m →Survey |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
== RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3? == |
== RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3? == |
||
Moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Is_stamp_non-free_content_use_explained_by_WP:NFCI_Guideline_.233.3F]] This is a policy/guideline issue and should be discussed there. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{rfc|hist|soc|rfcid=D64579D}} |
|||
Can stamp images be used “For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it.” as explained at [[WP:NFCI]] Guideline #3? For example, [[:File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg]], at [[History of Virginia on stamps]], search on caption “Virginia ratification 1788". [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Survey=== |
|||
*'''Support''' use of USPS stamp images using the USPS licensing template, with adjacent commentary describing the stamp, its postal use and a neutral critique showing the analytical relevance to the topic, --- which is unlike the prohibited description of the subject depicted on it. [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Given that their is zero critical commentary about the image beyond a basic description. Given your example this would open the door carte blanche usage despite the requirements set forth by [[WP:NFCC]]#1,3,8. We have already hashed this out and you are just forum shopping because you dislike the previous outcome. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 13:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*PS NFCI#3 refers to the usage of a stamp on the article about the stamp (similar case to book covers and album cover art.) Not the general topical articles. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your opposition comment indicates that you have not read the passage with both Arago and Wallenstein commentary. They refer to the Ratification Convention, they are not describing the colonial Capitol building pictured. You are blindly repeating specious argument from a previous discussion weeks ago. You are misreading NFCI#3. Keep your discussion in the Threaded discussion section. [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 13:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Dont move my comments. If you are referring to the text ''Capitol building featured on the stamp'' Thats not critical commentary its a description. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 14:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' 100% per [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]]. My worry about the folk at NFCR is that they run a cartel with attitude. Just about everything I wanted to do with contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary visual arts I can't, or at least am no longer prepared to essay given the hassle with the NFCR mission guardians, steam lords of the Wikimedia Foundation yeah right. Ultimately our only recourse is to vote with our feet. I'm not contributing any more, or at any rate as I did substantially at say ''[[Little Girl in a Blue Armchair]]'', until these folk have been sorted (good) and it's once more worth the trouble of my time contributing. |
|||
:There are US stamp issues I would like to write article starts for, the [http://uspsstamps.com/stamps/modern-art-america-1913%E2%80%931931 Modern Art in America 1913–1931 issue] or the [https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2010/pb22278/html/info_002.htm Abstract Expressionism issue] for example, but that's not going to happen until I can feel confident about uploading fair use images of each of these stamps, as expressly allowed by USPS for educational and cataloguing purposes, without having to go to court about it. [[User:Coat of Many Colours|Coat of Many Colours]] ([[User talk:Coat of Many Colours|talk]]) 18:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* In my view, the '''use of the content was appropriate'''. On the question of NFCI #3, in my view NFCI #3 is '''not conclusively determinative''' either way here; though on balance probably '''lends support to the keeping''' of the content (in my judgement). I will add a more detailed explanation of these conclusions in a moment. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 19:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Threaded discussion=== |
|||
A brief synopsis of non-free use of stamps in this case can be found at [[Talk:History of Virginia on stamps#Rationale for non-free content stamp use]], including discussion of the licensing tag information, [[WP:NFCC]] and [[WP:NFCI]]. [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Wrong venue, this RfC should be at [[WT:NFC]]. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 13:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, it says up top, "A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, '''non-free content''', and related questions." You said the other location was "shopping" before. Did you want to move the RfC elsewhere? how is that decided? [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 13:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I called it shopping when you opened the same discussion on multiple pages. When having an RfC about a policy/guideline it should be held on the talk page of that policy/guideline. As for moving it the simplest thing to do would be to have you just copy/paste it to [[WT:NFCC]] and remove it from here leaving a pointer and note that the discussion was moved. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 13:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::@ Werieth, you are disrupting the intent of the Survey section above by introducing discussion there, just as you demonstrate a failure to understand other WP policy and procedure. Discussion there should be moved to Threaded discussion, why would you object to my moving discussion to Threaded discussion? |
|||
::::By referring to the Capitol building pictured, you demonstrate you have not read the linked material on the Constitution Ratification Convention with Arago and Wallenstein citations, the analytical commentary regarding the significance of the commemorative stamp itself, not the item pictured. The Convention is not the Capitol. One discussion relates to the significance of the event commemorated as it relates to the topic History of Virginia on stamps, the other identification is a concrete object of bricks and mortar. |
