File talk:1933 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Norman Angell.JPG

Concerns about the legitimacy of this image
Please see discussion and questions raised relating to the propriety of this image's licensing in Talk:Nobel Prize and Image talk:Nobel in Literature.jpg. Thank you. --NYScholar 09:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the following source from nobelprize.org to a section of my current talk page: The Nobel Prize Medals.... It provides captions showing "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" for each of the medals, including the 1933 Nobel Peace (Prize) Medal. (DSCN0732.JPG is a "derivative work" using that design/image and such use is restricted by notices of registered trademarks and copyrights on nobelprize.org for each image of each medal.) [Updated.] --NYScholar 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [Regarding the image on the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize medal [stated by the uploader to be the medal from the Imperial War Museum (see sec. on that below) in her/his photograph]: The Nobel Foundation article states: "As Gustav Vigeland was a sculptor and not a medal engraver, Erik Lindberg was asked to make the dies for the Peace medal. His reductions were based on Vigeland's designs. ..." and it features a current notice: "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" (accessed 2007), as well as a copyright notice at foot of the site (copyright 2006 and accessed 2007). Updated. --NYScholar 22:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

Please also see more-recent discussion in Talk:Nobel Prize and Talk:Nobel Prize [The latter RFC was posted by User:Anubis3, the uploader of this image.]. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

NYScholar apparently has a habit of carrying on lengthy conversations with themselves. NYScholar also deceptively changed the licensing on this image (to copyright) in order to mislead other users. NYScholar, please also stop trying to delete this image, you already failed a speedy deleting. I am most certainly not going to let you force you opinion on everyone. This image is completely free and usable. aNubiSIII ( T /  C ) 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This above user is engaging in personal attacks and also violating WP:AGF. My questions about the license description for this image are made in good faith. The license is misleading. The only relevant article that the medal pertains to is the person whose medal it is; yet it is not being used in that article as an illustration of that person's medal; instead it has been inserted in the infobox for Nobel Prize, where it does not belong and where it violates more than one Wikipedia policy; I have already linked to the policies. The user does not seem to care that he is violating these policies. Other Wikipedians (I and Panda) do care, however, and we have raised questions about the legitimacy of this image. It should not be licensed; it is in violation of Nobel Foundation posted copyright and trademark notices regarding images of the Nobel medals. (See quoting those notices relating to another non-free image use.)  This is not a personal matter (WP:NPA); this is a Wikipedia copyright violation/trademark violation issue. --NYScholar 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the user wants to provide a "fair-use rationale" for the use of the image in the article about the man whose 1933 Nobel Medal the photograph depicts, then perhaps he should try to insert it into an appropriate section of that article where the medal is discussed. But it is not appropriate in the infobox or elsewhere in the article Nobel Prize. It should be deleted entirely from Nobel Prize while it is under review. The license is not convincing and the image page lacks a (detailed or any) fair-use rationale for the use of the image of the Nobel medal in Wikipedia, which is very restrictive to begin with. [The user has not provided a convincing account of how he knows that this image of the medal is "free and usable": see Panda's comment re: photographs of stamps and his comparison to this photograph as similarly neither "free" nor "usable" in Wikipedia (without the written permission of the Nobel Foundation and the featuring of the trademark and copyright symbols for the design of the medal as owned by the Foundation).] --NYScholar 06:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

