On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been up there for months. In fact, the image itself didn't even include a claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
Anthony
(*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg). The compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but because Google had not yet added them). Like the image I presented there were no 3-D elements. I think it's clear to anyone with any knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest in such an image. You don't get copyright on something simply because it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been up there for months. In fact, the image itself didn't even include a claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
Anthony
(*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg). The compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but because Google had not yet added them). Like the image I presented there were no 3-D elements. I think it's clear to anyone with any knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest in such an image. You don't get copyright on something simply because it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
I know in France the architect has copyright photos of their buildings, but the State of New Jersey has copyright over your photo of...?
On 1/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been up there for months. In fact, the image itself didn't even include a claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
Anthony
(*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg). The compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but because Google had not yet added them). Like the image I presented there were no 3-D elements. I think it's clear to anyone with any knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest in such an image. You don't get copyright on something simply because it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
I know in France the architect has copyright photos of their buildings, but the State of New Jersey has copyright over your photo of...?
It's not my photo I was talking about, but the aerial photos used in Google Earth, which, in this particular case, were made as a work for hire of the State of New Jersey. Google obtained these aerial photos and then manipulated them *per my instructions* and sent them to me. As I'm the one who chose all the creative elements (the location, the angle, the zoom level), I'm the one who owns the copyright on the derivative work, not Google. All they did was provide me with the tools to create the image. They own the copyright no more than FUJIFILM owns the copyright to [[Image:Capemaypoint.JPG]] (which is the actual photo I took from that location).
Frankly, I think this conclusion is pretty much indisputable by anyone with basic knowledge of copyright law. In fact, it follows naturally from the absurdity of the law being any other way. The Mozilla Foundation (or is it the Mozilla Corporation?) doesn't own this text simply because I used their software to create it. Cakewalk doesn't own the songs just 'cause they're created using their music production software. Corel doesn't own a painting because it was designed using Corel Paint. Likewise, Google doesn't own an image simply because you used Google Earth to create it.
Discussing this issue is, in and of itself, educational. And using an image to facilitate such a discussion is fair use, which means it's not illegal and not an act of civil disobediance.
Of course, that discussion was kept to the talk page. The original purpose of my creation and distribution of the image was to show how well Google Earth can create a particular real life photo. Even if that's not educational (and it is), it's use for the purposes of commentary, which in many ways is actually a stronger argument for fair use than merely educational purposes anyway.
And frankly, Wikipedia should try to keep most, if not all, of its use *in the article space* to *commentary*, not simply educational purposes. When you are commenting on a work, there is no real substitute for the actual work itself. Pretty much any other use (save parody, which isn't really applicable to Wikipedia), can be theoretically substituted rather adequetely without resorting to fair use. Even if Dolly the Sheep is dead and all the images of her are copyrighted, it's still possible for an artist to look at *several* images and create an original work which accurately depicts what the sheep looks like.
Someone else mentioned how fair use images aren't treated like fair use text. Well, that's essentially how fair use text is treated. If you're commenting on the quote itself, then you use the quote itself. If, instead, you're using the information contained in the quote, then you read up on a bunch of different sources and paraphrase it, copying the facts but not the expression. The only real difference is that there are a lot more Wikipedians who are skilled at writing but not nearly as much at drawing.
Anyway, I've turned this into a rant about something completely different. Sorry.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been up there for months. In fact, the image itself didn't even include a claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
Anthony
(*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg). The compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but because Google had not yet added them). Like the image I presented there were no 3-D elements. I think it's clear to anyone with any knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest in such an image. You don't get copyright on something simply because it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
I know in France the architect has copyright photos of their buildings, but the State of New Jersey has copyright over your photo of...?
It's not my photo I was talking about, but the aerial photos used in Google Earth, which, in this particular case, were made as a work for hire of the State of New Jersey. Google obtained these aerial photos and then manipulated them *per my instructions* and sent them to me. As I'm the one who chose all the creative elements (the location, the angle, the zoom level), I'm the one who owns the copyright on the derivative work, not Google. All they did was provide me with the tools to create the image. They own the copyright no more than FUJIFILM owns the copyright to [[Image:Capemaypoint.JPG]] (which is the actual photo I took from that location).
Frankly, I think this conclusion is pretty much indisputable by anyone with basic knowledge of copyright law. In fact, it follows naturally from the absurdity of the law being any other way. The Mozilla Foundation (or is it the Mozilla Corporation?) doesn't own this text simply because I used their software to create it. Cakewalk doesn't own the songs just 'cause they're created using their music production software. Corel doesn't own a painting because it was designed using Corel Paint. Likewise, Google doesn't own an image simply because you used Google Earth to create it.
Discussing this issue is, in and of itself, educational. And using an image to facilitate such a discussion is fair use, which means it's not illegal and not an act of civil disobediance.
