Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Crown copyright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Issue

As currently defined, Crown copyright (a non-commercial license under which government images in the British Commonwealth, such as official photographs of political figures, coats of arms, images of military decorations, etc.) is in conflict with GFDL. This significantly impairs the ability of users in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, among others, to illustrate government-related articles.

A large number of Canadian-related images have already been deleted, and I know some British ones have as well. I don't know whether the same has happened with regards to Australia or New Zealand at this point, but both countries are vulnerable under the provisions of GFDL.

In most cases there simply aren't any public domain or GFDL alternatives available, and in some cases an article has no informational value whatsoever without images.

However, in many cases non-GFDL images (copyrighted promotional photos, etc.) are already allowed on Wikipedia under the fair use doctrine, with the following rationale:

a copyrighted publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, used to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative.

The promophoto template also cites the following restriction:

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.

These conditions are both entirely analogous to the situation at hand, and even promophotos have commercial restrictions on them.

On October 14, I requested a clarification in both Wikipedia:Copyright issues and Wikipedia:Images for deletion of whether we can cite fair use in such cases. Nine full days after raising the issue, I have had no direct response to my question either way; what little discussion has resulted at IFD has entirely ignored the fact that I am specifically seeking clarification of a serious and legitimate question around the interpretation and application of a copyright issue.

[edit] Questions

  1. To what extent, if any, can users in Commonwealth countries apply the fair use criterion to Crown copyright images that meet the circumstance of being directly analogous to a {{promophoto}}, i.e. a copyrighted publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, used to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative?
  2. If fair use absolutely cannot be cited, what alternatives do you propose given that many articles will be permanently unillustratable without a fair use provision?

I would ask that comments specifically address these two questions. This is not a place to discuss whether the process I followed in regards to Image:Bernardlord.jpg was appropriate or not; I am specifically seeking clarification of whether fair use can be applied.

[edit] Signatories

  1. Bearcat 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Spinboy 00:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • It can be next to impossible to replace the images already on Wikipedia under crown copyright. -- Spinboy 00:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • First, can you organise one place for the discussion of this. Hopefully this is it; make sure all the otehrs link to here. Second, you need to be more accurate. Crown copyright is not a non commercial license; it is a copyright holder. However in Canada (and only Canada) the photos are released under a noncommercial license. Other countries terms differ, and may be more or less restrictive, and all these should be considered under their own specific terms (eg in the UK Crown Copyright images are in general not reproducible with paying a fee). In the case of the Canada ones you cannot classify them correctly as promos, as they are not released for free use, the are released with conditions. They can probably stay for the moment as {{permission}} if they were downloaded before the cutoff date and the terms are upheld (not hard). The argument that you cannot write the articles without images is pretty bogus, and getting free images is not necessarily impossible - state visits to the US often result in free pictures, and these are public figures so its not as if they arent around to take pictures of. Or even write to them and ask them to release pictures under acceptable licenses. Justinc 01:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Look at Canadian Forces ranks and insignia and tell me what value that article has without images.
  2. I don't know of any Wikipedia user who's in any kind of position to go around with their own digital camera taking candid photos of politicians to illustrate Wikipedia articles. It simply isn't a viable solution to the matter.
  3. I'm not proposing that they be classified as promos; I'm asking if they can be tagged as general "fair use". I quoted the promophoto template strictly as an analogy to the fact that these photos meet similar conditions. Bearcat 01:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use really has nothing to do with Crown Copyright. Something being issued by the Canadian government makes it no more or less eligible for fair use. On Wikipedia, and other sites like IMDb, it is convention that any promo photo can validly be used under fair use. Images like Image:Paulmartin1.jpg and Image:Ptrudeau.jpg fall under exactly the same rules as corporate images such as Image:David beckham.jpg and Image:Nbc apprentice2 donald trump.jpeg.

That said many Crown Copyright images are not promo photos. There are three things we can do with these:

  • Release them under a more appropriate license. Many Canadian government images are free to use. For instance almost all the military hardware images from WWII are PD. Search for an image on the National Archives site and see what its license is.
  • Replace images with ones we have created ourselves. This could easily be done for Canadian Forces ranks and insignia. It would, for instance, take 30 seconds for someone to make an image that duplicates Image:CF 2Lt.jpg. Something like Image:Bufflehead.jpg would be more of a challenge, but is quite possible for any birder with a camera.
  • Delete images. Some such images cannot be relicensed and will have to be deleted.

