Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 6 June 8 >


Contents

[edit] June 7

[edit] Images uploaded by User:SlimVirgin

The following images have e-mail permission claimed but lack ticket #'s from OTRS. (Note - there are a few that refer to an OTRS ticket from the Animal Liberation Front. However, that OTRS ticket only referred to a few specific images, with a claim that photos taken on behalf of the organization were PD. Details on the ticket here. The images I've listed here have no indication they were taken by the ALF.)

The following image has a PD claim, including a source that supports that claim, but I think the source is incorrect. The source states this is a "courtesy photo" from Israel, and, according to Israeli copyright law, this photo should enter the public domain 50 years after publication. (20112012) (See Commons:Copyright tags#Israel.)

Listed by Kelly hi! 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here, but most of these are free images, released by the people who took them, and most have OTRS tickets, or were cropped from images on the Commons, or are old images. The claim that an image taken during an ALF raid was not taken by the ALF is particularly strange — unless you were there when the image was taken, Kelly, and know something the rest of us don't. :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you specify which of the images have OTRS tickets (aside from the ALF ticket I mentioned above) or are cropped from Commons images? I thought I read the image description pages carefully - I even had an OTRS volunteer look up the ALF OTRS ticket, as mentioned above. Kelly hi! 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The ones I've looked at are self-explanatory e.g. the Keith Mann images. I've e-mailed permissions to ask if there's a problem with the OTRS tickets. If there isn't — and I'm pretty sure there isn't — the images are fine. If any pages are missing their tickets, I'll add them once I've heard back from permissions. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Keith Mann images is that there's no evidence they were taken by the ALF, and they weren't mentioned in the OTRS ticket that was placed (by the uploader, not an OTRS worker) on the image description pages. Kelly hi! 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The Israeli image would seem to not be due to enter the public domain until 2012, according to the citation of Israeli copyright law in Commons. It seems to have been uploaded under the misconception that all government pictures are public domain, but that's only true of U.S. federal government pictures (taken by employees, not outside contractors), and maybe some other countries, but not all countries or their subdivisions. Israel apparently has a 50-year copyright on government photos. The picture may be a legitimate candidate for a fair use rationale, but is mistagged as public domain. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Eichmanntrial image looks PD and okay to me. I don't have time to look through the other images to see if they're alright. Wizardman 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the links to Israeli copyright law? Kelly hi! 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess the question is whether or not the Isreali government put it in the public domain outright, waiting the 50 years. Proof or disproof of that would make for an easy decision. Wizardman 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The presumption has to be that its not public domain until someone can show otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Proof by assertion isn't. Each image should carry a clear link to something demonstrating its license (a statement on the page it was copied from, along with a link to the page, or an OTRS ticket reference that covers the image explicitly, or a statement that it was self authored, or similar...) The {{information}} template is very useful for organizing this. The onus is on the uploader to correct issues, not on the person notifying the uploader, of the issue to fix things. That is practice here and has been for a long time. Accusing a volunteer doing their job of various things (harassment, creating extra work, and the like) isn't really appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The page linked to as the source ([6]) describes the photo as public domain, and it's part of the United States Holocaust Museum website. That seems credible to me.-Polotet 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've also looked at some of the others, and it seems that at least some of them are from sites which grant permission to use the photos, including [7], which states "Permission to reprint is granted as long as Factoryfarm.org or the photographer is cited as the source." and [8], which states "Anyone wishing to use the original AAPN photographs on this site is welcome to do so." It seems like some of these images are fine and the ones that do have problems don't all have the same problem; it would probably be much more useful to group them based on source or alleged problem and discuss each group separately.-Polotet 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Images from factoryfarm.org are noncommercial use only.[9] I'll take another look at the AAPN photo(s) and strike them through if necessary. Kelly hi! 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Factoryfarm.orgs terms are a bit unclear; that page does say "You may use this site for noncommercial or personal use only. No content of this site, including the text, images, audio and video may be copied, distributed, modified, reused, reposted or transmitted for any commercial purpose without our prior express written permission.", but it prefaces that with "Except as may be otherwise indicated within this site," and all of the image pages state ""Permission to reprint is granted as long as Factoryfarm.org or the photographer is cited as the source," with no commercial restrictions. While it would be best to get official emailed confirmation of the license, my interpretation would be that the terms on the image pages are the controlling ones.-Polotet 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's some ambiguity in the language there. Is "permission to reprint" the same thing as "permission to redistribute the photos on other websites"? The use of "reprint" would suggest that they're thinking of hard copies, not electronic copies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
For our purposes at Wikipedia, that statement is perfectly clear. They are discussing republication permissions, which is a different matter from copyright release. Wikipedia cannot restrict downstream uses of its material to noncommercial entities, so it rejects such terms. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be noted that Israeli copyright law was rewritten recently and entered into force may 2008 although I don't know how that impacts past crown copyright images.Geni 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Israel changed their copyright term to life+70, but that did not affect stuff that was already in the public domain, unlike the Russian copyright law changes from earlier this year. Kelly hi! 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we take the museum's word for it? The museum is a credible source. If the museum is wrong, the worst that will happen is someone will at some point ask us to take it down. We shouldn't get so bogged down by becoming unreasonably strict about verifying copyright -- the marginal cost increases way past the marginal benefits. The museum is a more credible source than most users, who often upload pictures and release them. If we trust them, then we can trust the museum. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:PD SerbiaGov Images

