Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 July 2



Image:Windomjug.gif
Comments indicate image is taken from Alabama State house security video. User tagged it as the copyright holder releasing it into the public domain. KnightLago (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The user created the image as a screen cap from a security video tape from the Alabama State House. The only copyright issue is whether there is copyright in the original video from which it is a derivative work.  The tape was merely left on, to be recorded over if nothing happened, and presumably retrieved if someone got shot in the chamber.  As such, it lacks the requisite "creativity" to be afforded copyright protection for the only potential claimant, the State of Alabama. In the case deciding the copyright in the famous "Zapruder Film" of the Kennedy assassination, it was held that Zapruder had copyright because he was consciously aiming and operating the camera at the time, selecting the subject, content, framing and duration.  The court stated that for copyright to attach, "It undoubtedly requires originality to determine just when to take the photograph, so as to bring out the proper setting for both animate and inanimate objects, with the adjunctive features of light, shade, position, etc."  Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assoc., 293 F.Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).  Now, if a video artist set up a camera in Times Square to tape eight hours in the life of the Square, just to "capture the ambience" or whatever, for a calculated artistic effect, that would be a closer case.
 * The anonymous staffer who stuck a tape in the recorder, resulting in this image, lacked that "orginality" or "creative intent" to make it copyrightable. It is no more copyrightable than the security video of a convenience store.
 * There is a second issue, which Wiki policy doesn't handle well, which is the issue of indisputably waived copyright. If I have copyright in a book, picture, or whatever, and I knowingly allow its reproduction, I have abandoned my copyright.  That would be the case here, even if the original work were copyrighted.
 * The image was formerly posted in an article about the subject of the image. The article is currently in something of an edit war, with a handful of admins providing informal mediation. Some editors claim the image is NOPV as overly negative and should be excluded; others that the underlying video has independent historical/notablility significance and should be included.  It remains unclear what result will obtain.
 * Please let me know if you have any further questions. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is sufficient originality in this image for it to be considered copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jeff_Coopwood.jpg
Claims free use is permitted by owner and used four different tags with no evidence that said free use is actually permitted. Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bruce Power Duncan27022.jpg
 Stewart (talk)  19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uploader is claiming to by the copyright owner in the licensing section, however the text added infers the copyright is probably owned by Bruce Power. It is suggested that if the image is permissable, it should be tagged as a fair-use. There is no confirmation that licensing is correctly applied. --Stewart (talk)  20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bruce Power DuncanHawthorne.jpg
 Stewart (talk)  19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploader is new to wikipedia format and attempted to make changes, of which relied on a trial-and-error procedure resulting in the user's requirement to re-upload the image.


 * Uploader is claiming to by the copyright owner in the licensing section, however the text added infers the copyright is probably owned by Bruce Power. It is suggested that if the image is permissable, it should be tagged as a fair-use. There is no confirmation that licensing is correctly applied. Tags are also being removed without the fair use justification being added. --Stewart (talk)  19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:IMG 6255.jpg
Image whose primary subject is likely a copyrighted sketch of a dinosaur. No indication of owner of sketch or copyright status  MBisanz  talk 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Manyuennoodle news.jpg
Image is the front page of a newspaper, which holds the copyright to it, not the uploader, making it a fair use image. — Broken Sphere Msg me 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC).