Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 3

Okay, I wrote this on the wrong page (Village Pump). I'm learning quickly, finding new pages. There are lots of contributors here and on the Village Pump with very diverse opinions on photograph copyright but I don't see any person signing as the owner of Wikipedia --- for a reason. There has to be a very firm policy already set down by whoever owns this web site that protects them. No one would ever invest their money into something where they risk thousands of lawsuits, nor would their insurance company allow it without them following the letter of the law. If the owners of Wikipedia do not have a built-in protection against copyright violation, they would be open to thousands of lawsuits and subject to the risk of very costly litigation to defend it. Obviously, that kind of risk would not make investing in Wikipedia worthwhile and nobody would do so without insurance in sue-happy America. And, I doubt the owners would leave such an important decision in the hands of you or me or whoever happens to come along to use this site. The diversity of opinions reflected here is proof of how dangerous that would be. (note some opinions are quite strong even though they are not signed as a lawyer). The owner of Wikipedia has to have a protective policy in place already, otherwise they would spend 24 hours per day checking the legality of each photograph or they would not allow photographs at all. By the fact that they allow them, tells me they have programmed a protective system of requirements before a user can post a photograph. I am not a lawyer, and I seriously doubt you will ever see any lawyer take the enormous risk of volunteering their opinion here. Where do I find the legal facts instead of this collection of very diverse opinions? User:JoanB


 * "Where do I find the legal facts" - you go to a lawyer, and pay them money. Or you take a course in law at your nearest university or college.


 * I would take the approach that it is for the owner of wikipedia to worry about his legal risk, and for you to worry about your legal risk. Martin

Of course I would protect myself before I post any photograph. That's just common sense. I hardly think this website requires I pay a lawyer to give me an opinion before I use it. And, no lawyer would. That makes common sense. But I'm asking because you have this "Policy" page filled with people giving opinions that in all honesty I think might be rather confusing for new users like me. And, I just found on Booker T. Washington that a user, not the owner of Wikipedia, deleted someone's photograph. From what I can gather, it seems that this is totally incoherent and in fact a waste of time to even discuss it because, as I said, the owner would have a built-in protection system against abuse, honest mistakes and other situations. I will try to insert a photograph to see how the requirements work. User:JoanB

Did you took the photo yourself of is the photo at least 80 years old ? Ericd 16:40 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you ask? I just checked your page and you don't claim to be the owner of Wikipedia (And yes there must be an owner who pays the bills and is responsible for this web site) and you don't claim to be Wikipedia's lawyer. That is why I am questioning all this discussion about copyright by people who don't own this site and aren't the owners legal counsel. Is the Juliette Binoche picture a picture of you? If you are Ms. Binoche do you own the picture or is it the property of the company who took it? And, even someone who is not a lawyer like me knows that the age of the photograph has zero to do with copyright. It is the years from the date of death of the owner. As Martin said: I would take the approach that it is for the owner of wikipedia to worry about his legal risk, and for you to worry about your legal risk. But my whole reason for questioning is which users opinion should I use? Your 80 year idea? or Red Dice? or risk having my picture deleted by someome else who thinks different? I happen to agree with Red Dice. The owner protects themselves, I worry about me and you worry about yourself and no one else. Does this make sense? User:JoanB

"And, even someone who is not a lawyer like me knows that the age of the photograph has zero to do with copyright." Do you believe that J.S. Bach Grand-Son's Grand-Son's Grand-Son has earned anything on "The Art of Fugue".You're simply wrong, see http://www.superstock.com/about/copyright.aspx. Well 75 years is more accurate than 80.

Ericd 17:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * it's 75 years after the death of the copyright owner. The safest bet is to only use photographs you take yourself. Joan, there is no owner of Wikipedia's content -- that is exactly what the GFDL is about -- Tarquin 17:20 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

-
 *  << There are lots of contributors here and on the Village Pump with very diverse opinions on photograph copyright but I don't see any person signing as the owner of Wikipedia --- for a reason. >>


 * The owner of Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales, and he typically limits his commentary to Wikipedia's mailing list.


