Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

With the current image use policy, larger photos become "orphaned". There is a similar problem with use of en: images by non-English wikipedias. This could be resolved with a software change (has this happened yet?)

I just checked - if you make a [ [media:X] ] link to an image it de-orphans it. Thus our current image use policy should de-orphan larger images on two counts - firstly from the image description page, and secondly from the <<larger version>> link on the article. Yeay! :) Martin

I notice that use of sound is also on this page. Maybe a name change is in order. Multimedia use policy, perhaps? --Stephen Gilbert

use of sound moved to wikipedia:sound help

Images without descriptions may be summarily deleted! That's just plain silly. A picture is worth a thousand words. An image explains itself. Why should I HAVE to describe it? -- Zoe

The main point of descriptions is to state where the image came from and give some info on copyright status. So without that info the image may be deleted. We are not saying that a picture which is obviously of a whale has to say this. --mav 19:46 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

I propose adding the sentence "Please write your description of the image in a language understood by many Wikipedians, in enough words that we can recognize the language.". Several days ago someone uploaded a picture of a horse with a one-word description: "Kon". It took me a couple of days to figure out that "Kon" is Polish for "horse". The missing diacritic didn't help. -phma

Eventually, all of the foreign wikis will have their own upload space, but until then it's probably not a bad idea to say something. --LDC

Are all the foreign wikis going to have their own admins too? I'm sure there is a lot of cleaning up to do in the more active wikis. --mav

Surely there will be a lot of duplication if each language has upload space. A picture of a horse should be good for all languages. Of course, we may want pictures for different breeds... but the same principle applies. -- Tarquin

Harddrive space is ultra cheap. There is also nothing stopping any language user to search the image database of any other languge for images to use and upload to their own language wikipedia. --mav

Hm. I just found an older image use policy at: Nupedia Work Area/Image policy -- mav

Concerning point 5: I agree that the image itself should not be visible in the description, but IMHO it would be great to display a larger version of that image there. Reasons:

Someone clicks on a small image in an article, and goes to the description and a larger version (if such exists).
The large versions vanish from the "orphand image" page. -- Magnus Manske

The second point is just a bug that needs to be fixed. However the first point does have some merit and should be explored. However, there is a strong argument that we shouldn't have large images on the description pages of smaller images because the vast majority of images we have do not have larger versions. This leaves our visitors with confussion and doubt about whether a larger image is actually on the thumbnail's description page. It is far better, this argument goes, to be upfront and explicit about whether a larger version of any particular image exists (read: place a media link to it in the article). There is also the horizontal scroll issue that crops up when large images are placed on description pages -- the sidebar takes up extra space and the page rendering doesn't allow for IE's automatic max-aspect image resize magic. --mav

The current recommendation: "Do convert GIF images to PNG, except for "animated" GIFs" should be amended "except for animated GIFs, which should be converted to MNG".

The MNG format is essentially a container for multiple PNG images, allowing animation. All major browsers understand the MNG format (MIME type "video/x-mng"), and many image conversion programs can convert multi-image GIF to MNG.

I'd like to know what others think about this before changing the FAQ though, hence this Talk entry.

-- Bignose

Judging from the WWW site that you linked, Internet Explorer requires the (admittedly free) ActiveX control MNG4IE to read MNGs.

— Toby 05:34 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

In my experience using images, a lawyer talked about the 'seven edits' rule, which says basically that any image is usable provided there have been at least seven steps of alteration from its original state. In other words, enough differentiation to render an image distinct from the original, so, a rezise, a crop, a color adjustment or two, etc... a despeckle filter, and a couple of rubber stamp erasures or spots... Any comments on this? &#35918&#30505sv

See also: m:Image pages, for discussion on having new markup for images and image description pages.

The CIA factbook now has maps as GIFs, not JPGs. I'm going to update the relevant section...

