Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 2

message: I took this statement from a photo description page at Wikipedia: Released under the GFDL; all other rights reserved.  What other rights might exist to be reserved? - Marshman 02:52, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are "other rights" 

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
This website has almost unreadable font for Wikipedia license text:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Environment-of-Evolutionary-Adaptedness
--Astudent 12:39, 2003 Oct 18 (UTC)
:It is still barely readable. It seems the whole site uses rather small fonts. -- Taku
::Is there a standard font-size specified for license and copyright text in general ? Jay 22:32, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Readability of copyright information

message: I am working on a book and would like to use some pics
from various Wikipedia articles as illustrations. The
book is commercial, for-profit. Am I right in believing
that the GNU/GDSL license policy applies to usage of 
pictures in addition to text? As in, if I put in that
boilerplate notice, I'm cool? The various links didn't
explicitly mention pictures and were rather confusing,
not to mention that there doesn't seem to be any
specific person/thing to email my question to.
Please help!
::Image copyrights have lead to some polemics in Wipedia. Some pics are explicitely GFDL but not all. Some are under fair use, some are PD, some are copyright expired, some are free for non-commercial use. You'd better contact the user that uploaded the pic before using it.
::Ericd 18:33, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using pics from Wikipedia 

message: Hi, I was wondering how this works with the license.
I want to make recordings of some of the content on Wikipedia, and I want to do it legally. My intention (if possible) is to make Compact Discs containing some of the text in spoken form, together with other text I have produced personally.
It is not my intention to make money out of Wikipedia content, but I am obviously free to charge for that proportion of the CD that is made from my own personal content.
I am very happy to reference the source of the Wikipedia in the manner outlined on the license (I could obviously not hyperlink), and the proposed cost of the CDs isn't going to be a great deal more that of the raw materials.
Can anyone advise on what I should do. Many thanks.
: Not a lawyer so don't know the issues intimately, but my understanding is that you can use the works and even charge for them as long as you attribute correctly and you make available any derivative works from the wikipedia. See the GFDL for more specific information. Dori 16:20, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
:(Also not a lawyer) Yes I think Dori has it right. Any materials you prepare deriving from Wikipedia content (and I think a spoken word version of articles counts in this respect) and then redistribute, would have to be available under the same licence. It would be brilliant if they could be available on the web and our pages could say "a spoken version of this article is available for download at ...." Pete 22:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording Wikipedia Content 

message: The prior text was attempting to apply section 4 to verbatim copying, which was incorrect. I've removed this text and replaced it with a link to wikipedia:verbatim copying. I've left the text relating to derived works alone. However, as I believe it to be inaccurate, and I needed to change it to preserve the flow of the para, I have placed a disclaimer above it. If someone who believes it to be true wants to take the responsibility upon their shoulders and remove the disclaimer, that would be fine by me. Martin 13:39, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  User's rights and obligations 

message: If something in Wikipedia is stated to be (and is) in the public domain (such as, for example, an unedited dump from the 1911 Britannica or the Household Cyclopedia), can I copy and paste it straight from Wikipedia and use it in a public domain way, or do I have to find it elsewhere and non-GFDL in order to use it as public domain? 
Before you all set the GNU hitsquads on me, I'm not trying to use content in this way myself, it's just that I prefer to contribute to Wikipedia on a public domain rather than a copyrighted basis, so the question is whether others will actually be able to take advantage of this, given that they won't be able to "find it elsewhere" in the case of text I've written directly into Wikipedia.
Onebyone 23:40, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL By default all contribs to Wikipedia are under the GNU FDL. In addition to that, some users allow their edits to be used under as "public domain" (example user:Axel Boldt) or under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license (example me :). Just put a note on your user page to that effect. However, this does not cover contributions by others and this must be made very clear in your message. BTW, we do not look favorably on mere dumps of PD text into Wikipedia and the great majority of this material has been modified in some way. All those modifications and the resulting derivative work itself, is under the GNU FDL. But any single edit that inputs PD text would still be PD. --mav 23:48, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, we do not look favorably on mere dumps of PD text. What I mean is that all of my contributions (and all of user:Axel Boldt's) are precisely that, dumps of PD text. It just happens to be PD text specially written for the purpose ;-). Hopefully the message on my user page is clear enough... Onebyone 23:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain

message: I noticed this whilst wandering through the undergrowth: User:Alexandros/copyright
and I wondered whether this is possibly valid.
Phil 15:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
:I am not a lawyer. As I understand GFDL this is valid, but has almost no effect. If you submit something to Wikipedia then you give permission for it to be distributed under GFDL on normal Wikipedia terms. Additionally, the owner of the copyright is entitled to distribute it in any way he chooses. In this case, Alexandros has chosen to additionally release it under GFDL with the message he specifies attached. But because by submitting it to Wikipedia he has also released it under GFDL without that message, the message becomes optional... Onebyone 18:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexandros's notice is technically not compatible with the GFDL, but largely summarises terms of the GFDL that Alexandros considers particularly important - but he does need to clarify that his notice is not an invariant section, as Wikipedia does not permit invariant sections. Martin 00:35, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely the fact that he has submitted his work to Wikipedia does not prevent him from also releasing it under GFDL with an invariant section? Wikipedia doesn't have any authority to prevent him doing so, since it does not own copyright in the work and is not the source from which he obtained it. Onebyone 01:09, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he can release the whole Wikipedia database with invariant sections all over the place. But Wikipedia has a policy that we will not publish invariant sections on this website (he can also release any edits that he owns the copyright to under any license he likes - but the copy on Wikipedia is and will always be under the GFDL with no invariant sections). One could make a strong case that Wikipedia does own compilation copyrights (which are the unique arrangements of edits by various different users that make up individual articles and the entire work itself). -- mav 08:01, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia User allowed to reserve copyright? 

message: I've never heard a clear answer to whether a photograph of a public domain painting or sculpture is copyrighted.  The image at Cronus does not have any copyright information on the image page and is the same as google has cached from a page that no longer exists.  See the last image on the first row.  I don't know if this is a sketch of an ancient, public domain image (though it appears to be) and, if so, whether or not it is protected by copyright.  Any ideas? Tuf-Kat 21:31, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
The definitive principle is that in the US, you must have engaged in creative work of some sort, at some low threshold, to have created something which can have copyright. Hard work isn't enough - it must be creative. From this one principle flow these general rules:
*Facts aren't copyrightable - a fact isn't creative.
** Recipe ingredient lists are facts; you must be creative in your presentation to be able to copyright them.
*Obvious organizations in lists aren't copyrightable. No creativity in things like alphabetic ordering or ordering according to genus or other standard order.
*If the underlying work is in the public domain (as facts are), collecting it doesn't give you a copyright to the underlying work, only to your organization - and only then if it is creative.
**Photographs and scans of public domain materials fit here, unless there is creative lighting or editing involved, which might exceed the low threshold for creativity.
**Changing image file format fits here - no creativity in converting from GIF to JPG.
*If your expression is so limited that giving you copyright protection would effectively prevent others from expressing the same thing, you won't have copyright either. Caution and careful judgement is required for this one - that text had better be little more than a list or really generic description! The more ways there are to express something in a comparable number of words, the less likely it is that the text will be generic and uncopyrightable.
**Standard plot concepts for novels fit here.
**Individual expressions of plots are copyrightable, its only the generic template which isn't.
**Standard descriptions of an animal fit here - the description for an animal is very commonplace and generic and unless you choose colorful prose, it won't be able to be judged creative without blocking others from giving an accurate description of the animal.
*Typo corrections aren't creative. Nor are pagination changes and other trivial and obvious manipulations. Usually - I can conceive of cases where they might be used artistically rather than in ordinary writing.
*An architectural drawing which is merely accurate isn't creative. A new design or proposed change probably is.
*An accurate scientific drawing seems likely to be treated like an accurate mechanical reproduction by camera and not be creative but I'm unaware of a decision saying so.
On the Cronus image, the first result in the Google search is , which appears to be an old relief carving into a wall. There are also several minor variations on the theme in drawings, with differences in things like background color or texture. The image in our article appears to be basically an accurate drawing of that older work. However, there's a textured background. That looks to me as though it's an artifact of image conversion and/or book scanning rather than deliberate creativity. I'd like to know more about this one before saying it wasn't creative, though - the textured background makes me want to know the source and whether it's an accident of technology or deliberate attempt at creativity. What do others think? Personally, I'm inclined to suggest using the first image instead - that looks to be safely non-creative. So long as it really is an old work, not a new one! I don't know enough about this subject to know whether the drawing or the sculpting came first. Seek more information is my recommendation. I've asked the uploader to provide some. Jamesday 11:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptations of public domain images 

