WikiProject Fair use (Inactive) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
---|
User:Trevorbirchett
An edit to Dave Brown (meteorologist) which came across my watchlist a little while ago, followed by a little big of digging, brought to light an apparently lingering issue. Trevorbirchett has evidently uploaded a significant number of non-free images which fail NFC criteria, and continues to do so despite being warned about it by B over a year ago. As this user works almost exclusively on Tennessee-related articles, one would hope that he lives in Tennessee and therefore is in a position to take or otherwise locate free images, such as I do with the place where I live. Regardless, since he's already been warned and is not paying heed, I'm coming straight here rather than leave another note on his talk page. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- These appear to be obvious NFC violations. If the problem persists, I suggest WP:ANI. I'd assume a block or a topic ban are possible outcomes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not all of them are inappropriate (for example, one I saw is a artist rendering of a notable building that is under construction, which is reasonable if the construction's not due to be complete for a few years), but there are definitely some freely-replaceable images there. I also agree that if the editor has been cautioned a few times in the past, and has ignored that advise, that ANI is the appropriate target. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi RadioKAOS, Finnusertop, and Masem, I have not ignored any advice. I get all warnings and take them seriously. A vast majority of images I upload are taken by myself, as you mentioned, I live in Tennessee and try to contribute what I can locally. Any image I upload that isn't personally taken by me, I truly believe to be fair-use. I'm not out to intentionally use images I'm not supposed to. If this is an issue (which it apparently is), I have no trouble with ceasing to upload anything that wasn't taken directly by me, even if it may be considered fair use. This should solve the issue and I personally believe no further action needs to be taken. Trevorbirchett (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- A quick question to ask yourself is that if you are using an photograph that someone else has taken and very much likely from a public place, then a free alternative is nearly always possible, so fair-use/non-free would not be appropriate for that. Yes, someone like yourself may have to go and take that picture and upload it here or Commons as a freely licensed file which might take time and effort, but NFC requirements are based on this potential to happen, not if one already exists. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very well Masem, great point. Trevorbirchett (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- A quick question to ask yourself is that if you are using an photograph that someone else has taken and very much likely from a public place, then a free alternative is nearly always possible, so fair-use/non-free would not be appropriate for that. Yes, someone like yourself may have to go and take that picture and upload it here or Commons as a freely licensed file which might take time and effort, but NFC requirements are based on this potential to happen, not if one already exists. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi RadioKAOS, Finnusertop, and Masem, I have not ignored any advice. I get all warnings and take them seriously. A vast majority of images I upload are taken by myself, as you mentioned, I live in Tennessee and try to contribute what I can locally. Any image I upload that isn't personally taken by me, I truly believe to be fair-use. I'm not out to intentionally use images I'm not supposed to. If this is an issue (which it apparently is), I have no trouble with ceasing to upload anything that wasn't taken directly by me, even if it may be considered fair use. This should solve the issue and I personally believe no further action needs to be taken. Trevorbirchett (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not all of them are inappropriate (for example, one I saw is a artist rendering of a notable building that is under construction, which is reasonable if the construction's not due to be complete for a few years), but there are definitely some freely-replaceable images there. I also agree that if the editor has been cautioned a few times in the past, and has ignored that advise, that ANI is the appropriate target. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Seeking guidance on some images.
Trying to determine if File:Vixen (logo).png, File:Legends of Tomorrow Logo.png, File:Arrow TV series logo.png, File:TheFLASHlogo.png, File:Supergirl (TV logo).jpg, should actually be listed as free images (they are currently labeled non-free) under the belief that you cannot copyright basic words. There is a debate regarding whether they are or could be free equivalents. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Key to what PD-textlogo is based are being simply typefaces with little additional decoration. Outside of the Vixen logo, the other four all show reasonably creative elements that are beyond simply typeface and color selection (eg the 3D effect on Supergirl, the gradient/shine effect on Legends). They should all be treated as non-free. Vixen is an edge case but I would treat it as non-free as the lettering appears specifically to create a creative effect (the curvature of the V and N to circle the word). --MASEM (t) 18:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I though simple shading and 3D element was not enough to create originality for the sake of copyright? With Supergirl at least, there is nothing unique about the image that couldn't be done in a Word. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Re Vixen and Supergirl. Based on what I know, it is unlikely that those would be considered as copyrightable. Vixen looks like spray painted simple font. It doesn't look like there is particular creativity to how the yellow shading was overlaid on the black. Even if the shading of the each letter was specifically designed and took some time to complete that does not always equate to copyright protected creativity, especially when in font. US law re fonts is very liberal in comparison to all other countries. The case is even stronger for Supergirl - only two colors and the 3d effect is achieved very simply - black color underline. But I do not know for sure and a case can be made in the other direction. This issue can be brought up in the image commons wiki. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright Rybkovich (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- However, when you talk a 3D effect like Supergirl's logo, what comes into play is a notion from real photography in that the composition, lighting, and shadows are copyrightable elements for the photographer under US law, even if everything in the photo is otherwise PD/uncopyrightable; the only place where this doesn't apply is for photographic reproduction of 2D works or works with very minimal 3D aspects (eg like the engraving on a coin). Applied to logos, any logo that utilizes a significant 3D, lighting, or shadow effect that is beyond relatively simple filters (like a gradiant or a drop shadow) has some creativity that relates to photographic composition that can be copyrightable in the US were the logo a photograph, and we should play that same caution here. At least that's the way I've seen it handled before and plays the issue conservatively so that we're not putting copyrightable images into the PD accidentally.
- And the difficulty with a logo like the Vixen one is that it is impossible to tell if it is a typeface or a specifically new letters designed for the logo (unlike the Supergirl where its clear its a standard typeface with extra graphic stuff added). Just because its only text is not 100% sufficient to put it as uncopyrightable under US law, though in the absence of other graphic shapes, may be the more likely case where it might be uncopyrightable per case law. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you re 3d in general but I don't think the effect is significant enough in our case. I put the question up on a commons discussion for more takes https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Font_question_from_wikipedia Rybkovich (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Re Vixen and Supergirl. Based on what I know, it is unlikely that those would be considered as copyrightable. Vixen looks like spray painted simple font. It doesn't look like there is particular creativity to how the yellow shading was overlaid on the black. Even if the shading of the each letter was specifically designed and took some time to complete that does not always equate to copyright protected creativity, especially when in font. US law re fonts is very liberal in comparison to all other countries. The case is even stronger for Supergirl - only two colors and the 3d effect is achieved very simply - black color underline. But I do not know for sure and a case can be made in the other direction. This issue can be brought up in the image commons wiki. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright Rybkovich (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I though simple shading and 3D element was not enough to create originality for the sake of copyright? With Supergirl at least, there is nothing unique about the image that couldn't be done in a Word. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)