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump:

I'm sorry Black Widow but can you provide a source for the photo. Can this photo be placed under the GFDL ? - Ericd 02:37 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be placed under the GFDL - see Wikipedia:Image use policy - but a statement as to its copyright status, permission, etc., should be placed in the image file (Image:LeCarreJohn.JPG). - Montréalais

I don't give two damns about your Wikipedia:Image use policy. This is a policy created by half a dozen people out of the thousands using Wikipedia. It has NO LEGAL OR BINDING STATUS. This is an open website. I am not obliged to provide you or anyone with a statement as to its copyright status, permission, or any other thing a few people decide they want. The only obligation (and this was clearly stated already in discussions with Mr. Wales re DMCA) is to tick the box required in order to upload. NO MORE NO LESS. Stop interfering with people who actually make a contribution here. What you are doing is illegal harassment and interference. If you have any questions about this matter, please take them up with the ONLY authority, Mr. Wales who pays the freight.User:Black Widow (copied to the group's Village Pump.)

I'm sorry but copyright law has a legal status. Illegal content compromise Wikipedia. Ericd 03:20 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Copyright violation is to Wikipedia as gambling is to baseball. The irony is that, although Wiki-policies have no legal or binding status, copyright laws do. One nasty lawsuit, and wikipedia could find itself sharing a tomb with Napster. Give a hoot, don't pollute. Kingturtle 03:22 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

The image use policy is not legally binding, but neither is the rule that says "don't replace every instance of 'Microsoft' with 'Microshit' in Microsoft QuickBASIC compiler" (to use a recent example). This website is "open" only in the sense that, if you don't like the rules, you can download the whole database and start your own encyclopedia. We have every right to revert, block or delete anything you do, if we don't like it for whatever reason. This is an encyclopedia project, not Freenet. -- Tim Starling 03:28 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Copyright owners can get a TRO to shut down Wikipedia in a matter of days; if User:Black Widow is putting violating stuff up and lying about it in the upload box, thereby risking the time that I've put in, I think he/she/it should be banned immediately. People who want to do a copyright-violating wikipedia are free to snapshot the existing content and set up their own. Stan 03:34 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

<< Copyright owners can get a TRO to shut down Wikipedia in a matter of days . . . >>

This is categorically untrue. Where did you get such an absurd idea? -- NetEsq 22:37 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Here we go again. A small group, who actually contribute a microscopic amount of real content, espouse their qualified legal opinions. Which one of you is a member of which State or Provincial Bar? Obey the rules of the owners -- that's all that is required. And to Tim Starling, please edit and improve articles instead of wasting your time talking about something for which you have no qualifications. May Jesus bless and guide each and every one of you and fill your hearts with love and good deeds. User:Black Widow.

What allows you to say I have no qualifications ? Ericd 03:46 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy to admit my legal qualifications run to a mere ~25 hours of formal lectures in an introductory course. Please, Black Widow, enlighten me with your awesomely superior legal knowledge. Why are we required to leave your images intact? Does it constitute harassment, for us to "edit or delete your uploads if [we] think it serves the encyclopedia", as the message on the image upload page warns we may? -- Tim Starling 04:27 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Jesus should bless and guide us, Black Widow. May Jesus fill your heart with love and bring peace to Wikipedia. Ericd 04:35 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

content from wikipedia talk:Administrators

Please ask to reinstate the photo of John LeCarre. I will shortly be posting a list of her abuses on Wikipedia where she has used her so-called Administrator powers to put down, insult, and intimidate others. This is abuse and she should be removed from such an authority. In addition, she stalks people and formats things HER way. It might not be so bad if she could spell and had the ability to put together a complete sentence in the English language but she (or he?) cannot. I will post many, many examples. In the past few weeks I have put in more than 130 hours doing the "years in literature". And, if I may so say, it was a heck of a good and valued job. However, leave it to Zoe. She already started screwing it up. She drove User:Ron Davis away who, again in my opinion, was doing good work. Who is next? User:Black Widow.

User:Zoe is at it again. Now she has deleted the photo of Booker T. Washington. Her ability to discern matters here is evident. I don't know who posted the photo, but whoever did signed the ONLY legal requirement for posting a photo. Now, abusing Wikipedia Administrator powers, ZOE has illegally removed the photo this person placed. User:Black Widow Remember: Jesus loves the little children.

