Talk:History of Kiev/Image copyright issues
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Figure 1
I added the picture of Archangel Michael monument to the top. I think it's a good one, a combination of an old city protector with modern city background. However, please take a look at the picture here. A.M. may be better depicted and faces the viewer, but OTOH the background coolness is lost. I favour the current one, but other opinions are welcome. Thanks! --Irpen 18:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- You should be very careful about putting copyrighted photos, if you want the article to become FA at some point. You can see the list of what is OK in Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Licenses. It may be hard to argue that photos qualify for fair use. Sashazlv 02:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sure it is a PD, because it is an image of an object freely available for public view and such are defined as PD by UA law. Only images of such objects with some art involved in creation (by photo-artists, for example) may fall under protection. I just haven't created a PD template for images that fall into this category yet. So, I labeled it fairuse for now. --Irpen 02:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- This is just to avoid problems in the future. A photo of "an object freely available for public view" does not fall into PD per se. Photographic works are subject to copyright under article 8 of Ukraine._Law_on_Copyright_and_Related_Rights. This is true irrespective of what has been photographed. Except, of course, the 6 cases in article 10.
- Maybe, you can reinterpret the photo as "symbol of a territorial community" for it to be PD. I don't know.
- I think that {{PD-UA-exempt}} tag has been until now quite abused. We are just lucky that noone cares too much about Ukrainian images. Otherwise, a good lawyer could easily make a lot of trouble. Sashazlv 03:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but here is how I view this. Yes, photographic works are objects of copyright, and a photohrapher, or his agent, may claim a copyright of any picture produced by him or his business. However, some claims are not enforceable if they are overridden by other provisions of the law, and hence should not be considered valid.
If I scan a bank-note on my scanner, my claim of the copyright protection of the image would be a bogus one, since bank-notes are a PD. If I make a collage using money, that would be MY art and this would be a different story.
Same with a photographs. If I made a still-life composition at home using some household objects arranged in a modernistic way and pictured it, my claim for protection would be valid. If I make a picture of Cezanne's still-life at the National Gallery (they do allow pictures there), I cannot claim a copyright, because the object on the picture is a PD and that's just a regular picture, not some artistic photographic view of Cezanne's work.
Same here, the object of the image is the monument, and not a picture taken by a photographer since the picture has nothing special in it. The monument is in a public place and anyone can see it. If the picture is made with a monument at the sunset, or a lighting (like a Beregynia photo), that's an artistic image and this can be protected. If this is just a regular picture of something already freely available, whoever claims the copyright either doesn't know what he is doing, or does it "just in case", but still his claims cannot be validly enforced, hence should not be accounted for. The Article 21 of the Russian law [1] explicitely speaks about public places "except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction". The similar provision must also be in US and UA law, and actually, if there is one in either we are OK. We should check though. Note, that Beregynia's pic is artistic and copyrighted. I used it as per copyright holder's policy (tema.in.ua just requires an attribution). What do you think? Maybe my view is wrong and we should wait what others would say. --Irpen 03:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- In principle, I agree. Except that Ukrainian law need not coincide with either Russian or U.S. Beregynia photo might be OK under fair use. But I think it would be much safer not to include it if Kiev/History of Kiev go for an FA candidacy. Sashazlv
- I read somewhere that WP's consern is the US law only (is it because it resides at the US servers? I don't know.) So, even if UA law says something to the contrary, the US law is all that matters but I will have to check. --Irpen
- I think that we are not efficiently spending our time discussing all these questions. There are many more urgent things to do. Sashazlv 04:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Just interested. Say, I "creatively" processed someone else's photo. For instance, literally removed, pixel by pixel, flowers and pigeon's dung. Do I have the copyright to the new image? Compare:
|
|
|
|
Uprocessed |
Creatively Processed |
I think that to process the photo and publish it, the copyright of the photo has to allow alteration at the first place. Suppose it does. Than, I think if this question is discussed, an author (or a judge, should there be a court action) should make a reasonable judgement, whether the alteration qualifies as a separate copyrightable work. For these two pictures, I don't think there is any new copyright. Where did you get the original? Check your email, btw. And also, please help with rearranging images in Kiev. It got messy once I drastically cut the history chapter. --Irpen 06:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Please take a loot at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/archive3#A_generic_photo_taken_from_PD_object.2C_is_copyrightable_or_not.3F. It answers some of the issues raised here. Regards, --Irpen 22:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
