See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg is it fair use? it's used on a bazillion userpages
How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piet_Mondrian.jpg could fair use be argued on that? it wasn't used on Piet Mondrian (and his works have already been exemplified)
how about using them in galleries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&am...
I don't think guernica is allowed on [[Terror bombing]] under fair use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&o...
How about [[Aerial bombing of cities]] ? Does fair use REALLY cover its use on [[Around the World in 80 Treasures]]
The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):
* Pablo Picasso * Spanish Civil War * Aerial bombing of cities * Bombing of Guernica * Guernica (painting) * List of Picasso artworks 1931-1940 * Around the World in 80 Treasures * Spanish art
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg is it fair use?
Fair use depends on what specific use it is being put to, so there's no one universal "yes" or "no" answer. However:
it's used on a bazillion userpages
Fair use of images on user pages is never permitted, in accordance with item number 9 at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]. This image appears to be so widespread in userspace because it was in a userbox at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1ne/Userboxes/User_abstractions] so I've removed it from there.
How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piet_Mondrian.jpg could fair use be argued on that? it wasn't used on Piet Mondrian (and his works have already been exemplified)
The image appears to have been deleted two days ago so I suppose this issue is moot.
how about using them in galleries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&am...
To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
I don't think guernica is allowed on [[Terror bombing]] under fair use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&o...
How about [[Aerial bombing of cities]] ? Does fair use REALLY cover its use on [[Around the World in 80 Treasures]]
I'd say that [[Terror bombing]] and [[Aerial bombing of cities]] aren't fair use, since those articles aren't about the painting itself in any significant way, but that a reasonable case could be made for [[Around the World in 80 Treasures]] since it's used specifically to reference the painting itself.
I'm not a lawyer, but unfortunately even if I _were_ a lawyer I wouldn't be able to give any sort of objective yes-or-no answer. As I understand it the law in this area is subjective and the only way to get a clear-cut answer on whether something is fair use or not is to actually go through with a court case over it.
The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):
* Pablo Picasso
The painting is not extensively discussed, so it's a bit questionable. But there aren't a lot of other Picasso paintings in the article so it might be reasonable to keep as an exemplar of his work.
* Spanish Civil War
Mentioned in passing in a single line, not enough to be fair use here IMO.
* Aerial bombing of cities
Mentioned in passing in a single line, and not even by name. Not at all fair use here.
* Bombing of Guernica
There's a whole section of this article that's about the painting so it looks fair use to me here.
* Guernica (painting)
If it's fair use anywhere then it's fair use here.
* List of Picasso artworks 1931-1940
As with [[Pablo Picasso]], it's not discussed in any detail but it might be reasonable to keep it here as an exemplar of his work. It's currently the only Picasso painting illustrated here.
* Around the World in 80 Treasures
As mentioned above, a case could be made for fair use here but it's a bit iffy. I expect someone else will probably remove it now that it's been raised here on the mailing list and I wouldn't spend effort to keep it in.
* Spanish art
Looks like the full extent of the mention of the painting is this line: "While Picasso was worried that if he copied Velázquez's painting, it would be seen only as a copy and not as any sort of unique representation, he proceeded to do so, and the enormous work—the largest he had produced since Guernica in 1937—earned a position of relevance in the Spanish canon of art." This isn't even about the painting itself, it's about some _other_ painting Picasso did. Not fair use.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg is it fair use?
Fair use depends on what specific use it is being put to, so there's no one universal "yes" or "no" answer.
This is exactly why fair use presents us with such difficulties. There are many instances where uses that would likely be recognized as fair use by the courts, are not acceptable as fair use in Wikipedia. This is a matter risk tolerance, and how much of a safety margin some of us feel comfortable with. Naturally, that varies with the individual.
it's used on a bazillion userpages
Fair use of images on user pages is never permitted, in accordance with item number 9 at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]. This image appears to be so widespread in userspace because it was in a userbox at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1ne/Userboxes/User_abstractions] so I've removed it from there.
They are never permitted on the English Wikipedia. The rule could be different in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
how about using them in galleries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&am...
To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
This, of course, reflects the English Wikipedia subset of fair use rules.
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
This is an argument that I would use with extreme caution. I would define "long time" in this to be at least three years, that being the U.S. statutory limitation period for launching copyright infringement complaints in the courts.
Ec
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg is it fair use?
Fair use depends on what specific use it is being put to, so there's no one universal "yes" or "no" answer.
This is exactly why fair use presents us with such difficulties. There are many instances where uses that would likely be recognized as fair use by the courts, are not acceptable as fair use in Wikipedia. This is a matter risk tolerance, and how much of a safety margin some of us feel comfortable with. Naturally, that varies with the individual.
it's used on a bazillion userpages
Fair use of images on user pages is never permitted, in accordance with item number 9 at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]. This image appears to be so widespread in userspace because it was in a userbox at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1ne/Userboxes/User_abstractions] so I've removed it from there.
They are never permitted on the English Wikipedia. The rule could be different in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
Well, not on portuguese.. since pt doesnt' have local uploads and commonswon't take "fair use", so not in that case
how about using them in galleries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&am...
To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
This, of course, reflects the English Wikipedia subset of fair use rules.
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
This is an argument that I would use with extreme caution. I would define "long time" in this to be at least three years, that being the U.S. statutory limitation period for launching copyright infringement complaints in the courts.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
Yes. To us. Ask the foundation for details.
geni wrote:
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
Yes. To us. Ask the foundation for details.
IIRC he didn't upload it himself; he sent us a polite takedown notice in about May 2006, which we complied with.
geni wrote:
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
Yes. To us. Ask the foundation for details.
Fine. Since I'm not going to pursue this matter, I don't need to track down the details. That a real owner has commented is significant. The courts may still decide that he has abandoned his coprights, but I'm happy to let that be somebody else's fight.
Ec
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
The funny thing is, the O RLY? owl *is* in the article [[O RLY?]]. It's in the newspaper article clipping.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
This, of course, reflects the English Wikipedia subset of fair use rules.
This thread is on WikiEN-l so that should be assumed by default.
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
I'm told he complained about it in some manner, though I never got to see the the actual complaint. Some of the gory details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg, though unfortunately not the specific reasons why the image was ultimately kept deleted.
Whether the copyright holder objects to fair usage or not shouldn't actually make a difference, as far as I understand the law; the whole point of fair use is that under those circumstances we don't _need_ permission. I wish this case had been handled more transparently.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
This, of course, reflects the English Wikipedia subset of fair use rules.
This thread is on WikiEN-l so that should be assumed by default.
Never underestimate the capacity of some editors to extrapolate.
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
I'm told he complained about it in some manner, though I never got to see the the actual complaint. Some of the gory details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg, though unfortunately not the specific reasons why the image was ultimately kept deleted.
This is why I so strongly support the notion that take down orders should be made a matter of public record. That would make it easier when the matter comes up months or years later to point to the order as the definitive word on the subject. Then if someone wants to dispute the matter they can try to convince those in charge that the order did not meet legal requirements, or they can initiate a counterorder indicating that they are personally willing to take it to court.
Whether the copyright holder objects to fair usage or not shouldn't actually make a difference, as far as I understand the law; the whole point of fair use is that under those circumstances we don't _need_ permission. I wish this case had been handled more transparently.
I agree.
Ec