Image talk:Kingcrown.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both existing versions of this file appear to be copyvios. The current rev says it comes from a page at http://www.royal.gov.uk/ but the copyright page at that site says:

Material on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material for republishing purposes is subject to the approval of the Royal Household Web Team.

So really this ought to be permission only, and there's no indication of permission.

The first version of this file came from http://www.waxmuseum.bc.ca/waxexhibitsjewels.asp and it has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I am tagging as a copyvio accordingly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

TCC you clearly dont have a freaking clue what your talking about. My image came from [1] Which is the current version of the image. This page says and I quote: "St Edward's Crown. Refurbished for Charles II's coronation from an old crown; the gold may have come from Edward the Confessor's crown © Crown copyright" THIS PAGE SAYS CROWN COPYRIGHT. IT WAS LICENSED USING CROWN COPYRIGHT! Dude seriously... m:Avoid_copyright_paranoia.  ALKIVAR™ 10:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, Alkivar. TCC clearly hasn't a goddamn clue what he is doing. The image is 100% legal. It is incompetent nominations of valid content that is driving good users away. Clearly TCC knows nothing about copyright law. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for help from someone more familiar with Crown Copyright than me to weigh in here (it's a complicated topic, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#UK government copyrights which says crown copyright does not automatically mean Wikipedia has the right to an image. In the meantime, Alkivar and Jtdirl, remain civil! A disagreement about copyright status is absolutely no reason to accuse someone of not having a freaking or goddamn clue what they are doing or talking about. Your bullying manner here appears offensive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a letter from HM Stationery Office (the administrators of the Crown copyright), stating their opinion that the Crown copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. Specificially, while we (Wikipedia) will honor the terms of the copyright, we cannot under the GFDL pass those terms on to third-generation copiers. In light of that stated opinion, I agree that we cannot relicense Crown copyright material under the GFDL, and so this image cannot be used on Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 02:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
We cannot relicense 75% of our images... that doesnt mean we dont use them on wikipedia! Until Jimbo officially declares nothing but open permission images are to be used, this will remain as it is NOT, I repeat NOT a copyright violation.  ALKIVAR™ 17:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That is neither the view of Wikipedia nor of most lawyers. Wikipedia regularly uses crown copyright images and has tens of thousands of them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you indicate where this isn't the view of Wikipedia (it appears to be the view on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, which says it's case-by-case depending on the copyright statement on individual crown copyright websites), or point us to the poll of lawyers? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl, piling up some magical large number -- even tens of thousands -- of copyright violations does not make them legal. The owner of the copyright has stated that we are in violation of the copyright. I hope your wishful thinking about "most lawyers" is correct, 'cause we're going to need them if HMSO decides to back up their notification with action. Do you have any verifiable basis whatsoever for your amazing beliefs, or are they entirely free-floating fantasies? ➥the Epopt 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Jtdirl and ALKIVAR, that this is just another case of extreme copyright_paranoia. At least the person who tagged as this as a copyright vio didn't just simply delete it, as some other paranoid people have being doing recently. Astrotrain 14:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


I have re-tagged this as a copyvio. The monarchy website, www.roayl.gov.uk, which is the source of this image, is listed under Template talk:CrownCopyright#List of UK government departments we can't use. The copyright notice on royal.gov.uk says: "Material on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material for republishing purposes is subject to the approval of the Royal Household Web Team." (Emphasis mine.) This is clearly not compatible with "may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" (from {{CrownCopyright}}. Maybe some of our uses can qualify as fair use, but use {{CrownCopyright}} is clearly wrong, despite what some have said above. Or is the entirety of WP:CP "copyright paranoia"? -- AJR | Talk 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you don't like the Crown copyright tag, retag, but for goodness sake, stop putting the copyvio notice back. Btw, did anyone notice that royal.gov.uk makes a clear distinction between those photos which are crown copyright (many of which are used widely across the web) and those which have copyright reserved? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it treats the two classes differently, saying you have even fewer rights for the non-crown-copyright works. It does not say we have free rights to the crown copyright works. Here is all the relevant text from the copyright notice:
Material on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material for republishing purposes is subject to the approval of the Royal Household Web Team.
Permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. Details are provided below.
This clearly states that you can download and print the material which is under crown copyright on this website without permission, but all "republishing" uses need approval. We don't have this approval. This image should be deleted from Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, but we're taking it slow to try to gather informed consensus on the issue. Somebody needs to provide evidence that this isn't a copyvio, rather than just stating they believe it to be so, or that we're "paranoid". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute: we are in copyright violation.

From Crown copyright (and see User:The Epopt's comment, above):

Websites are reproducible unless otherwise indicated, but HMSO has stated in correspondence that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the GFDL.

and from the originating website (copyright page page cited by TCC and Bunchofgrapes):

Copyright of photographs on this site appears alongside each photograph. Copies of many of the photographs appearing on this site can be obtained from the sources listed below. Pictures must not be copied, used or reproduced by any means or in any format (including other web sites) without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

Please consult Template talk:CrownCopyright#List of UK government departments we can't use where 'British Monarchy' is listed. User:Noisy | Talk 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the source page this particular photograph is Crown Copyright. The above section of the copyright page applies to photos where the copyright is held by someone else. However, per the earlier text on the copyright page we still can't use it without permission. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the image at {{Infobox UKkingstyles}} with a free image of a crown and added fair use tags for the main article for which this is needed. There's no particular reason to delete it, so I've removed the copyvio tag. Chick Bowen 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your replacement in Infobox UKkingstyles was quickly reverted [2], sigh... And we're not supposed to have Fair-use images in templates, so we're still in the same pickle, I guess... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tried again, this time with this, a PD image of the same crown as Kingcrown.jpg. We'll see if it sticks this time. Chick Bowen 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it had to be. The image was of the Austrian Crown. That is the equivalent of putting the Union Jack on a template about the US, or the stars and strikes on a template about China!! Re crown copyright, legally cc images can be used in templates. Unlike FU (though legally even that is debatable) fairuse are literally fairuse, usage where there is no alternative for the text of an article. However cc makes clear that any usage is acceptable, and that unambigiously includes templates, subject to two simple criteria: acknowledgement of source (which WP has on the download page and so meets that criteria unambiguously) and accuracy of usage. Once they is accurately used in any context cc images are legal. Whatever about the (debatable) theories re FU in templates, there is no debate re cc. As long as it is not inaccurately used (eg, calling it a French crown, or a crown in Disneyland, or a handbag, or whatever) then it can be used. The template in question meets both criteria unambiguously. A click on the image shows source, and it is in a template exclusively about the British crown. So it is 100% kosher. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that CC is free to use. I have asked you to prove it. So far you have not. So please: On what do you base this claim? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
First, your belief that they can be freely used with an "accurate use" caveat goes beyond the explicit crown copyright usage rights stated on the copyright page for the site thes image came from. Setting that aside, even if you are right that we can freely use any and all crown copyright works as long as they are used "accurately"... who is going to police this little-known rule? Until it's part of our image policy, probably nobody. On the other hand, we have codified rules that are widely understood (if sometimes disliked) to manage our use of fair-use images. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/Image_talk%7EKingcrown.jpg_b572.html"