[For my earlier comments and those of User:Panda, please see: Talk:Nobel Prize. (Added link.) --NYScholar 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * NYScholar, I thought in the interest of lulling you into complacency and in the interest of resolving this conflict of opinion, I would list the following:
 * 1) First of all, please do not assume that I am male or the opposite. Try to refer to other users as "they". It would avoid users getting offended.
 * 2) Repeating your argument (i.e. "without the written permission of the Nobel Foundation"), as you are doing, an infinite amount of times neither makes it correct nor will it be more convincing.
 * 3) To avoid the continuation of this edit war, this page and the Nobel Prize page has been protected.
 * 4) However, if this issue is still a matter of deep interest to you (I'm sure you have many other things to do than concentrate your time on a single issue), then go ahead with a review of this image as you have posted the template earlier.
 * I suggest, however, that we move on from this issue and make some valuable edits elsewhere without taking any of this to heart. aNubiSIII  ( T /  C ) 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: The administrator who protected the page has now deleted the image from the infobox. --NYScholar 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Email the Nobel Foundation
I didn't mean to make this into such a huge dispute ... I was only suggesting that someone could maybe send an email to the Nobel Foundation and ask them about using the image in Wikipedia. It seems to take 2-3 weeks for a reply. But since it looks like no one here is volunteering to do that, I'll just do it. –panda 15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Panda, I think that that would be self-defeating. The Nobel Foundation isn't going to condone the using of an image like this even if it is entirely legal to use. Remember, it is not prudent from them to grant permission with unknown third parties. It would be naive to expect a response like "Sure, feel free to use our trademark however you want." There are always serious implications for them dealing with unknown third parties. There is discussion on this image in several places now and only a single user has argued viehemently against its use. I also can't believe it has come to this point. aNubiSIII  ( T /  C ) 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't hurt though. What was/is the response? Monads (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Nobel Foundation claims that the Nobel medals are copyrighted in the US and registered trademarks in the US. See  and Talk:Nobel Prize for further discussion about this.  –panda (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Photography of exhibits in the Imperial War Museum
See the portal and its site map: Copyright information. This museum provides commercial photographs of its exhibits; it is not clear that the uploader of this image can display a photograph of its exhibit (the Nobel medal received in 1933) on the internet. There are copyrights related to the exhibits; see "site map" for the other links to "photographs" and so on. There are more than one organization with conflicts of interest involved in the posting on the internet of this image (both the Nobel Foundation [its Nobel medal design, which is protected by copyright and trademark) and the Imperial War Museum, which displays the medal in its exhibits, whose content are the subject of photographs sold commercially. The "educational" criteria referred to in its copyright policy posted on its website do not include posting on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a university or a college and the third party (User:Anubis3) does not demonstrate that s/he took this photograph in keeping with Imperial War Museum policies and does not demonstrate that s/he is distributing it as "free content" on the internet within fair use (doing so conflicts with the photography policies of the Imperial War Museum, which sells photographs of its exhibits). Proper copyright notices are not being presented in the image page, as required by the Imperial War Museum either. The licensing is not in keeping with fair use criteria of Wikipedia or of the organizations involved (Nobel Foundation and Imperial War Museum). Unless and until the image is clearly in keeping with these policies (of the organizations and of Wikipedia), its license appears to be invalid and the image should be deleted from Wikipedia. The uploader appears to be displaying the photograph (derivative work) without permission of all of its copyright and/or trademark owners of record. --NYScholar 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See: "Copyright" at the link provided above, which states copyright for the website of the Imperial War Museum and of the Crown for photographic images of its exhibits (which are offered via its portal/websites): e.g., "© Crown Copyright Images ... Some of the images featured on this site are subject to Crown Copyright protection. The Crown Copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an educational organisation (such as schools, colleges and universities). This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown Copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified, the copyright status acknowledged and picture reference numbers quoted (a two or three letter code followed by a series of numbers)." (Italics added.)  Wikipedia articles do not meet those criteria for reproduction of "Crown Copyright protected material").
 * The uploader has still provided no detailed fair-use rationale that takes the Crown Copyright or the Nobel Foundation copyright/trademark for its Nobel medal design into account. --NYScholar 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [See also: "Links to our website may only be included in other websites with our prior written permission. Links from our website lead to other sites; the Imperial War Museum does not endorse or sponsor or otherwise approve of any information or images or further links to other sites that appear in those websites." I provide the link to the copyright notice because it pertains to this issue.  If needed, the link to the copyright notice page can be removed and the content quoted in its place.  The website for the Imperial War Museum is in Imperial War Museum in Wikipedia; I don't know if written permission was requested or received from Wikipedia editors for featuring the website link.  Wikipedia is a website.  I found the URL to the official website for the Imperial War Museum in the article in Wikipedia.] --NYScholar 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [I forgot to use the tildes earlier; sorry.  Updated signature. --NYScholar 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