message: I just wrote an article on Ernest King, and I'd like to add a picture to it. The US navy has some great pictures of him that are in the national archives. Are they part of the public domain, and (as such) distributable under the GPL? →Raul654 11:01, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Yep. The U.S. government has no copyright rights and everything they produce (except classified documents and, you know, the maps showing where all the missle silos are) is up for grabs.jengod 11:30, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
::Maybe not.  If the picture was taken by a US govt employee as a part of their job, then yes, it's in the public domain.  However if the archives happenes to have photo taken by a non gov employee then no, it's not in the public domain.  The same issues come up for Library of Congress photos, too.  Some are copyright, some are public domain. Gentgeen 12:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On the site's Privacy and Security Notice I read, "All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Under the banner of "no copyright paranoia" I would say that we should believe such a statement in the absense of evidence to the contrary. Andre Engels 12:13, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really being paranoid, and I wouldn't list a pic that said it came from the National Archives as a possible copyright violator.  However, it's the "unless otherwise specified" part that you have to be carefull of.  I know at the LoC pages, each photo has it's own reproduction rights page where any copyright is specified.  Before you upload, go read that page, if there is one. Gentgeen
If this agency is "inter-govermental" how can it claim copyright? Sennheiser 15:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The US govt does not claim copyright, but other govts can and regrettably do (crown copyright, etc). As such, the ESA can likewise claim copyright. Martin 15:51, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The crown copyright article states that the crown copyright isn't applicable in other countries, such as United States, that do not recognize moral rights in their copyright laws.  Since our servers are in the United States, only United States regulations apply to Wikipedia.  Unless the ESA is using something other than the crown copyright, I think we'd be ok. Am I correct, or am I totally misinformed? Sennheiser 19:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just found this image from usmint.gov:  which claims copyright.  Could someone tell me why this image is copyrighted by the US Mint (or at least why it claims to be copyrighted)? thanks! Sennheiser 21:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the rule about government works being public domain only applies to works made by employees of the government. If the site was made by a contractor, the contractor would originally have owned the copyright, and then they could have tra0AIs this the place to suggest that rocks & minerals should have standard tables like those currently used for, for example, birds and dogs (e.g., Whippet)? I've got a sample of a rock  and a mineral on my user page. Elf 20:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on government eployees in the course of their work duties. US copyright protects creativity only and an accurate scientific photograph of a rock is unlikely to have any creative input from the photographer, since the whole point is to be accurate, not creative. Jamesday 11:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The crown copyright article says that the moral rights will not be recognised in countries which do not recognise moral rights. The copyright itself remains recognised. There is generallly a license to use NASA/ESA images provided an image credit is given. See Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and :Image:SOHO solar flare sun 20031026 0119 eit 304.png for an article and image combination which complies with the requirements of one joint project. Jamesday 15:30, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can use the ESA images, can we use the ESA text, provided credit is given in the talk page? Sennheiser 19:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the individual site for any requirements. Much of it is likely to be press release material and readily reusable as simple fair use case but as a practical matter it's usually more convenient for us to rewrite text to ensure that it's GFDL, though that would limit reuse more for some users than simply using the original text. Jamesday 11:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, wouldn't some GNUFDL abiding applications of the material retrieved from wikipedia be the opposite of "public education efforts and non-commercial purposes"? I was under the impression that wikipedia material released under the GNUFDL is allowed to be used for commercial use (as long as credit is given). Wouldn't this cause some legal problems for Wikipedia?  Sennheiser 19:43, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the user. Note that the license says public education efforts and non-commercial, not non-commercial public education, so it's written not to exclude commercial use so long as it's for public education. All encyclopedias and the vast majority of reusers of Wikipedia material will qualify under one or both conditions. Jamesday 11:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: US national archives photos - public domain?