You've already been banned once, DW, and your actions of this evening will get you banned under this new name. I've already taken the entire issue to the mailing list. -- Zoe

BW, I wrote the image use policy (and for that matter, I wrote the software that enables you to upload images in the first place), but after I wrote it it was discussed, refined, and edited by the community at large to reflect the consensus of those of us who bear the responsibility of keeping this project focused on its goal. If you disagree with it or any other policy here, the appropriate place to discuss it is the talk page of the policy page itself. Until you do that, and the community accepts your arguments and changes the policy, it's reasonable for others to expect you to follow it, or at the very least give some compelling reason for violating it beyond a mere "I don't have to." LDC

TO: LDC - You mean to say that any Administrator (who Mr. Wales reminded is "no big deal") can arbitrarily decide to delete any photo because they want to? That hardly makes sense. And, you are saying that NO, the front page is wrong when it says you CAN EDIT RIGHT NOW. I shall communicate your dictum to Mr. Wales because that in fact defeats the purpose. While there certainly must be some control over undesirable, illegal, or offensive content, Wikipedia cannot claim to be open to anyone to edit if they must do it exactly and precisely a certain way. So that you don’t mislead users, perhaps you should change the Front page to read :YOU CAN EDIT RIGHT NOW BUT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF A SELECT FEW WHO WILL CANCEL OR DELETE YOUR WORK WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. You may have written the software but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the LAW. The legal requirement in accordance with Federal law and the California Civil Code (and CCP) is automatically met by any user otherwise the photo cannot be posted. Do you have a law degree and know something I don’t or that the Wikipedia owner doesn’t. Because Mr. Wales has followed the law as required under the DMCA. I am not destructive, I am in fact the most respectful and one of the hardest working contributors here but your "system" creates cliques allowing certain individuals to play God. With all due respect LDC, your comment made no sense to me and provided no answer to the question of arbitrary decision making AFTER a user has obeyed your software commands and met all posted legal requirements. User:Black Widow.

Funny how the ones who cause the most trouble always claim to be the most hard-working. -- Zoe

You seem to miss the very nature of a wiki: anyone can edit anyone else's work for any reason at any time. There's nothing special about administrative status in that regard, and all your legal arguments are irrelevant. Just because you post something here legally, that's no reason it should stay posted here--anyone else is free to disagree and change it. You can also change anything they have written. Admins additionally can delete. The goal here is not just to produce any old legal content--the goal is to produce the best possible content--free content, that can be redistributed under the GFDL--that a collaboration of authors can produce. If you're not willing to collaborate and want your contributions to remain unchanged, then you should contribute somewhere else. LDC

I'm going to adjust the arbitrary deletion rule, if people here agree. Basically, I'd like to say that if a photo has no copyright information on the image description page, and you suspect it may be a copyrighted photo, follow a similar process to the rule for suspected copyrighted text:

remove all uses of the image from articles
put some boilerplate text on the image description page
specifically ask the person who uploaded the image for details on their talk page
list the image on wikipedia:votes for deletion
if no answer is forthcoming after a week, a different sysop can delete the image

This would basically parallel the rules (and common wikipedia practice) on potentially copyrighted text, and be a bit more forgiving than arbitrary deletion. Martin

I should add that one should only delete photos if there is suspicion - again, like text. IE, if you see the exact same photo on another site with a copyright notice. Martin

or, in the case of the Le Carre pic, you've seen it on the back cover of a paperback. I'm really getting tired of "cabal" accusations. It's at time like this I wonder why I sometimes spend upward of 3 hours a day wiki-weeding here. -- Tarquin 10:05 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

there is no cabal...

If you see a photo of someone famous that was obviously not taken in the 1910 there is a very strong suspiscion that the photo has a copyright. It seems to me obvious that which such material the one who upload the picture should provide reasonable evidence that the picture is public domain.

I would resume by for recent work copyright is the rule public domain the exception.

I also wonder why I'm trying to make nice photos with my digital camera of anything interresting for wikipedia when it's so easy to make an image search on Google... Ericd 13:12 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Why bother with the wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission when you can just steal and plead the fifth?

Oh, I'm under the impression that repeatedly violating copyright (for both text and images) is a bannable offence - is that right? Martin

Martin, a contributor who repeatedly ignored Wikipedia policy on respecting copyrights -- and thus opened the project to the risk of expensive lawsuits -- would indeed be likely to be warned by Jimbo. And if they kept it up, Jimbo might even ban that user. (Note: I myself have no "right" to ban anyone.) --Uncle Ed

"Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum."

Ericd 13:29 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Have you seen how liberal interpretations of copyright laws worked for Napster ?

