Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Tweaking notice

According to the GFDL, (particularly section 4F, which applies to imported GFDL articles) we should probably tweak the license notice on wikipedia:copyrights to something more like:

Copyright (c) YEAR NAME

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the text of all Wikipedia materials under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers.

I have marked the added text in bold. Note that the GFDL states "The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document." The other additions are sourced from the section "How to use this License for your documents".

I know this is extra text. However, we can compensate by removing the paragraph starting "To fulfill the above goals, ...". I'd also suggest moving the text "The goal of Wikipedia, ..." to after the formal copyright declaration.Martin 23:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The addition seems prudent. Probably better to keep the preamble there - it explains why we're doing this in a readily understandable form and that's very useful for newcomers. We should probably also narrow that to "all Wikipedia articles" (replaces materials. We're seeing growing concerns about user and user talk pages (but not article talk) being mirrored and since they aren't Wikipedia articles we don't actually need them to be under the GFDL, so long as text in them intended to go in articles is. Without this change,even though we do remove the content on request, so long as we don't need it for administrative reasons, others could attempt to use the GFDL to harass contributors by continuing to distribute it and that's contrary to our interest in keeping happy contributors who will make further contributions. Jamesday 21:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While we're at it, we should remove "the text of" since the entire work is released under the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 19:37, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, because it isn't. Even "the text of" is less accurate than I'd like. Jamesday 11:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo already did it. At least we agree "the text of" is inaccurate. What would be more accurate, in your opinion? Anthony DiPierro 16:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The arguments about what "the document" consists of have been pretty well aired already and it's probably good to preserve that rather than adding another layer of interpretation. Jamesday 22:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo changed it to "the document", which I think is from his reading of the GFDL, which only requires us to follow the form of the notice given in the appendix. Hmm.

I've gone and added the stuff I threatened to add earlier. I've not put in the copyright notice, because I'm not sure what exactly to write. Martin 16:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another internet image question

If I understand correctly, if I take a photograph of a magazine cover to include in a Wikipedia article about that magazine, that's fair use. What if I copy an image of the same magazine cover from the magazine's website for the same purpose? Exploding Boy 12:33, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Also fine. Jamesday 21:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence proposal updated

The proposal from Eloquence doesn't seem to have been well accepted, so I've largely restored the previous fair use and tagging text, but still kept the proposal around for anyone who wants to use it. Hopefully whatever content selection method we come up with for the print Wikipedia will make this all a moot question, by letting people who want or need GFDL-only content get that subset easily. Jamesday 22:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How old to be global public domain?

I've scanned lots of pre-1923 images from old books, magazines, etc for use in Wikipedia, which are public domain in the USA. Is there a "safe harbor" year or age for international public domain? -- Infrogmation 06:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Public domain and Online service provider law for some guidance. There is no universal world standard. Jamesday 06:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've looked at those, and realize that laws vary in different nations. When there's any doubt (meaning usually), I've been putting the "PD-US" (public domain in the USA) notice on images. I'm wondering how old something has to be before I can put the plain "PD" notice on the image page. If I scan it from a book from 1890? 1880? 1810? 1710? 1510? I'm sure there's SOME date before which it would be safe to assume that an image is public domain not just in the USA. Still wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 05:35, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some texts never become public domain such as the King James Bible (1611) in England--John Bracegirdle 18:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

To be universally public domain so far as I am aware (not counting perpetual copyright statutes), it would have to be published with an author who has been dead for more than 80 years (to take care of things like Columbian copyright law) and pre-1923. So, published works that would be out of copyright would be those published in years where all people alive in that year have been dead for at least 80 years. That means that people would have had to have been dead by 1923. If 1923 is taken as a year of death, and the world record for people living is considered that means that works from pre-1800 are certainly out of copyright if they were published at that time. With life+70, 1810 would be the equivalent date.

That is the most extreme form of matters. David Newton 16:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposed text to help flesh-out 'Users' rights and obligations' section

Please comment after this text (minor edits welcome, please discuss major edits beforehand):

Disclaimer: Wikipedia does not give legal advice

In order to be maximally free (see free content), Wikipedia contains no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, no Endorsements, no Acknowledgements, and no Dedications. Therefore, sections 4-G and 4-L, 4-M, and 4-N and any other section dealing with these items in the GNU FDL does not apply to the use of our content. This does not prevent you from exercising your right to add Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and/or Back-Cover Texts to versions of our pages that you copy and modify.

Definitions and trademarks

We consider each Wikipedia page (an article is also a page) to be defined as what the GNU FDL calls a Document.

We consider the page history of each Wikipedia page to be the section entitled "History" mentioned in the GNU FDL. We also consider the page history as our list of authors for each Wikipedia page/Document, See section 5 (COMBINING DOCUMENTS) and the text of the GNU FDL for caveats and details.

The publisher of Wikipedia articles is The Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia contains some content (such as low resolution images, screenshots, and short quotations) that are not licensed under terms of the GNU FDL and are instead used under the fair use/fair dealing doctrine of copyright law. The resulting Wikipedia content on Wikipedia.org pages are therefore aggregations as defined by section 7 (AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS) of the GNU FDL. Thus those items used under the fair use/fair dealing doctrine are not individually licensed under terms of the GNU FDL (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and the text of the GNU FDL for details).

The Wikimedia Foundation hereby exercise our option to release you of the requirement in section 4-A (MODIFICATIONS) that deals with providing distinct titles to Wikipedia pages that you copy and modify. You may therefore use exactly the same page names as the Wikipedia site uses (see the text of the GNU FDL for details).

You cannot, however, use the Wikipedia or Wikimedia trademarks in such a way as to cause readers to reasonably conclude that your version is an official publication of Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia. Simply stating where the page came from will not be considered a violation of our trademarks, however (in fact such statements are very much appreciated and encouraged).

Direct link-backs as compliance option

We also try to make compliance with the terms of the GNU FDL as easy as possible by giving you the option to provide direct link-backs (or their spelled-out text equivalent for printed copies) to Wikipedia.org pages you copy as an easy way to satisfy many, but not all, GNU FDL requirements (see below).

• We consider the computer-network location listing requirement mentioned in section 3 (COPYING IN QUANTITY) for verbatim copies that are printed or Opaque, to be satisfied if you provide a direct link-back (or its spelled-out text equivalent for printed copies) somewhere on each page you copy (see the text of the GNU FDL for details and other options - especially for modified copies).
• We consider the author requirement stated in section 4-B (MODIFICATIONS) satisfied if a direct link-back (or its spelled-out text equivalent for printed copies) to the Wikipedia page used is provided (each Wikipedia-hosted page has a page history that provides complete author information). Otherwise at least 5 principal authors (or all authors if less than 5 total for that Wikipedia page) will need to be listed (with links or spelled out equivalents to their Wikipedia user pages) somewhere easily accessible to your version of the Wikipedia page (see the text of the GNU FDL for details).
• We consider the preserve all the copyright notices requirement stated in section 4-B (MODIFICATIONS) to be satisfied if a link-back to a Wikipedia.org page (with a Copyrights link at the bottom of the Wikipedia.org page) is included. You will still need to mention and link/include a copy of the full text of the GNU FDL (see the text of the GNU FDL for details).
• We consider section 4-O (MODIFICATIONS) and the parts of sections 5 (COMBINING DOCUMENTS) and 8 (TRANSLATION) that deal with disclaimers to be satisfied if a link-back to a Wikipedia.org page (with a disclaimer link on the bottom of the Wikipedia.org page) is included. Otherwise a copy of our our disclaimers will need to be included in your copy (see the text of the GNU FDL for details).

The above considerations do not free you from complying with the other terms mentioned in the text of the GNU Free Documentation License.

