Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
You can configure your browser to not display images. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The issue of "Fair Use" keeps getting brought up on this page, and was even cited as the reason to close the RfC: "the most pertinent [reason for exclusion] is that the image does not satisfy WP:NFCC."
After further research, I will again state that Fair Use is not relevant, because the photos are ineligible for Crown Copyright.
I'll state my case:
"released by the High Court"and
"allowed into the public realm". These statements are found in the text of the ruling from Dr. Kiro's complaint against TVNZ before the Broadcasting Standards Authority, a quasi-judicial body and reliable secondary source.
"The Authority also observes that TVNZ adhered to the stipulations made by the High Court judge", they have surely reviewed the text of the Judge's decision. Nevertheless, they recite the above assertions without challenging or contradicting them.
"Public domain doesn't exist in NZ copyright law, so the judge could not have been putting the images in the copyright public domain, he could have been moving them from the confidential domain to the public one, however."Sounds a bit self-contradictory, but nevertheless, he continued by saying,
"as copyrightable material produced by crown agents, the images remain Crown copyright, as per the Copyright Act 1994."
"... As a result of that judge's order, and pursuant to New Zealand Copyright Act 1994, Section 27(1)(g) and Section 27(1A), this image is ineligible for Crown Copyright protection.
Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level, including other countries’ governments, and the court opinions of any court case are in the public domain. [1] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign. (emphasis added) [CC Note 1]
- ^ The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 states, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."
I'm not sure how many more reasons we need, but I continue to maintain that the image is ineligible for Crown Copyright, and must therefore be tagged PD-ineligible. I welcome any substantive discussion of the above on its merits. Grollτech ( talk) 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
"This section is subject to section 27."
"the question is whether or not the judge removed that copyright"– No, actually, the question is whether the judge incorporated the photos by reference into his ruling, and how he could have released the photos into the public realm without doing so.
"We don't know ... that the law would necessarily mean, in this particular case, that the images would now be public domain if they were incorporated as a reference."C'mon, that's like President Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." If you can parse wikitext markup – and I know that you can – then you can properly parse the meaning of Section 27(1A).
I would encourage everyone involved in the discussions around this page to spend a non-trivial proportion of time on the article looking for more sources.
Less directly related:
Still no luck with the order releasing the images. Stuartyeates ( talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of the comments above appear to suggest that the commenter believes that the High Court judge's ruling (discussed in the BSA ruling, search for references to 'judge') was concerned with the copyright on the autopsy images. I do not believe this to be the case. My reasons are:
Note that in New Zealand inquests are open by default (those ruled suicides can't be reported on though), but autopsies are not. My understanding is that this is similar to the British system. The Coroners Act 2006 does not mention copyright at all. Stuartyeates ( talk) 05:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
You can configure your browser to not display images. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The issue of "Fair Use" keeps getting brought up on this page, and was even cited as the reason to close the RfC: "the most pertinent [reason for exclusion] is that the image does not satisfy WP:NFCC."
After further research, I will again state that Fair Use is not relevant, because the photos are ineligible for Crown Copyright.
I'll state my case:
"released by the High Court"and
"allowed into the public realm". These statements are found in the text of the ruling from Dr. Kiro's complaint against TVNZ before the Broadcasting Standards Authority, a quasi-judicial body and reliable secondary source.
"The Authority also observes that TVNZ adhered to the stipulations made by the High Court judge", they have surely reviewed the text of the Judge's decision. Nevertheless, they recite the above assertions without challenging or contradicting them.
"Public domain doesn't exist in NZ copyright law, so the judge could not have been putting the images in the copyright public domain, he could have been moving them from the confidential domain to the public one, however."Sounds a bit self-contradictory, but nevertheless, he continued by saying,
"as copyrightable material produced by crown agents, the images remain Crown copyright, as per the Copyright Act 1994."
"... As a result of that judge's order, and pursuant to New Zealand Copyright Act 1994, Section 27(1)(g) and Section 27(1A), this image is ineligible for Crown Copyright protection.
Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level, including other countries’ governments, and the court opinions of any court case are in the public domain. [1] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign. (emphasis added) [CC Note 1]
- ^ The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 states, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."
I'm not sure how many more reasons we need, but I continue to maintain that the image is ineligible for Crown Copyright, and must therefore be tagged PD-ineligible. I welcome any substantive discussion of the above on its merits. Grollτech ( talk) 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
"This section is subject to section 27."
"the question is whether or not the judge removed that copyright"– No, actually, the question is whether the judge incorporated the photos by reference into his ruling, and how he could have released the photos into the public realm without doing so.
"We don't know ... that the law would necessarily mean, in this particular case, that the images would now be public domain if they were incorporated as a reference."C'mon, that's like President Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." If you can parse wikitext markup – and I know that you can – then you can properly parse the meaning of Section 27(1A).
I would encourage everyone involved in the discussions around this page to spend a non-trivial proportion of time on the article looking for more sources.
Less directly related:
Still no luck with the order releasing the images. Stuartyeates ( talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of the comments above appear to suggest that the commenter believes that the High Court judge's ruling (discussed in the BSA ruling, search for references to 'judge') was concerned with the copyright on the autopsy images. I do not believe this to be the case. My reasons are:
Note that in New Zealand inquests are open by default (those ruled suicides can't be reported on though), but autopsies are not. My understanding is that this is similar to the British system. The Coroners Act 2006 does not mention copyright at all. Stuartyeates ( talk) 05:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)