM 01:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All rights reserved

message: It's stated that although we can't include snippets of the whole story arc of the death of Superman arc, it would be OK to include a frame from it in an article about that event.  It should be stated somewhere that it's unacceptable to create, say, 100 articles about every little event that occurs in the arc, to pre-empt those who will argue that Wikipedia is not paper, etc.  Tempshill 01:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be easier to speedy delete such articles as copyright violation. Hiding  talk 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  preventing a forest of articles on each book 

message: Any objections to making this a guideline then? Hiding  talk 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say go ahead, since I've just had a guy saying some of my  tags are "nonsensical" on my talk page. Sooner this is active, the better. - SoM 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm that guy. While it's nice to supply "scanned it myself" vs "got it from a website" (one could imagine comparing versions of an image), it's not actually a requirement of copyright law. This is what Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is all about; the copyright resides with the original owner, no matter how many layers of copying, printing/scanning, e-mail forwarding, etc that it goes through. Another way to look at it is - if I got an image from a website, but told you I scanned it myself, how could you ever tell the difference? The real source is the creator of the image (just as it is for art in general), not the hard disk on which a digital copy happens to reside. Stan 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy states that a source must be given, regardless of what copyright laws might say: Always provide a detailed source for where the image came from from Wikipedia:Image use policy.  Hiding  talk 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly, and what is the actual source of a book cover? It's not the person scanning the cover, that person is merely copying from one medium to another. Suppose you say you got an image from a website, well where did they get it from? Is your "detailed source" insufficient if you don't know whether that website did the scan, or got it from still another site? What if the website you got an image from goes offline? Does that means all images from that site are now unsourced? You have to use a little common sense here - the actual source of a published image is the publisher. If you have the publisher, you have the source; any intermediate steps are irrelevant. Stan 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always provide a detailed source  Therefore, if you're stating what the actual source for a comic book cover is, then it is the comic book issue from which it is scanned, the publication details of said issue being found in the indicia.  If the image is sourced from a website, it's prudent to also give that information alongside any other information regarding the primary source of the image, as in some jurisdictions that information may be relevant, or if there is information missing that source may be useful in attempting to discover such information. It may also be the case that the image has been altered by the person who performed the scan, thus potentially allowing them copyright of the image. Hiding  talk 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note also, that describing something as a comic cover isn't, in and of itself, a description of source.  Such information does not help us to uncover the copyright holder and thus protect against copyright infringement.  Please also be aware that in many instances the publisher of the comic in question is not the copyright holder. The information being asked for is the comic book the image is scanned from.  This allows better identification of the copyright holder. Hiding  talk 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sure, if a comic cover does not mention the publisher/copyright holder (weird, but I'll take your word for it), then the description page ought to supply that. A similar situation holds for screenshots; we at least have to say what it is a screenshot of. In current practice the article on the game/film typically mentions the copyright holder, although it would be better form to replicate into each image. Stan 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Covers do not intrinsically and specifically mention the copyright holder at all. The Invisibles was published by DC but copyright to Grant Morrison.  The work Alan Moore and Alan Davis did for Marvel UK is copyrighted to them as creators, although characters remain copyrights of Marvel Comics. Any comic published by Fantagraphics will most likely be creator owned rather than publisher owned.  A lot of smaller companies work that way, and given the licensing deals Dark Horse Comics for one enters into, sometimes the copyright information is mired within the small print of the issue's indicia, something not presented upon the cover of the issue in question.  For example, I wouldn't like to put money on who the copyright holder or copyright holders of :Image:Nos4.jpg are, given the property itself is a 1922 movie character.  And regardless of what the cover image may or may not say, the image description page is required to contain source information.  It is helpful, it is policy, it allows for an easier understanding of the copyright position and, as you have pointed out, is not burdensome since the information is already to hand. There is a duty to report the copyright holder of the images, and as the source information will facilitate that reporting, I fail to see any reason not to report as fully as possible the source for the image upon the image description page, and once again remind you this is already policy as detailed above.  Hiding  talk 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: There are currently two different articles for the Marvel Comics character Ulysses Bloodstone.  The title of one is Ulysses Bloodstone, the other is simply Bloodstone.  The "Bloodstone" article in it's entirety has been copied and pasted from this website: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/bloodstoneulysses.htm and that article should be deleted.  I don't know if this is the proper section to discuss it or not, but I'm not spending all night looking for it. I tried to delete it but a bot undid it spouting something about vandalism and all that. Odin's Beard 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodstone article

message: I am considering expansion of the article on Zatanna and doing a section on her costumes over the years. Would the multiple images violate fair use? Orville Eastland 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of multiple images from different issues

message: Would it be possible to create a template for public domain images as well? Orville Eastland 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted comics