---

I spent a few hours going over the GNU FDL and writing to come up with the above text. The text I wrote is aimed at codifying current practice and linking it to the GNU FDL in a way that I hope is both legal and in the spirit of the way we practice the concept of free content. I wrote this independent of even looking at the current section so some merging will have to take place. What does everybody think? --mav 10:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks pretty good mav, I've just made a few minor changes (reasonably assume to reasonably conclude, added the word principal between 5 and authors and added a paraenthetical reference to linking to user pages. I think this last change is necessary as many Wikipedian user names may be considered pseudonyms and the only way to verify that is to view the user page to see if the user's identity is disclosed there (if so then my opinion that the user name is not a pseudonym). This is significant for use under the GFDL because of the copyright term differences between pseudonoymous and anonymous users and those who disclose their identities. See: 17 U.S.C. §302(b). Otherwise good job mav, :) — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 16:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I will have to go through Martin's comments later - busy now. --mav

It's good that you've put in this work. I appreciate that trying to work out the best way of applying the GFDL to Wikipedia is rather like working out the best way of applying chromotography to Shakespeare's sonnets. Anyway, going through it:

• Stuff on invariant sections, etc - good. I added Endorsements, Acknowledgements, and Dedications.
• Who is "we"? Be specific.
• Article is Document - good. You need to decide if images represent seperate Documents, or whether text+images is all a single Document. I'd suggest the latter if it didn't conflict with Jimbo's interpretation of "aggregation".
• Aggregation with independant works is very dodgy with embedded images, but would be impossible to claim with respect to fair use textual quotes, IMO, as the GFDL text and the fair use quote are both edited and published as a single object. We make much less use of textual fair use, so this shouldn't be a problem.
• The "preserve all the copyright notices" section is currently satisfied by virtue of Wikipedia not including copyright notices (except for a few images). Rather than considering the link-back to satisfy this section, it would be better to add copyright notices to invariant sections as one more thing we don't require.

The "Page History" = GFDL History /& author attribution approach is, I believe, a mistake. The "page history" is not in the correct format for the GFDL, and is missing information that would be required under the GFDL if it were the history subunit. It also places unreasonable burdens on our redistributors, notwithstanding your creative interpretation of the degree to which a link-back is sufficient. Incidentally, while you write "each Wikipedia-hosted page has a page history that provides complete author information", this isn't true for articles that have been merged, imported from external sources, or old articles.

Instead, I suggest stating that most Wikipedia articles do not have History sections, and if they do, then there should be a history section in the article proper. Modifying sublicensees would thus have to "create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page": ie, ARTICLE_NAME, 2004, Wikipedia contributors, Wikimedia.

This works if we consider that the hundreds of edits to an article once it is placed on Wikipedia are equivalent to a single collaborative edit. It also works if we consider that Wikipedians grant Wikimedia an implicit license-to-license, rather than a direct license. The best way to resolve section 4B is to have wikipedia:Submission Standards include a waiver of that option (and consider it implicitly waived amongst past Wikipedians due to the nature of the medium).

The computer-network location clause being satisfied by a link-back was a little misleading - it only applies for printed or Opaque copies (and HTML is not Opaque unless obfuscated). I modified your proposal.

I believe your interpretation of the author requirement in 4B as being satisfied by a link-back is invalid. Section 4B requires attribution on the "Title Page", and a link from somewhere within the article is not attribution on the Title Page. Your interpretation of both 4B and 4H are somewhat flawed when considering people making modifications who need to add to the History, or the list of authors.

Disclaimers, under the GFDL, have to be placed directly under the "Permission is granted" statement. We should consider this satisfied if, under their "Permission is granted" statement, they include a link to wikipedia:general disclaimer.

If we want a link-back (and it seems that we do), the sensible approach is to use section 4J to do so, not to creatively reinterpret the GFDL provisions of History and authors. Martin 18:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quotations are not revised with the work. Rather, they must be completely unrevised to be quotations. Hence the reasoning for them being aggregated. There's nothing dodgy about images as aggregations - they have an entirely independent revision history.

I don't agree that an article is a single collaborative edit by everyone who edits the article in some way. That's contrary to the facts of how articles are created. I also don't think it's viable to successfully argue that individual contributors have knowingly entered into joint authorship agreements with an unknown number of unknown future contributors to an article. At a per-aticle level it's a little hard for a bot of someone seeking co-author immunity from infringement action to edit every article but it's doable unless we keep to the requirement that only those who have made contributions to an article which are sufficient to be creative have a copyright interest. For much of the rest, your comments illustrate how poor a fit the GFDL is for our objectives. Jamesday 06:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mav's proposed text has been up here for a while now, and I think it's ready to go live. Does anyone else have more comments on it? Enchanter 18:01, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, my previous objections stand. However, I see this hasn't stopped you editing the page. Martin 12:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Martin - my changes to the page were made after two months of discussion, in which different people with different views, including you, had plenty of time to discuss and change the suggested text. I also gave about a week's notice before making the change. The changes weren't, in the main, written by me; they repesented the views of several contributors, including you. I encourage you to participate in the discussion in a similar way. Please not make major changes to the article without discussion, as you did when you reverted it.

I do appreciate your opinions, which are well thought out, and I encourage you to write your own suggested text as to what the article should say. Enchanter 18:26, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "text+images is all a single Document...conflict[ing] with Jimbo's interpretation of 'aggregation'", I don't think that's necessarily the case. Jimbo claims that fair use is legitimate "even absent the clause 7 argument", as long as the entire document, including the fair use image, is released under the GFDL. Jimbo only believes the aggregation clause is necessary when dealing with "by permission" images, which he believes should not be included in Wikipedia anyway.

Regarding your statement that the history requirement is satisfied by including "ARTICLE_NAME, 2004, Wikipedia contributors, Wikimedia", I think that is on somewhat shaky legal ground, as the GFDL requires that you state the "authors". It seems to me that might require stating the full list of authors, not simply aggregating them under the title "Wikipedia contributors". I agree with your "single collaborative edit" interpretation. This is how the GFDL was meant to work (multiple authors contribute to a single new version of the document), but I believe every one of those authors is meant to be included in that history line. So you'd need "ARTICLE NAME: 2002-2004 by joe, bob, bill, jane, mav, martin, anthony, etc.; published by Wikimedia". One other problem which we should somehow clean up is that there are sections which are title "History" in some of the documents which contain the GFDL History, and in other documents which contain completely unrelated information.

The title page requirement is by far the hardest to resolve. In my own use of Wikipedia content I've found the only reasonable way to resolve it is to use clause 5's combining documents, though that section does not explicitly say that you can then combine title pages. The best way to handle this would be to have wikipedia include up to 5 authors on every "title page" (presumably right below the title). In the case of pages which include GFDL text which weren't contributed directly to Wikipedia this is most likely already a legal requirement.

I think these additions to this page are a great idea, but I agree with you that the current version is problematic.

anthony (see warning)

Compulsory summary and copyrights on images

I would like to see it compulsury for people to add a summary of copyright details on pictures they've uploaded as well, because on many of them you havn't a clue where they've come from. G-Man 19:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Just as you can't legislate morality, I doubt that forcing people to do what they don't want to do will help here. I agree with the comments on image copyrights... It's a pet peeve of mine. But software is not the way to go IMO. Rather we need to somehow motivate image contributors to provide the info. At present I suspect that many of the unattributed images are deliberately so, because the contributors know they are violating copyright but don't care and don't think Wikipedia should either. Andrewa 17:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, if there are other contributors anything like me, they upload the photo and then *maybe* they've at some time in the past seen a page somewhere that talks about what kind of copyright info you're supposed to put on the image page, but they don't remember where and it's a pain to find it. Or they simply went straight to the image upload and never saw the detailed info on what's expected on copyrights in the image description. Could the image page automatically be filled in with boilerplate, prompts, links to help dense and/or lazy people like me get the right info in place? Elf 20:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I expect it could, and if you think it would help then this should be raised as a software upgrade. Meantime, let me try to scare you.

These images are all temporary citizens. Long term and perhaps long before that, Wikipedia will have no choice but to delete them, because it will be impossible to source them. Exactly where the line will be drawn about verifiable provenance is a bit hard to say, but as King Lear said, "nothing will come of nothing". So, if you do have any provenance at all, and if the images are worth having, then please go back and add it before you forget it. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time by contributing them. Sorry if that's blunt. Andrewa 21:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll see about exploring requesting software updates. Actually it did scare me when the image/copyright discussion first came up (here? somewhere?) about 2 weeks ago with threats of pending removals and I went back & tracked down the instructions and edited the images. So, yeah, I scare good. :-) I'll try to come up with a suggestion for what could be done with the page to (a) provide the relevant info and (b) scare people realtime. ;-) Elf 23:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great stuff. Positive directions. Feel free to continue on my talk page if I can help.

