Hi all, In Washington DC after Wikimania, I went on a monument photo walk and was very happy with some of the photos I took of the Vietnam Veterans Memorialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorialwall. Then I started looking at the FoP rules in the U.S. and realized I don't think I can upload most of those photos to Commons, given the wall is likely considered a statue and is therefore under copyright. Several questions:
1. Is this accurate? Should I consider the photos as inadmissible? 2. Does anyone have experience in other countries with monuments that are on the list but are still under copyright? Will we need to be clear that some of the sites on the Register in the U.S. are not eligible for the contest? 3. How does the primary photohttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TouchWall.jpgon the EnWP article qualify to be hosted on Commons? Is there a percentage of a photo that can still contain a copyrighted monument and be acceptable for upload to Commons? Or is it a resolution issue? It seems there are various photos of the wall that are on Commons that similarly display the wall without copyright notices or templates, like this onehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vietnam_Veterans_with_Washington_Monument.jpg .
Any insight would be appreciated.
thanks, Matthew
Hi Matthew,
Op 19-7-2012 16:06, Matthew Roth schreef:
Hi all, In Washington DC after Wikimania, I went on a monument photo walk and was very happy with some of the photos I took of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial wall. Then I started looking at the FoP rules in the U.S. and realized I don't think I can upload most of those photos to Commons, given the wall is likely considered a statue and is therefore under copyright. Several questions:
- Is this accurate? Should I consider the photos as inadmissible?
If it's copyrighted, it's not allowed at Commons and it will be deleted.
- Does anyone have experience in other countries with monuments that
are on the list but are still under copyright? Will we need to be clear that some of the sites on the Register in the U.S. are not eligible for the contest?
I guess this is a very small percentage.
- How does the primary photo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TouchWall.jpg on the EnWP article qualify to be hosted on Commons? Is there a percentage of a photo that can still contain a copyrighted monument and be acceptable for upload to Commons? Or is it a resolution issue? It seems there are various photos of the wall that are on Commons that similarly display the wall without copyright notices or templates, like this one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vietnam_Veterans_with_Washington_Monument.jpg.
We have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis . For exact details in the USA you might want to drop by at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Public_Art . They have a lot of experience with the complicated copyright situation of public art in the US.
Maarten
2012/7/19 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
Op 19-7-2012 16:06, Matthew Roth schreef:
- Does anyone have experience in other countries with monuments that are
on the list but are still under copyright? Will we need to be clear that some of the sites on the Register in the U.S. are not eligible for the contest?
I guess this is a very small percentage.
In France there's noFOP and we've got some protected buildings that are still under copyright (as far as I know we don't know the exact number), we have started to use a special picture for them in the lists on wikipedia : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B%C3%A2timent_droit_d%27auteur.svgsay... that the building is copyrighted.
We also communicated about this topic with a blog post during the last competition : http://blog.wikimedia.fr/wiki-loves-monuments-et-le-droit-dauteur-3649 (in french, sorry). Our main problem was that the records describing buildings aren't always accurate and/or the architects aren't famous so for many 20th century buildings we don't really know if they are free or not.
Sylvain
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Sylvain Machefert smachefert@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/19 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
Op 19-7-2012 16:06, Matthew Roth schreef:
- Does anyone have experience in other countries with monuments that are
on the list but are still under copyright? Will we need to be clear that some of the sites on the Register in the U.S. are not eligible for the contest?
I guess this is a very small percentage.
In France there's noFOP and we've got some protected buildings that are still under copyright (as far as I know we don't know the exact number), we have started to use a special picture for them in the lists on wikipedia : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B%C3%A2timent_droit_d%27auteur.svg saying that the building is copyrighted.
We also communicated about this topic with a blog post during the last competition : http://blog.wikimedia.fr/wiki-loves-monuments-et-le-droit-dauteur-3649 (in french, sorry). Our main problem was that the records describing buildings aren't always accurate and/or the architects aren't famous so for many 20th century buildings we don't really know if they are free or not.
Sylvain
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
We are facing the same issue in Belarus. The estimate is 30%+.... monuments in cities.
In the UK we are OK with anything that is both three dimensional and permanently on public show. Even so lots of temporary exhibited sculptures and two dimensional plaques murals and so forth get deleted.
Many other countries are much more problematic. I think we need a feeder database for images that can't yet be released on a full Commons compatible license but can be made available on a more restricted license. For example in some countries there is a no commercial use stipulation, but as I understand it it would be legal to take an image of something like that and load it onto a site that allowed such images. Ideally it would be tagged with a "safe to migrate to commons after" date. OK in some cases it will be many decades before those images can migrate, but there is no deadline and we can afford to think longterm.
It would also be less bitey on commons if some images could be temporarily moved to this holding bay rather than deleted. It should even be possible to build this into the image uploader.