- SimonP 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree with Bearcat and feel I explained the essentials on WP:IFD when I said "If you wanted the image [applies to this and any others as well] to be used under fair use, you should [..] tag[...] it as {{fair use}} and wr[ite] a detailed fair use rationale." You asked, whether Crown Copyright images could be copied under fair use if they were directly analogous to a "promotional" image. However, As SimonP said, this is not an issue of Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright images are presumed to be copyright infringements here, just as all other images are, unless they are PD, or have an appropriate(free) license. However, any copyrighted may qualify as fair use. This means a Crown Copyright image can be fair use, provided the specific image in question fits the criteria. However, no Crown Copyright image is directly analogous to a promo photo, because the key to promo photos is that they are created for commercial marketing. Therefore, copying them doesn't weaken the ability of the copyright owner to make money, but rather provides the advertising the creator was looking for. This is the "Value" criterion of fair use. However, government images are never created for marketing, so this argument doesn't apply. However, this doesn't mean "fair use can't be cited" as you imply . Some pictures of Canadian dignitaries and other Canadian Crown Copyright images may still be fair use. For example, you can argue that a single image from a large Canadian government image gallery is relatively insubstantial compared to the overall work(the gallery). This may help make the image fair use, because another criteria for fair use is "Amount and Substantiability"(the less substantial, the better). Also, because we are creating an encyclopedia, we usually have appropriate "Purpose and Character" in copying. This criteria asks, "why are you copying the image, and what will the work based on the copy be like"? Because we are creating a NPOV encyclopedia "to advance knowledge"(a commonly accepted purpose), if you copy a single very relevant image, it is reasonably likely to qualify.

So the overall message is: a Canadian Copyright image may or may not be fair use; it depends on the actual image. Decide on a case by case basis. Read the fair use article thoroughly, especially the criteria. If you think an image is fair use, tag it as being canadian crown copyright, but also put {{fair use}} (or another fair use tag from WP:ICT) and (especially if you use plain {{fair use}}) a detailed explanation of why the particular image is fair use.

As for the second question about what do be done when fair use cannot be cited, there is no easy answer. Copyright law can be a burden in some cases, but Wikipedia cannot afford to violate it. Superm401 | Talk 03:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Which case does this "promotional only applies to commercial producers" idea come from? I've never encountered it before. My understanding is that the rules for promotional images are derived from those for press releases. Any press release, whether from a company, government, or non-profit, can freely be republished because the act of releasing a it as press release creates an implicit permission to redistribute. Like press releases, promotional images are released with the expectation, and thus implicit permission, that they will be redistributed. - SimonP 05:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with User:SimonP. Any crown copyright picture, or other government picture, released as part of a government press release or press kit (which various governments often do, for example when an official is appointed) should be taggable as {{promophoto}}. In releasing a photo to the media generaly, the copyright holder apprently intends that it be reproduced widely, and is in effect granting permisison to do so. Similarly, campaign photos of candidates for elective office are normally relased to the press, and are pretty clearly fair-use -- indeed an argument could be made that such a release makes them PD. I also agree with User:Superm401 that fair use must be addressed on a case by case basis, and that some crown copyright images will validly fall under fair use, and others will not. The proper thing to do in each case where an editor belives that fair use applies (or probably applies) is to tag with {{fairuse}} or one of the more specialized fairuse templates (such as {{promophoto}} or {{fairusein}}) and include the best fair use rationale possible on the image page. Then if the matter is disputed, it can be resolved as for any other claim of fair use. Obviously copyright and source info must be included to evaluate any fair use claim. DES (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay...some time ago, I created a proposed template for use on "official portrait" photos of politicians. It's at Template:Canada-politician-photo. Any input on it? I propose that if it's usable, it should immediately be applied to political portraits in place of the current Crown copyright template. Bearcat 01:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, go for it. JYolkowski // talk 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
UK comment. I generally agree with the above: if we can't argue (US) fair use, and we don't have an acceptable release, we can't use them. In the UK, permission can be requested under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. Physchim62 10:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Doens't tagging a Crown copyright image as "Fair use" make us (not Wikipedia) guilty of violating our (UK, Canada, Australia) copyriight laws. Our "fair dealing" is quite different. See UK info, Australia info. This is a real question, not a rhetorical one, and I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer. Luigizanasi 05:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No. The provenance of the image doesn't govern whose law applies; the location of the server does. Bearcat 06:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: The Commonwealth of Nations has not been "The British ..." since 1946. Hu 12:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for permission - Proposed letter to Scott Brison

Has anyone asked the federal government for permission? They just might give it. I am prepared to send a letter to Scott Brison, the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services, copied to my MP. Please feel free to edit before I send it.