And welcome to the image team! It can be an exciting place... sometimes exciting good, sometimes exciting ordinary... artistic types aren't always famous for their tact and graces. (;-> Andrewa 20:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While nothing fast should be done about it, ultimately, we should expect to replace every image which has no source information. Tht's the only way we can provide reusers with the information they need to decide whether it is safe for them to use something. Anything without source info is potentially deletable if you can't be reached or those handling possible copyvios can't confirm the source themselves. Even a grab from a web site with nothing else is better than no information at all - it's a start on trying to work out whether it's fair use or not. A Wikipedia-only, no reuse image is also superior to a no information image - at least we can KNOW the status of the image and be certain what to do about it - try to replace it - and reusers can seek a license of their own based on that source information.:) It's plain that we can't simply assume that an image with no source information is GFDL. Jamesday 06:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TV Guide covers

Is a TV Guide cover fair use, say, a cover of Oprah in the Oprah article, a Cookie Monster cover in the Cookie Monster article, that sort of thing? -- user:zanimum

No. They're copyrighted by TV Guide (now owned by Gemstar). None of them are old enough to be out of copyright. DavidWBrooks 14:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the question whether it is fair use is independent of that. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Use the "Can we realistically get a free image of this person / object / fictional thing" guideline. In cases of individuals, even celebrities, the answer is usually yes.

The matter is complicated by the fact that companies try to expand the concept of copyright beyond all expectations. For example, in Germany, the artist couple de:Christo und Jeanne-Claude temporarily wrapped the Reichstag in cloth. They successfully sued a postcard maker for copyright violations because he had taken and published his own photos of the Reichstag. They claimed that the art of the wrapping itself was copyrightable, and this was confirmed by Germany's highest court.

So if you took a picture of someone in a cookie monster costume, the copyright owner of the "cookie monster" might well sue you for violation on the same principle.

The truth is that the very idea of intellectual property is totally fucked up, and more and more people are starting to notice that.—Eloquence 15:21, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

That Oprah appears on a particular cover is newsworthy and significant (though Oprah might have been on so many that it no longer matters). That particular cover, in an article about Oprah, is not something which can be replaced by another image of Oprah without losing something. Jamesday 06:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, such uses are transformative and that makes fair use quite easy for us and likely reusers. The German example is interesting. I don't think that decision would happen in the US - it's a concept and so long as the wrapping wasn't a direct copy a concept isn't protectable. Jamesday 06:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personal Images Copyright

I'm a keen photographer and have posted some of my own images like on this page. At present I've put on the GFDL tag but I'm wondering what is most appropriate. I really only want to permit the photos use on Wikipedia. Any ideas?? Jgritz 13:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You can find a lot of explanation on Wikipedia:Copyrights. If I understand it correctly, if you upload images here under the GFDL, that means you still keep the copyright of that image, that means you can still do whatever you want with it. However you did not only allow Wikipedia to use it, but any other copy of Wikipedia which follows the GFDL. This may be a fork like wikinfo.org, it may be a website which uses wikipedia contents like those listed in Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. They only need to follow the GFDL, that means most of all list you as the author of the image. BTW: That image of the Tasmanian devil really rocks :-) How about making a photo album subpage like mine? andy 15:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the name of the copyright holder isn't Jgritz, that GFDL license grant doesn't apply because it's not the copyright holder uploading the image. It's quite easy to use a pseudonymous account and have that upload an image, with the real you as a copyright holder grantig limited rights. It's extremely undesirable for us to insist on this because we want organisations to be able to contribute under their own names without forcing them to use pseudonyms - it makes our life much easier when it comes to tracking compliance. Of course, we still want GFDL or more free contributions but it's really easy to avoid granting a GFDL license if you don't want to. If Jgritz is the name of the copyright holder, picking some random sequence of letters and using that for the upload will do the job. Jamesday 07:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What are your concerns with releasing the photos under the GFDL? Anthony DiPierro 16:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The idea of the GFDL is to allow/encourage people to freely copy GFDL'd material and freely diseminate it. What you are proposing is directly counter to the GFDL. You can post them here under a Do-not-copy license, but Jimbo's new image-acceptance policy says that we would prefer to use an alternate GFDL/public domain picture instead, and if one were available we would use it instead. . →Raul654 16:10, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Under the new acceptance policy, images contributed by the copyright holder must be released under the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 16:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is the operative phrase there by the copyright holder? That would help explain why GandhiServe's Mahatma photo is a no-no but Madame President of Ireland and Antonio Martin's aeroplanes are OK. –Hajor 05:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. anthony (see warning)

I have wondered about this too. Pics I draw in xpaint I gfdl cheerfully, pics I shoot I can accept to gfdl, but I have also felt that I'd like to put "permission to use in wikipedia context only" on some pics. I made a small experiment with my user pic (this one) by writing "Not gfdled" on it. Noone took notice though. I have an idea of "donating" submitted pics to wikipedia though; if a pic is donated to wikipedia, it doesn't have to be GFDLed for wikipedia to use it, right?

I will be understading if this-all is not possible, though. — Sverdrup 21:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Fair use" is for images which can not be obtained through any other methods. It is not for images submitted by the copyright holder for which the submitter merely doesn't want to license under the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 01:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I put the version on Wikipedia under GFDL, does this just cover the jpg, or the actual image as a visual concept- e.g. If I sell a copy of my high-res version of the Tasmanian Devil to a stock library, is the high-res version seen in a different light. Or am I prohibited to sell it in any form if it comes under the GDFL. You know what I mean??? BTW, the entry under Wikipedia:Copyrights for Original Works simply states "You Rock!". Not overly helpful... Jgritz 08:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Licensing the image to Wikipedia under GFDL will not impair your ability to license it to other groups under different terms. -- Cyrius 09:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yep you can still do what you like with the high-res image. I do the same. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're only licensing the specific version you upload, and any derivative works created from that version (because the GFDL lets people create derivative works). Your high resolution versions are safe. Jamesday 07:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"rank-and-file Wikipedians"

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police every article for possible copyright infringement [...]

That's just not true. It's the job of all Wikipedians to do whatever they can to make Wikipedia better. That's why wiki works: everybody takes responsibility for the quality of the content. --ESP 03:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That could do with some rewording, but I won't attempt it right now. I think it's really trying to discourage copyright paranoia. Jamesday 07:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Algorithms

I modified the algorithm on New moon so I could use it in a JavaScript program. Do I have to give Wikipedia credit for that? I thought that this encyclopedia was free as in free beer. --Anon

Probably not. That's a scientific formula that is presumably published in multiple sources. Only the inventor could theoretically copyright such a thing, and the inventor is either non-existent, random chance or God (none of which can hold intellectual property), depending on how you look at things. It is no more copyrightable than second law of thermodynamics. Tuf-Kat 21:45, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's not free as in free beer. It's free as in you have to follow the GFDL. However Wikipedia is a secondary source and doesn't own any algorithms or formulas. It's extremely unlikely there are any legal restrictions regarding the algorithm in question. However if the algorithm is a significant part of your program and your program is intended for academic or commercial use, you may want to cite the original authors (i.e. our literature section) in your credits section, so that people know you're doing things right. -- Tim Starling 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Status of Freedom of Information Act and other photos and materials

[Imported from Wikipedia:Village pump by IMSoP 00:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)]

What is the copyright status of material obtained under the Freedom of Information Act? I am thinking in particular of the photos and documents on TheSmokingGun.com can be used on Wikipedia. Thanks! Mark Richards 23:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, but have experience in intellectual property matters. I would say that Freedom of Information Acr has nothing to do with copyright status. If the photos were public domain before the request, they are still public domain. If they had valid copyright, then they are still. It's like if you buy a book with pictures, you can read the book, cut out the pictures and put them in a file, loan or sell the original book to someone else, but you can't legally copy any part of the book and especially not reproduce it for others, money or not.

