Template talk:Non-free 3D art/Archive 1

Re-licensing of derivative works
I have changed this tag, removing the ability to apply a licence to the photo. The reason I have done this is that for a copyrighted sculpture the copyright holder has exclusive rights to licence derivative works such as photos. --JeremyA 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed
I consider this tag totally disputed until I see some evidence that authors of all media, TV, newspapers and magazines obtain permissions from the architect of every building, author of every statue, exterior designer of every car, road engineer of every road, etc that happen to be broadcasted, printed and even verbally described or even inspired some music as this may be a derivative work by a composer.

At today's New York Times the first image I saw was this one. The copyright note at the bottom says: "Mike Fuentes for The New York Times". I request the promoters of this template to urgently bombard the legal department of NYTimes finding out whether they got the permission from the architects of every and each building pictured and for a tower. Perhaps check with the divine authority for the sunset view to be 100% sure but for starters let's start with buildings. Thx. --Irpen 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, buildings and roads weren't covered by copyright... Valrith 03:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The tl speaks about "3-D works of art". Are you saying buildings are not? Actually, if you check the category there are plenty of building images there.

More examples: TV towers pictured frequently at the postcards, newspaper photo's and live images broadcasted.

More: Saddam statue broadcasted by all media. I can give dozens of more examples when 3-D images in public view are broadcasted or pictured. A lot of organizations to contact for whoever came up with the tag that says that making pictures in the streets and parks and posting them to WP is allowed only in exceptional few cases. We must clean up major media companies from those copyvios and them turn to non-profit Wikimedia foundation. --Irpen 05:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be no buildings tagged with this template, it is specifically for 3D works of art. In the US sculptural works are covered by copyright. Buildings built since 1990 are also covered by copyright, but there is a specific exclusion for photographs of buildings—this is a concept known as 'freedom of panorama' (see Commons:Freedom of panorama). In some countries freedom of panorama extends to sculptures that are permanently sited in public places, but in the US it does not. Utility items such as cars are not considered copyrightable—they are often however covered by patents. Newspapers and other media that print images of copyrighted works do so under the 'fair use' clause of copyright law; and that is exactly what this tag is for—marking images of copyrighted sculptures that are being claimed as fair use. —JeremyA 12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the architectural masterpiece is not a work of art? The claim that all sculptures in newspapers fit the fairsue clause is rather bold. I can see that if the article is devoted to a sculpture, but no way in any other article. Nevertheless, there are plenty of statue photos in newspapers and on TV. --Irpen 23:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am saying that buildings should not be tagged with this template because there is usually no need to claim fair use for a photo of a building (see Commons:Freedom of panorama). The only situation of newspapers publishing a photo of a statue that I can think of that wouldn't be fair use is if it were part of an advert. However, whether or not other media break the law is to irrelevant Wikipedia—ever tried defending yourself from a speeding ticket with the excuse "other people do it"?


 * I'm not really sure what you are disputing here: In the US (where Wikipedia's servers are located), and most other countries, artists are entitled to protection of their work (including sculptures) under copyright laws. Photographs that include copyrighted material are considered derivative works. Only the copyright holder has the right to authorise the publication of such derivative works, therefore the publication in Wikipedia of photos of statues/sculptures that have not fallen into the public domain requires either permission from the copyright holder or a claim of fair use. This template exists to make it easier for editors to claim fair use. What of the above do you dispute? —JeremyA 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I dispute your claim of being a better copyright expert that the lawyers of the many giant media corporations who show/broadcast images that include 3-D art (statues or modern architectural masterpieces) in the context that rules out the fair use exemption. As such, they obviously see no problem with broadcasting or showing the images of the objects located in the public view. Therefore, I dispute this tag as overly restrictive as it implies only the limited usability of such images in Wikipedia. --Irpen 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of copyrighted material in news reporting is covered by fair use. Outside of news reporting the giant media corporations have giant legal teams who seek permission for all copyrighted material shown (they also sometimes get sued—in this case Warner got out of it but only with a good deal of legal wriggling). As you are not disputing the factual accuracy of this tag, but rather the moral validity of its application, I suggest that you either take it to WP:TFD or withdraw your dispute. —JeremyA 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I request you support your claims above. I am exactly disputing the factual accuracy of the tag. It represent the view of a certain amateur (no offence intented but pseudonemous Wikipedia editors cannot claim personal expertise even if that exists in real life) on the coyright law that contradicts the wide practice established in the real media world where the player, unlike WM Foundation, have really deap enough pockets to tempt copyright freaks to go after them. --Irpen 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking US copyright law, as the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the US:


 * From What Works Are Protected? —Note section 5 "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works".
 * From What is Copyright? -Note "Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:... To prepare derivative works based upon the work"

You can also read circular 14 on derivative works and fl102 on fair use


 * If you dispute any of the above I suggest that you take it up with the US government.


 * Returning the challenge: please cite at least one instance where you have certain knowledge that a major media corporation has used copyrighted material in a situation that does not qualify as fair use and has not obtained permission from the copyright holder. —JeremyA 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your reply does not seem serious. Links to the copyiright laws and especially an advice to take it to the gov if unhappy over the US copyright laws is extremely unhelpful. "Laws" are "primary sources" and you, or me, as editors who did not establish the credentials to interpete laws, lack the authority to make a judgement beyond a very trivial one. That you claim that Section X of law Y means that the images containing statues or architectural art located in the park or other public space where anyone can freely fotograph them can only be published or uploaded online under their fair use clause is nothing but your own position. I can see how fairuse applies to the article or a program about the statue or a building containing the photo of the object it describes. I don't see how it applies in most other circumstances. But, again, this is my opinion formed in good faith but without any input of the professional expert in the copyright law.

Anyway, the claim that statues or architectural art may be displayed only under the fair use clause requires that for every statue or architecturally significant building ever appearing on a live-broadcast (in any of the thousands of TV and online media), appearing on the page of any of the millions of print or online magazines, newspapers or online publications by the media companies established enough to worry about being sued over the copyrights, the publishers take an effort to track the author of each object and pay royalty. Unless you can show that this is the case (and you really can't believe that this is the case, seriously) the limitation you are trying to impose on Wikipedia is just an unnecessary and unwarranted hassle for editors that cannot use their own pictures other than in the context that would allow the fairuse exemption. --Irpen 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't create this template nor have I ever promoted its use, so it is not me that is imposing rules on any one. I actually don't think that this template is perfect because it ignores the rights of the photographer to copyright protection—I am simply defending it because your arguments against it above (roads, cars, buildings) were incorrect. Second, you are placing a higher burden of proof on me than on yourself... please prove that giant media corporations routinely ignore copyright, as you claim above. If you cannot back up this claim, I see no grounds to your dispute. —JeremyA 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * for the most part a fairly solid fair use case could be made so publishers are unlikely to worry to much (and a lot of public sculpture is rather old). However if you want a seondary souce how about this?Geni 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think JeremyA has made a very good case, with very good references. Vpoko 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, U.S. copyright law does not allow photographs of statues to be published without permission of the statue's copyright-holder, except in cases of fair use. This has been sustained in court many times. People have been successfully sued for publishing photographs of sculptures that were not deemed "fair use". (This doesn't apply to buildings in the U.S., although it does in French law.) This tag serves a useful purpose in asserting fair use. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A counterexample of sorts, when the city of Chicago attempted to assert copyright ownership over a Picasso statue that they claimed he donated to the city government, it was ruled that due to certain actions the city had taken, it was really a public domain statue. See Image talk:Chicago picasso.jpg.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The case of the Chicago Picasso is somewhat unique, and unlikely to apply to any other sculptures. The Picasso sculpture was declared PD because the City of Chicago had failed to display the correct copyright notices. This was required at the time of this case (1970) but not any more because the law was changed. The full text of the Picasso ruling is on wikisource  —JeremyA 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I was pointing that out as a counterexample -- it took a court ruling to declare that a statue was NOT copyrighted.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind people both that copyright laws are often non-intuitive, and so arguments from "common sense conclusions" are likely to result in bad advice, and that copyright law varies a great deal from country to country and over time, as the example of the Chicago statue above demonstrates quite nicely. Derivative works are a difficult thing to get a handle on.  Asking for help if one is confused is going to be much more effective than attempting to draw one's own conclusions based on what one thinks should be true.  Jkelly 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. And while I find the copyrighting of public space morally disgusting (especially for works of art often created with public funds!), it remains fairly indisputable that art in public spaces is copyrighted and that photographs are derivative works under U.S. copyright law. --Fastfission 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