Of course, that discussion was kept to the talk page. The original purpose of my creation and distribution of the image was to show how well Google Earth can create a particular real life photo. Even if that's not educational (and it is), it's use for the purposes of commentary, which in many ways is actually a stronger argument for fair use than merely educational purposes anyway.
And frankly, Wikipedia should try to keep most, if not all, of its use *in the article space* to *commentary*, not simply educational purposes. When you are commenting on a work, there is no real substitute for the actual work itself. Pretty much any other use (save parody, which isn't really applicable to Wikipedia), can be theoretically substituted rather adequetely without resorting to fair use. Even if Dolly the Sheep is dead and all the images of her are copyrighted, it's still possible for an artist to look at *several* images and create an original work which accurately depicts what the sheep looks like.
Someone else mentioned how fair use images aren't treated like fair use text. Well, that's essentially how fair use text is treated. If you're commenting on the quote itself, then you use the quote itself. If, instead, you're using the information contained in the quote, then you read up on a bunch of different sources and paraphrase it, copying the facts but not the expression. The only real difference is that there are a lot more Wikipedians who are skilled at writing but not nearly as much at drawing.
Anyway, I've turned this into a rant about something completely different. Sorry.
Actually I think you've just highlighted a point where Wikipedia /does/ have a claim to fair use: commentary. Parody and satire are not within the scope of an NPOV encyclopedia, but commentary probably *is*.
BTW, what is the current reason fair use images are allowed on en:?
On 1/20/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I think you've just highlighted a point where Wikipedia /does/ have a claim to fair use: commentary. Parody and satire are not within the scope of an NPOV encyclopedia, but commentary probably *is*.
BTW, what is the current reason fair use images are allowed on en:?
I suspect historical ones. They were allowed to start with (since if they are truely fair use they probably are better than nothing) and I doubt you could get a consensus together to get rid of them.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 1/20/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I think you've just highlighted a point where Wikipedia /does/ have a claim to fair use: commentary. Parody and satire are not within the scope of an NPOV encyclopedia, but commentary probably *is*.
BTW, what is the current reason fair use images are allowed on en:?
I suspect historical ones. They were allowed to start with (since if they are truely fair use they probably are better than nothing) and I doubt you could get a consensus together to get rid of them.
Deleting fair use would take away nearly all book covers, album covers, film/tv/game/software screenshots, logos, many symbols, modern-day stamps and currency, photos of unusual or rare products, works by 20th-century artists, etc. Even if energetic Wikipedians were to get busy and stalk all the celebrities to get candid snaps, you're still going to end up with an image-less Star Wars article.
Sometimes de: is held up as a counterexample of how one doesn't really need copyrighted images, but I'll hazard a guess that many de: readers "sneak over" via interwiki to look at the forbidden pictures on en:. (I notice de: sometimes "launders" images in legally-dubious ways, such as taking a photograph of a Yoda doll, or somebody wearing a Darth Vader Halloween costume.)
So it doesn't seem reasonable to simply say "no fair use at all". I am in favor of it being heavily regulated, to where only irreplaceable images are allowed and in enumerated contexts.
Stan
On 20 Jan 2006, at 21:40, Stan Shebs wrote:
Deleting fair use would take away nearly all book covers, album covers, film/tv/game/software screenshots, logos, many symbols, modern-day stamps and currency, photos of unusual or rare products, works by 20th-century artists, etc. Even if energetic Wikipedians were to get busy and stalk all the celebrities to get candid snaps, you're still going to end up with an image-less Star Wars article.
So what. We can link to sources of external images (such as official Star Wars sites).
Making a free encyclopaedia involves certain compromises, such as er not having non free content.
And even I who wouldnt recognise a "celebrity" if they walked past managed to take a bad picture of one.
The fact that illustration is a bit biased in coverage is not a real problem.
What does a book cover add to an article on War and Peace?
Most uses are just decoration, and they are stopping free images being used to replace them. You can be quite lateral with illustration.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
What does a book cover add to an article on War and Peace?
If nothing else, it makes it clear that the article is about the book, not the movie, or the board game, or the ...
Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article? Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled "The famous photograph".
Most uses are just decoration, and they are stopping free images being used to replace them. You can be quite lateral with illustration.
Where are you expecting to get free images with which to illustrate Star Wars? They don't exist. Photos of Yoda dolls are not only pathetic, but they are not enencumbered copyright-wise either - the movie maker retains rights to the characters, and gives out licenses to reproduce them in other media. WP does not have such a license.
Anyway, even if you eliminate "most uses" because they are just decoration, you haven't got rid of all of them. And if the use of copyrighted material compromises WP's goal of being a free encyclopedia, that principle applies to copyrighted textual quotes as well. So unless you're prepared to delete fair-use quotes, you still haven't got a "free encyclopedia". In fact, the quotes are a more serious problem for the freeness goal, because while the images are tagged and filterable, the quotes are not easily removable.