OTOH, there is the question of fair use, which is not a bright line. See the wikipedia article, Fair use. Cecropia 23:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

These are basically mug-shots taken by police officers - are they public property? Mark Richards 00:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you know when the photos were taken? Cecropia 01:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the photos you're talking about. How do you know they were released under FOIA? Maybe it's obvious, but I don't see that on the page? Cecropia 02:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's a tough question because copyright law has changed a lot in recent years. Now, for example, anything you create (including what I'm writing right now except that I've released it under GFDL) is automatically copyrighted to the creator, notice or no notice, unless those rights have explicitly been assigned to a natural or corporate someone else. I don't know how this applies to mugshots. I assume that as government employees the policeman are operating under local law under which they lose the rights to photos taken in the line of duty by virtue of having accepted appointment as policemen. Note I said "assume". So now the photos have been released under FOIA (we think). I don't know under what terms the police departments gave up the photos. Did they explicitly give smoking gun the rights to publish them? Did they convey any property rights to smoking gun, like "you can use them, but can't convey them to anyone else, they have to come back to us"?

So we kind of come to fair use. Like I said, this is not a bright line. I'd say you have a good case for fair use as these are public figures, and if they are to be used to illustrate a scholarly work in which they supplment significant explanatory text and, of course, you're not making money from them. Note that not making money is not an excuse for infringement but it might bolster the "scholarly use."

So that's my non-legally-binding explanation. As you've said. "You're results may vary." Some IP attorney might come along and say I'm dead on or I'm way off, but I think it's a good outline. Cecropia 02:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! There is a comment on the home section of the site that says the images were obtained by filing FIA requests, but nothing else that confirms it for each image. One the basis of what's been said, I am not going to post any of them. Thanks, Mark Richards 04:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If they are federal police images, they are public domain. If they are state or local they probably aren't but fair use is very likely to be extremely easy for just about all reusers in our informational context, so using them is not going to be problematic. The web site isn't able to take infringement action - it would have to be the police department concerned. Since the images are often released in press releases and such the fair use situation is often going to be easier still. NPOV is often going to be more of a concern than copyright hwen it comes to mugshots. Jamesday 07:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the introduction

Pursuant to a related discussion on #wp (b/t sethIlys & imran), here is a suggestion for improving compliance of well-meaning parties with our copright reqs:

Move the following bits from the Example notice section up to the top, above the TOC and after the first introductory sentence:

Here is an example notice which complies with the GFDL, for an article that uses the Wikipedia article Foo. Note that it links directly to a copy of both the GFDL and the article:

This article is licensed under the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo">Wikipedia article "Foo"</a>.

("Foo" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on.

Then change the Example notice header to say "Copyright Notices and Citations" and include a couple lines referring back to the intro and mentioning alternate notice formats in general, also merging in some info about how to cite sections taken from WP articles. +sj+ 18:03, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

Almanac question

I got an Almanac here from Germany, 1980. The publishing house can't be found on the Internet; No idea what's happened to them. Anyway, my question:

The book consists mostly of tables and short descriptions/explanations of words. I don't think the content is reproducible in any other way, as the tables are usually made up of only few words. Can I quote stuff from there? One example would be Nobility, where I just expanded the list of nobility titles. Even if I wouldn't have used the book as reference, I doubt the table would have looked much different... so, what's the answer to this? The book is full of information that I could obtain otherwise (e.g. by compiling tables myself out of several other books or websites), so I don't really have an idea on what copyright says for this...

Oh, and it's only about text. I wouldn't dare to scan any image and put it on Wikipedia. :) -- Tomcat 11:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Under US law, lists of objective information are not subject to copyright. The matter was extensively considered in court some time ago, when the phone company tried to claim copyright on its telephone directories. Mkweise 17:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Feist v. Rural →Raul654 17:19, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

However, the case you cite is a little more complicated than that. It is generally acknowledged that objective history and lists of facts are not subject to copyright. The issue in that case ievolved, as many such cases do, on the question of what "art" (so to speak)--that is, what (if anything) did the phone company add to the information that was not simply a compilation of fact. We need to be aware that in that case, the party defending against the phone company used the phone company's book as a jumping off point for their own research. Publishers of lists, maps, and such often put in harmless but bogus information to catch copiers. The defendant here laboriously affirmed each name, address and telephone number as accurate before including them in its own book. The phone company unsuccessfully alleged that even using their book as source material was a violation of copyright. So I would be cautious about cribbing a published list unless I also was certain that it was either public domain material or fair use. Cecropia 17:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's minimal risk in such things when there are very few ways to express something and the ordering is obvious and commonly used. It's extremely likely to be public domain. Worth checking the facts, though, just in case you happen upon bogus information. Jamesday 07:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Copyright System and Cut'n'Paste

Umm, above Anthony says that copying and pasting an article rather than moving results in a copyright infringement. I know that there are different views -- but if we take his position serious, most translations from one language wikipedia to another would be as un-lawful as mergers of articles. We should clarify our interpretation that this doesn't violate GNU FDL somewhere quite visible. -- till we *) 01:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is our interpretation that this doesn't violated GNU FDL. If you make a translation from another language wikipedia you should be crediting the authors in some way. If someone is seen doing this, it should be fixed. One of the solutions, as was done in this case, is to copy the history onto the talk page. While technically perhaps in violation, that at least is compliant with the spirit of the GFDL. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Submission Standards#Section 4B. Angela. 02:23, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Section 4B? This is about 4I. Yes, wikipedia might also be in violation of section 4B, however there is also an argument that Wikipedians agree to release Wikipedia of that requirement. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the issue is about attributing authorship, so 4B is relevant. We don't have a history section, so 4I is irrelevant. There's nothing in wikipedia:copyrights which says the page history is equivalent to a history section. Angela. 02:44, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

By not having a history section, Wikipedia is in technical violation of the GFDL. At least with the page history Wikipedia is in compliance with the spirit of section 4I, if not the letter of it (the only minor problems are that the section isn't entitled "History", but is entitled "Page History", and that the publisher is not listed, and the fact that the publisher is not listed is problably moot anyway because Wikipedia is the publisher, and they're not going to sue themselves). 4B is about attributing authorship, but Wikipedia is already in violation in letter and in spirit with it, so that's not relevant. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just for your information - this is hardly a new question, but it seems that some on English wikipedia say making clear where the text is from in summary comment area is enough.

There has been discussion on virtually the same question at Japanese Wikipedia over these three months. We may come to a concensus on one particular interpretation of GFDL so that there is enough clarity about what is okay and what is not.

Currently, it seems to me that we are going to say simple cut-n-pasting from one page to another is in violation. Some more details are in meta:User:Tomos/Legal discussion on Japanese Wikipedia#GFDL and Wikipedia in general.

If there is going to be any similar solution, I hope you can announce it at wikilegal-l so that we (en. and ja.) do not end up with having two incompatible interpretations.

We are also talking about the possibility to introduce within-site public domain license so that every edits after the introduction could become dual licensed and they can be archived, copied, translated, integrated, etc. without worrying strict compliance in GFDL. The gist of license is that the contributors allow any modification or reproduction of their contributions within wikipedia of any languages and possibly to other projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation.

Another solution is to introduce a new function by which a user can copy an entire page (text + history). See, meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion#Copy this page.

Tomos 03:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For that reason and others, the Wikipedia itself doesn't actually want a GFDL license grant. It wants its own license grant which incorporates extra terms and permission and a requirement that it must relicense under the GFDL to any one else who wants it. That would eliminate most of the troublesome interpretation questions. Jamesday 07:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Music and Copyrights

I notice that Wikipedia contains many articles on bands and albums giving all the appropriate information. Is it copyright infringement to copy band album names, track listings and times, and record label information to Wiki articles? Are there any references online that address this issue? I assume there is no infringement since so many such articles already exist, but I was curious why this is legal. Thanks. -- Jrdioko 03:57, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

In an article about the work, fair use is not a hard argument to make. It's really hard to refer to a work without giving its titles and that applies to all of the individual tracks being considered. Jamesday 07:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image Authorization

How can you get the right to use these images Boeing X-43 on Wikipedia in such a short notice? I am new at Wikipedia and would like to know how you get in touch with the owners, in this case NASA, and get their authorization so fast. Am I totally lost or what, please help me?