UK law question
What's the situation with uploading photos of British statues (etc) to Wikipedia? Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 explicitly says that both for buildings and "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public", the copyright is not infringed by (among other things) "making a photograph or film of it". (The text of the relevant section may be found here.) In other words, sculptures (and therefore statues) do not have the protection they do under US law. Loganberry (Talk) 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case I guess you can upload pictures under the license of your choice. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see Freedom of panorama for country specific laws on buildings and public 3D art. —Jeremy (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

derivative works
I have a feeling that the wikipedians here are over-interpreting the term "derivative works". IMHO, this term means derivative works of art. e.g. if I took a picture of a sculpture and include the image in a collage, then I would be violating the copyright because I have use another artist's work in my own artistic work. Or if I sell a poster with an image of the sculpture, then I am violating the copyright because I am selling somebody's artwork for my profit. However, if I include an image of a sculpture in a newspaper article about the art, then the article and the image are not works of art, they should never be called derivative works, and the image should be allowed under fair use. I know nothing about laws, but all the debates here against including image of art in wikipedia make absolutely no sense to me because the encycopedia is not viewed as an art gallery, so included images should not be treated as derivative works. Kowloonese 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

over 600 errors
Please add  tags to the protection template. Because the previous editor forgot this, there's over 600 files in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates now. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * {fixed}}. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see the category is already emtpy. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"whomever"
Please correct "whomever" back to "whoever." I would do it, but the template is locked. --Amble (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Amble (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits needed.
In light of statements by wikimedia general counsel about photographs of copyrighted costumes, and the exception for photos of architecture, this tag needs editing to explicitly say that these are not non-free. I have created a new version; I suggest it replace the current one. (PS: Upload has no guidance for such images either, and its source is quite complex..)

--Elvey (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the issues involved here, but a link to a deletion discussion on commons seems rather inadaquate and I wouldn't be comfortable about making that change. I suspect there is somewhere better to discuss this (Wikipedia talk:Copyrights?) Regards, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 27 June 2010
Hi.

I propose that the red copyright image in this template to be replaced with File:NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg, a new and better-looking version. Although, for the logo to look visually correct, its size must be increased to 64px.

To do so, simply replace this portion of the code: | image     =

With: | image     = Fleet Command (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC) No objections, so ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How to tag non-free photographs of ancient sculpture?
I cannot find an appropriate template for File:Arles_portrait_bust.jpg. The sculpture itself is obviously not copyrighted, but my understanding is that the photograph itself is, due to artistic choices in angle, lighting etc. So Template:Non-free 3D art and Template:Non-free 2D art both say things which are clearly inapplicable. – Smyth\talk 00:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the simplest solution would be to change this template from "representation of a copyrighted sculpture" to "representation of a sculpture". This would be consistent with Non-free 2D art, which makes no direct assertion about the copyright status of the original artwork. – Smyth\talk 19:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Denied, because the issues you raise really aren't relevant here. This template is only meant for use on images of sculptures and other 3D media that themselves are under full copyright, rather than on fully-copyrighted images of PD-old sculptures.  Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then I suppose I'll just have to create a new template, as soon as I can think of a good title for it. – Smyth\talk 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it, I realise I should just use a normal "fair use photograph" template. I was thinking that there should be some distinction for PD sculptures in order to encourage people to go to the museum and produce a free photo for us, but that applies equally well to fair use photos of public scenery, famous living people, etc.

(The image has since been deleted.) – Smyth\talk 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)