message: The issue of album covers has come up again, on Head Hunters.  This is probably the umpteenth time, but this anonymous user also feels that the track listing is copyrighted, which is novel.  Since I have joined the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, I am limiting myself to reverting only once in debates with non-vandals, at least unless others have specifically supported me.  Is anybody else willing to revert the article to include the album cover and track listing? Tuf-Kat 04:52, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention the list of personnel, which has also been removed. I really don't see how a list of personnel can be copyrightable - As TUF-KAT has stated elsewhere, this is simply a statement of fact. --Bwmodular 08:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the reversion. Let the argument roll on. I note from the Page History that User:67.170.31.123 has done this before to the same page; I can't see any more like this on their Contributions list. HTH --Phil 09:16, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
I've replied on article talk, left a note to the anon on their talk page and added this to possible copyright infringements. More on the article talk page but for convenience, here is my response:
*Displaying an entire piece does not make something infringing so long as that is all that's required for the purpose, which here is showing what the cover of the album looks like. See fair use and the reasoning in the full decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation for an example of full commercial use of a thumbnail (reduced size) image which was fair use, not infringement. Part of the argument there revolved around the practicality of using the reduced size image as a replacement for the original. It's not practical to use a reduced size image to create a sufficiently high quality image to fool potential customers for the original album work into thinking that the copy is the original, so it's not a possible replacement of the original album. That someone might make infringing use of the work, somehow, does not mean that the use made here is infringing - each use must be considered on its own merits.
*In the US, there is a mandatory royalty on all blank music CD disks (not computer CD blanks) and such copies are completely lawful, as are copies to tape, for the same reason. Using a reduced quality image on the case for such royalty-paid copies seems very likely to be fair use, since the royalty for the musical work has been paid. 
*It's a long standing principle of US law that simple lists arranged in obvious orders (like track titles in the order in which they appear) are not subject to copyright. See Feist v. Rural and the related cases mentioned in that article. Jamesday 12:40, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Album covers and track listings

message: (from the village pump)
To The Permissions Department,
CECIERJ - Science and Distance Learning Foundation of Rio de Janeiro is the support foundation for the consortium CEDERJ, which is a consortium of six public universities (UERJ, UNIRIO, UENF, UFRJ, UFF, UFRRJ) located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The consortium aims to offer high quality distance public higher education.
By offering undergraduate distance learning courses, the consortium CEDERJ:
*Contributes to bringing high quality free higher education in the inner cities of the Rio de Janeiro State.
*Contributes to make higher education possible for those who can not study within the time/schedule of standard universities.
The consortium CEDERJ works by building local centers distributed across the state (eleven at the moment). The course’s quality is ensured by the consortium and in the face-to-face and distance tutoring system.
Our courses are based on printed material and online courses, whose content is enriched by images, videos, audio, links, texts, programs, simulators, etc.
All our courses are given at no charge for the students and the educational material is heavily subsidized so as to minimize the cost to the student. The educational material is only sold to students of the courses in the consortium. They are not sold to the open public.
We would like to request your authorization for using the images found in your site for undetermined time in our courses. We commit ourselves to credit the material and use it only in our educational material. 
Thank you for your attention. Please contact us if you need any further information.
:===========================
:Dinah Kleve
:Pesquisa e Produção de Imagens
:CEDERJ
:(21) 2299-4573
:dinah@cederj.rj.gov.br
:http://www.cederj.rj.gov.br
:===========================
It should be perfectly fine to use all material here for educational purposes. Even other purposes, just as long as all materials remain under the GNU FDL (English) / GNU FDL (Portugûes). Κσυπ Cyp     21:23, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. There are a lot of images on Wikipedia which cannot be used under GFDL because they are used on Wikipedia under "fair usage". It seems likely to me that if Wikipedia is fair usage then so are most or all educational purposes, but I cannot give legal advice. Wikipedia cannot grant permission for anyone to use images which are only on Wikipedia under "fair usage" and are not GFDL licensed. Onebyone 12:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: (from the village pump)
I would like to use the images from this awesome university website.  Would I be violating copyright? --Ed Senft! 21:48, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you would most likely be violating copyright unless you have permission from the creater of the images. Jrincayc 22:40, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  images from awesome university website