 *  << There has to be a very firm policy already set down by whoever owns this web site that protects them. >>


 *  Or, alternatively, the owner of Wikipedia has come to the conclusion that he has very little actual legal liability in re copyright violations by virtue of his passive role as the sponsor of Wikipedia. Of course, there are a billion other possibilities that are just as likely.


 *  << Obviously, that kind of risk would not make investing in Wikipedia worthwhile and nobody would do so without insurance in sue-happy America. >>


 * My limited interaction with Jimbo Wales leads me to believe that his motives in sponsoring Wikipedia are not financial in nature, and that he is not particularly concerned about legal liability by virtue of his passive role as Wikipedia's sponsor. Of course, I don't pretend to speak for Jimbo Wales, and I could be completely wrong about his motives and his concerns.


 *  << I am not a lawyer, and I seriously doubt you will ever see any lawyer take the enormous risk of volunteering their opinion here. >>


 * With an appropriate disclaimer, there is no particular risk that a lawyer takes by volunteering his or her opinion in this forum in re copyright issues, and some have actually done so. In the final analysis, however, such opinions are no better -- or worse -- than those presented by laypersons.  Moreover, the *LEGAL* opinions of lawyers who have been retained for the express purpose of providing legal opinions and legal advice (as opposed to *PERSONAL* opinions) are only as good as their malpractice insurance policies.


 * On this note, it appears to me that Wikipedia has obtained competent legal advice, and that Wikipedia contributors should not be concerned about Wikipedia's legal liability in re copyright violations. Moreover, good faith contributors need not worry about legal liability in re copyright violations.


 * Contrary to assertions made above, a temporary restraining order issued in conjuction with a suit for copyright violation could *NOT* shut down Wikipedia "in a matter of days." Due process concerns mandate that those who allege copyright violations must send a "cease and desist letter" to an alleged offender and/or their Web site service provider before filing suit.  Moreover, those who seek to file suit for copyright infringement must register their copyright in a timely manner (i.e., within three months of publication or *before* copyright infringement takes place).


 * << Where do I find the legal facts instead of this collection of very diverse opinions? >>


 * Visit a law library and ask one of the librarians where you would find a legal practice guide for copyright law and/or a self-help book on the topic.


 * Please note that nothing posted by me here should be construed as a legal opinion or as constituting legal advice. -- NetEsq 17:25 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * My head is spinning! Fixed 75 years after death? What about all the extensions granted Disney Studios and numerous other companies? But, the question remains is this: why can User:Ericd (an example only) post a photo of Juliette Binoche or (I just looked at the latest on the image list) User:TakuyaMurata post a picture by only saying "copyright free" or someone else who posted an album cover and many more like that. I personally might question the copyright here despite the claims made but that doesn&#8217;t seem appropriate for me to decide. Yet, a picture of Booker T. Washington was deleted by someone who said: (deleting picture of questionable copyright). Who is deciding things here? Instead of Juliette Binoche, if I post a picture of W. E. B. Du Bois will it be deleted?  Something doesn&#8217;t make sense here. Why go to all of the work to post and edit a picture if one lonely soul on Wikipedia can decide to delete it but not others. That is discrimination, isn&#8217;t it?  I&#8217;m even more certain this discussion is without merit and that Red Dice is right. Copyright is the owner of Wikipedia&#8217;s business, my busness, and no one else? I don&#8217;t believe the owner of Wikipedia&#8217;s intent was to have us dictate what picture could be posted or what couldn&#8217;t. What do you think? User:JoanB (This site is addictive!)