As I understand it, images on USA government sites (TLD .gov as in nasa.gov) are free for use. A note of course should be given where it is from on the image page. — Jor (Talk) 16:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One should be careful though; all images which credit only NASA are PD. NASA may however include pics from individual astronomers/space agencies in their articles, and they are not free, just like our 'fair use' images are not GFDL — Sverdrup 19:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The products of US federal government employees produced in the course of their work is in the public domain. Federal sites are generally pretty good at indicating when this does not apply, as is done for things like NASA/ESA projects, where an image credit is requested. That's compatible with the GFDL license authorship requirements, so it's not problematic to accept that request. US state government works are not included in this. In other cases, fair use can be used to respond quickly and news-type items are a well-accepted fair use situation. That can be followed with a GFDL permission request as time allows. Jamesday 05:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you do find that permission is needed, check out Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. -- Wapcaplet 23:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lists and photos

I got two concerns, number one a couple of lists have been rounding my mind: Look at Women's boxing and see the small list of female boxers we have there. Should we change the name of List of boxers to List of male boxers, take out the list of female boxers in the article about women's boxing and make a List of female boxers?. There are about 100 more or less known women boxers, and we already have a precedent anyways, look at List of actors and List of actresses. On that same line I was also thinking about a list of teen-idols.

Second concern: I have obtained many, many copyright guarantees for photos t be used in airline articles. While most photographers have accepted our policy of not giving credit under the photo itself, a couple of them lately have expressed as a requisite that I do credit them under the photo. Can I do this? I know that many wikipedians dont like that, and that its basically a rule not to credit the photographer under the photo, But I was wondering if I could put a note under the photo, a note that would look integrated to the article.

Thanks and God bless!

Antonio Cannabilistic Martin

your opinion on the matter here (hehe!):

Some Wikipedians may not like it but moral rights outside the US makes that unimportant, since it may be a legal right the photographers have, independent of copyright status. In any case, it's polite to give credit. Please do, though in a reduced size font so it isn't unduly prominent. If there's any actual policy on this, please let me know. If there's not, we might as well create one and say that it's polite and should normally be done, though as a courtesy. Jamesday 07:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but - since Wikipedia is wholly located in the US (which, as I understand it, does not recognize moral rights) - what legal weight do those moral rights carry? →Raul654 07:31, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Non-US jurisdictions may choose to say that a work published in their language is intended for their people and may apply their law. Since the contributors in many languages are within those jurisdictions, it's also helpful to those contributors to make their life easy by accepting attribution requests. Say we print a German edition for distribution in Germany, or ship an English version for deliberate distribution in Germany. How would we be able to avoid following German law and moral rights requirements for that German publication? It helps contributors to stay nice and safe according to their local laws. Still, politeness is perhaps a greater reason for doing it, though we don't actually want to encourage Wikipedia contributors themselves to do this for their own contributions, just third parties. Jamesday 07:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Call me paranoid but - let's say we go the whole 9 yards, put it in our manual of style that photographs should be attributed, etc. When we (inevitably) forget to attribute one, and should wikipedia (or one of our contributors) be brought into court as a result, couldn't our desire to attribute photos be used as an implicit admission of culpability for infringement on their moral rights? →Raul654 08:03, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

We probably don't want to make it a requirement - many of our contributors don't requre it, some may not even want it for their own contributions. We just need to accept it and suggest how it should be done so that someone in a moral rights jurisdiction can follow the laws they are subject to. There are also good arguments in favor of the view that moral rights to attribution are morally good - they are certainly well accepted academically worldwide, including in the US. If someone objects, there's nothing to prevent them from trying to find an image with fewer requirements and then replacing the existing image with that more free version; remembering that with moral rights, that means an image from a non-moral rights jurisdiction, which in turn effectively requires a US image, since it's the only really significant jurisdiction without many moral rights. I don't think that this increases risk. We can't really dodge the vicarious liability in print anyway - print isn't covered by the really nice protection of the CDA and its online equivalents elsewhere. For print, we might end up setting a precedent for this type of work having the same protection. Might. It is what happened online in some US online decisions before the CDA was passed but it's currently unknowable whether it applies to the Wikipedia in print, even if it is likely to be part of any Wikipedia argument in court. Jamesday 01:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be a free encyclopedia, but 95% of the world's population can't legally copy it. That's starting to annoy me. -- Tim Starling 07:53, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Intellectual property law is nothing if not inconsistent.:) We don't even have versions of the GFDL which are vetted to be legally valid in most jurisdictions. We need filtering for things like selecting print articles and other subset editions and that also helps tremendously with IP issues, so if you'd like to try to think of some really neat tagging and filtering solutions so we can easily produce custom subsets on demand based on individual user profiles...:) Jamesday 01:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Antonio, you asked if a credit notice could go in with the caption. In my opinion this would be regrettable as WP policy because

- it looks ugly

- it distracts the readers attention away from the caption itself

- it makes the caption one line longer

- and I'm fairly sure the print encyclopedias do not have credit notices attached to their pics

I will upload the next set of your airliner pics real soon (do I have a list?), Best Wishes, Adrian.

Adrian Pingstone 08:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it is fine to credit a photographer if they wish, certainly it is much better than having no photo at all. Your first three points are about ugliness. I disagree - see e.g. Sperm Whale where the artist asked for a credit, and we give it in a subtle but effective way. At least some print encyclopedias give credits next to the photo itself - for instance the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals certainly does this. All of this does not conflict with the GDFL. Thus Antonio, if you think the article would look good, go for it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it looks ugly, when done in suitably subdued text, such as the small which I think has been agreed on for captions, perhaps modified to be of lower contrast for attributions. Such things are very well accepted, appearing in most print publications. Of course, we don't want them to be unduly prominent. Seeking permission to use without attribution is good, but it's not worth refusing to use an image because of it. IMO. When you're the one seeking the permissions, it's up to you whether you do want to choose not to accept them - you're the one doing the work and deciding what you're after. Jamesday 01:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Many print books list photo credits separately. The info page on the photo could be a place to put it, along with any other information about the image. Mark Richards 20:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Images

Just getting my facts straight; if an image was created before 1922, it's automatically public domain? --Alex S 20:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Usually, though not always. Copyright term extensions can keep some work under copyright indefinitely. See public domain. -- Wapcaplet 21:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. - see also Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which says that works created in 1923 will enter the public domain in 2019 unless their copyright is renewed. -- Wapcaplet 21:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To answer the above user's question - yes, all works published before 1922 have lapsed into the public domain. However, derivatives of such works do get a new copyright. Determing what constitutes a derivative is a bit murky. →Raul654 21:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the upload form is a bit misleading in that respect. It asks "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." but this is not relevant when the image is in the public domain (say, it's a scan of a 19th century drawing or photograph), since there is no copyright holder (and the former holder is long dead now). David.Monniaux 22:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! --Alex S 16:52, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is still confusing to me. Suppose I want to add the other two panels of Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights to his article. The triptych is certainly public domain by now, but it would be more than a little inconvenient for me to go to Madrid, Spain to get a photo directly. I have a book published in 1994 with a photograph of the panels. Is the photograph a "derivative work" and therefore copyrighted? Or is the photo of a PD work itself PD? A. J. A. DeWitt 00:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blank Map tracings from copyrighted maps?

