[WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

[John Vandenberg]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
>..
> A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a
> long time.  Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after
> five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the reactions
> of text editors that range from apathetic to hostile when media contributors
> express concerns over exploitation.

Links?

> One of our featured picture photographers discovered her work in use in a
> commercial advertisement, in violation of license and entirely without
> credit.  Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my
> restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used
> uncredited by *Time* magazine.  To date, no one has joined my letter writing
> campaign to contact the magazine.  The magazine still isn't replying to
> email.

I found an email on WikiEn-l which is related, however it didn't
mention any letter writing campaign there.  The thread starts here:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101225.html
(Image reuse - Jun 18, 2009)

The image that Durova is referring to this one:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brandeisl.jpg

.. used here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895379_1895421_1895405,00.html

It is pretty poor form to not credit people however, as other people
have mentioned, these images don't mention that attribution is
required. {{Attribution|..}} would be the way for a restorer to
indicate that they require attribution.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution

> The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and
> chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
> his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
> arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input
> and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
> matter certainly would be taken seriously.  The Brandeis restoration is also
> among the items exploted by this eBay vendor.

IMO, restorers are not creating a new work.  If they think that they
have created a new work, they should add additional
copyright/attribution templates.

Translations are legally considered to be a new work that is derived.
On Wikisource, contributors can release them into the public domain,
or license them under a free license.  Here is an example of each.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Balade_to_Rosemounde
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/J%27accuse

However asserting copyright over faithful restorations is considered
copyfraud by some people, myself included depending on the
circumstances.

An example of why can be seen in one of your own restorations that was
mentioned in that same email to WikiEn-l.  You were concerned that
this image was a unattributed copy.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_MacArthur_lands_Leyte1.jpg
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/images/kamikaze/MacArthur_250.jpg
(from http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/kamikaze.html)

You told me privately that the histogram is different, indicating that
it cant be proven that it is your image.  Two restorations can look
nearly identical, because it is skill rather than art.  Your
restoration is clearly much better because it is a higher resolution,
leaving less imperfections, but I can't label you an artist because of
this.

Opinions differ on this, and as a result different jurisdictions draw
the line at different points.  This is essentially the same problem as
a photograph of a visual art work, which has caused grief recently.

OTOH, Wikipedia/Wikibook/Wikinews/etc text is clearly a creative work,
so it is legally clear that it is a new work.

On the other hand, if Time was "plagiarising" text which was
"restored" on Wikisource, I'd be pleased as punch. ;-)

Here is a magazine blog using text from two of the Wikisource featured
texts, thankfully with links to Wikisource.  We have no idea where
they are used if they dont mentioned Wikisource.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21159

In regards to effort, featured texts all take at least as long as
featured image restorations, so I feel your pain there.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_specimen_of_the_botany_of_New_Holland
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fatal_fall_of_Wright_airship
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charles_von_H%C3%BCgel
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/The_Late_Mr._Charles_Babbage,_F.R.S.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Early_Settlers_Along_the_Mississippi

We have produced a PDF of the last one, and marked it as CC-0 (public domain).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Early_Settlers_Along_the_Mississippi.pdf

The following work would be at least a man-month of effort to scan and digitise.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_%28House_Report_No._94-1476%29

You can read more about the importance of that digitisation project here:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/06/17/an-open-access-success-story-just-in-time-for-cali/

These will all be at least man-months to complete.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Index:United_States_Statutes_at_Large

Further afield, the Gutenberg etexts rarely contain attribution, and
the Project Gutenberg license clearly states that redistribution is
permitted if either a) the file is unmodified, or b) all trace of
Project Gutenberg is removed (section 1.E)

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Header_How-To

> Our pool of talented media contributors is not deep.  Wikipedia has exactly
> one FP photographer from sub-Saharan Africa, who has expressed similar
> complaints.  Much of our best visual content is location-specific:
> cityscapes, landmarks, and species can seldom be transmitted via
> interlibrary loan.
>
> If it doesn't shock you to see even the Holocaust exploited then I'll shake
> my head and move on.  It isn't easy to expand the volunteer pool under these
> conditions.  But a new group of high resolution images arrived from the
> Tropenmuseum today; when one door closes another one opens.

Please don't use the Holocaust in this way.  You should know how
inappropriate that can be.

--
John Vandenberg