 * 75 years after death in many european countries more in the USA. Their are some case of tolerance about copyright. For example I can quote Wiston Churchill "To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day." without having to worry to much about copyright. Posting an album cover can be viewed as a quotation by some (I'm not sure I agree with them). Wikipedia deals with copyright issues is the same way it deals with wrong assertions in articles. Some false assertion can be corrected or cuted by someone and another not. A copyrighted photo can be spotted by someone and another not. That's not discrimination that anarchy.
 * Ericd 19:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

How does one spot a copyright photograph on Wikipedia? I think the one of Juliette Binoche on your page is a copyright violation. Given that someone deleted Booker T. Washington should I delete yours? I see on the Juliette Binoche "Page History" this written by you:
 * cur) (last) . . 01:36 Jan 26, 2003 . . Ericd (Removed photo - source unknown probably copyrighted)


 * I'n fact IMO any recent photograph of unknow source should be investigated or removed.

Ericd 20:11 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand how you delete one person's photograph because on a "probably copyrighted" reason, yet keep another? Please explain this so we newcomers know what to do? User:JoanB


 * In the US, it's 75 years after death for individual creators, and 75 years after creation for corporations. Project Gutenberg, who has to be ultra-paranoid about this kind of thing, uses 1923 as their standard cutoff date - anything before that is free (except for a few oddballs like Peter Pan), things after that are possibly copyright-free but have to be handled case-by-case, possibly involving tracking down the heirs of an author. Stan 19:42 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, Booker T. Washington died in 1915. Why was his photograph deleted? What about the Boston Red Sox logo. Its older than 1923, can I use it? JoanB

Do you know when the photographer died ? The photo came from the library of congress that makes clear restriction about Copyright restrictions. As the library of congress generally provide extensive copyright information, I (or someone else) may restore the photo after some investigation. As for now I have no time because I spend most of my time on Wikipedia to discuss about copyright issues. Ericd 20:01 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

But, Ericd, you haven't answered my question about your own actions. I think you should remove the Juliette Binoche photograph until this is cleared up. Also, how do you know Booker T. Washington's photograph was a Library of Congress photo? What if it was given to the Library by a family member under GFDL ? User:JoanB

From http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html: "[...] Works copyrighted before 1923 are now in the public domain [...]". LOC does have to be careful, as indeed this page explains in excruciating detail, because they have a great many collections of material still under copyright (it's a library after all :-) ). BTW, doesn't matter when the photographer died, or even if he/she is still alive; the copyright extensions only extended the expiration date, they did not reach back further in time to take PD things back into copyright.  So the Booker photo probably shouldn't have been deleted. Stan 20:15 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Be careful in how you read the above. &quot;Works copyrighted before 1923 are now in the public domain...&quot; is a very specific statement. A photograph taken BEFORE 1923, that wasn't copyrighted until AFTER 1923, could still be under protection. -º¡º


 * Copyright exists from the moment of creation. Theoretically each sentence in a book could have a different copyright date, although authors are usually content to use the date of the last sentence. :-) A photograph would be instantaneously copyrighted at the moment the picture is developed.  You can't pick an arbitrary later date, otherwise there would be no need for Disney to spend a great deal of money to get copyright terms extended - just claim that Steamboat Willie was really copyright 2003, earlier versions were just warmups. Stan 21:19 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of all this is, Joan. If you have reason to believe that the Binoche image is copyrighted, then you can remove it (you can't delete it since you're not a sysop, but you can take it out of any articles it is in). That is what everybody should do. I'm certain people are occasionally, often or always wrong -- that isn't the point. US laws apply to Wikipedia (because that's where Bomis and such is) and copyright holders must send a cease and desist order if Wikipedia is infringing. If that happens, the image can be deleted and we can all go about our lives. Our job is to avoid letting that happen by not uploading pictures we can't use, and bringing possible infringement to the attention of others so that the Wikipedia community can reach a consensus. US law is based of English common law, which means previous court ruling that establish precedent are relevant -- this leads to contradictory, vague and unpredictable situations. All we can do is be familiar with the appropriate legislation, follow it ourselves and, hopefully, reach a communal consensus on borderline cases. Tuf-Kat

http://lcweb.loc.gov is so slow that I can verify the copyright information. BTW I didn't ask to delede the photo I just asked to verify copyright information. Ericd 20:27 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

What does BTW mean? JoanB

By The Way....