Ericd 13:36 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

It amazes me how some people continue to rant about matters on which they have no qualifications. Why not just read Wikipedia’s own article?

Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Title II : the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act neither Wikipedia nor its Online Service Provider can be held liable provided they have complied with the rules established by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Those rules include:

Providing a notice to Users concerning copyright laws and a notice that unauthorized use of copyrighted material is prohibited on the site;
establish a procedure to receive statutory notices from copyright owners about infringements;
comply with the removal requirements from a certified copyright infringement notice;
create a policy for termination of repeat offenders.

The law also grants immunity for Online Service Providers and flow-through organizations such as Wikipedia from third party user claims, provided there has been a good-faith compliance with the statutory rules. Further, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act recognizes the massive volume potential through technology on the Internet and therefore the Act does not compel someone such as Wikipedia to monitor material posted on their site. User:Black Widow

Wikipedia is not an Online Service Provider herberging personnal pages. Any mediocre lawyer will destroy this argument in a few seconds. Ericd 13:57 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

READ the article, it says: for Online Service Providers and flow-through organizations such as Wikipedia. User:Black Widow

ANd what if someone wish to distribute Wikipedia on CD-ROM ? Ericd 13:58 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I propose the following policy to be added to the page (I'll mention this on the village pump when we've battered it around a bit:

Copyright

Please note: this is not the official copyright policy - merely a reminder and additional tips

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police every article for possible copyright infringement. However, if you suspect that an image is a copyright infringement (for example, if there is no information on copyright status on its image description page), then:

remove all uses of the image from articles
list the image on wikipedia:votes for deletion
add the copyright infringement notice for images from Boilerplate text

The image can then be deleted after a week in the normal way - see wikipedia:policy on permanent deletion of pages.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck between scaring away contributors and keeping the encyclopedia open content, but that seems reasonable, and roughly in line with what we're doing for text. I'm going to try it tonight with all bar one of the non-GFDL Rachel Corrie photos (which will please user:Zoe, no doubt). Martin

Absolutely not. You have no right to overide Wikipedia.org policy and start judging what you guess or think is a copyright violation. Do that and you jeopardize Wikipedia through a lawsuit from a user. User:Black Widow

Are you a lawyer, Black Widow? Martin

People may be interested to know that Wikipedia is registered under the DMCA. Jimbo is the designated agent. I wonder if this info should be added to wikipedia:copyrights? Designated agent Martin

Somebody protected this page. They didn't say why here or at wikipedia:protected page, so I unprotected it. Martin (edited)

It wasn't anonymous: LittleDan just forgot to mention it here. He reported it on the mailing list. It's hard to remember where to report what, and sometimes you really have to report it in more than one place. --Uncle Ed 20:39 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I should have been more careful expressing myself! I'll read the archives...

(from mailing list: "The image policy page is very important (if we get sued, it'll probably be from a picture) and shouldn't be changed by someone without some kind of authority."

I modified my proposed change to copyright to reflect this concern - IE, make it clear that wikipedia:copyrights is the official page on the subject. That way that page can concentrate on keeping lawyers happy and this page can concentrate on being clear. Martin

General comments on stuff above: I've had a look at the DMCA and some other bits and pieces, and it seems to me as if Black Widow is right: we're probably not legally compelled to check the copyright status of work submitted online. Of course if we feel for some reason we should check for copyright, there's nothing to stop us from removing suspected copyright material. In fact, if we notice something is copyright, and Jimbo somehow finds out, then Jimbo will be legally compelled to remove the content. That said,

Other distributions of the pedia do not have the same protection (e.g. CD), so we would be compelled to exhaustively check the entire encyclopedia if we wish to distribute it in another form.
International issues: most countries do not have such strong protection for website operators, therefore if Wikipedia contained copyright material, it could not be legally mirrored in such countries. Foreign copyright owners from such countries, whose rights are infringed by Wikipedia, would generally act against Wikipedia under US law, although there is some question as to whether the DMCA meets minimum protection standards imposed by the various copyright treaties.
Wikipedia's primary goal is to produce a copyright-free encyclopedia