The IWM did not create this object. Nor did it create the image, which furthermore did not come from the IWM website. The IWM has no copyright here. Jheald 00:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The IWM website clearly states that unless there is a disclaimer of copyright to The Crown in its photographs and exhibits pages (relating to its physical exhibits), then The Crown copyright prevails. I provide the link to its "Terms & Services" in Norman Angell in the exhibit information. The uploader of the photograph (and it is still not clear that s/he was within the rules of the IWM in taking it there and then posting it on the internet) does not give the information that the IWM requires to be given about its exhibits; the exhibited work (the medal) is subject to access conditions of the Museum; the notice in "Terms & Services" states clearly that when there is no disclaimer The Crown copyright is in force and that other proprietary rights (relating to the exhibit's being housed in the museum) pertain too. There is no detailed fair-use rationale for the use of this image in the infobox in Wikipedia's Nobel Prize article (where it does not belong anyway) or anywhere else. The Nobel Foundation paid its medal sculptor and engraver to make the design (the model for the medal), but the Foundation maintains its proprietary rights over all images of its Nobel Prize Medals, including the Nobel Peace Prize Medal, exhibited in the IWM. Taking a photograph while in the museum or scanning a published photograph that someone else took does not give one the right to distribute the photograph of the IWM's exhibit of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal on the internet. Such "use" is restricted by the Nobel Foundation's registered trademark and copyright notices pertaining to images of the Nobel Prize Medals. The inventions by the user commenting above (Jheald) are irrelevant and directly contradicted by the policies stated by the IWM about its exhibits, collections, and photographs. The photographer/uploader has the right to personal use of her/his own photograph, not to upload it (publish it) in Wikipedia via the internet; there is no detail "fair-use" rationale provided for doing so, despite registered trademark of the image by the Nobel Foundation and copyright of the image of the medals by the Nobel Foundation; the photograph is a "derivative work" subject to fair-use provisions of copyright laws. --NYScholar 05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial War Museum Exhibit (property of The Crown)
This is the information about the Nobel Peace Prize Medal ("gold medallion") in the Crown-copyright-protected exhibit at the Imperial War Museum: Detailed description of Exhibit. As the exhibit is of a medal given to Norman Angell, it would appear that, if the image is within fair use (if the photograph of the medal: and what is its origin? does it come from being photographed at the Imperial War Museum or from a photograph of a photograph of the exhibit published elsewhere? unclear), the appropriate article for the image to appear is Norman Angell, not Nobel Prize. If the trademarked image is used as a logo (from the Nobel Foundation website), or from other images or photographs of that registered trademarked image, then the appropriate infobox of the appropriate article for it to appear in would be Nobel Foundation.

The information in the exhibit description "The medal was designed by the Norwegian scupltor Gustav Vigeland. The dies were made by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg." comes directly from the article that I have linked about Nobel Prize Medals and the Nobel Peace Prize Medal specifically featured in nobelprize.org (copyright The Nobel Foundation) (see earlier section w/ link). The medals' designs are all currently still the trademark of The Nobel Foundation, as clearly featured in its captions for all the Nobel Prize Medals images, including that of the Nobel Peace Prize. (Those registrations of trademark have been renewed; the copyrights on the images are also up to date, current.) The person who designed the medal does not own the copyright on the design; he was hired by the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessors, organization) to do the work for it, and the Nobel Foundation owns the rights (copyright and trademark) to images of the designs and the designs, as it states; the designing and minting were part of their "work for hire." There are no illustrations of these trademarked images in articles about the Nobel Peace Prize or the other individual Nobel Prizes due to fair-use and copyright and trademark image concerns; see each of those articles. --NYScholar 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the photographed image (as summarized) does not show the stamped edge with Norman Angell's name on it, that information (that it is a photograph of his medal) needs to be in its caption. With such a caption, it would be inappropriate for an infobox in the Wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize. It is a Nobel Peace Prize Medal and relevant to the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize; if there were a section about the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize in Nobel Peace Prize, the image might be appropriately placed as an illustration there (if it is within fair use). The uploader needs to make clear whether or not s/he took the photograph of the exhibit at the Imperial War Museum (the linked exhibit) or whether or not s/he took the photograph of a photograph of the exhibit and, if so, where that photograph is published; if it is a photograph of a published photograph, then there are copyright and fair use concerns pertaining to that photograph, which would not be the work of the uploader. If the uploader edited an already-existing photograph that is one situation; if the uploader scanned a photograph made by someone else (copyrighted to that photographer), then that copyright information needs disclosure according to fair-use rationale guidelines in Wikipedia. The license in the Wikipedia image page is not clear and it does not address the need for a detailed fair-use rationale for derivative works of trademarked and/or copyrighted content, properties (intellectual and artistic properties). --NYScholar 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the design was published in the United States before 1923, there can be no current U.S. copyright in it. Jheald 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. A medal is not "published."  The image of the medal has been copyrighted on nobelprize.org clearly in 2006 and is currently the trademark of the organization.  Medals are not publications.  --NYScholar 03:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Nobel Foundation claims "proprietary rights" to its Nobel Prize medals and to their images; see its "Terms of service" linked copyright and trademark information. --NYScholar 03:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For "Terms & Service" of the IWM, see Terms & Service, particularly the italicized portion. Exhibits are protected by proprietary rights as images and registered trademarks by the notices of proprietary rights of the Nobel Foundation.  Most museums have notices at the entrance governing photography of exhibits; many museums prohibit such photography (as the Nobel Museum does).  There is no way to verify whether or not the photograph uploaded by Anubis3 is within the policies of the IWM.
 * The description of the exhibit in question appears listed on its website (that description is protected by The Crown copyright; there is no disclaimer on the exhibit description page) Whether or not there is a commercially-available photograph of that exhibit (the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize Medal of Norman Angell) is unknown.
 * The "use" of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal registered trademark image is clearly not within the proprietary rights claimed by the Nobel Foundation. --NYScholar 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Medal (R) images
I do remember a specific situation regarding that image. I'm not sure of the specifics, or what I can say about it, but I'll get back to you ASAP. Ral315 » 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was an OTRS request regarding this image (ticket #2006092110007177). The Nobel Foundation didn't appear to have any problem with us using the 200x200 resized version.  I don't think that means Wikipedia has rights to use it any way we want to, but I do take that to mean that we can use a straight-up claim of fair use, which I think is defensible in Nobel Prize.  Since they weren't too concerned about the image, I don't see a problem.


