Hi folks. I'd like to solicit your opinions of fair use image galleries in articles.
In the area I edit in most (British television history), many of the subjects have a long visual history of changing logos and graphic design. This is usually reflected in the illustrations in the articles.
However, a couple of them - [[UTV]] and [[HTV]] for instance - have grown little galleries of fair use images at the foot of the article.
I see two potential problems here.
The first is that these stills are all taken from various hobby sites on the subject. Whilst the hobby sites don't hold the copyright on the images, they did do all the hard work in capturing the images and uploading them in the first place. They are often not credited, and, if they are, they're rarely credited with a clickable link (which would seem to be the absolute least an uploader could do).
The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits - somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images, without accompanying text, seems to be right on the borders of fair use and senseless copyright infringement.
I'm wary of taking this up directly with the editors in question as people are remarkably attached to their fair use images. Of the three people I've contacted in the past about fair use images possibly being misused, one changed usernames, one quit the 'pedia instantly on the grounds that I was a pedantic fucking cunt (a direct quote), and one blanked his talk page without replying.
One day, fair use image policy is going to cause an explosive RfC... but I'd rather my name wasn't on it.
:"REDVERS"
___________________________________________________________ Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets. http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:
Hi folks. I'd like to solicit your opinions of fair use image galleries in articles.
In the area I edit in most (British television history), many of the subjects have a long visual history of changing logos and graphic design. This is usually reflected in the illustrations in the articles.
However, a couple of them - [[UTV]] and [[HTV]] for instance - have grown little galleries of fair use images at the foot of the article.
I see two potential problems here.
The first is that these stills are all taken from various hobby sites on the subject. Whilst the hobby sites don't hold the copyright on the images, they did do all the hard work in capturing the images and uploading them in the first place. They are often not credited, and, if they are, they're rarely credited with a clickable link (which would seem to be the absolute least an uploader could do).
The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits - somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images, without accompanying text, seems to be right on the borders of fair use and senseless copyright infringement.
I'm wary of taking this up directly with the editors in question as people are remarkably attached to their fair use images. Of the three people I've contacted in the past about fair use images possibly being misused, one changed usernames, one quit the 'pedia instantly on the grounds that I was a pedantic fucking cunt (a direct quote), and one blanked his talk page without replying.
One day, fair use image policy is going to cause an explosive RfC... but I'd rather my name wasn't on it.
:"REDVERS"
Fair use galleries are verboten unless each image in the gallery has its subject discussed by the article. I quote from the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107: "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as /criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research/, is not an infringement of copyright." If the gallery fulfills these requirements (the images and article content must be considered together), then the fair use is permissible. This hardly ever happens, however. And as with most copyright issues...better safe than sorry.
John
John Lee wrote:
Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:
In the area I edit in most (British television history), many of the subjects have a long visual history of changing logos and graphic design. This is usually reflected in the illustrations in the articles.
Fair use galleries are verboten unless each image in the gallery has its subject discussed by the article. I quote from the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107: "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as /criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research/, is not an infringement of copyright." If the gallery fulfills these requirements (the images and article content must be considered together), then the fair use is permissible. This hardly ever happens, however. And as with most copyright issues...better safe than sorry.
We're talking about galleries of historical company logos in an article about the company. I'd say such use should count as "comment", and probably as "teaching, scholarship or research".
But I suppose the real issue is not how either of us interprets those words, but how they've been interpreted in court. Any real lawyers here who'd care to comment?
Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:
The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits - somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images, without accompanying text, seems to be right on the borders of fair use and senseless copyright infringement.
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
(I had a detailed fair use rationale here, but decided to snip it since it's exactly the same as for logos on Wikipedia in general. Basically, such historical logo galleries have educational value, and do not negatively affect the market value of the works in question.)
On 22 Apr 2006, at 21:40, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo.
*Not* if you are just talking about the company.
Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos? Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006, at 21:40, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo. *Not* if you are just talking about the company.
Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos? Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.
An article about the historical logos used by a company would probably be a candidate for merging with the main article about the company. Such a merger does not generally affect the validity of fair use claims for images included in the merged content.
More generally, "pretty copyvio pics" sounds like a straw man argument to me. Who in their right mind would consider a company logo pretty? The sole reason for inclusing old logos in an article is that such logos *add information to the article*.
Of course, the article does need to discuss the logos to some extent, for the images to be relevant to the article. Like, say, noting the time period during which each logo was in use. If we have additional information on the logos, like for example who designed them, so much the better.