Stan
On 20 Jan 2006, at 22:41, Stan Shebs wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
What does a book cover add to an article on War and Peace?
If nothing else, it makes it clear that the article is about the book, not the movie, or the board game, or the ...
Image worth one word. Even that might not be clear.
Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article? Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled "The famous photograph".
Yes, but these few real uses are swamped by the rubbish ones.
Most uses are just decoration, and they are stopping free images being used to replace them. You can be quite lateral with illustration.
Where are you expecting to get free images with which to illustrate Star Wars? They don't exist. Photos of Yoda dolls are not only pathetic, but they are not enencumbered copyright-wise either - the movie maker retains rights to the characters, and gives out licenses to reproduce them in other media. WP does not have such a license.
We dont have to illustrate everything. You can take photos of the stars at film openings, or prints on the walk of fame, there are lots of free photos out there.
Anyway, even if you eliminate "most uses" because they are just decoration, you haven't got rid of all of them. And if the use of copyrighted material compromises WP's goal of being a free encyclopedia, that principle applies to copyrighted textual quotes as well. So unless you're prepared to delete fair-use quotes, you still haven't got a "free encyclopedia". In fact, the quotes are a more serious problem for the freeness goal, because while the images are tagged and filterable, the quotes are not easily removable.
99.99% of the images labelled as fair use are not. 99.99% of the fair use text is. A few errors either way are not important to the goal of making a free encyclopaedia. The lies and blatent copyright violation in the images is.
I too can find a handful of fair use images. But I have yet to see something in say [[Category:Promotional images]] that is actually a promotional image (and there is really no justification for us having real promos anyway as we dont accept permission images). Its a blanket copyvio category. There are thousands of them, and more added every day.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article? Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled "The famous photograph".
Yes, but these few real uses are swamped by the rubbish ones.
If it's a matter of principle, then there are no "real uses" that are acceptable, no exceptions possible.
We dont have to illustrate everything. You can take photos of the stars at film openings, or prints on the walk of fame, there are lots of free photos out there.
"Prints on the walk of fame"? Exactly how does that clue people in about Darth Vader's menacing appearance, or how Yoda and Obi-wan are made-up to imitate the Campbellian archetype? If pictures are just decorative, then why not just eliminate all of them? (And yes, I know there are those on the far end of the sigma curve who think that's a great idea.)
99.99% of the images labelled as fair use are not. 99.99% of the fair use text is. A few errors either way are not important to the goal of making a free encyclopaedia. The lies and blatent copyright violation in the images is.
If it's a matter of principle, then no fair-use quotes are acceptable, ever. If it's a 99.99% issue, then you're saying you accept the basic principle that fair use is allowable in an otherwise-free encyclopedia, and we're just talking about doing a better job of enforcing policy. Which is it?
I too can find a handful of fair use images. But I have yet to see something in say [[Category:Promotional images]] that is actually a promotional image (and there is really no justification for us having real promos anyway as we dont accept permission images). Its a blanket copyvio category. There are thousands of them, and more added every day.
The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to get any complaints about the *images* in them. When WPians have sent email asking about images, the response is always "sure, use it all you like". So in the big project of tightening up fair use, I put basic sorting, policy clarification, and response time at the top, then clearing out photos copyrighted by photographers and news organizations, and only then am I going to worry about clarifying the status of celebrity headshots. Like every other big WP project, it doesn't work to declare failure because not everything can be fixed in one day.
Stan
On 1/20/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to get any complaints about the *images* in them.
Helpdesk does. Have you any idea how hard it is to get an image deleted if it is on a wiki where you don't speak the language?
I has to be said that most of the complaints are not about fair use images.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 1/20/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to get any complaints about the *images* in them.
Helpdesk does. Have you any idea how hard it is to get an image deleted if it is on a wiki where you don't speak the language?
A complaint from the actual copyright holder of a picture in a person's bio? There seems to be plenty of third parties concerned about copyvios, but not actual photographers saying "hey, that's mine and not legitimate here!" Between purportedly having thousands of copyvios and being a top-20(?) website, you'd think we'd be getting a hundred image takedown notices each week. (Or maybe we are and it's not being publicized?)
Stan
On 1/21/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
A complaint from the actual copyright holder of a picture in a person's bio?
No they are unlikely to notice. Big institutions for the most part.
There seems to be plenty of third parties concerned about copyvios, but not actual photographers saying "hey, that's mine and not legitimate here!" Between purportedly having thousands of copyvios and being a top-20(?) website, you'd think we'd be getting a hundred image takedown notices each week. (Or maybe we are and it's not being publicized?)
Stan
You can google for text. It is a bit harder to do that for images.
-- geni
geni wrote:
No they are unlikely to notice. Big institutions for the most part.
That's actually untrue- for the big institutions especially, they often have staff whose primary duty is finding examples of their images being used in infringing fashions. Getty Images is somewhat infamous for seemingly doing nothing but.
