Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • 1 (Sep 2004–Aug 2005)
  • 2 (Aug 2005–Jan 2007)

Contents


[edit] Mort Kunstler Theodore Roosevelt Image

  • Dalbury's comments on the page were as folllows:
  • Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kunstler.jpg Description says,
"Mort Kunstler painting, "The Great White Fleet Sails" showing 26th US President, Theodore Roosevelt. Permission was given to post this promotional graphic from his on-line gallery by artist Mort Kunstler via email to submission editor SimonATL to articles The Great White Fleet and Theodore Roosevelt.
URL Source: http://www.mortkunstler.com/gallery/merchant.ihtml?pid=268&step=4 Permission to post graphic granted by artist Mort Kunstler for wikipedia articles on The Great White Fleet and Theodore Roosevelt."
The article is tagged GFDL-self, but Mort Kuntsler has not edited the image page, and it is not clear that he licensed the image under GFDL. It looks the artist gave a limited, Wikipedia-only license, which we cannot use. -- Donald Albury 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Uploader has now changed to the {{promotional}} tag. -- Donald Albury 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Uploader SimonATL's response
Dalbury was correct about original so-called "limited use" as opposed to general but only in the sense that this was a typical response from an art studio to request to post an image. Kuntsler was not putting the work of art into the public domain, only disussing the use of a small derivative thumbnail object. Initiallyl I "asked permission" as a courtesy to the artist. Since then, I have become aware that since it was originally a promotional object from his studio's web site, no permission was needed in the first place. Let's remember that this JPG file was only a small thumbnail pic of a large painting, (I've seen some of the artist's paintings at the Atlanta Airport. So my "solution" was simply to remove the "permission obtained" note and change the tag to promotional.

I thought that I was supposed to simply correct the tag on that Theodore Roosevelt image noting that it was from a promotional source and by so doing, I was SUPPOSED to remove the dispute notice. Sorry - I'm not entirely knowledgable about the processes. So after I correct the tag, at least, from my perspective, then what? Thanks. PS - Vandalism is NOT, in any way my intent here. SimonATL 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By policy, Wikipedia cannot use 'limited use' licenses. To be used, images must be in the public domain or be released under an unlimited use license such as the GFDL or the CC-BY-SA. Some use of non-free images is currently allowed in the English Wikipedia under fair use. However, under 'fair use', "The Great White Fleet Sails" could only be used in an article about the painting itself (or, possibly, about the artist), and only if the article discussed specific points about the style and/or contents of the painting. 'Fair use' does not extend to allowing use of the painting in the Theordore Roosevelt article. -- Donald Albury 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Uploader SimonATL's response. This whole argument is pointless. It doesn't matter that I sent an a courtesy email to the Kuntsler requesting permission. The fact is, the painting is already promotional under Wikipedia Rules. I asked permission because, with my limited understanding of wikipedia, I thought I had to ask permission. But, now I understand, as a promotional item the graphic needs no permission to post. Reuploading the graphic and I guess this will have to be appealed escalated. SimonATL 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Fair use#Promotional material, where it describes 'promotional material' as "an image freely provided to promote an item, as in a promotional photo in a press packet". Posting an image on a website does not make it promotional material as used in our policy. Notice that the specific subdivisions listed for 'promotional materials' are for posters for events and attractions, and comic book artwork relased "without indicia" for purposes of promoting the comic books. I fail to see how someone's work of art qualifies as 'promotional'. -- Donald Albury 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive??

Why was the entire page restored? The last post to this page before my archiving of it was on the 19th! That was 7 days, how can it be classed as 'active'? I am going to re-archive the rest.-Localzuk(talk) 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact circumstances, but the image(s) during those days were probably still pending review. --Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question about redlinks

If an image is listed here and is a redlink (and is not just a typo) should it be removed, and if yes can a non-admin do this?-Localzuk(talk) 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "no." You would end up delinking just about every link since most images listed here are deleted. It's unnecessary. --Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C. elegans (adult worm) image

I have to confess to finding the process of adding images highly confusing. I added the C. elegans image which is now being flagged as 'possibly unfree'. This image was obtained from Zeynep Altun at the Wormatlas project (www.wormatlas.org). She granted permission for it's use. Please let me know what I need to do in order to stop this image being removed. Thanks, Nod 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've answered this / am soon going to answer this on your talk page. --Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates like PD-Germany