message: I note that for both obaels and covers it must be depicting a character or a group of characters. I'm just wondering about what to do with comic "things". I'm talking more or less about significant artifacts/objects that have appeared over. I'm writing an article on the cosmic treadmill from the Flash, and I uploaded a picture of it. I'm just afraid that the Template:comicpanel won't cover the image of it that I uploaded. Can the wording be tweaked or am I just worrying about nothing?--Toffile 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use would be covered, as far as I am concerned, by the phrase the scene or storyline depicted;, since you are using it in an article discussing the cosmic treadmill, the cosmic treadmill appears in the scene, and the caption clarifies that usage in context. Hiding  talk 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.--Toffile 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note about comic "things" 

message: Are we allowed to include examples if an artists work on the page about them ? That doesn't seem to be covered by the existing fair use tag. -- Beardo 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, art is allowable as long as it further explains the artist and is not just for decoration. It has to have an informative use.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artists' pages 

message: On my watchlist I have over 1100 pages to which I have contributed--from a single comma to full articles. During the past two years I have uploaded hundreds of popular culture images, making daily uploads at times. Some of these pictures are the result of hours of searching in order to find the perfect and relevant image. This includes quite a few comic book pages, comic book covers and comic strips. Some of these comic strips I pulled directly from ancient newspapers, so they appear nowhere else on the Internet.
Over 700 of these images have been designated as needing fair use rationale and will vanish from Wikipedia in a few days simply because there's no way I can add rationales to that many pages in a week's time. What is needed is a team of people dedicated to saving this material from banishment by adding fair use rationales. Please help if you can. Thanks. Here is a link that shows what is about to vanish from Wikipedia. Pepso 05:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal for help from interested parties

message: In the "Fair use rationale" section it says not to copy the example shown. My question is: why not? Obviously, it should be adjusted to the specific image and its specific use. However, if all of the comics-related images had copied this template, we would be in a lot better shape. As it stands, a lot of the comics images have no justification other than the boilerplate tag. If anyone bothered to challenge their fair use, I suspect many images would be deleted. So why not encourage editors to copy the template and then modify it as necessary? --GentlemanGhost 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't copy the "Fair use rationale" template? 

message: The template  has pretty much replaced the other comics fair use templates, so I have changed this page to reflect that. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated fair use templates 

message: 1) When a single page deals with multiple character is it appropriate/inappropriate to include an image of each character? For example, if there is a page about a super-team with 5 members (where none of the team members have their own individual page) to have an identifying image for each of the 5 members on the one page.
2) When a character from question 1 has multiple identities (EG Clark Kent/Superman) or multiple versions (EG Spiderman/Spiderman-simbiot) is it appropriate/inappropriate to have 1 image per each notable identity/version (within reason)?
Any admin input would be appreciated.
perfectblue (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple images? 

message: I've removed the 72 dpi suggestion, please see Dots_per_inch#DPI_in_digital_image_files. Anyone with an image editor or a printer settings tab can change the dpi of a printed image, there's no reason to prescribe a specific setting. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On DPI 

message: Uhhh... Did I get this straight?  You can scan in like a page or a few panels of a comic for a picture on an article, just so long as it's not too much because the reader wouldn't have to actually go and get the comic and read it for themselves, right?  A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?????? 

message: Common fansite mistake.  IP claims should be made only by IP owners.  Wikipedia editors (and fansites in general) don't have detailed copyright or trademark legal histories in hand as they upload, so don't have sufficient knowledge to be asserting these kinds of detailed claims.  These notices do not strengthen fair use, and do not prevent being sued.  In fact, certain litigious IP owners use these notices against defendants when they sue or threaten to sue, since the defendant has already admitted in detail the IP's ownership, effective dates, scope, and validity.  (Which is possibly why certain litigious IP owners encourage fansites to use them in the first place.)
The copyright notices contained in the templates ("...the copyright...is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book...") are sufficient to establish fair use, and more accurately state editors' knowledge of the IP claims.  The detailed copyright notices are unnecessary and harmful, and should not be used by Wikipedia or by any fansite. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated the four templates for deletion at TfD. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright notices 

message: Right now we've got here and the MoS stating "usually with a longest dimension no greater than 200-300 pixels".
The original discussions were referring to the width of the images since:
*The infoboxes currently default to 250px across and it's useful to have the image slightly larger than that. The 300px point.
*Cover as published  tend to be muddled if reduced below 300px. And,
*The average default, hard coded or preference reliant, spot image width size floats between 180 and 220px. Images sized between 200-250px across accommodate that range.
Since these ranges, at 72 ppi, still make the image less than useful for commercial reproduction, is there any objection to changing the wording to "usually with a width no greater than 200-300 pixels"?
(Cross posted at the MoS page...)
- J Greb (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution cap revisit 

message: How long does the copyright of a comic strip published in a newspaper in the US last? Roger (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper comic strip copyright expiry