-- Jake Nelson
On 1/21/06, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
No they are unlikely to notice. Big institutions for the most part.
That's actually untrue- for the big institutions especially, they often have staff whose primary duty is finding examples of their images being used in infringing fashions. Getty Images is somewhat infamous for seemingly doing nothing but.
-- Jake Nelson
Haven't had Getty on my case yet (I assume they would go straigt to the foundation) but I've recived complaints from the simthsonain and the granger collection (I'm still waiting for AP to catch on when that happens we are in trouble). Compalints from individuals are less common. -- geni
On 20 Jan 2006, at 23:42, Stan Shebs wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article? Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled "The famous photograph".
Yes, but these few real uses are swamped by the rubbish ones.
If it's a matter of principle, then there are no "real uses" that are acceptable, no exceptions possible.
I am perfectly happy with genuine fair use. However we have no procedures to enforce it for images so we have perhaps a few hundred fair uses of images and tens of thousands that are not. Its better to delete them all and perhaps start again with a better procedure. After all deleting them doesnt matter as they are easily available from the copyright holders.
We dont have to illustrate everything. You can take photos of the stars at film openings, or prints on the walk of fame, there are lots of free photos out there.
"Prints on the walk of fame"? Exactly how does that clue people in about Darth Vader's menacing appearance, or how Yoda and Obi-wan are made-up to imitate the Campbellian archetype? If pictures are just decorative, then why not just eliminate all of them? (And yes, I know there are those on the far end of the sigma curve who think that's a great idea.)
The sixteen non free pictures in the Darth Vadar article dont illustrate this very well either. Yes, some things are not going to be well illustrated in a free encyclopaedia compared to otehrs. Live with it.
99.99% of the images labelled as fair use are not. 99.99% of the fair use text is. A few errors either way are not important to the goal of making a free encyclopaedia. The lies and blatent copyright violation in the images is.
If it's a matter of principle, then no fair-use quotes are acceptable, ever. If it's a 99.99% issue, then you're saying you accept the basic principle that fair use is allowable in an otherwise-free encyclopedia, and we're just talking about doing a better job of enforcing policy. Which is it?
As discussed elsewhere, quotes are generally quite clear with respect to legality, fair dealing. They are small parts of works. Images are in themselves complete works.
I too can find a handful of fair use images. But I have yet to see something in say [[Category:Promotional images]] that is actually a promotional image (and there is really no justification for us having real promos anyway as we dont accept permission images). Its a blanket copyvio category. There are thousands of them, and more added every day.
The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to get any complaints about the *images* in them. When WPians have sent email asking about images, the response is always "sure, use it all you like". So in the big project of tightening up fair use, I put basic sorting, policy clarification, and response time at the top, then clearing out photos copyrighted by photographers and news organizations, and only then am I going to worry about clarifying the status of celebrity headshots. Like every other big WP project, it doesn't work to declare failure because not everything can be fixed in one day.
Sorry are pictures of celebrities not "copyrighted by photographers and news organizations"? Those were only an example where the entire category is bogus as almost none are publicity photos in the sense that the category claims.
Like "The use of a small number of low-resolution Pokémon images to illustrate articles about the subjects of the images in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, is believed to fall under the fair use clause of United States copyright law"
For large values of small.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
I am perfectly happy with genuine fair use. [...]
[...] some things are not going to be well illustrated in a free encyclopaedia compared to otehrs. Live with it.
Now you're contradicting yourself. If it's acceptable that the encyclopedia contain fair-use images, then you can't use "freeness" as a reason to include some fair-use copyrighted images but not others. If you allow in even one copyrighted image or bit of text, the encyclopedia is by definition no longer free.
As discussed elsewhere, quotes are generally quite clear with respect to legality, fair dealing. They are small parts of works. Images are in themselves complete works.
A screenshot of a movie or a game is a microscopic excerpt, smaller in number of bits than a one-sentence quote from a normal-sized book. So does that mean screenshots are OK?
Sorry are pictures of celebrities not "copyrighted by photographers and news organizations"? Those were only an example where the entire category is bogus as almost none are publicity photos in the sense that the category claims.
Usually celebrities' own headshots are made as works for hire, and so they own those copyrights. I agree that news agency photos should be scrubbed, and even though I give them secondary priority vs basic tagging and sourcing, I take time to whack a few as I go along.
Like "The use of a small number of low-resolution Pokémon images to illustrate articles about the subjects of the images in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, is believed to fall under the fair use clause of United States copyright law"
I've said before that I think these are pushing the envelope, but didn't get much response at the time. Sooner or later we're going to have to come up with a consensus policy decision and communicate it to all the uploaders.
Stan
On 1/20/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Most uses are just decoration, and they are stopping free images being used to replace them. You can be quite lateral with illustration.
Where are you expecting to get free images with which to illustrate Star Wars? They don't exist.
You could always make some.