Well IMO the Boston Red Sox logo could be viewed as a quotation but in France a web site appealing to boycot Danone was sued because in displayed the logo Danone to help people to identfy the brand. Law is sometime obscure that's why lawyers can make some money. Ericd 20:35 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Use of a logo is usually protected by trademark law instead of copyright law, which is a completely different matter. -º¡º

Two things for the Wikipedia Community: Ericd uploaded a photo "Image of fighting on O'Connell St during Irish civil war - permission given by owner of image" - I see where someone asked another person to provide complete details of the uploaded image. Should this photo not be deleted until the proof is provided so as not to risk damaging Wikipedia? Or do we accept Ericd's word but not others as happened in the Booker T. Washington case? JoanB


 * There are at least two possible questions the Juliette Binoche image, which is being asked here? Is the question whether the image is copyrighted, or is the question whether a copyrighted image is being used under fair use? -º¡º

I'm not qualified to answer that. Are you or perhaps someone else on Wikipedia? JoanB


 * You aren't qualified to state what the question is? I thought you were the one asking the question! -º¡º

Sorry if I confused you. I'm not qualified to decide whether any photo placed here on Wikipedia is copyrighted or not. But, because Ericd delete Juliette Binoche saying "Removed photo - source unknown probably copyrighted, and the Booker T. Washington wrongful deletion, and probably many others, then we have a dilema. We need proper guidance here. I want people to put up pictures but don't want to harm Wikipedia or insult a contributor by just deleting their photograph because I "think" its a copyright violation. Do you? 64.228.30.141

Give link to this picture ? I never uploaded this !

Ericd 20:47 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

But Ericd, that seems to me to be irrelevant. You deleted one image of Ms. Binoche and chose to place another on your personal page. JoanB

I didn't place it myself someone placed it. And about Image of fighting on O'Connell St during Irish civil war - permission given by owner of image here is the image everyone can verify who uploaded this image.

Ericd 21:00 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I keep apologizing, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying about the Irish civil war photo. You said you had permission. How do we at Wikipedia know that? 64.228.30.141 21:12 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Exactly, I too don't understand. JoanB

I don't say nor write because I did'nt upload : Here is some cut and paste : (del) (cur) 19:59 Apr 16, 2003. . Jtdirl (149715 bytes) (Image of fighting on O'Connell St during Irish civil war)

Sorry but I will go to sleep. Ericd 21:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Just one more thing do you realize how much time I spent dealing with one or two copyright issues ? I know there is at least 300 other issues about picture in Wikipedia, I'm not sure to be a volunteer. Ericd 21:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think in the meantime I won't post any photographs. JoanB


 * If permission had to be granted explicitly, then the image page should name the copyright owner and supply a quote, such as from a mail message, so that if the owner ever denies it, we have something on the record. Otherwise the image page should contain sufficient evidence for a skeptic to trace back to the source of the photo. For instance, with Navy pictures I include both the URL and a photo number, because the Navy is known to rearrange its URLs from time to time, but you can take the number to the National Archives in DC and find the original physical photo. More succinctly, "leave the trail of breadcrumbs". It's just not that hard. Stan 21:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

What if someone at Wikipedia doesn't trust or accept your "breadcrumbs?" What if we disagree as to whether or not the original source is copyrighted or not? And, what if I don't believe someone who says they scanned it from... or someone who claims "fair use" or "in the public domain". Providing absolute proof would be very cumberson and probably eliminate 99% of the huge image bank here. JoanB


 * What's "absolute proof"? Maybe I hijacked navy.mil and replaced it with secretly copyrighted pictures!! As usual, you just need to supply enough to convince other people that you're right; by looking at what they do, you can usually develop an idea of what will be supported. For instance, I personally am never convinced by "I have 10 college degrees, just take my word for it", but I tend to believe a government website that deals with the press, because they have to get their copyright stuff perfect or it gets made into a big scandal in the papers. Stan 22:05 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

- ''<< Fixed 75 years after death? What about all the extensions granted Disney Studios and numerous other companies? >>''

