Hi all,
Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here!
I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations and for some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.).
We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of sources: commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned photos, some public domain and cc sources.
We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commons images. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using them).
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably? And what's Wikipedia's policy about the use of these images in entries?
Thank you!
s
-- Social media for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, 4 Extra, Proms, classical... 07718 120 073 http://twitter.com/bowbrick
On 23 March 2017 at 15:08 Steve Bowbrick <steve.bowbrick@bbc.co.uk> wrote: Hi all, Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here! I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations andfor some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.).
We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of sources:commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned photos, some public domain and cc sources.
We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commonsimages. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using them).
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy),is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably? And
Thank you!
That's a number of questions!
In some order:
Q1: What's Wikipedia's policy about the use of these images in entries?
A: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, relevant Commons images can appear in articles. Clearly, if the image is found not to belong on Commons, it should be removed from Wikipedia, but that is an automatic take-down. (Details skipped.)
Q2: Is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons?
A: It depends what level of prudential advice you are seeking. Free advice from the Web never trumps what you can get from an intellectual property professional.
Q3: Should the BBC rely on Commons images more often?
If the BBC doesn't use them at all now, the answer, almost certainly, is "yes". But some attribution is going to be needed.
Q4: Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably?
A: Take the metadata provided on the file description page with a pinch of salt. The source of the image should be provided, and in some cases that will tell you what you need. If there is no source, or if the information is scanty (happens often enough with uploads from a while back), there is cause for concern. In general Wikimedia Commons is more scrupulous than the mainstream media in researching photographers' details, for example.
Q5: What about overlaps with commercial image libraries?
A: Don't assume an image in both Commons and a stock image library is actually in copyright, whatever you're told. It is certainly sometimes the case that copyright is claimed in older images without too much basis.
Well, it is hard to give really accurate advice, because international copyright is genuinely tricky. But there are probably classes of images that would be OK for the BBC to use.
Charles
Hi Steve,
You certainly could have a more nuanced policy, and use more images as a result!
I'd guess the reasons you might be cautious are: - Commons has a good number of files it that are in the public domain in the US, but may not be in the UK (assuming that public domain-UK is sufficient for the BBC to make use of something) - Commons also has a good number of files which we believe are public domain (at least in the US) but where someone still asserts copyright from "sweat of the brow" rights (this set overlapping with the previous one a fair bit) - Some images might simply have been mis-attributed by whoever uploaded them to Commons and are actually in copyright (probably a much smaller group than the first 2)
Of course, these kinds of issues aren't unique to Wikimedia Commons, any open image source could have the same problems - so if you are taking PD images from Flickr or elsewhere on the Internet, then you shouldn't have a blanket bank on Wikimedia Commons!
Paid photography sources potentially have the opposite problem, in that you can end up paying royalties for images that you think actually are in the public domain.
As Charles says, it's usually possible to come to an informed judgement based on what the Commons page for a given file says, but this needs a reasonable level of awareness of copyright law. I'm not sure if there is any kind of "user-friendly" summary at the minute, but there probably should be - I'm asking around...
Hope this helps,
Chris
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Steve Bowbrick steve.bowbrick@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here!
I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations and for some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.).
We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of sources: commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned photos, some public domain and cc sources.
We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commons images. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using them).
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably? And what's Wikipedia's policy about the use of these images in entries?
Thank you!
s
-- Social media for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, 4 Extra, Proms, classical... 07718 120 073 http://twitter.com/bowbrick
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Hi Steve,
Using images from Commons is a lot like using information from Wikipedia - it requires due diligence and you sometimes have to apply healthy scepticism, though this can be complicated by the varying copyright laws of different countries. Commons is hosted in the United States, so it usually defaults to American copyright law, which is often more liberal than British law (Chris mentions the "sweat of brow" doctrine, for example).
For obvious cases, like a photograph of a building or a statue uploaded by the photographer themselves, you're usually safe. (I've been writing about war memorials lately and sometimes you get really lucky and find a professional-quality photograph that someone has uploaded to Commons). Less obvious cases will depend on your knowledge of copyright.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ +44 (0) 7507 536 971 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
You certainly could have a more nuanced policy, and use more images as a result!
I'd guess the reasons you might be cautious are:
- Commons has a good number of files it that are in the public domain in
the US, but may not be in the UK (assuming that public domain-UK is sufficient for the BBC to make use of something)
- Commons also has a good number of files which we believe are public
domain (at least in the US) but where someone still asserts copyright from "sweat of the brow" rights (this set overlapping with the previous one a fair bit)
- Some images might simply have been mis-attributed by whoever uploaded
them to Commons and are actually in copyright (probably a much smaller group than the first 2)
Of course, these kinds of issues aren't unique to Wikimedia Commons, any open image source could have the same problems - so if you are taking PD images from Flickr or elsewhere on the Internet, then you shouldn't have a blanket bank on Wikimedia Commons!
Paid photography sources potentially have the opposite problem, in that you can end up paying royalties for images that you think actually are in the public domain.
As Charles says, it's usually possible to come to an informed judgement based on what the Commons page for a given file says, but this needs a reasonable level of awareness of copyright law. I'm not sure if there is any kind of "user-friendly" summary at the minute, but there probably should be - I'm asking around...
Hope this helps,
Chris
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Steve Bowbrick steve.bowbrick@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here!
I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations and for some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.).
We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of sources: commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned photos, some public domain and cc sources.
We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commons images. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using them).
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably? And what's Wikipedia's policy about the use of these images in entries?
Thank you!
s
-- Social media for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, 4 Extra, Proms, classical... 07718 120 073 http://twitter.com/bowbrick
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Hi Steve,
Wikimedia Germany developed a tool that determines the license information of Commons items and makes it more user-friendly to determine how you can use the item (e.g. how to attribute, in which context you can use a particular item in, etc.): https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
Original blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/17/digest-attribution-generator/
Hope it's relevant to what you're looking for!
Raya On 24 March 2017 at 14:38, Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
Using images from Commons is a lot like using information from Wikipedia - it requires due diligence and you sometimes have to apply healthy scepticism, though this can be complicated by the varying copyright laws of different countries. Commons is hosted in the United States, so it usually defaults to American copyright law, which is often more liberal than British law (Chris mentions the "sweat of brow" doctrine, for example).
For obvious cases, like a photograph of a building or a statue uploaded by the photographer themselves, you're usually safe. (I've been writing about war memorials lately and sometimes you get really lucky and find a professional-quality photograph that someone has uploaded to Commons). Less obvious cases will depend on your knowledge of copyright.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ +44 (0) 7507 536 971 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Steve,
You certainly could have a more nuanced policy, and use more images as a result!
I'd guess the reasons you might be cautious are:
- Commons has a good number of files it that are in the public domain in
the US, but may not be in the UK (assuming that public domain-UK is sufficient for the BBC to make use of something)
- Commons also has a good number of files which we believe are public
domain (at least in the US) but where someone still asserts copyright from "sweat of the brow" rights (this set overlapping with the previous one a fair bit)
- Some images might simply have been mis-attributed by whoever uploaded
them to Commons and are actually in copyright (probably a much smaller group than the first 2)
Of course, these kinds of issues aren't unique to Wikimedia Commons, any open image source could have the same problems - so if you are taking PD images from Flickr or elsewhere on the Internet, then you shouldn't have a blanket bank on Wikimedia Commons!
Paid photography sources potentially have the opposite problem, in that you can end up paying royalties for images that you think actually are in the public domain.
As Charles says, it's usually possible to come to an informed judgement based on what the Commons page for a given file says, but this needs a reasonable level of awareness of copyright law. I'm not sure if there is any kind of "user-friendly" summary at the minute, but there probably should be - I'm asking around...
Hope this helps,
Chris
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Steve Bowbrick <steve.bowbrick@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
Hi all,
Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here!
I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations and for some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.).
We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of sources: commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned photos, some public domain and cc sources.
We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commons images. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using them).
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably? And what's Wikipedia's policy about the use of these images in entries?
Thank you!
s
-- Social media for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, 4 Extra, Proms, classical... 07718 120 073 http://twitter.com/bowbrick
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
nice try :) todays picture of the day has author Taxiarchos228, google for "abmahnfalle" and you'll find his name sojka. such pictures were used in the past as cease and deseasy honey pot. it has art libre license, and the tool does not work with it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_-_Messe_Berlin2.jpg
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Raya Sharbain raya.sharbain@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
Wikimedia Germany developed a tool that determines the license information of Commons items and makes it more user-friendly to determine how you can use the item (e.g. how to attribute, in which context you can use a particular item in, etc.): https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
Original blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/17/digest-attribution-generator/
Hope it's relevant to what you're looking for!
Raya On 24 March 2017 at 14:38, Harry Mitchell hjmwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
Using images from Commons is a lot like using information from Wikipedia - it requires due diligence and you sometimes have to apply healthy scepticism, though this can be complicated by the varying copyright laws of different countries. Commons is hosted in the United States, so it usually defaults to American copyright law, which is often more liberal than British law (Chris mentions the "sweat of brow" doctrine, for example).
For obvious cases, like a photograph of a building or a statue uploaded by the photographer themselves, you're usually safe. (I've been writing about war memorials lately and sometimes you get really lucky and find a professional-quality photograph that someone has uploaded to Commons). Less obvious cases will depend on your knowledge of copyright.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ +44 (0) 7507 536 971 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
You certainly could have a more nuanced policy, and use more images as a result!
