Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2007-10-22

edit

Articles

  • Alec Reeves (history · last edit) from [1]. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    The copyright holder claims to offer permission on the article Talk page, so I have explained how to release the text until the GFDL. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Homes of Donegal (history · last edit) from [2]. — Coren (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    After quite a bit of research, it appears that those lyrics were written in 1955. I can find no earlier publishing. — Coren (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Let my try this again. The image associated with this talk page seems to contain material copyrighted by Microsoft. -- Mumia-w-18 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Kilkenny limestone (history · last edit) from [3]. TheJosh 11:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Image talk:Lurs.jpg (history · last edit) from [Unknown original source for an image supplied in 2004 by an admin, then casually reviewed in 2005. One possible source is http://abel.hive.no/trompet/lur/bronze/brudevaelte.html, but given how long this image has been in WP that page could have gotten it from here.]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT 12:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Niakwa Programming Language (history · last edit) from [4]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT 12:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Friday Center (history · last edit) from [5]. Unquestionably identical text, but timing order is questionable due to dynamic nature of probable source. GRBerry 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • William D. Euille (history · last edit) from [6]. Joel7687 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Mensa International (history · last edit) from [7]. Many section appear to be direct cut/paste from www.mensa.orgKeeper | 76 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This issue was addressed in 2004, and again just a year ago ... you should have read the Talk page archives ... I have removed the copyvio tag. —72.75.79.128 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Whether it was addressed previously or not is of little concern. The wik article reads the same as the mensa homepage for mensa. Unless the mensa hompage says "as taken from the "wikipedia article" then I don't see how this is NOT a copyright problem...Keeper | 76 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        I don't really see any cause for concern here. It's obvious the site was used as a source, but sufficient rewording exists in my judgment. What phrases did you find that are duplicates? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Voz Veis (history · last edit) from [8].  Andreas  (T) 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
edit