 * For what it's worth, Panda should not have e-mailed the Nobel Foundation; that's really something that should be handled within the Wikimedia Foundation, if at all. Ral315 » 11:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I did provide a "working" "fair use rationale" for the image for general reference with that possibility in mind. If the Nobel Foundation has already been contacted in writing and responded in writing, it would be helpful to cite that correspondence in the image page, explaining for those who do not know what "OTRS" stands for (with a link to numbered the "ticket" item) [if that is Wikipedia procedure (I don't know)]. I will archive this exchange a bit later. [corr.] --NYScholar 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is OTRS for those who need it. Thanks again. --NYScholar 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [cross-posted from my own talk page as it possibly relates to this image. --NYScholar 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

Updates

 * 1) Please see Media copyright questions. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Please see also Talk:Nobel Prize and subsequent section relating to it, with related links. For comparison: please see: Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg.  Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cropped image w/ less black space seems more feasible. Does it have to be so large, however? (Don't know.  See similar questions about an earlier version of the "06171" image.) [Will be away.] --NYScholar (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Added required non-free use/fair-use rationale
See the editing history and previous discussions. This image should be able to be unmarked for speedy deletion due to changes to the image page (provision of the necessary rationales; removal of the inaccurate claims to public domain in the U.S. and to GFDL "licensing"; consistent with the other non-free image page. Previous description caption for the image in Nobel Prize should be restored if unmarked for speedy deletion. --12.10.239.130 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The copyright status is disputed. If the design can be considered to have been "published" before 1923, it would no longer be in copyright in the U.S., and the appropriate copyright tag would be PD-Roundart-US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * This image was subject to deletion on November 27 due to faulty image page description and inaccurate unsubstantiated licensing. Since warring editors have restored the faulty information, it is being reverted to the deletion template in the article until these problems can be properly fixed.  --12.10.239.247 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think re-adding the speedy template at this point to any of these images would be extremely bad form. I already (unsuccessfully and probably unhelpfully) tried to tag these images as copyrighted and request a fair use rationale.  There isn't much of a consensus about the copyright status of the images but there is a clear consensus that it is disputed and there is a huge gray area at work here.  In the spirit of good faith and avoiding copyright paranoia, I think the images should remain tagged as public domain unless compelling proof emerges that they are under copyright and/or Nobel files a complaint. -- Spike Wilbury   ♫  talk  05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given your adding the speedy template originally and requests for a non-free/fair-use rationale for each use of this image in Wikipedia, I supplied that. The work was reverted.  Please look at the editing history.  The attempt to supply the rationale and more appropriate description/summary of the image (consistent w/ the other Nobel Prize (R) medal image, which currently has such rationales) was a means of keeping it from being deleted.  Please investigate the history of this image more thoroughly by looking at the previous comments on this and Talk:Nobel Prize and please see the reverted work, which was complying with your requests in good faith.  Do not think the reversions were at all warranted.  The Nobel Foundation clearly claims its copyright over images of its medals.  See its notices and the correspondence with it already cited.  There is no source to corroborate or substantiate that the design was "published in the United States prior to 1923.  This image is of a 1933 medal and the photograph has creative content that makes it a "derivative work," which the Nobel Foundation's notice on its copyright and trademark page explicitly prohibits.  Wikipedia policy is clear about potential copyright violations; Wikipedia copyright policy says either provide the proper fair use rationales or delete the disputed images when there is a potential copyright violation. [No "paranoia"; resent the implication.  These were edits that followed WP:AGF.] The provision of the non-free/fair-use rationales was an attempt to comply with these policies.  The policies already exist; there is no need to invent one's own policies.  Waiting until a copyright holder complains is not Wikipedia policy [when potential copyright violation is concerned].  There already is compelling proof that the designs of the medals are copyright protected by the Nobel Foundation's own notices; it is the Nobel Foundation who is the "author" of its Nobel Prize (R) images and which has stated in correspondence with User:Panda that they are currently still under copyright in the United States (as well as elsewhere in the world).  I see no reason not to supply the fair use rationales (as you yourself stated earlier).   Please be consistent with Wikipedia policy.  Thank you.  (See the other image currently also in Nobel Prize.  --12.10.239.130 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)