I'd guess the reasons you might be cautious are:
- Commons has a good number of files it that are in the public domain in
the US, but may not be in the UK (assuming that public domain-UK is sufficient for the BBC to make use of something)
- Commons also has a good number of files which we believe are public
domain (at least in the US) but where someone still asserts copyright from "sweat of the brow" rights (this set overlapping with the previous one a fair bit)
- Some images might simply have been mis-attributed by whoever uploaded
them to Commons and are actually in copyright (probably a much smaller group than the first 2)
Of course, these kinds of issues aren't unique to Wikimedia Commons, any open image source could have the same problems - so if you are taking PD images from Flickr or elsewhere on the Internet, then you shouldn't have a blanket bank on Wikimedia Commons!
Paid photography sources potentially have the opposite problem, in that you can end up paying royalties for images that you think actually are in the public domain.
As Charles says, it's usually possible to come to an informed judgement based on what the Commons page for a given file says, but this needs a reasonable level of awareness of copyright law. I'm not sure if there is any kind of "user-friendly" summary at the minute, but there probably should be
- I'm asking around...
Hope this helps,
Chris
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Steve Bowbrick steve.bowbrick@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
Very occasional post from a long-time subscriber here!
I run social media for the BBC's speech and classical radio stations and for some of the BBC's classical brands (orchestras, Proms etc.).
We have a constant need for images. We use the usual mixed bag of sources: commercial picture libraries, the BBC archive, commissioned photos, some public domain and cc sources.
We have a pretty cast-iron rule forbidding the use of Wikimedia Commons images. Historically, we've felt that there was sufficient uncertainty about the ownership of some Commons images that it would be safest for us to steer clear all together (sometimes, for instance, we find images in commercial libraries like Hulton Getty that are also in the Commons and this creates the kind of doubt about ownership that stops us from using them).
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons? Should we rely on Commons images more often? Is there any guidance for how to judge the ownership of a Commons image reliably? And what's Wikipedia's policy about the use of these images in entries?
Thank you!
s
-- Social media for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, 4 Extra, Proms, classical... 07718 120 073 http://twitter.com/bowbrick
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 25 March 2017 at 19:54, Raya Sharbain raya.sharbain@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Germany developed a tool that determines the license information of Commons items and makes it more user-friendly to determine how you can use the item (e.g. how to attribute, in which context you can use a particular item in, etc.): https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
Is there an API version of that? I have a GLAM contact who are looking for such a tool.
I sent an email including Rupert's feedback and Andy's suggestion to Katja katja.ullrich@wikimedia.de at Wikimedia Germany.
On 26 March 2017 at 00:03, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 25 March 2017 at 19:54, Raya Sharbain raya.sharbain@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Germany developed a tool that determines the license
information
of Commons items and makes it more user-friendly to determine how you can use the item (e.g. how to attribute, in which context you can use a particular item in, etc.): https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
Is there an API version of that? I have a GLAM contact who are looking for such a tool.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia Germany developed a tool that determines the license information of Commons items and makes it more user-friendly to determine how you can use the item (e.g. how to attribute, in which context you can use a particular item in, etc.): https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/?lang=en
Original blog post: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/17/digest- attribution-generator/
It's an interesting tool but I wouldn't recommend people in Steve's position use this yet, as it doesn't handle the subtleties of copyright very well - it only works on the German definition of public domain, for instance.
Safe, principally, from the legal/rights perspective.
s
-- Social media for Radio 3, Radio 4 and 4 Extra… Innovation for BBC Radio 07718 120 073 http://twitter.com/bowbrick
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimediauk-l [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly Sent: 27 March 2017 10:18 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia Commons question
On 23/03/17 15:08, Steve Bowbrick wrote:
So, in the interests of updating my knowledge (and possibly our policy), is there any up-to-date advice for organisations like the BBC about the
safe usage of content from the Wikimedia Commons
Safe in what sense? Pr0n?
Gordo
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 27 March 2017 at 14:27 Steve Bowbrick <steve.bowbrick@bbc.co.uk> wrote: Safe, principally, from the legal/rights perspective.
A fair amount of discussion can be simplified, by not trying to push the envelope too much (which is inevitably what Wikimedia Commons will do), but keeping to the "fairway". For example:
*Images that are old enough (How old? 1867 means the photographer is probably dead by 1947, which allows for 70 year copyright).
*Known photographer who died by 1947.
*Geograph, for example, which has been imported on a large scale to Wikimedia Commons: their FAQ page http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php? says they require a CC-by-SA licence.
The "due diligence" required in these and similar cases can be kept under control.
Where people just donate their own pictures to Wikimedia Commons, then the licensing information will be explicit. Art works and mass uploads from institutions might present problems that it would be wrong to slur over.
Charles
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org