|||
::::Guideline #3 says that non-free content stamps may be used as a matter of policy "for identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." -- without restrictions about what kind of articles use the images, --- such as topical philately articles including [[History of Virginia on stamps]]. That is the point of this RfC concerning Guideline #3, which so far you have failed to show you understand. We await others input. [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 14:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Adding a PS comment to a post isnt a disruption, nor does it violate any policy. It is a comment that goes with the initial post but was added after the fact, I could have modified my previous statement but I find that very annoying when others do it, and dont do it myself. Adding a PS enables me to tag on further information after the fact without being misleading, or having to modify timestamps and such. As for NFCI#3 just because a image may meet any one of those NFCI guides doesnt mean that it should be included. Its not a free ticket to use non-free media if it happens to meet the criteria. Reading citations doesnt provide critical commentary, critical commentary must exist in the article, not just the sources. Since you didnt read the copious amounts of text in the previous discussion which explained the facts to you by several editors Im not sure what else will help you understand it. This sounds like a case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] because you disagreed with the outcome. Ill give you a few more hours to move this RfC to the proper venue, if thats not done Ill close it as invalid. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 14:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You are working off of the discussion over [[Puerto Rico on stamps]] weeks ago which has since been amended, without reading [[History of Virginia on stamps]] today, a better written case using the information I learned from the last discussion. |
|||
::::::You misrepresent the additional sourced critique compared to earlier examples which you refuse to acknowledge exists -- the narrative is not only identification that the stamp exists picturing the Capitol building. You have made no legitimate objection to the article as written or its use of the stamp. As you fail to see the difference between another article weeks ago and this article today, we await input from others. [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
If this is the venue for a general discussion of WP:NFCI #3, the issue remains whether Werieth's characterization of it as meaning only one use for one-stamp article applies. |
|||
On the contrary, there may be multiple page uses of one image, there may be multiple fair-use images of different subjects on the same page. WP:NFCC #7, #3. The template used for USPS uploads notes that there may be multiple article(s), and specifies that the rationale for each must be addressed. [[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== Venue === |
|||
There has been some question as to whether this is the right venue. In my view this ''is'' a reasonable venue. What is under discussion here is not changing WP:NFC, but the correct application of WP:NFC in a particular case. That is an appropriate topic for a content discussion board, so there is no reason to shut this down. |
|||
Furthermore, it is not for Werieth, as a participant in the discussion with strongly held views, to shut it down. If done at all, that should be done by an uninvolved admin on petition from Werieth. It was also highly inappropriate to remove somebody else's comment on the question. I have therefore undone those edits. @Werieth: if you are unhappy about this, please take it to a neutral admin. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:33, 29 April 2014
Media copyright questions |
---|
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. |
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Uploading an image taken by a photographer who has since passed away
I'd like to upload a headshot for an article I'm going to write (after I post the article), but the photographer who took the headshot is deceased. He was a professional photographer who passed away last year. The person to whom he left the rights to his photos is willing to give permission for the headshot to become a part of the Creative Commons. Would it be sufficient to have the current rights holder send in a permission for the photo? If not, what would be the best way to go about uploading this photo? Thanks. --Bernie44 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- If the photographer has passed away, the rights were transferred. Whomever holds those rights (whether it be next of kin, their estate, or other) can release the image under a free license and send evidence of permission via an email to OTRS. It might also help to show evidence that the copyright transferred to that person if it is not an obvious next of kin or estate transfer. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding created image
Hello, I am new to wikipedia so trying to navigate my way is a little confusing. I have created my own diagram/image from a scientific article. How would i copyright this image?71.202.134.235 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you have merely cropped it from the article than the original copyright applies. However, if you have drawn it with your own creative contribution then you automatically own the copyright. If you want to have it on Wikipedia you then have to release your rights so that others can use it. You can use CC-BY-SA-3.0 if you want attribution, or CC-0 if you want to release all rights and do not require to be attributed. Attribution is some text of your choice. People can pick their name or their Wikipedia user. You will have to register to have a Wikipedia user name. You can also place a request at WP:IFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
unable to upload
Why am I unable to upload a pic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh123149 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well you are autoconfirmed and obviously not blocked. Do you get an error message, can you even see the Upload file link: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. You can also place a request at WP:IFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Tagging for OpenAccess Journal Articles?