WSC
On 20 July 2012 14:09, Paul Selitskas p.selitskas@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Sylvain Machefert smachefert@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/19 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
Op 19-7-2012 16:06, Matthew Roth schreef:
- Does anyone have experience in other countries with monuments that
are
on the list but are still under copyright? Will we need to be clear that some of the sites on the Register in the U.S. are not eligible for the contest?
I guess this is a very small percentage.
In France there's noFOP and we've got some protected buildings that are still under copyright (as far as I know we don't know the exact number),
we
have started to use a special picture for them in the lists on wikipedia
:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B%C3%A2timent_droit_d%27auteur.svg
saying that the building is copyrighted.
We also communicated about this topic with a blog post during the last competition : http://blog.wikimedia.fr/wiki-loves-monuments-et-le-droit-dauteur-3649(in french, sorry). Our main problem was that the records describing
buildings
aren't always accurate and/or the architects aren't famous so for many
20th
century buildings we don't really know if they are free or not.
Sylvain
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
We are facing the same issue in Belarus. The estimate is 30%+.... monuments in cities.
-- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Paul Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects p.selitskas@gmail.com, +375257408304 Skype: p.selitskas
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 21/07/12 13:59, WereSpielChequers wrote:
In the UK we are OK with anything that is both three dimensional and permanently on public show. Even so lots of temporary exhibited sculptures and two dimensional plaques murals and so forth get deleted.
Many other countries are much more problematic. I think we need a feeder database for images that can't yet be released on a full Commons compatible license but can be made available on a more restricted license. For example in some countries there is a no commercial use stipulation, but as I understand it it would be legal to take an image of something like that and load it onto a site that allowed such images. Ideally it would be tagged with a "safe to migrate to commons after" date. OK in some cases it will be many decades before those images can migrate, but there is no deadline and we can afford to think longterm.
It would also be less bitey on commons if some images could be temporarily moved to this holding bay rather than deleted. It should even be possible to build this into the image uploader.
WSC
Create jail.wikimedia.org ?
2012/7/21 Platonides platonides@gmail.com:
On 21/07/12 13:59, WereSpielChequers wrote:
In the UK we are OK with anything that is both three dimensional and permanently on public show. Even so lots of temporary exhibited sculptures and two dimensional plaques murals and so forth get deleted.
Many other countries are much more problematic. I think we need a feeder database for images that can't yet be released on a full Commons compatible license but can be made available on a more restricted license. For example in some countries there is a no commercial use stipulation, but as I understand it it would be legal to take an image of something like that and load it onto a site that allowed such images. Ideally it would be tagged with a "safe to migrate to commons after" date. OK in some cases it will be many decades before those images can migrate, but there is no deadline and we can afford to think longterm.
It would also be less bitey on commons if some images could be temporarily moved to this holding bay rather than deleted. It should even be possible to build this into the image uploader.
WSC
Create jail.wikimedia.org ?
Creating it under the WMF umbrella is unlikely, as the WMF only supports free content.
However, I have been thinking for a while about creating a NC image wiki, as most countries allow non-commercial use of such images. If I has the slightest sign that the WMF would approve of its use as 3rd party image source in Wikipedias, I would start the project tomorrow.
Strainu
The WMF supports some not totally free content - fair use images on EN Wiki are far from free.
I think this might be worth raising as a possible extension to commons in a new namesspace. Or even a separate project. The WMF is looking for ways to make the wiki less bitey, and this would certainly do that.
The key would be to restrict this to images that are free enough to publish and that it isn't the photographer who is imposing the extra restriction.
WSC
On 21 July 2012 13:33, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/21 Platonides platonides@gmail.com:
On 21/07/12 13:59, WereSpielChequers wrote:
In the UK we are OK with anything that is both three dimensional and permanently on public show. Even so lots of temporary exhibited sculptures and two dimensional plaques murals and so forth get deleted.
Many other countries are much more problematic. I think we need a feeder database for images that can't yet be released on a full Commons compatible license but can be made available on a more restricted license. For example in some countries there is a no commercial use stipulation, but as I understand it it would be legal to take an image of something like that and load it onto a site that allowed such images. Ideally it would be tagged with a "safe to migrate to commons after" date. OK in some cases it will be many decades before those images can migrate, but there is no deadline and we can afford to think longterm.
It would also be less bitey on commons if some images could be temporarily moved to this holding bay rather than deleted. It should even be possible to build this into the image uploader.
WSC
Create jail.wikimedia.org ?
Creating it under the WMF umbrella is unlikely, as the WMF only supports free content.
However, I have been thinking for a while about creating a NC image wiki, as most countries allow non-commercial use of such images. If I has the slightest sign that the WMF would approve of its use as 3rd party image source in Wikipedias, I would start the project tomorrow.