Many images in this category, especially photographs of the Serbian military, are not "official material" in the sense of the copyright exemption of Serbian law. Their source websites assert copyright. The exemption in Serbian Law is only for laws, governmental decrees and other similar material of comparable official status. It does not cover all government publications such as decorative images on government websites, government-published magazines and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

... I'll stop listing here - there are many other parallel cases, mostly by the same small number of uploaders. Please delete all others in the category, except official coats of arms, emblems et cetera. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolute nonsense. Sorry this is not an insult but a fact. You didn't bother to read the law but came out of the blue with this request which has got nothing to do with reality. Law says ANY material which means anything produced by the state body or a body performing public functions and these are Government, President, Municipalities, Army etc. This material can be document, photograph, chart, report, text, law, decree etc. Anything they make is in PD unless stated otherwise (websites created by third party are copyrighted, you can't take the design of official websites if they were made by private agencies for an example the website of President was made by third party while the MFA website was made by them therefor they can't put copyright tag for website design or for an example photos made by agencies which are just reused on government website but this is stated clearly in a form of water tag over the image saying AFP or whoever is the original copyright holder). --Avala (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. No need to be insulting. I did read the law, did you? [10] Maybe you are confusing the Serbian with the US law? The US government indeed exempts all things produced by its employees. The Serbian government exempts only:
1) Laws, decrees and other regulations;
2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
3) Official translations of regulations and official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
4) Submissions and other documents presented in the administrative or court proceedings.
I concede "official materials" is somewhat ill-defined. What exactly is official and what isn't? But the very use of the qualifier "official" implies that there is an understood distinction between official items and unofficial ones – if there wasn't, they wouldn't use any qualifying adjective at that point. If they meant to say "any material", why don't they just say "any material"? I don't know where they would draw the boundary, but I'm pretty certain a magazine published by the government for the entertainment of its military, or a picture gallery on a government website, would fall on the unofficial side. If you can prove the law is interpreted differently, please let us know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Because any material means anything at all while official material can be produced only by state bodies and bodies performing public functions. Laws have to be precise. You wont see the word any that often in laws. For an example all ex Yugoslavia state laws are somewhat similar, there are no great differences and Croatian govt website has a clear note where it says all the material is in PD (their law requires attribution though). Serbian govt website wasn't that clear but I explained it to you - anything produced by the govt except the reproduction of the third party work is in PD.--Avala (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be mistaken about the Croatian case too - that website too [11] asserts "Copyright © 2007 Government of the Republic of Croatia", so even though they then grant free use, they explicitly don't place it into the public domain. Also, the absence of copyright lawsuits is not a very convincing argument against the existence of copyright. And my point about the use of "official" still stands. These regulations are found in the laws of many European countries, and for all I can see they all seem to be intended for a much smaller class of items. I'll happily accept if I'm proven wrong; if as you say you know something to the contrary that is actually sourced and not just your personal opinion, please tell us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning of lawsuits was additional information, not the final evidence. And regarding Croatia, yes the form is different but the idea is the same - PD or free use both countries allow the material to be reused. One uses the formulation of "Content from these pages can be used without a prior consent by the author under the condition that the source of information is quoted." while the other puts it into it's law.--Avala (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you've still not done anything but asserting your personal beliefs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And you have? It's your belief that this law doesn't cover non-textual material even though it doesn't mention anything of that sort. It could as well be the so called "legal hole" where the law is not clear enough and should be changed (and the Copyright Agency of Serbia has indeed called for changing of this law but in their proposal this article would remain unchanged) but in continental law that Serbia is using if the law doesn't make exemptions (f.e. all official material except photography) then it means all official material. If we would start exempting something it would mean that we are expanding the law, for which we have no authority. I have contacted several official bodies and legal team of the Government for the official explanation (though considering the possible ambiguity of the law we have to wait and see if I will receive coherent answers). Keep in mind that this law hasn't been tested in court regarding the Article 6. Obviously no one felt an urge to ask for the Supreme Court opinion and