The reason I'm taking the time to argue this point is that I find this drive to eliminate eminently justifiable fair use content frankly absurd and also detrimental to the encyclopedia. If I read about the history of a company, I may very much like to know what their logo used to look like in the 50's, for example. The only reasonable way to convey this information is by including a picture of the logo.
Fundamentally, this is about what fair use really means. The law leaves its definition deliberately vague, relaying instead on the common sense notion that a use is "fair" if it serves a useful purpose and does not unduly harm the copyright holder. In this case, we're using these logos for the purpose of improving the coverage of a free encyclopedia, and we're not taking anything away from anyone by doing so.
Mind you, if anyone actually were to complain about us including their logos, we should immediately take them down. But until and unless it happens, it seems reasonable to me to assume that our use of company logos in an encyclopedic context, with proper attribution, is doing no actual or perceived harm to the copyright holders.
On Apr 23, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo. *Not* if you are just talking about the company.
Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos? Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.
An article about the historical logos used by a company would probably be a candidate for merging with the main article about the company. Such a merger does not generally affect the validity of fair use claims for images included in the merged content.
Most of what can be said can be said in the image captions. For instance, [[Wang Laboratories]]. Other articles have a specific section, such as [[Apple Computer#Logo]]
More generally, "pretty copyvio pics" sounds like a straw man argument to me. Who in their right mind would consider a company logo pretty?
Some company logos are indeed pretty.
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
The reason I'm taking the time to argue this point is that I find this drive to eliminate eminently justifiable fair use content frankly absurd and also detrimental to the encyclopedia. If I read about the history of a company, I may very much like to know what their logo used to look like in the 50's, for example. The only reasonable way to convey this information is by including a picture of the logo.
Fundamentally, this is about what fair use really means. The law leaves its definition deliberately vague, relaying instead on the common sense notion that a use is "fair" if it serves a useful purpose and does not unduly harm the copyright holder. In this case, we're using these logos for the purpose of improving the coverage of a free encyclopedia, and we're not taking anything away from anyone by doing so.
Mind you, if anyone actually were to complain about us including their logos, we should immediately take them down. But until and unless it happens, it seems reasonable to me to assume that our use of company logos in an encyclopedic context, with proper attribution, is doing no actual or perceived harm to the copyright holders.
I agree with this approach. I would be surprised if there were many claims of copyright violation regarding logos unless the usage was clearly abusive. My understanding is that companies like Coca-Cola will pay to show people using their product in a movie. For them it's cheap advertising.
For the most part I don't think that these companies are concerned at all about the copyrights on these logos. Trademarks would be another matter, but we have nothing to worry about there because we're not competing in their kind of business.
It's also important to remember that works published before 1989 in the US had to have a copyright notice. Without that they were and continue to be in the public domain. Copyright then was not automatic.
So I agree, in the absence of a complaint by the rightsholder including the logos should be perfectly safe.
Ec
On 4/25/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's also important to remember that works published before 1989 in the US had to have a copyright notice. Without that they were and continue to be in the public domain. Copyright then was not automatic.
Just to be picky (as one should be, I suppose, with legal things) -- works published in the US between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice are in the public domain; works published between 1978 until March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice and *without subsequent registration* are in the public domain.
FF
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006, at 21:40, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo.
*Not* if you are just talking about the company.
Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos? Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.
Justinc
In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_idents is a good example of how to write articles on things as trivial (?) as logos -- as with company's hisorical logos, explaining network idents over the years requires a sizable amount of fair use, and this article seems to do it well, since the images haven't swallowed up the article.
There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_television_idents, but that article contains much less in the way of explanation, and might be harder to justify under [[WP:NOT]] and fair use.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_and_television_logo_descriptions.
In message 444C6550.5010800@zoomtown.com, Minh Nguyen mxn-Ij6MdEStJ8hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org writes
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006, at 21:40, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo.
*Not* if you are just talking about the company.
Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos? Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.
Justinc
In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_idents is a good example of how to write articles on things as trivial (?) as logos -- as with company's hisorical logos, explaining network idents over the years requires a sizable amount of fair use, and this article seems to do it well, since the images haven't swallowed up the article.
There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_television_idents, but that article contains much less in the way of explanation, and might be harder to justify under [[WP:NOT]] and fair use.
Not any more, I spent most of last night writing up the history of BBC idents. The depressing thing is that apart from the "Bat's Wings" I can actually remember seeing most of them the first time they appeared!