Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 October 13/Images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images

• Image:24173998.jpg (history · last edit) from [1]. Mr. Darcy talk 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Vladimer papava.jpg (history · last edit) and Image:Vladimer papava 2.jpg (history · last edit) from [2]. Lupo 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Both images retagged. --Irpen 01:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Hp25-Quick reference.png (history · last edit) from (scan?). QEDquid 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Shwarz.jpg (history · last edit) from [3] says "Copyright ©2006 ESPN Internet Ventures.". feydey 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Cat D-11R.jpg is used under a "non-commercial-use only" license, which is invalid for use on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The following images were uploaded by User:Marc Lacoste and tagged {{Promotional}}. However, as with most "promotional" images, these do not pass our first fair use criterion that the image be non-replacable. Anyone could take pictures of these cars and cameras and engines and whatever, so a fair use claim is invalid. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Whew! It's a lot of work to clean up after people! And in this case, it's a shame, since it's clear User:Marc Lacoste was acting in good faith and thought he was following policy. The {{promotional}} tag has got to be fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • They should certainly be replaced as quickly as possible, but it's my understanding that if no other image is available, that a promotional image is acceptable in the meantime. Don't we use {{fair use replace}} and {{replacethisimage}} on them, rather than deleting them? --Interiot 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No. According to Jimbo, if an image fails FUC#1, it should be deleted, even if a free replacement has not yet been found. See here and here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So why is Category:Fair use image replacement request still around? --Interiot 17:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd say it's obsolete, and {{replaceable fair use}} should be used instead. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I know when "Jimbo says", even when he knows his views are somewhat extreme, that it immediately becomes law. But surely a more measured approach here would have been helpful. Some of these are so obviously not easily replaced that I just think Quadell's just being lazy with this shotgun approach. Image:PSA-Ford diesel V6.jpg is used on Jaguar AJD-V6 engine as the main image to illustrate the subject. The only replacable image we could get is to take a picture of the engine sitting inside a car bonnet, or possibly on its own. However, you are not going to find a replacement, showing a cutaway of the engine and illustrating all its parts in such a clean manner. Take a look at the engine inside your car, even if you lifted it out at a mechanics, you're not going to see its composition because it's all covered up. I agree that the camera parts could be easily replaced (although Image:Dalsa FTF4052 sensor.jpg obviously cannot, unless taking apart a digital camera, prizing out the image sensor and then taking a picture of it with anothe camera is easy), but for car engines, this is absolutely not the case. Even in the case of Image:Lamborghini V10.jpg, used in Lamborghini V10 where a possible free alternative may exist - Image:SC06 2005 Lamborghini Gallardo engine.jpg shows you the gulfs involved. The free verions shows you pretty much nothing about the engine, whereas the fair use one shows you everything needed. And how about Image:"Jahre Viking" at Keppel Shipyard, Singapore.jpg, although its possible to get a free image of this floating storehouse when it moves into port to dock its oil (it's currently a FSO), are you going to manage to snap a picture of the ship in its entirety like the promotional image we have right now? I somehow doubt it. I hope that these images are not just automatically deleted. - Hahnchen 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (unindenting) I agree that some of these would be difficult to replace, but none of them would be impossible (or even prohibitively difficult) to replace. It's difficult to make a completely-free encyclopedia, but it's worth it. Some of the images you pointed out are actually illustrations, not photographs, and as such anyone with the requisite artistic talent could create them. Others would require taking apart an engine or camera in order to photograph the pieces, but that is also doable. You're right that it's not easy, but it can be done. And according to Jimbo, our fair use criteria, and our new {{replaceable fair use}} tag (endorced by Jimbo), if it would be possible to create a replacement image, even if it would take ten years to do so, then we cannot use a non-free image instead. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How have we jumped from reasonable to impossible? Getting a picture of the world's largest conventional engine, is not a reasonable task. It's not like snapping a picture of a celebrity at a premiere or press event, or taking a picture or a stadium or building or public artwork. These are very specific images, fall under legal fair use provisions and add value to the encyclopedia. Yet we're saying no to these because they detract from the free use crusade? Maybe Wikipedia's most important tenet WP:ENC should be reappraised. - Hahnchen 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You ask how we jumped from reasonable to impossible. It's what our fair use criteria says. It is mandatory that "[n]o free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." It doesn't say "could easily be created". In fact, it continues "Also, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken, even though it may be difficult" (emphasis in original). Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is not just any encyclopedia: it is a free encyclopedia. The "free use crusade" is an integral part of what Wikipedia is about. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The engine cutaways should be easy to replace: they're exactly the sort of thing 3D computer graphics modellers love to do: complex mechanical objects with shiny surfaces. --Carnildo 21:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Firstly, this is an unsuitable mass listing and would never be permissable on any deletion process. Secondly, these images should be judged on their individual merits, and many of them appear to be irreplaceable without one of the editors acquiring and destroying the object in question. We appreciate your vigilante attempt at guardianship, though. --tjstrf 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (image used by 20th Century Fox to promote Season 1 DVDs).JPG (history · last edit) from [4] (following the flash-links "Season One" then "Gallery"). Image is tagged as {{promotional}}, but foxhome.com is not a source for promotional images. Terms of use says: "The reproduction, duplication, distribution (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), publication, modification, copying or transmission of material from this Site is STRICTLY PROHIBITED...". Abu Badali 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (image used by 20th Century Fox to promote Season 5 DVDs).JPG (history · last edit) from [5] (following the flash-links "Season Five" then "Gallery"). Same as above. Abu Badali 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Couldn't both these images be used under a different license? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They are promo images (being used used to promote Buffy DVDs), I have read through the fair use pages a number of times and have not read anywhere that the promo images have to come from a press kit. Surely any promotional images can be clasified as promotional? The tag says:

"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The images in question are used as advertising material (making them promotional) - they are being used by 20th Century Fox at http://www.foxhome.com/buffysplash/index_frames.html to advertise the Buffy Season 1 DVD-set and the Buffy Season 5 DVD-set. All fair use images are already copyrighted. There are no free alternatives to these images, and I feel they are important to the article.

Abu Badali has argued these images have not "been released by a company to promote their product in the media". That they are insteadbeing used by the copyright holder to advertise their product. He also pointed out that the "product in question" is the dvd-box, not the characters.

However it all depends how you interpret "released by a company to promote their product in the media". IMO they have been released on the world wide web and released to the eyes of the looking public. It doesn't matter whether Fox have copyrighted them, or how Fox intended the images to be used (so whatever Terms of use they have are irrelevant in this case), the point of Fair Use, is that they still be fairly used if appropiate if not being done for profit.

Also the tag does not just say "product in question". In full it says "to illustrate the work or product in question". On the Buffy article the images are illustrating the "work" involved in the creation of the DVDs (and therefore the creation of the series) which includes the creation of the fictional characters. The fictional characters are a key component of the DVD contents, without the fictional characters there would be no DVDs. Using a promo image is the only way to show all the characters posing clearly in one image. They would never appear in that way in a screenshot from the series, making the images irreplaceable. Deleting them would weaken an article that might become a featured one. -- Paxomen 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, point 4 of the copyright violation tag:

"If you believe that this media may be used by Wikipedia under the fair use doctrine, then please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page to justify this belief."

This has already been done, there is already a detailed and justified rationale for the uses of these images. Therefore I request that the copyright violation tag be taken off immediately. Fair use overrules Fox's copyright in this case. -- Paxomen 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The "Terms of Use" are relevant to determine either or not an image is promotional. I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "promotinal", but I don't consider as promotional any material for which any kind of use is "STRICTLY PROHIBITED".

I see these images as part of the value of the website they come from, and their use on Wikipedia (or in any other site) may detract from original site's value (by breaking its exclusiveness). --Abu Badali 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not need to determine whether these are promo images. They are promotional images, they are being used to advertise something as we speak. They are advertising Buffy DVDs which means they are promotional, and can be decribed as "advertising material". Practically all fair use images (including many promotional images) will likely have some smallprint attached somewhere officially technically prohibiting their use by anyone other than the copyright owner, but that's irrelevant if they're being fairly used on Wikipedia, and adequately justified. In this case the images are being fairly used and adequately justified, so I'm removing ther copyright violation tags. -- Buffyverse 14:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't remove the imagevio tag. I reverted it.