Copyright law has changed over time. As such, the law is not uniform, even within the jurisdiction of the United States. Once upon a time, copyrights lasted for a term of 14 years, renewable for an additional 14 years, so that a copyright holder could easily outlive his or her copyright claim. Over time, these terms were gradually increased; the 20 year extensions granted Disney, et al. in 1998 gave pre-1978 copyrights a life span of up to 95 years (assuming prior copyrights had been renewed) and made post-1977 copyrights equal to life plus 70 years for individuals and 95 years for corporations. In essence, there is now a 20 year span during which no copyrighted works will enter the public domain.

''<< I personally might question the copyright here despite the claims made but that doesn&#8217;t seem appropriate for me to decide. >>''

That all depends upon your priorities. I, for one, am fit to contribute material to Wikipedia in good faith and let others decide for themselves whether or not they wish to use it. However, if I were going to publish my own version of Wikipedia, I would probably engage in some due diligence to satisfy the provider of my errors and omissions insurance that none of the material I published would invite legal challenges.

'' << Why go to all of the work to post and edit a picture if one lonely soul on Wikipedia can decide to delete it but not others. >>''

Why, indeed. Contributing to Wikipedia is often a very frustrating experience, and it seems to be an attractive nuisance for busybodies and control freaks. My advice is to ignore such misfits and go about your business; in time, Wikipedia will either cast out such misfits or fork into a project where such misfits are not welcome. -- NetEsq 21:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Re your last remark. I'm new here and I surley hope that is not the case. Within minutes of being here I ran into the most vulgar of language on the Henry II (France) article then total confusion on uploading photographs. If there are control freaks here then not very many newcomers will stay for long. Putting in a lot of effort to create a good encyclopedia doesn't seem to come with much reward once you delete satisfaction. Thank you. JoanB


 * Well then, nobody's chained you to it, you're free to leave any time you feel it doesn't suit you. -- John Owens 21:59 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hey, JoanB! It appears that you have garnered the interest of one of the many members of the unofficial Wikipedia Welcoming Committee! Also known as the "Love it Or Leave it Committee." Please allow me to disocciate myself from the suggestion that you *should* abandon ship if and when you encounter vandals and control freaks. Vandals can and will be dealt with swiftly by the powers that be; control freaks have no power beyond that which one gives them by curiosity into their motives. -- NetEsq 22:12 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

John Owens? Do you suppose that is the intent and desire of the owner of this site? I cant imagine so. JoanB


 * So you're saying, you think enslavement to Wikipedia is his intent, then? -- John Owens


 * Heh, I heard there are 8,000 contributors, so it seems that there are plenty who are toughing it out. This is a lot easier than GNU, where you can work on a bit of code for weeks and have it demolished 15 minutes after putting it up for review. Stan 22:13 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally uploaded the contoversial Booker T. Washington image. Controversial why? Because someone thought it was grainy and someone else couldn't remember the 1922 rule-of-thumb (anything prior to 1922 is going to be PD in the United States) and/or chose to ignore that Washington died in 1915! Anyway, I've contributed a few things these past few months but not much recently. I'm not exactly falling over myself when it's been very vocally demonstrated that there's someone running around interested in making an example of people. I'll write elsewhere before I become an example again. -- Dave Farquhar 22:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Do you, John Owens, have a problem with my efforts to do what is appropriate and not violate copyright in the best interest of all at Wikipedia? JoanB


 * No, but if you have a problem with your contributions possibly being revised or undone ("doesn't seem to come with much reward once you delete satisfaction", if that means what I think it means), it would seem unwise to spend much time here, where you'll just get your blood pressure driven up. I might suggest you govern yourself accordingly. -- John Owens


 * It doesn't sound to me like Joan is saying anything like that. Rather, she seems to be expressing the very valid concern that control freaks might chase off valued contributors to Wikipedia, a concern which is tangential to her original inquiry about how to comply with the requirements of Wikipedia Image use policy. -- NetEsq 22:35 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)