Hi. I'd like help on how to tag this image which is published by a lab I work in in an open access section of Physical Biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemayfield (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I can't find anything that says that this image is public domain on the IOP site. Can you point us to an explicit release into PD? Nthep (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Open access info for that journal is [1] which says that they use CC-BY-3.0 iff the article is listed as Open Access for that journal. We'll need the basic citation for that article to affirm this is open access, you should add this into the file info page. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Phys Biol is a hybrid open access journal, i.e. authors can opt in to open access if they pay a publication fee. Otherwise the articles are non-free and can only be read by subcribers. And it seems that this particular article is not free to read and use as there is no explicit Creative Commons tag here and you have to pay for accessing the full text. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I needed to check (and to compare; [2] is an open-access article and clearly labeled as such along with the CC branding). So yes, definitely not free, the article absolutely need the markings to be assured. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article is definitely open-access as it is available in PMC. So, I guess, since my PI is the responsible author, it falls under the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemayfield (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- No it's not. PMC is a free-as-in-beer service allowing anyone to access the material for free, but the material remains under copyright. Per [3] "Almost all of it is protected by U.S. and/or foreign copyright laws, even though PMC provides free access to it." To be Open Access, the article had to be listed on iop.org with the Open Access tags AND with the CC license tags, which it did not. So the article remains under normal copyright. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article is definitely open-access as it is available in PMC. So, I guess, since my PI is the responsible author, it falls under the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemayfield (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I needed to check (and to compare; [2] is an open-access article and clearly labeled as such along with the CC branding). So yes, definitely not free, the article absolutely need the markings to be assured. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Phys Biol is a hybrid open access journal, i.e. authors can opt in to open access if they pay a publication fee. Otherwise the articles are non-free and can only be read by subcribers. And it seems that this particular article is not free to read and use as there is no explicit Creative Commons tag here and you have to pay for accessing the full text. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Open access info for that journal is [1] which says that they use CC-BY-3.0 iff the article is listed as Open Access for that journal. We'll need the basic citation for that article to affirm this is open access, you should add this into the file info page. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In reference to this archived unanswered question
- Can you give me an oppinion whether we can use these kinds of symbols or not?
- Should they be compiled into one single image to ensure compatibility with fair-use?
I'm not very familiar with US copyright and fair-use. I realize these fictional logos would be "illustration" or "visual identification" if only one image was used in the article, but in this list about 20 images to make sense. --Yamavu (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Normally we should not allow lists to have fair use images. For these though perhaps someone could paint their own similar symbols with a paintbrush. The symbols themselves look simle enough, but once you reproduce all the ragged edges and exact curve, copyright would apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded the file, File:Laura Marano.png to the article, Laura Marano which was freeuse from Flickr. It was deleted without any reason or notice. Why was it deleted? Please restore the image. Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- The photo on Flickr was licensed with a Non-commercial license. For Wikipedia's purposes, this is not considered a "Free" image (free as in speech) and would be treated as non-free. As further, we are not allowed to use non-free where free images could be mde - that being the case universally for a living actor - so the image was deleted. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Question about base flipping image
I would like to use this picture: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3380923/#!po=71.8750 from this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3380923/#__ffn_sectitle. Under copyright it says "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." Can I just upload the picture to Wiki Commons? If so, how do I determine what type of Creative Commons license it is: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, 2.5 or CC0 Waiver? Thanks! Magladem96 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- When you use someone else's picture you will have to use the license they provided, which can be seen precisely at http://www.plosone.org/static/license which links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ which is CC-BY-3.0. It can be loaded to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks! Magladem96 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Uploading a copyrighted image for Star of Caledonia
I would like to upload an image for Star of Caledonia but there are a lot out there, all concept art, and I don't know which one to upload and when I decide on one I don't know who to put down for the original artist. Do I just use the Gretna Landmark Trust or could I ask someone to upload an image for me? Example images are here and here. Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 11:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to use one of the example images given. They have been used widely in media which is why I believe they can be used as Fair Use. However, I do not know who the original author is so do I just put the credit as the Gretna Landmark Trust? Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Undetermined
I have a hard time finding the copyright status of this image here. It's from the website military-today.com. Khazar (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Al Khazar: According to the website, all contents are © ARG 2006 - 2014. Therefore this is not a free image and could not be used on Wikipedia unless they relicense the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Side note: ARG seems to be the initials of the website creator. It also looks like there are images from all over the internet and from very many sources hosted on that site. I'm not sure that we would easily be able to find the original copyright holder to the images. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- @TLSuda: It's also found here. Khazar (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that's two websites have watermarked the image but still no idea who the copyright holder is. Frankly I think you're going to have a problem establishing it as a copyright free or public domain image. Unless you can find an explicit release you have to assume it's copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- @TLSuda: It's also found here. Khazar (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Side note: ARG seems to be the initials of the website creator. It also looks like there are images from all over the internet and from very many sources hosted on that site. I'm not sure that we would easily be able to find the original copyright holder to the images. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
La Patilla logo
Hello! I was wondering if I could have assistance with La Patilla's logo. I already added the text logo since it isn't an artistic rendering and had help with another user on Commons. However, I want to add the watermelon part of the logo s well.
Here is the link to the logo on Wikipedia:
Here is the link from La Patilla's website:
Any help would be greatly appreciated!--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Copyright would apply to the one with the slice of water melon, but it could be used under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Graeme Bartlett, can you help me make the edits to do this?--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Is_stamp_non-free_content_use_explained_by_WP:NFCI_Guideline_.233.3F This is a policy/guideline issue and should be discussed there. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)