Dear Honourable Brison:

Many Canadian volunteers from across the country are involved in writing a free, multilingual on-line international encyclopedia called Wikipedia. You can access the English version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and the French language version at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/. The English version now has close to 800,000 articles, including tens of thousands on Canadian topics (including one on yourself). You might have come across it on Google searches. Google tends to rank Wikipedia articles fairly close to the top and it is rapidly becoming a highly favoured reference source across the world.

I am writing you to request permission to use Government of Canada Crown Copyrighted images in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Foundation (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home) is a not-for-profit organization and recognized as the equivalent of a Registered Charity under United States law. Wikipedia is extremely careful of not infringing on copyrights, and any copyright violation is summarily dealt with as soon as it is detected. As well, contributors retain copyright to their work and license it to the Wikipedia Foundation under the “GNU Free Documentation License” (GFDL).

While we understand that non-commercial use of Crown Copyright images is not a problem, the GFDL allows others to use the contents of Wikipedia for commercial purposes. For example, a number of other web sites with advertisements have “mirrored” Wikipedia’s content. As well, the Wikipedia foundation is considering publishing a paper copy of the encyclopedia and of using the proceeds for charitable educational purposes. It would also be possible for anyone to use the contents of Wikipedia to publish and sell an encyclopedia. However, under the terms of the GFDL, any use of Wikipedia has to acknowledge the copyright of the contributors and has to allow others to use, copy and modify the content of their publications.

The current copyright statements in Government of Canada web pages, states that:

Information has been released by the Government of Canada with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from source department. We ask only that:
  • Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
  • The originating government department be identified; and,
  • The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the source department.



The problem we Canadian Wikipedia editors face is with the "non-commercial use" statement which implies that the images could not be used by others with a commercial intent. This puts a severe hamper on our ability to illustrate government-related articles as we are unable to use images such as official photographs of political figures, coats of arms, maps, images of military decorations, etc.

In most cases there simply aren't any public domain or GFDL alternatives available, and in some cases an article has no informational value whatsoever without images.

We would like to respectfully request either of the following:
1. A statement by the Government of Canada that the use of crown copyright images and the GFDL by the Wikimedia Foundation does not constitute commercial use; or
2. a blanket permission for the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia editors to use images downloaded from Government of Canada websites under the GFDL.

Note that neither of these puts the images in the public domain. The Crown still retains its copyright and any future users of the images will have to acknowledge that copyright. We realise that we could ask for individual permission to use each image under current procedures. However, we are not sure how the requests would be received and whether they infringe on the non-commercial use clause of the crown copyright notice statement. Also, there would be thousands of images downloaded and this could put an unfair burden on your department.

I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request and look forward to your response.

Yours truly,

Luigi Zanasi
(address)
cc. Larry Bagnell, MP Yukon

  • No comments? Should I send it? Do others want to do something about it or be co-signatories? Luigizanasi 07:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The wording is not very good. I could edit it, but it might be betetr to contact the wikimedia foundation and see if they have similar letters that have been sent before. Justinc 10:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
In the past there have been calls to make Canadian government works public domain. These efforts failed because they were strenuously opposed by organizations representing professional writers and photographers, who felt that commercially usable government material would severely hamper their ability to sell similar work. - SimonP 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Minor copyedit idea, but "etc" is considered unprofessional, I'd suggest something akin to "and other important works" perhaps. Sherurcij 13:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Online BC Maps Copyright issue

I'm curious about what to do about using images from BC Basemap; which are generated with a copyright-marking on them but are inherently public domain; permission MIGHT be given. What the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia (http://bivouac.com) does here is they have a script attached to a link which calls up the relevant location/radius from Basemap as an image within a Bivouac page. I realize it still probably boils down to a permission thing. But what about if you really use it as a BASE map, to draw other things on, or to remove data (as I've been doing with some maps I've been working up, e.g. extraneous creeks to make the image clearer). I know how it is with photographic copyright - any portion or distortion of the image still constitutes a use - but I'm not so sure with maps (esp. since they're govt issue to start with)Skookum1 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Crown_copyright_ee2d.html"