Anyway, even if you eliminate "most uses" because they are just decoration, you haven't got rid of all of them. And if the use of copyrighted material compromises WP's goal of being a free encyclopedia, that principle applies to copyrighted textual quotes as well. So unless you're prepared to delete fair-use quotes, you still haven't got a "free encyclopedia". In fact, the quotes are a more serious problem for the freeness goal, because while the images are tagged and filterable, the quotes are not easily removable.
Stan
The quotes are for the most part usable by anyone in the world. Many of the fair use images aren't even usable by everyone in the United States.
Anthony
Stan Shebs wrote:
In fact, the quotes are a more serious problem for the freeness goal, because while the images are tagged and filterable, the quotes are not easily removable.
Stan
That's why I suggest moving all free-license pictures over to Commons as soon as possible. Filtering out non-local images is even easier, and everything on Common is free, at least in theory (people mistag images all the time, but there's nothing we can do about that except delete them when we find them). I would even go as far as to use different syntaxes for Commons and local images to make parsing local ones out extremely trivial. Oh, and I'd also like a simpler way to transwiki free images to Commons...
grm_wnr
On 1/21/06, grm_wnr grmwnr@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I suggest moving all free-license pictures over to Commons as soon as possible. Filtering out non-local images is even easier, and everything on Common is free, at least in theory (people mistag images all the time, but there's nothing we can do about that except delete them when we find them). I would even go as far as to use different syntaxes for Commons and local images to make parsing local ones out extremely trivial. Oh, and I'd also like a simpler way to transwiki free images to Commons...
grm_wnr
Moveing stuff over to commons weakens our defences against vandalism.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 1/21/06, grm_wnr grmwnr@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I suggest moving all free-license pictures over to Commons as soon as possible. Filtering out non-local images is even easier, and everything on Common is free, at least in theory (people mistag images all the time, but there's nothing we can do about that except delete them when we find them). I would even go as far as to use different syntaxes for Commons and local images to make parsing local ones out extremely trivial. Oh, and I'd also like a simpler way to transwiki free images to Commons...
grm_wnr
Moveing stuff over to commons weakens our defences against vandalism.
So request to become an admin there.
On 1/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So request to become an admin there.
It's been a while but last I heard my wikipedia adminship alone would not get me through the adminship process there.
-- geni
On 22 Jan 2006, at 03:11, geni wrote:
On 1/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So request to become an admin there.
It's been a while but last I heard my wikipedia adminship alone would not get me through the adminship process there.
So request to become an admin there.
You are being very negative.
Its already the case that there are tens of thousands of images on en that are from commons, so get over it - if there are vandalism problems they still need fixing. In fact apart from one isolated case a long time ago before the commons protection request procedures were put in place I dont know of any incidents.
Justinc
On 1/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Moveing stuff over to commons weakens our defences against vandalism.
Not if uploading over images is disabled, as I believe it is on en:.
-- Sam
That's why I suggest moving all free-license pictures over to Commons as soon as possible.
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere. Last time I mentioned the Bridgeman images as an example. Here's another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hundingsbane.jpg
This image is in the public domain in the United States but under present law the copyright will hold in Europe until 2046.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
That's why I suggest moving all free-license pictures over to Commons as soon as possible.
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere. Last time I mentioned the Bridgeman images as an example. Here's another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hundingsbane.jpg
This image is in the public domain in the United States but under present law the copyright will hold in Europe until 2046.
Regards, Haukur
Simple: Then it's not "free" as Commons understands the term and should remain on en locally. I guess that using an image that is only PD in the US is no better than using an image that is only covered by the US fair use laws, at least when we're discussing potential international reusers, which we are.
grm_wnr
Simple: Then it's not "free" as Commons understands the term and should remain on en locally. I guess that using an image that is only PD in the US is no better than using an image that is only covered by the US fair use laws, at least when we're discussing potential international reusers, which we are.
Sensible, but the portion of our images which are really free to use anywhere in the world forever may be smaller than you think. Even images created by Wikipedians and released "into the public domain" might be problematic in some jurisdictions if the image creator changes her mind about the licence. The whole concept of permanently licencing away your rights to an image is badly supported in laws around the world. Sometimes there are stipulations that any licencing of your rights to another party can only last for X years.
And I wouldn't fancy trying to defend the byzantine GFDL (which most Wikipedians have never read and Wikipedia itself is only barely in compliance with) in courtrooms around the world. And whatever the licence you'll always have to rely on the judges agreeing that by writing something into our edit boxes you're doing something legally binding.
The line dividing 'free' and 'non-free' is a lot fuzzier than one would like.
Regards, Haukur (IANAL)
P.S. Here's one issue I'm wondering about, look at this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KingOfAtlantisEJ.jpg
This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for how the photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland. Is it free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?
On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for how the photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland. Is it free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?
Created 1919-22 so probably.
-- geni
This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for how the photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland. Is it free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?