On March 27 I saw User:Brion mention tracing over a map on Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/copyright in the from village pump section, and would like to know whether it's acceptable to make Wikipedia:Blank maps for maps very difficult to find otherwise? For example I save a copyrighted image, trace by hand over the coastal and land borders and fill the land with solid white, and the sea solid blue. All other details and shading would be removed, and the map would not be particularly accurate. But, if this is Ok, would it then be in order to place a credit to the original map stating it was used as inspiration? -Wikibob | Talk 19:31, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly OK, and IIRC that way Morwen created all those country subdivision maps - however from the already copyright free CIA maps. But depending on which country you want to cover with your map, maybe I can help you as well. Is use the freeware PanMap as a simple GIS tool, and it has many vector data for PanMap, including coastlines, countries and country subdivision. However sadly the last one is a bit outdated (must be from around 1995). andy 20:35, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Obligatory IANAL) - I don't know, this seems kind of sketchy (no pun intended). In particular, it sounds to me like the maps you create by sketching copyrighted maps would be derivative works. →Raul654 20:38, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Territorial boundaries can't be copyrighted. - Woodrow 20:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's the Falkland Islands, specifically East Falkland from San Carlos down to Goose Green and then east to Port Stanley that I need. The CIA Factbook map is too small, and details are lost. I have access to an Ordnance Survey map and I used that and another detailed map to hand-draw a small portion. I'm hoping that changing the cropping and scale as well as accuracy I can avoid any derivative claim.-Wikibob | Talk 01:19, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Giving people copyright over derivative works is to prevent things like Lemony Snicket publishing the next Harry Potter book or any Harry Potter merchandise, like those Harry Potter journals. I'm sure no one will come after you for basing a map on theirs. Of course, before they can decide whether or not you're infringing on their copyright, they'll have to happen to find a map on Wikipedia that they'll have to realise looks remarkably like one they made once. - Woodrow 01:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the maps look alike? :D - Fennec 02:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you just need the coastline, then I will do one for you tonight, that's no big deal. And yes, all maps should look alike, that's why we have the WikiProject Maps, to have one standard palette used in our maps. andy 11:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You may think it unlikely that someone will spot it, but look at the trouble the designers of the euro notes got into when an unpaid cartographer/designer spotted their own imaginary set of islands appearing on the map of Europe on each note! Not that that seems likely from tracing an Ordnance Survey map, but a cautionary tale, nonetheless... - IMSoP 11:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have recently traced a map using macromedia (Palestine). I had the same questions (Is tracing maps allowed, should all maps look alike). My opinion would be that outlines of physical areas arent copyrightable. I also think there should be a standard format for maps. Bensaccount 02:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bird calls

Over at Wikibooks, I have started working on the wikibooks:Field Guide and I am curious if bird calls are copyrightable. Not by the bird, obviously, but by the person who recorded it. Guido

Copyright Deletion Procedure?

Okay so I've replaced a copyright offending page with the copyvio message and moved its pre copyvio version to its /temp . This Copyrights page says:

If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringment, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

Okay ... so it's been a week but I don't see any details on any of the copyright pages on what to do now, apart from a passing mention of sysops. Also what is this "voting" page?

Zuytdorp Survivor 23:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason it was not dealt with within seven days is simply because there are not enough admins interested in deleting the pages listed at wikipedia:copyright problems. Please see Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity for the rest of my reply. Angela. 18:58, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

+hu

please add [[hu:Wikipédia:Copyright]]. --grin ✎ 07:33, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Done. Angela.

Fixed reference mirror

Copyright query: The way that WIkiPedia has evolved is remarkable and already something which should be an object of study. For example I would love to know in terms of the links created and pages filled whether the whole process is actually convergent or divergent. However it is quite difficult to construct back from change logs because of all the trolling etc. Does anyone keep a (say) month end complete copy each month of what WikiPedia says, so you can see big development patterns? Is it open access? If not could I take a month end copy and put it up somewhere (probably without the photos)? People spend so much time trying to recontruct the creation of other major works I am worried this one is just being thrown away. BozMo

Well, no one seems to have done so, and no one has said we should not so we have put up a locked May copy of the Simple WikiPedia and a April 2004 copy of the full en version. (i.e. without botting the site and slowing it up) up at WikiPedia. Intend to keeping putting up copies every month or so for anyone boring enough (like me) to want to have a look at how things change without messing around with folders--(talk)BozMo 19:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this doesn't sound too critical, but here are a few points I noticed after looking at the site: The link you have on your talk page to [1] doesn't work. I get a 404 error. The link from the search results page to "About Wikipedia" leads to [2] which is a dead link. Your link in "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" would be better pointing to a local copy of the text of the GFDL rather than a copy of the article about the GFDL. I noticed you've listed this on Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (high degree of compliance). I'm not convinced it is highly compliant. The pages don't even mention the word Wikipedia, and although you have a link to the edit page, it is not clear that the link takes you to Wikipedia. You also have none of the history pages the GFDL requires, or any mention of previous authors. If there is a local copy of the GFDL there, it isn't easily accessible. Angela. 21:00, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for the feedback. Getting these things to run isn't as easy as I thought. The first few of these I hope now are fixed (the links should all work), there is mention of WikiPedia on every page, plus a link to a page explaining this is just a copy of wikipedia. There is now a link directly to the GFDL etc. The history pages is an interesting point: I am working on getting the meta pages up (WikiPedia etc.) but hitting a few display bugs. My reading of the GFDL was that attributing everything to WikiPedia which lists the history pages was adequate: are your sure not? Anyway I'll add it to disputed compliance with a note that I will try to fix anything which looks like a proper complaint. --(talk)BozMo 08:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Angela, I am trying to find the link to "about WikiPedia" which leads to your deadlink above. Has it gone now (I was working on fixing other stuff and may have cured it) or is it still somewhere? ----(talk)BozMo 10:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

To update we now have five copies En WP 24/4/04

Simple WP 1/5/04En WP 24/7/04Simple WP 24/7/04 French WP 27/7/04 I hope the copyright issues are the same for the French copy?

Please could some determine whether there are other changes we need to do to be considered very compliant: have done everything obvious to us --BozMo|talk 22:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures of people

I do not know what the law about this in the US, but here in The Netherlands (and therefore probably in other EU countries as well), placing a picture of a person on a website (for other reasons than "news") not only requires permission of the copyright holder - it also requires consent of the person(s) on the image. What's the law about this in the US? What's Wikipedia's current practise? Abigail 09:49, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

In France it also requires consent of the person on the image, but if the picture doen't cause prejudice (for instance the person is naked, or kissing someone else than his/her wife/husband....) it's OK as nobody can sue a person when there is no prejudice. It's different if you make a commercial use of the photo as the person can argue that you make money with his work (modelling for your photo). Ericd 11:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The US laws are generally called "right to privacy" and "right to publicity". They're complicated, but are similar to your description of Netherlands law. anthony (see warning) 01:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights in other countries

I've noticed in my travels on the web that some countries do not seem to respect copyright (I can't recall which offhand) and, consequently, "legally" pirate movies there. Does the US respect the copyrights of those nations, and furthermore, does Wikipedia? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:38, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know wikipedia respects the copyright of everyone, no matter what country they happen to live in.theresa knott 10:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some countries have not signed up to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, or the TRIPS Agreement (eg Cuba), and thus their copyrights are not internationally recognised. Assuming that when such countries sign up to such provisions, existing uses will be grandfathered, there would seem to be no problem with Wikipedia ignoring such copyrights. Martin 15:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Works first published in a foreign country are subject to protection under United States copyright law if, "on the date of first publication", that country is "a country or intergovernmental organization other than the United States that is a party to" "(1) the Universal Copyright Convention; (2) the Geneva Phonograms Convention; (3) the Berne Convention; (4) the WTO Agreement; (5) the WIPO Copyright Treaty; (6) the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; [or] (7) any other copyright treaty to which the United States is a party." [3] [4]

The "Users' rights and obligations" section

In the document currently says

The latter two obligations can be fulfilled in part by providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article hosted on this website. You also need to provide access to a transparent copy of the new text.

To me these two sentences contradict each other. The "latter two obligations" are authorship and transparent copy. So the first sentence is saying that by linking you are fulfilling the transparent copy requirement, then the second sentence says you have to provide access to a transparent copy.