Images

This image (a Wikipedia user's photograph from 2005) currently features an inaccurate and disputed template proclaiming "public domain" in the U.S. (added Oct. 21, 2007) for an image of a Nobel Prize Medal®©, which is a "Registered ® trademark of The Nobel Foundation" and whose Nobel Prize Medal®© images are also Copyright © The Nobel Foundation (Stockholm, Sweden). Please consult the current talk page (from top to bottom) for related discussions. --NYScholar 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is at least the 4th place NYScholar has raised this discussion in his campaign to have these images deleted. There's a lot more relevant discussion here. I believe the free/non-free issue as to copyright on the underlying medals has to be resolved first. Trademark issue is a red herring. -- But|seriously|folks  02:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have been engaged in disputes about these images. To say that "more relevant" discussion about the listed image takes place elsewhere emphasizes your own point of view. I have properly requested that the talk page for this specific image be consulted as well as other relevant discussions. I am raising this question not due to "a campaign" (consider Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:AGF--that is an improper insinuation); but, rather, because I have worked on this issue for about two years, and I am concerned about these copyright violations in Wikipedia. My current talk page lists the sources that have been there over this extended period of time. I have been concerned about this particular image for well over a year. I am raising the concerns about these images properly for others (not involved in the current dispute) to consider. --NYScholar 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
After looking over the "more relevant" discussion referenced, I can say I appreciate NYScholar's concerns, but it seems to me that the concerns are unfounded. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but I don't see any reference stating that any photograph taken of a Nobel medal is automatically the property of the Nobel Foundation. That's a rather strained interpretation of trademark law. If a friend of mine wins a medal and I photograph a close-up of him wearing it, I own the photo to do with as I please, not the Nobel Foundation. The only relevant question here appears to be, does the photo originate from the Nobel Foundation or not? -Amatulic 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There have been disputes about several "relevant questions" pertaining to this and related images of the Nobel Prize (R) medals. The discussion appears still to be inconclusive. The content of "Derivative works" relating to a Work for hire whose design (image of the medal) is owned (still) by its "author" of record (the Nobel Foundation) is germane ("relevant"), and that complicates the use of such images that are made by Wikipedians and presented as "free" when they are based on content that is "not-free"; there are several Nobel Prize (R) Medal-related images that have from time to time been posted in Wikipedia (and later marked for deletion) which need to be consulted. See October 21 discussion as well. Thanks. (I have not seen "Amatulic" before; is this user the same as another user name? [Confused about this comment and what image it refers to.)] --NYScholar 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you haven't seen me before. I simply came here to add my own copyright violation entry to the list below, and I noticed this conversation, which interested me enough to respond.
I guess I can see your point; if I photographed every page of a copyrighted book (or, for that matter, photocopied the book) I wouldn't own that "work" even though I created the images myself. A copy of a book can still be read like a book. Same would be true if I painstakingly copied every word in longhand. However, if I used my copy (or the original) to construct a papier-mâché sculpture, then I, not the book publisher, would own that work. (Children make papier-mâché objects from copyrighted newspapers every day in public schools without violating copyrights.)
Similarly, a photo of a medal can't be used as a medal. It's a completely different object than a medal. A Copyright on a medal design would apply to its use as a medal, not as its use in a photograph. That's why I feel your interpretation of copyright law is somewhat strained. -Amatulic 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia still requires detailed "fair use rationale" for each use of such an image. I am not talking about a "hypothetical image"; I am referring to actual images that have been posted by photographers creating Derivative works that are using content from Work for hire [(and/or "commissioned works")] (still both trademarked and copyright protected by author the Nobel Foundation (organization/corporate entity in Sweden). Please see the discussion of the actual images whose image page licenses are being disputed or questioned. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [added. --NYScholar 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)] [See also the link to the Nobel Foundation's registered trademark re: the images of its Nobel Prize (R) Medals (all of them, including the Nobel Peace Prize, posted on my own talk page: User talk:NYScholar#Information pertaining to registered trademarks and copyright pertaining to designs and images of the Nobel Prize Medals, which provides a link to the Nobel Foundation's featured article "The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics", by Birgitta Lemmel; other links to the Nobel Foundation's own "Copyright" and "Trademark" notices are linked in various talk pages relating to the various images. One needs to consult them for further information and prior discussion over an extended period of time (years). (These issues in Wikipedia have been contested for at least about two years.) Thanks. --NYScholar 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I'm not going to delete that image as a copyvio. I'm sure whatever I say here is not going to put this to rest, but I have a reasonable amount of experience with dealing with copyright issues here, so I'll weigh in:
  • First of all, there is NO WAY this image is in the public domain, because the Nobel Foundation has clearly renewed its copyright. They claim copyright on their Web site.
  • Second, this image is NOT a derivative work. There is NO CREATIVE CONTENT - it is just a photographic representation of the original. Therefore, no one else can claim copyright on it or release it or whatever.
  • The image should be tagged as a copyrighted work with a proper fair use rationale. That means the image is the subject of critical commentary in the article. If it's just there for decoration, there is no fair use rationale and it should be deleted.
  • Nobel cannot prevent us from exercising fair use.
  • Trademark has nothing to do with this discussion. We are not violating trademark laws by using the image in a free encyclopedia. We are not making money with it or misrepresenting the company with it.
--Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that those commenting examine all of the discussion, not just some of it; and that they keep in mind that copyright on the design of the image may extend to 2026; see the links in my talk page on the images. You are rendering opinions on very partial information about these images and the copyrights (not just trademarks) that the Nobel Foundation refers to on its website in its "Copyright" notices. Please read them and the laws more carefully. When an image is virtually indistinguishable from the images posted on the website, they appear to be "derivative images" whether or not they are from photographs of medals (as the uploaders state). The "fair use rationales" are useful in this situation. Wikipedians' references to "public domain" are not based on sources that establish whether or not the copyrights on the design of the images have been renewed subsequent to the creation of the medals; if renewed the copyright might extend to 2026 at least. "Consensus" is not what determines whether or not something is within copyright laws; one needs legal advice in complex situations and, when copyright notices are posted on sites about images, one needs to respect them. Otherwise, one puts Wikipedia at risk for legal actions by copyright owners (in this case, the Nobel Foundation). Claiming "fair use" is a far safer course than claiming "public domain." (The other Nobel Prize (R) Medal images need to have fair use rationales too to be consistent with the presentation of this image page.) --NYScholar (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Due to ongoing correspondence about these images with the Nobel Foundation, the copyright status of what still appears to be Derivative works featuring copyright-protected intellectual and artistic properties of the Nobel Foundation, still ongoing. (removed strike-out). See updates at: Talk:Nobel Prize#The Nobel Prize Medals (and earlier sections of that talk page as well as archive 1) and the individual medal page(s) cited there, including this image's talk page, which still features a disputed "public domain in the U.S." template. --NYScholar (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • After the comment to me by reviewer/admin. explaining reason for strikeout, understand it. After removal of the "pui" template on the image page by another admin., have removed the "public domain in the U.S." template from that talk page as well (as per review by Spike Wilbury [scroll up]: "First of all, there is NO WAY this image is in the public domain, because the Nobel Foundation has clearly renewed its copyright. They claim copyright on their Web site. ..." Please see updates in talk pages referred to above as well (initiated by Panda), citing recent correspondence from the Nobel Foundation in which it also confirms its copyright in the U.S. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)