Created 1919-22 so probably.
Okay. How about this photo of a sculpture created 1926-1927?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GriefEJ.jpg
I would really like to know.
Regards, Haukur
On 21 Jan 2006, at 23:21, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for how the photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland. Is it free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?
Created 1919-22 so probably.
Okay. How about this photo of a sculpture created 1926-1927?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GriefEJ.jpg
I would really like to know.
US law doesnt recognise copyright of sculptures in photos - only 2D art, as there is creativity in making the picture of the sculpture. You couldnt make a 3D computer model though I guess.
It leads to the odd position where 20th century sculptors have better image covergae than painters.
Justinc
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Haukur Þorgeirsson
Sensible, but the portion of our images which are really free to use anywhere in the world forever may be smaller than you think. Even images created by Wikipedians and released "into the public domain" might be problematic in some jurisdictions if the image creator changes her mind about the licence. The whole concept of permanently licencing away your rights to an image is badly supported in laws around the world. Sometimes there are stipulations that any licencing of your rights to another party can only last for X years.
So how do people sell books in such countries, given that the text, illustrations, design, font and so on must all revert to the creator within X years?
Pete, puzzled
So how do people sell books in such countries, given that the text, illustrations, design, font and so on must all revert to the creator within X years?
Presumably you contact the respective copyright holders again if you want to republish the works. But I'm not a lawyer and I don't really know what I'm talking about. Here's one interesting clause from the Icelandic code. This has to do with performing rights:
"If permission is granted for an indefinite period of time, regardless of whether it confers exclusive right or not, this shall be considered valid for a period of no more than three years."
Or take such a byzantine clause as this:
"If a literary or artistic work has not been published within two years or, in the case of a musical work, within four years of the time the author submits to the publisher the final manuscript thereof or another copy to be used for reproduction purposes, the author may, unless a longer time limit has been agreed upon for publication, cancel the publishing contract, whether or not the conditions for cancelling a contract under general rules of law have been fulfilled."
I submitted some articles to Wikipedia back in 2003 and they still haven't published them so I can cancel the "publishing contract". No, probably not, but this exemplifies how badly a law designed around traditional publishing handles the free-content-on-the-web world.
It's not all bad, here's a helpful "fair use" provision, for example:
"Pictures or drawings of presented works of art may be presented in newspapers and periodicals, on television and in cinematographic works in connection with the reporting of current events. This shall not, however, apply to works which were intended for presentation in the foregoing manner."
Here's the thing I was referring to regarding the sculptures:
"Photographs may be taken and presented of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been situated permanently out-of-doors in a public location. Should a building, which enjoys protection under the rules concerning works of architecture, or a work of art as previously referred to, comprise the principal motif in a photograph which is exploited for marketing purposes, the author shall be entitled to remuneration, unless the pictures are intended for use by a newspaper or in television broadcasting."
The law is full of special provisions and exceptions like that and I have no idea how many of them would apply to a project like Wikipedia.
Read it here: http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/Acts/nr/2428
I imagine that the difficulties involved in creating free content that does not run foul of some special provision in the copyright laws of some country are considerable.
Regards, Haukur
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Haukur Þorgeirsson
Sensible, but the portion of our images which are really free to use anywhere in the world forever may be smaller than you think. Even images created by Wikipedians and released "into the public domain" might be problematic in some jurisdictions if the image creator changes her mind about the licence. The whole concept of permanently licencing away your rights to an image is badly supported in laws around the world. Sometimes there are stipulations that any licencing of your rights to another party can only last for X years.
So how do people sell books in such countries, given that the text, illustrations, design, font and so on must all revert to the creator within X years?
Presumably the creator never licensed the material to anyone else without entering a proper, monies-exchanged-type contract.
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Simple: Then it's not "free" as Commons understands the term and should remain on en locally. I guess that using an image that is only PD in the US is no better than using an image that is only covered by the US fair use laws, at least when we're discussing potential international reusers, which we are.
Sensible, but the portion of our images which are really free to use anywhere in the world forever may be smaller than you think. Even images created by Wikipedians and released "into the public domain" might be problematic in some jurisdictions if the image creator changes her mind about the licence. The whole concept of permanently licencing away your rights to an image is badly supported in laws around the world. Sometimes there are stipulations that any licencing of your rights to another party can only last for X years.
And I wouldn't fancy trying to defend the byzantine GFDL (which most Wikipedians have never read and Wikipedia itself is only barely in compliance with) in courtrooms around the world. And whatever the licence you'll always have to rely on the judges agreeing that by writing something into our edit boxes you're doing something legally binding.
The line dividing 'free' and 'non-free' is a lot fuzzier than one would like.
Regards, Haukur (IANAL)
P.S. Here's one issue I'm wondering about, look at this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KingOfAtlantisEJ.jpg
This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for how the photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland. Is it free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?
Under Canadian law a photograph of a building or of a statue on permanent outdoor exhibit is specifically NOT a violation of copyright.
Ec
On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere. Last time I mentioned the Bridgeman images as an example. Here's another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hundingsbane.jpg
This image is in the public domain in the United States but under present law the copyright will hold in Europe until 2046.
Are you absolutely sure that it is PD in the US? Only if you can be sure that it was first published/copyright registered in the US. If it was created or first published elsewhere, then the pre-1923 rule does not apply, thanks to international convention.
Certainly the image description page does not answer this question, but it mentions a book first published in London, which would count against this theory if that was the first publication of this image.
-Matt
Are you absolutely sure that it is PD in the US? Only if you can be sure that it was first published/copyright registered in the US. If it was created or first published elsewhere, then the pre-1923 rule does not apply, thanks to international convention.
Certainly the image description page does not answer this question, but it mentions a book first published in London, which would count against this theory if that was the first publication of this image.
*sigh* I honestly thought I was getting the hang of this image licencing business but there's always more to it... Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to find out.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
If I remember correctly, another category is US government works. The US government has before asserted that just because US law requires works of the US government be freely available within the US does not mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere. They have certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such data.
-Matt
If I remember correctly, another category is US government works. The US government has before asserted that just because US law requires works of the US government be freely available within the US does not mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere. They have certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such data.
Exactly, that was one of the cases I was thinking about. A large proportion of Wikipedia's free images fall under this case. It could be an even bigger problem than different fair use laws for someone publishing Wikipedia content outside the United States.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/22/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
If I remember correctly, another category is US government works. The US government has before asserted that just because US law requires works of the US government be freely available within the US does not mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere. They have certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such data.
-Matt
Umm... I'm fairly certain that that's incorrect. Do you have a citation for any of that? I seem to recall the exact opposite, though I can't find a citation myself.
The only thing I could see possible is that the United States sued the non-US corporation in some non-US court. Even so, I'd be somewhat shocked, and I'd love to see some documentation that that's occurred.
Anthony
On 1/22/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/22/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
If I remember correctly, another category is US government works. The US government has before asserted that just because US law requires works of the US government be freely available within the US does not mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere. They have certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such data.
-Matt
Umm... I'm fairly certain that that's incorrect. Do you have a citation for any of that? I seem to recall the exact opposite, though I can't find a citation myself.
It seems that I'm wrong. "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----000-n...
Also see http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/2002arq/Manz.pdf, the section entitled "Copyright Protection Abroad For Government Works".
Under Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. vs. Corel Corp. the lawsuits probably couldn't be initiated in a US court, though.
Anthony
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
If I remember correctly, another category is US government works. The US government has before asserted that just because US law requires works of the US government be freely available within the US does not mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere. They have certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such data.
Specific examples would be helpful here. Also, laying charges and being successful in those charges are two different things.
Ec
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Specific examples would be helpful here. Also, laying charges and being successful in those charges are two different things.
See Anthony's post above.
I meant 'charged' as in the monetary sense, not the legal proceedings sense. However, fact is that the US government considers non-US use of its works to be covered by copyright, which makes a large chunk of our free-licensed images not actually free outside the US at all.
This applies whether or not the US government intends to enforce this or is able to.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Specific examples would be helpful here. Also, laying charges and being successful in those charges are two different things.
I meant 'charged' as in the monetary sense, not the legal proceedings sense. However, fact is that the US government considers non-US use of its works to be covered by copyright, which makes a large chunk of our free-licensed images not actually free outside the US at all.
This applies whether or not the US government intends to enforce this or is able to.
If the US government itself tried to enforce its copyrights in foreign courts for things that are freely available domestically I can imagine how this would play in the foreign press. :-)
Ec
Stan Shebs wrote:
Sometimes de: is held up as a counterexample of how one doesn't really need copyrighted images, but I'll hazard a guess that many de: readers "sneak over" via interwiki to look at the forbidden pictures on en:. (I notice de: sometimes "launders" images in legally-dubious ways, such as taking a photograph of a Yoda doll, or somebody wearing a Darth Vader Halloween costume.)
I'm sure that a Darth Vader Halloween costume would be copyright protected.
Ec
On 21 Jan 2006, at 00:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Sometimes de: is held up as a counterexample of how one doesn't really need copyrighted images, but I'll hazard a guess that many de: readers "sneak over" via interwiki to look at the forbidden pictures on en:. (I notice de: sometimes "launders" images in legally-dubious ways, such as taking a photograph of a Yoda doll, or somebody wearing a Darth Vader Halloween costume.)
I'm sure that a Darth Vader Halloween costume would be copyright protected.
Unlikely under US law I believe. No worse than photographing a statue, say.
There are some on commons.
Justinc
I hadn't really thought about until you brought it up, but are there really any grounds to says that aerial photographs can generate copyrights at all? There is no creativity involved, especially when surveying the entire planet. They are about as close as one can get to a 2-D photograph -- they have no creative input at all, simply labor and technology (which as we know in the U.S. has not been interpretted as establishing creativity in and of itself).