Is it really sufficient for users of the data to meet the requirements of the GFDL simply by linking back? I do note the earlier in the disclaimer says that the document is only a interpretation of the GFDL. But what happens if for some reason wikipedia.org ceases to exist for some reason, now all the sites that link to wikipedia articles, as an easy way of meeting the GFDL, are in breach of the GFDL. Or simply the case where an article is deleted on Wikipedia but is not on a third party site. Personally I think people who republish GFDL documents should meet the requirements of the GFDL without depending on Wikipedia and should be encouraged to do so.

Maybe have a notice such as

Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship information and a transparent copy of articles. You are encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent copy with your derived works.

--Popsracer 13:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and as there were no objections to this over the last two weeks, I've added it. Angela. 03:38, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Can someone (i.e. a sysop) add [[nl:Wikipedia:Auteursrechten]] to the interwikilinks? Guaka 20:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela. 22:16, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio clarification

When a site doesn't state copyright status explicitly, do we assume it's public domain, or do we assume it's copyrighted. Most of the articles created by this user [5] seem to be 90-100 percent copies from a couple web sites [www.healing-arts.org/tir/frank.htm][www.tir.org/metapsy/issues.htm] but neither seems to have any statement RE copyright status, so I don't know if they are a problem. (This posting is mostly for my education, and just happens to use these article I just found as examples.) Niteowlneils 21:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Unless the author explicitly state otherwise, any work like that is copyrighted, and not eligiblge for inclusion "off the bat" - we'd have to speak to the webpage author. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Read what Pete says carefully: It's not a matter of our assuming it is under copyright. In the US, it is under copyright in the absence of a specific act making it PD. --Jerzy(t) 14:40, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

Just to amplify this--this is true not only for the U.S. but for all countries that have directly or indirectly acceded to the Berne Convention (which for all practical purposes is most countries of the world). In general, you should assume that a work is copyrighted unless it is from a public domain source (such as the U.S. federal government) or the author has expressly transferred copyright to the public domain (or made it available under GFDL). older≠wiser 15:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Page histories

When you modify a document under the GFDL, you have to keep a record of modifications of the document, the "History". Section 4I of the GFDL states:

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

On Wikipedia, the "Page history" fulfils this requirement. The "page history" thus forms part of the document; if you want to use a copy of the wikipedia article you must copy the page history too. That's a pain, and we've generally stated that we regard the condition satisfied if you link back to the article.

At least, that's always been my understanding of things. It has also been the understanding of a lot of other people; for example, there was concern in the early days of Wikipedia that the full page histories weren't stored indefinitely by the software, which breached the GFDL.

However, this understanding is not reflected in the article, which doesn't mention it; and some of the people in the above discussion seem to think that the page history does not reflect the history section in the GFDL. I think this is incorrect. As the wording makes clear, the history section is not optional, it is required, and it needs to be updated every time the article is modified.

I propose that we put into the article this wording which was proposed by Maveric above, which I think is fine:

We consider the page history of each Wikipedia page to be the section entitled "History" mentioned in the GNU FDL. We also consider the page history as our list of authors for each Wikipedia page/Document

I do think we need this issue to be cleared up; any comments welcome. Enchanter 20:25, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

The page history section does not contain all the information necessary in a history section, and it is also not part of the document. It's also not entitled History, but that is a much more minor point. anthony (see warning)

Question about English terms

I'm trying to translate some of the juridical texts found on Wikipedia. First of all, the Swedish Copyrights laws covers modification in greater extent than the GFDL, especially things that include humiliation of Arts (=photos, arts, musics, software) and just modification in general. Does GFDL cover humiliation? E.g., and this is not Swedish, can we put the image of the newly married Danish prince and his Australian girlfriend since this picture is free but it is forbidden to degrade or humiliate it?

In general, this isn't a problem. If you release a picture under the GFDL, and someone else defaces it so that it violates Swedish law, it won't be you who has broken the law; instead it will be the person who defaces it. Enchanter

Can you take the picture of United Kingdom flag, modify it with some degrading scetch, and then claim this was a lawful action due to GFDL?

No, you can't - the GFDL doesn't give you a license to break any other laws.Enchanter

// Rogper 14:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what law you are referring to though. As far as I know, unlike the US flag which is protected the UK flag has no protection against misuse in law. Do you know of any such law? Many schools don't even allow the union jack to be flown (too nationalistic) unlike some more nationalist countries where their flag is saluted in school--BozMoBozMo 09:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Invariant Sections, front cover texts, back cover texts

Can someone describe to me what Invariant Sections means. Is it a law term? // Rogper 14:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC) Can someone describe to me what Front-Cover Text means. Is it a law term? // Rogper 14:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC) Can someone describe to me what Back-Cover Text means. Is it a law term? // Rogper 14:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

All of these terms are not legal terms - they are terms defined by the GNU Free Documentation license (see Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License). The GFDL generally allows someone else to take a document released under the GFDL and modify it. However, when you release a document under the GFDL, you can designate certain sections - "Invariant sections", "Front cover texts" and "Back cover texts", that must not be modified and must be preserved in derived versions.

Wikipedia does not have any invariant sections, front cover texts or back cover texts, as the copyright notice says. Enchanter

I don't understand it yet. :-) What are "Invariant Sections", "Front-cover texts" and "Back-cover texts" in non-GFDL contexts? Is it a space of written texts that states what and who have the copyright?

Is the content licenced under GFDL characterised with its absence of "Invariant Sections", "Front-cover texts" and "Back-cover texts"?

I have litterature, copyrighted under John Wileay& sons, and I can only find the "Front-cover text" at the second page. I can't find either the "Back-cover text", nor the "Invariant Sections".

// Rogper 19:35, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

"Invariant sections", "Front cover texts" and "Back cover texts" don't have any meaning in non-GFDL contexts. They are terms defined by the GFDL, so you would generally only find them in a document licensed under the GFDL. Enchanter 22:08, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Copyleft

Question: Copyleft means that the Copyright is inherited and lasting without limitation in time (?). Therefore, is a Copyleft material both Copyrighted and "Copylasting"?

Is it due to the near relationship between -right to -left that "left" is used, when a more properly term would be -lasting? // Rogper 16:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyleft does not ensure anything about the duration of copyright. It does use the full duration provided by law, unlike, say, the Founders Copyright of the Creative Commons project, which is for 14 years renewable to another 14. Legally, think of copyleft as a copyrighted work with a restrictive license prohibits you from publishing a derivative work outside you own organisation unless you release that work under the same license. Some copyleft licenses may also restrict use within the organisation. Jamesday 05:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clyde Cowan

Image:Clyde Cowan.jpg is available by lanl.gov under a BSD-style license - that is, anyone can copy it but it must retain the source info. Is this ok for use in wikipedia? →Raul654 22:53, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

There are two BSD licenses. The more recent one, almost certainly the one in use, is compatible with the GPL. I assume that anything compatible with the GPL is also going to be compatible with the less restrictive GFDL. Jamesday 04:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may be right, but that assumption is not safe. It may contain restrictions that are compatable with the GPL but not with the less restrictive GFDL. It all hangs on the difference between "the preferred form ... for making modifications" (GPL) and "a machine-readable copy" (GFDL). PhilHibbs 20:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Crown copyright

I know this has been asked before, but - what is our policy for matierals that are crown copyrighted? In particular, I'm thinking of http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/t_images/dowding.jpg from http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/line1970-79.html . →Raul654 00:26, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

That image appears to date from WW2, the time from which he's most famous. As a result, it's probably in the public domain today (probably because I'm not certain that it is from WW2 - if it is, it's PD). Jamesday 11:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is it OK to copy stuff from ibiblio?

Is it OK to copy stuff from ibiblio [6]? Their disclamer seems to permit that: All software, documentation, research data, and other materials ("Materials") submitted for installation on the ibiblio.org Internet Server will be deemed in the public domain, except for any express restrictions included in such Materials by the submitting party. Can someone confirm that if there is no express restriction in the article, it can be copied verbatum? If it's covered in the faq, please give a pointer.