I don't understand the usage of these "public domain in country x" templates on Wikipedia. Surely it's the copyright status in the US (where the Foundation and servers are located) which is relevant? It's quite possible for material to be public domain in one country and under copyright in another: Elvis' 1956 recordings are now PD in the UK (50 yrs for audio), but try distributing them from a US site and you'd probably get your butt sued off. --kingboyk 11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It tends to be the copyright in the country of origin which is the most relevant. /Lokal_Profil 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with Lokal. Note that {{PD-Germany}} does not appear on the list at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain while {{PD-GermanGov}} does (since certain official German documents immediately immediately enter the public domain and are thus free in the US). The {{PD-Germany}} template merely informs German users of Wikipedia that they may have greater freedom to use the tagged image than those in US, in particular, they may be able to make use of such images without an additional license or fair use rationale. To use an image on en:WP it must have a free license (or a fair use rationale) for the US. Take note of the statement at the top of the Other countries tag section: "Whenever an image is tagged using one of these tags, the image description page should also contain some rationale as to whether and why the image is presumed to be in the public domain in the U.S., too!" Some of the templates make this clearer than others, e.g. {{PD-Canada}}. Many, many, grueling details can be found at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. —RP88 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How so? --kingboyk 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For an example of an image which is PD-Canada and includes a rationale for PD-US, see Image:VerePonsonby.jpg. —RP88 15:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing license tags

Iamunknown, you've mentioned that you feel that it is the legal obligation of an uploader to specify which tag their images are uploaded under per WP:FU and argue that no one other than the uploader should touch these tags. I think that is a plausible argument, although I disagree, so I thought some discussion might be worthwhile. I'd argue that under WP's policy a user who does an upload has agreed to assume the responsibility for the legality of their upload - by uploading they've asserted "I have determined that it is legal for this image to appear on WP." Third parties who assist the uploader by making corrections to an image's wiki tags are at little or no risk - the uploader's original tags will always remain in the image history and are available to anyone who wishes to inspect them. —RP88 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't consider that. I never, at least not mainly, considered the third party to be legally liable. I still intend to maintain distance, however, not because I myself feel legally liable, but because I, in some cases, feel I simply cannot know the exact source of and copyright status of the image. For example, I rarely anymore tag images that would obviously be fair use if they do not supply a source. If a album cover or computer video game box, for example, is retrieved from Amazon.com, I consider it less free than if I just take a picture of it. This, I've always considered, is because the artwork is copyrighted by the label/artist and the photograph itself is copyrighted by the distributer/website. I do, however, occasionally switch around PD tags if, as an example, the source links to one United States department as opposed to the other. Does that make sense? --Iamunknown 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, images that do not supply a source are eligible for speedy deletion and the fair use tags state that they're only valid if source information is present, so I certainly don't argue with you there. I'm comfortable adding source information if I can unambiguously determine the ultimate source of the image - which is generally only going to be the case for famous artwork or historic photos. If an uploader provides accurate source information but uses the wrong tag for something that can only be used under fair use, I'm willing to assist by writing a fair use rationale if it is reasonable. --RP88 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I avoid famous artwork and historic photographs. It certainly is easy to find out when the artist/photographer lived, the circumstances surrounding their work, etc. I, however, have never to my recollection been able to find the exact source of such an image I come across, specifically because there generally exist so many fascimiles of the image online.
Also, depending on the administrator, images without sources are not necessarily candidates for speedy deletion: I have nominated some images for deletion and was rebuked because they apparently didn't need a source (namely PD-ineligible images) or because I wasn't assuming good faith.--Iamunknown 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional images

Is it appropriate to list "promotional images" that provide no source here? I'm not going to start doing it en masse, but there was one I came across, have reverted removals of the speedy tag twice, and don't intend to revert again as it will just be a 3RR violation. (Oh, the image is Image:Simpsons1313.jpg, which is now magically a TV screenshot) —Iamunknown 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting removal of a speedy tag is not a violation of 3RR. You should treat the removing of the tag as vandalism, and put the appropriate template on the user's talk page (and report him to the admins if he persists). —Chowbok ☠ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images under PD-India-Gov

I listed many images having {{PD-India-Gov}} as possibly unfree on 27th February, but they have remained in the holding cell for long enough without being either deleted or cleared. Is there something that is holding action on these images. If there are any issues to be discussed, I am willing to clarify further. In short, the problem I found with these images is as follows: Websites hoisted on nic.in servers are required to explicitly state the copyright status of the images on them. The images in question have been taken from websites under nic.in that have not yet complied with the guideline mentioned above, i.e. they do not write anything about the copyright status of the images. The uploaders opine that unless otherwise stated to be copyrighted, the images may be assumed to be free, while I hold that unless otherwise stated to be public domain, images are assumed to be copyrighted. I believe that the summary above explains the case neutrally. I request administrators to please go through this case and close it according to Wikipedia's policies. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/s/Wikipedia_talk%7EPossibly_unfree_images_183b.html"