the Government never objected the usage of it's material under Article 6 (which brings us to conclusion that the Government shares the opinion of Wikipedia that such material is in PD). --Avala (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll gladly accept whatever those guys say, if they answer, thanks for making that inquiry. But in the absence of an answer, I'm afraid we'll have to stick with what they already have told us: "Copyright 2008 © Ministry of Defence, Republic of Serbia". That's what they say. If your interpretation of the law was correct, that copyright mark would be nonsense. These guys are explicitly saying that they, the government, do own copyright for what they publish. It can't really get any clearer, can it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It refers to the website design which is in lack of other better laws considered a publication as a book or a magazine.--Avala (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If the website design is copyrighted, it clearly can't be meant to be "official material" in the sense of that law. And why then would the photos on the website be "official material" when the website itself is not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Website is not the work of the Government but of the third party agency which is not an official body. I thought I wrote this.--Avala (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you know? It says "copyright Ministry of Defense", it doesn't say "copyright agency so-and-so". By the way, a genuine question: what does the following mean: "Sva prava zadržana, Zabranjena je reprodukcija u delini i u delovima bez dozvole" It's in the copyright notice of the Serbian Army website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it should be explained in the impressum though not all websites have it available. It's a generic copyright sentence. I am not sure if the army can be called an official body at this moment as it is in transition from independent body to civilian run body. That is why I avoided uploading army material under PD tag, I even wanted them removed but I did not push for it too much because of the unclear status of the army so I didn't want to wrongfully remove content. Government, President and Municipalities that's where I have no doubt - they are official bodies. --Avala (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Chuckle. Of course an army is always an official body of the state. "Civilian-run" only means they get subordinated to the ministry of defense, rather than constituting an independent structure directly under the president. "Civilian" doesn't mean "private". (Come on, an army's job is to kill people, one would hope they'd at least only do that in an official function and not privately, wouldn't one?) – Sorry for being a bit sarcastic, but this comment of yours gives me further doubt about whether you understand law as well as you seem to think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Formulation of the Army Law defines it as a force, subordinated to President as the Commander in Chief. It doesn't fall under the precise definition of the state body. That is what I meant to say. Words "force" and "state body" are not the same. When army was an independent body (and not state body) it had it's own court. Military courts have recently been abolished which means army is now under regular state laws and regular courts. On the other hand Government is clearly defined as a "state body" and that is why we have no doubts about it, but the army situation is not that clear. So on this day army can probably be considered a state body falling under all state laws without exception, which wasn't the case before. Hope I made myself clearer.--Avala (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the question is whether the army comes under the same copyright regime as the government. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that all arms of the state - including the armed forces - are subject to the same rules on copyright.
I have to ask, has anyone actually tried contacting the Serbian government to ask whether their images can be reproduced? It seems like an obvious step. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Avala said he did, above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No reply yet. Just from some agency that deals with intellectual property but they thought I was asking them about the website design. They also told me to contact the Government directly and I am still waiting for the Government. --Avala (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - just as an FYI, I made a request for some expert help here. Kelly hi! 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, certainly a good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Expert help? I am sorry but only Serbian law makers are expert on Serbian law, not the Wikipedia interpreters.--Avala (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Including you? Kelly hi! 18:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not a law maker but I do know the copyright law and court decision enough to say that the Government never sued anyone for copyright. Wondering why? Take a look at Serbian copyright law - Article 6, Paragraph 2 .--Avala (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone erased heaps of images by his own decision. That was a very bad move.--Avala (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jennifer Lavoie March 31 2007.jpg

Appears to be a crop from a professionally shot image - publicity pic, Playboy, other magazine? - no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SMALL WIKI POSTER.jpg

I doubt that a DVD cover is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SR-Good-Night.jpg

Where is the proof of "permission"? -Nard 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CatherineDaza.jpg

Claimed as own work by User:Essence5, which seems unlikely based on the user page. Appears to be a professional shot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)