Is all of the material copyright clear and otherwise legal? Exceptions for "fair use" may apply [7]suggests that there will be some fair use material there but on the whole it seems that it's generally PD. Check with care and use is what I'd do myself. Jamesday 11:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair use of [[Image:Kinnie bottle 2001.jpg]]

I've downloaded a picture from the Kinnie company website and placed it in the Kinnie article, claiming it to be fair use (tagged the image page with {{fairuse}}). However, I'm confused what the appropriate policy is on Wikipedia regarding 'verified fair use' status. I get the impression that somewhere on Wikipedia fair use status of images is discussed, and images can be listed there. But where is that place? How do you get people to rule on its status? Abigail 13:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The verified fair use system was a proposal from early 2004 by someone largely opposed to the use of fair use works here and has been mostly ignored. The tags might still be encountered on one of the images which used the system. If you want a view on whether a use is fair or not, this page or the talk page of Wikipedia:Copyright problems are the most likely places to get a reliable answer. The verified fair use system didn't really solve anything - it's still necessary to filter images if you're outside the US and the tagging systems now widely used instead make that fairly straightforward. Jamesday 11:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oft used photograph

Would Margaret Bourke-White's often used photograph of B-36s for Life Magazine be considered fair use? Here's a copy I would like to use http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/mbw/images/b36_bourke_white.jpg Stargoat 16:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would depend on where and how you want to use it. If it was to accompany the article about her and was placed in teh context of being a famous image of hers which appeared on the cover of Time, that use appears likely to be fair. If it was used to illustrate an article about B-36s, that would be somewhat less likely to qualify. In either case, a link to Time and/or to the galler page where someone could purchase a limited edition print would assist with the fair use argument. Jamesday 12:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scan of old advertisement

I have a potential problem in that I want to scan an advertisement (image & text) from an eight-year old issue of BYTE magazine (BYTE folded two years later, in 1998, BTW) and include (parts of) the scan in a Wikipedia article about the product advertised. Would such a scan of an advertisement be un-copyrighted (there is absolutely no copyright notice in the ad) and/or fair use? --Wernher 02:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The company placing the ad would be the copyright holder (probably, might be the creator). Your application seems very likely to be fair use. This would apply to almost all such uses of old ads. Jamesday 11:24, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interlanguage maintenance

Please add ja:Wikipedia:Copyrights, thanks! 68.130.130.107 18:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i.e. ja:Wikipedia:著作権

And zh-cn:Wikipedia:版权信息

Please add catalan interlink: ca:Viquipèdia:Copyrights. Xevi.

ja, zh-cn and ca added. Angela. 20:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Redrawn Logos

Starfleet academy logo (redrawn)

I'm a little confused under what tag this image would fall into. It appeared on the "Star Trek" television series on multiple occasions, and the image itself isn't copyrighted to my knowledge. However, this version was re-drawn by another person, and I have her tentative permission to use it.

Help appreciated

--IKato 06:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've modified the image description to include Redrawn by Kristen Trigwell; used with permission. Kristen's work released into the public domain. Original work, which this appears to be a derivative work of, is probably copyright Paramount, making the net result a fair use image until Kristen obtains a license from paramount. Jamesday 11:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Suitable Licencing of my own images

I'm a sometime semi-professional music photographer. I do make money from commercial licencing of some of my old images to magazines, books etc., often through commercial picture agencies. I own the copyright to all my images and register them with the Library of Congress. I would like to donate some images to the Wikipedia. I believe that I'm happy with the GFDL for the images that I'll upload as they will be 72dpi, 400px tall images that are entirely unsuitable for publication, and the publication-quality images will not be covered by the license and remain only available from myself or my agents. Am I right in thinking this or am I putting myself at risk of losing control of the images?

I'm curious about the (slightly more restrictive) Creative Commons licenses that would guarantee me credit and possibly restrict commercial use? Are these acceptable to Wikipedia?

I'd appreciate thoughts. Palnu 19:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not really my cup of tea, but I've been able to dig up m:Guide to the CC dual-license. Note that this refers to dual-licensing, which means that the images will still be available under GFDL. Once upon a time it was possible to grant copyrights - "permission", if you will - exclusively to Wikipedia, but I gather, going over old discussions, this is no longer possible, and images thus uploaded are being phased out. -- Itai 03:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights and Public Domains

When writing articles about specific ships and information is used from the Naval Vessel Register is it necessary to obtain permission from the DoD prior to its use because in the disclaimers they say they make no guarantee that the information is on a public domain or is it acceptable to used the information without asking and leave a citation?--YanA 22:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NVR is just factual data in table form, not copyrightable even if the DoD were to try, which they won't. Use away. The disclaimer is presumably just a blanket CYA, in case websites have photos by news orgs or some such that are not PD. Stan 06:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg

You have likely seen Image:TrangBang.jpg, the Pulitzer Prize winning photo of young Kim Phuc running from napalm in the Vietnam War. It's been uploaded to Wikipedia, and we're having a discussion at Image_talk:TrangBang.jpg about whether it's fair use or not. I'd certainly appreciate some advice from someone more knowledgable on copyrights. -- ke4roh 02:59, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've replied over there. I'm not greatly concerned about the resolution used in that particular context. The image itself looks fine for inclusion in the Wikipedia, since we'd presumably like coverage of every Pulitzer winning photogrpaher and the work which won them the prize. Jamesday 12:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But even if having a scan of each photo doesn't diminish the value of the photo itself, doesn't it diminish the value of ISBN 1579122604 and ISBN 0393322823, both collections of prize winning photos? I recall that photography was prohibited at the 2003 exhibit related to the latter book. -- ke4roh 17:10, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Non-GFDL text in WP?

From the user's rights & responsibilities sexn: "Wikipedia does use some text under licenses that are compatible with the GFDL but may require additional terms that we do not require for original Wikipedia text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). When using these materials, you have to include those invariant sections verbatim."

What is going on here? Where does this occur, and how are such additional terms noted? +sj+ 22:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weird. I'd never noticed that before, yet it has been in since 18 June 2002. I've never noticed articles on Wikipedia that have Front or Back-Cover Texts etc. There may be examples of Invariant Sections somewhere, but I can't remember where. I'm not convinced that allowing this is a good idea, but I guess there must be a good reason for it since it's survived in the policy for over two years. Angela. 06:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Major piece missing

I think we need a common sense statement at the top: All Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. It is preferred that images obtained under a free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain). In cases where no such images are available, then fair use images are acceptable. This is pretty much the de-facto policy already. →Raul654 20:30, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. It is preferred that images be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable until they are. That should better encourage people to try to be as free as practical given the limitations of copyright law and our desire to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Original content because there's plenty of non-original text in the Wikipedia in the form of quotes used under fair use. Jamesday 04:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Enchanter modifications of 25 May, reverted by MyRedDice

I agree with MyRedDice's decision to revert this change on 29 June. It places the Wikipedia in the position of saying in one place that the GFDL is the governing document, then in that text offering an undertaking that the copyright holders will accept linkbacks, something the GFDL doesn't authorise the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation or any other of the copyright holder's licensees to do. Jamesday 04:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Linkback? →Raul654 04:54, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

What is the Copyright position of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ claims full copyright of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and yet many Wikipedia pages have originated from a straight copy of the original. Whats the position here? Lumos3 12:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The copyright has expired on the 1911 Britannica, so it's in the public domain, so anyone is allowed to make copies.

1911encyclopedia.org have gone to the effort of scanning in the encyclopedia and indexing it, etc. So, according to my understanding, they do have a certain amount of copyright in their site, to the extent that they have added web formatting etc to the articles. For example, they could probably stop someone putting up a direct 'mirror' copy of their site. However, that doesn't give them copyright in the original articles, which is what we use. Enchanter

"Ownership" of Images, etc.

Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explictly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf.

This is a common misconception, as is the misnomer "Intellectual Property". No one owns the images. They can be said to own "rights" to the images during the period of the copyright, but it is best to avoid the notion of property, as clarified way back when by Jefferson et.al. So I'd say:

Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Unless they are clearly licensed in a GFDL-compatible way, even images found on the Internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf.

Also, note a typo: fulfil => fulfill

--NealMcB 22:22, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)