For these reasons, I think it would be best if we maintain our vigilant copyright protection stance. That's my assessment of it, as a non-expert. It would be nice if Wikipedia's real law experts (Fred Bauder and Netesq) would give their opinion. -- Tim Starling 03:17 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Yahoo (I mean www.yahoo.com not wwww.yahoo.fr) has been sue in France under French law. Did you heard about Magnum, Sigma, Kappa etc... Major actors in the image business they are French companies. Magnum was founder by around 50%-50% of French and American photographers and they choosed do be French. It was obviously not not due reduced tax, French law is more protective. Make your own conclusion. Ericd 09:52 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ericd 17:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ericd 19:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

How does one spot a copyright photograph on Wikipedia? I think the one of Juliette Binoche on your page is a copyright violation. Given that someone deleted Booker T. Washington should I delete yours? I see on the Juliette Binoche "Page History" this written by you:

cur) (last) . . 01:36 Jan 26, 2003 . . Ericd (Removed photo - source unknown probably copyrighted)

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

Ericd 20:11 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does BTW mean? JoanB

By The Way....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give link to this picture ? I never uploaded this !

Ericd 20:47 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

Ericd 21:00 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

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

Exactly, I too don't understand. JoanB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<< I personally might question the copyright here despite the claims made but that doesn’t seem appropriate for me to decide. >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoanB: I'm not qualified to decide whether any photo placed here on Wikipedia is copyrighted or not.

Joan, what do you want us to say? Copyright isn't easy to understand, the law has changed over time, and the law is different in different countries. I can say the following with a high degree of confidence: "The photograph of Juliette Binoche in question is almost certainly protected by copyright." Notice that I didn't say that our use was illegal, but that the picture is *almost certainly* protected by copyright.

Second, you keep asking how do we know to trust each other when people say that something is safe to use. In this regard, pictures are no different than text. Every time someone posts some text to wikipedia they are attesting that the text being submitted is safe to use. We usually believe that claim until presented with evidence to the contrary. With the case of photos, however, it is usually obvious that the person posting it wasn't the original photographer, so we end up in these squabbles more often.

Finally, you keeping talking about the "owner" of wikipedia. I don't think that there is anybody who is the "owner" in the sense that you mean it. While there is an owner of the computer that hosts wikipedia, they do not own the content of wikipedia. -◈¡◈

By owner, I mean the one who is legally liable. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but for certain if someone sues you or me for copyright infringement or whatever else we might do at Wikipedia, they will name the owner in the action, and it is the owner who will pay big legal fees and be ordered by the Court to provide the defendant's computer source. That was what happened in the recent ruling on Kazaa, at least accortding to the New York Times. JoanB

That is a good question. I guess until a court decides for wikipedia, then nobody knows who would be "legally liable". It is easy to imagine that if some court ordered the current host to stop hosting wikipedia, then wikipedia would just move to another host. -◈¡◈

For all practical purposes, the owner of Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales. Should someone else host a fork of Wikipedia, he, she or it ("it" being a corporation) would be the owner of that fork. That having been said, there is virtually no legal liability on Wikipedia's part for good faith copyright infringement. Other things being equal, Wikipedia (or a Wikipedia fork) would be required to delete copyrighted material once a copyright claim was brought to Wikipedia's attention by virtue of a cease and desist letter. Accordingly, the only legitimate reason someone should be concerned about uploading potentially copyrighted images is quality control. [Note: This should not be construed as a legal opinion or as constituting legal advice.] -- NetEsq 22:58 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

But I still own the copyright to all the stuff I've written (unlike the case for GNU, where we have sign over - on physical paper(!) - the rights to our work, thus ensuring FSF is the sole owner of GNU code), so Jimbo owns physical bits but not much of the content. The Wikipedia situation is a little more like Linux, which has literally thousands of separate copyright owners in many different countries. Stan 23:17 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

If there is virtually no legal liability on Wikipedia's part for good faith copyright infringement why are people arguing about it and going about upsetting erstwhile contributors like Dave Farquhar by deleting their photographs? JoanB

Good question. -- NetEsq 23:06 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Amen. It should be possible to be squeaky clean without freaking out. I notice a User:Tarquin apology on User talk:Dave Farquhar BTW. Stan 23:17 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Another question. If people are going to question others and decide to delete the photos, then how do we know that the photo on the page of User:MyRedDice is him? All we have is his say so. See how ludicrous this gets. JoanB