Strainu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 21/07/12 14:33, Strainu wrote:
Create jail.wikimedia.org ?
Creating it under the WMF umbrella is unlikely, as the WMF only supports free content.
However, I have been thinking for a while about creating a NC image wiki, as most countries allow non-commercial use of such images. If I has the slightest sign that the WMF would approve of its use as 3rd party image source in Wikipedias, I would start the project tomorrow.
Strainu
I'm unsure about that. If wikipedias were going to use it, the WMF would probably want to host a local mirror anyway.
Each interested wikipedia would have to approve a nonfree use rationale guideline, which allowed them to use a subset of that wiki files (eg. those which are free on their countries but not on US). It would also be a very appropiate solution for the troubles generated by the URAA producing retroactive copyright.
For using those PD-Non-US images, I guess WMF would still require a Fair Use rationale for each of the used images, maybe some general «low-res usage in educational articles» (ie. main-ns) could pass, I'm not sure.
Also see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Commons_Abroa...
2012/7/21 Platonides platonides@gmail.com:
On 21/07/12 14:33, Strainu wrote:
Create jail.wikimedia.org ?
Creating it under the WMF umbrella is unlikely, as the WMF only supports free content.
However, I have been thinking for a while about creating a NC image wiki, as most countries allow non-commercial use of such images. If I has the slightest sign that the WMF would approve of its use as 3rd party image source in Wikipedias, I would start the project tomorrow.
Strainu
I'm unsure about that. If wikipedias were going to use it, the WMF would probably want to host a local mirror anyway.
And hence my doubt over the actual approval of such a project. It could be worth bringing it up in another forum, though, I'm just not sure where.
Each interested wikipedia would have to approve a nonfree use rationale guideline, which allowed them to use a subset of that wiki files (eg. those which are free on their countries but not on US).
With regards to FOP, at least for buildings, it would be the other way around: free in the US and non-free in their country. That will probably make it somewhat more acceptable to the legal department
It would also be a very appropiate solution for the troubles generated by the URAA producing retroactive copyright.
For using those PD-Non-US images, I guess WMF would still require a Fair Use rationale for each of the used images, maybe some general «low-res usage in educational articles» (ie. main-ns) could pass, I'm not sure.
Also see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Commons_Abroa...
Nice, I didn't know about it. It's curious that this RFC is somewhat the opposite of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Disable_local_uploads_o...
Strainu
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Matthew Roth mroth@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, In Washington DC after Wikimania, I went on a monument photo walk and was very happy with some of the photos I took of the Vietnam Veterans Memorialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorialwall. Then I started looking at the FoP rules in the U.S. and realized I don't think I can upload most of those photos to Commons, given the wall is likely considered a statue and is therefore under copyright. Several questions:
- Is this accurate? Should I consider the photos as inadmissible?
I believe the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall is okay, however the Vietnam Womens Memorial and the Korean War Memorial are both copyrighted and it's been enforced.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/14051218928/postal-service-could-b...
- Does anyone have experience in other countries with monuments that are
on the list but are still under copyright? Will we need to be clear that some of the sites on the Register in the U.S. are not eligible for the contest?
1978 and 1989 are the magic dates relating to copyright of public artwork
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_U...
- How does the primary photohttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TouchWall.jpgon the EnWP article qualify to be hosted on Commons?
Per the freedom of panorama and other guidelines (see above)
Note that the rules vary greatly from country to country. Permanently situated outdoor sculpture in Canada is okay for Commons, but not the U.S. and other places.
Cheers, Katie
Is there a percentage of a photo that can still contain a copyrighted monument and be acceptable for upload to Commons? Or is it a resolution issue? It seems there are various photos of the wall that are on Commons that similarly display the wall without copyright notices or templates, like this onehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vietnam_Veterans_with_Washington_Monument.jpg .
Any insight would be appreciated.
thanks, Matthew
--
Matthew Roth Global Communications Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org*
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
2012/7/19 aude aude.wiki@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Matthew Roth mroth@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, In Washington DC after Wikimania, I went on a monument photo walk and was very happy with some of the photos I took of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall. Then I started looking at the FoP rules in the U.S. and realized I don't think I can upload most of those photos to Commons, given the wall is likely considered a statue and is therefore under copyright. Several questions:
- Is this accurate? Should I consider the photos as inadmissible?
I believe the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall is okay, however the Vietnam Womens Memorial and the Korean War Memorial are both copyrighted and it's been enforced.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/14051218928/postal-service-could-b...
I guess the Wall of Vietnam Veterans Memorial is PD because it is work paid partially by National Park Service an US Congress. The other story is with Vietnam Women's Memorial, which was paid by single, private donator.
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org