The only "transformation" that I know of taking place in these images is the removal of clouds, but this is simply a manipulation of which photos are used in any one rendering, and is itself so mechanical and obvious an idea and implementation that it would seem difficult to claim it as an expression of artistic creativity.
Of course without a case showing this to be a definitive interpretation one would not want to base anything like Wikipedia policy around such a notion (at least, I wouldn't), but it is an interesting question.
FF
On 1/20/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been up there for months. In fact, the image itself didn't even include a claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
Anthony
(*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg). The compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but because Google had not yet added them). Like the image I presented there were no 3-D elements. I think it's clear to anyone with any knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest in such an image. You don't get copyright on something simply because it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
I know in France the architect has copyright photos of their buildings, but the State of New Jersey has copyright over your photo of...?
It's not my photo I was talking about, but the aerial photos used in Google Earth, which, in this particular case, were made as a work for hire of the State of New Jersey. Google obtained these aerial photos and then manipulated them *per my instructions* and sent them to me. As I'm the one who chose all the creative elements (the location, the angle, the zoom level), I'm the one who owns the copyright on the derivative work, not Google. All they did was provide me with the tools to create the image. They own the copyright no more than FUJIFILM owns the copyright to [[Image:Capemaypoint.JPG]] (which is the actual photo I took from that location).
Frankly, I think this conclusion is pretty much indisputable by anyone with basic knowledge of copyright law. In fact, it follows naturally from the absurdity of the law being any other way. The Mozilla Foundation (or is it the Mozilla Corporation?) doesn't own this text simply because I used their software to create it. Cakewalk doesn't own the songs just 'cause they're created using their music production software. Corel doesn't own a painting because it was designed using Corel Paint. Likewise, Google doesn't own an image simply because you used Google Earth to create it.
Discussing this issue is, in and of itself, educational. And using an image to facilitate such a discussion is fair use, which means it's not illegal and not an act of civil disobediance.
Of course, that discussion was kept to the talk page. The original purpose of my creation and distribution of the image was to show how well Google Earth can create a particular real life photo. Even if that's not educational (and it is), it's use for the purposes of commentary, which in many ways is actually a stronger argument for fair use than merely educational purposes anyway.
And frankly, Wikipedia should try to keep most, if not all, of its use *in the article space* to *commentary*, not simply educational purposes. When you are commenting on a work, there is no real substitute for the actual work itself. Pretty much any other use (save parody, which isn't really applicable to Wikipedia), can be theoretically substituted rather adequetely without resorting to fair use. Even if Dolly the Sheep is dead and all the images of her are copyrighted, it's still possible for an artist to look at *several* images and create an original work which accurately depicts what the sheep looks like.
Someone else mentioned how fair use images aren't treated like fair use text. Well, that's essentially how fair use text is treated. If you're commenting on the quote itself, then you use the quote itself. If, instead, you're using the information contained in the quote, then you read up on a bunch of different sources and paraphrase it, copying the facts but not the expression. The only real difference is that there are a lot more Wikipedians who are skilled at writing but not nearly as much at drawing.
Anyway, I've turned this into a rant about something completely different. Sorry.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't really thought about until you brought it up, but are there really any grounds to says that aerial photographs can generate copyrights at all? There is no creativity involved, especially when surveying the entire planet. They are about as close as one can get to a 2-D photograph -- they have no creative input at all, simply labor and technology (which as we know in the U.S. has not been interpretted as establishing creativity in and of itself).
Actually, I brought that up in my discussion on the talk page of this image (which itself was deleted!). I took the position there that there might be some minimal level of creativity involved there which was sufficient to grant copyright, but that even if that were so that the fact that the copyright argument were so tenuous was a factor bolstering the argument for fair use.
The only "transformation" that I know of taking place in these images is the removal of clouds, but this is simply a manipulation of which photos are used in any one rendering, and is itself so mechanical and obvious an idea and implementation that it would seem difficult to claim it as an expression of artistic creativity.
The aerial photos are *slightly* three dimensional, less so on the satellite photos. And there is a choice to some extent as to what time to take the photo for lighting purposes, what day, etc. I'm not sure if a court would grant copyright to such photos or not. There is a good argument either way.
But I think the chance that a court would give a judgement to the State of New Jersey (against me or Wikipedia) based on the usage of a tiny portion of such aerial photos, for the purpose of commentary, on a Wikipedia user page, is exactly equal to *zero*.
Of course without a case showing this to be a definitive interpretation one would not want to base anything like Wikipedia policy around such a notion (at least, I wouldn't), but it is an interesting question.
FF
Yes, I agree that it is interesting. Unfortunately my *discussion* of the question was deleted. Wikipedia is not a home page provider, after all.
Anthony