There are real promotional images. They come in presskits, like the "press" section in officials websites, where the image use in the context of the product being displayed is encouraged. --Abu Badali 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right there are promotional images that come in press kits, but there are also promotional images which are used to advertise things (whether these images come in a press kit or not). These images promote a product. The Buffy images promote the Buffy DVD sets (seasons 1 and 5). That is why Wikipedia says that promtional images can be "advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit."

I just looked at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promotional to better understand the definition of promote/promotional. I have bolded the relevant sections below.

promotional, (adjective)

1 The act of promoting or the fact of being promoted; advancement.

2 Encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something; furtherance.

3 Advertising; publicity.

promote (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).

3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.

4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).

5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.

6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.

promote (American Heritage Dictionary)

1 To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.

2 To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.

3 To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.

4 To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.

5 To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.

6 To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.

promote (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)

1 to cause or contribute to the growth, development, or occurrence of <drugs which promote menstruation>

promote (WordNet)

1: contribute to the progress or growth of; "I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom" [syn: advance, boost, further, encourage]

2: give a promotion to or assign to a higher position; "John was kicked upstairs when a replacement was hired"; "Women tend not to advance in the major law firms"; "I got promoted after many years of hard work" [syn: upgrade, advance, kick upstairs, raise, elevate] [ant: demote]

3: make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops" [syn: advertise, advertize, push]

4: be changed for a superior chess or checker piece 5: change a pawn for a king by advancing it to the eighth row, or change a checker piece for a more valuable piece by moving it the row closest to your opponent

promotional images (Wikipedia)

advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

I appreciate the job Abu badali is doing by cleaning up the use of images on Wikipedia but these Buffy images are promotional (whether they are in press kits or not - which they may well be anyway) & have justified rationales for fair use, making the copyrightvio tag inappropiate. I feel that by adding these tags when they should not be added, everyone's time (especially mine, Abu badali's and Paxomen's) is being wasted when it could be used to improve Wikipedia elsewhere. Please consider accepting the use of these images under Fair Use (making Fox's web site blanket 'Terms of Use' irrelevant).

-- Buffyverse 23:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I need some help here. The {{imagevio}} tag has been removed twice. Please, let the process go and the admin taking care of this case will take the appropriate action when the time comes. For now, the {{imagevio}} tags serves to bring attention to this discussion, and removing it may be considered vandalism.

Also, copying and pasting from dictionary.references.com is itself, probably a copyright violation. Material published on the internet is usually copyrighted and any use (other than personal viewing) usually requires additional permission. --Abu Badali 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between abusing content for profit and quoting/citing a source (Dictionary.com encourages the latter). The tag has been removed because it should not have been there in there in the first place but I will leave it alone now, I have spent enough of my time on this. You have added the tag based on your own personal interpretation of fair use (assuming that a photo advertising a DVD is not a promotional photo because it cannot be currently proved to be in a press kit - even though it is blatant advertising material and therefore promotional material). -- Buffyverse 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Ortel ZO Sept2005.gif is used under a license that does not allow modification. Unfortunately, this is not compatable with the GFDL. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Image:WTC Burning.jpg (history · last edit) from [6] and Reuters. --Aude (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Jonathan ryan's other image uploads [7] are also problematic. I've tried informing him about Wikipedia copyright policies. Other problematic images include:
    • Image:United Airlines 175 N612UA.jpg (history · last edit) from [8], which was not taken on the morning of 9/11, but was taken in April 2001 at JFK airport.--Aude (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:American Airlines 77 N644AA.jpg (history · last edit) from [9], also not taken on the morning of 9/11. This was taken in October 1999 at LAX. --Aude (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:United Airlines 93 N591UA.jpg (history · last edit) from [10], taken on 9/8/2001 (not 9/11/2001 as the uploader claims). --Aude (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:American Airlines 11 N334AA.jpg (history · last edit) from [11]. --Aude (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Charles Burlingame.jpg (history · last edit) from [12]. --Aude (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Image:FAOHQROME.jpg (history · last edit) from [13]. Compare the flags flying on a windy day. See also the metadata, indicating "Photo credit must be given: FAO/18277/G. Gasponi." PFHLai 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a free license, compatable with the GFDL? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Kingforaday.jpg (history · last edit) from [14]. Tagged as promotional but greenday.com is not a source for promotional material. Terms of use says: "The Content may not be copied, modified, reproduced, republished, posted, transmitted, sold, offered for sale, or redistributed in any way..." Abu Badali 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)