![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 |
Does anyone know the answer to this? Do images claimed as PD on Wikipedia have to be PD in the U.S., or is it enough that they be PD in their country of origin? I'm not talking about the Commons, which is discussed here. I'm asking only about Wikipedia. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Following a link from the US Fish and Wildlife I found some Flickr galleries placed there by the USFWS (check them out [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsnortheast/ here). I assume these are Public Domain regardless of whatever license they put in the box, and that we can use them, right (Flickr doesn't have a Public Domain setting)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Nike Air Max 1 Supreme(black / black / sunburst) The Nike Air Max was first released in 1987 in a nylon/synthetic suede combo with a transparent window for the Max Air-sole unit. Despite incredulity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wujack116 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have raised this issue on the "Non-free content" board but apparently it's in the wrong place, so I'm sorry if I'm asking in the wrong place again. What I need to know is exactly what I can and can't do with public domain content? Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain says Public domain images are not copyrighted, and copyright law does not restrict their use in any way which seems to imply I can use the image as if I created it myself.
I work on article List of vegetarians which is illustrated with images, and this Image:Fleishersuperman-big_cropped.jpg was removed on the pretext of having an invalid Fair use rationale: [1]. I see nothing about having to provide a fair use rationale for a public domain image, so I would like to clairfy that. It's certianly not clear form the guidelines that I have to.
The second concern by another editor is that while the image may well be public domain, Superman's "likeness" is probably copyrighted by DC meaning that by using a public domain image I am still violating copyright rights in regards to likeness. Can someone let me know if either of these two concerns are valid, or I am indeed free to use the public domain image as I choose provided its licence is in order? Thanks for any assistance. Betty Logan ( talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, the image is hosted on the Commons. Care to present your arguments there at a deletion request? - Andrew c [talk] 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know whether graffiti in public spaces is in the public domain? I'm thinking of a photograph of graffiti on a wall, where the photographer is known, but the original artist not. If I get a release from the photographer, is that enough to claim it as free? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I haven't found a password yet. But, Slim, it looks like you can upload it to Commons so long as the Commons casebook allows so long as it's illegal graffiti. I've read through the conversations that I found about it, and there seems to be an opinion on Commons that people should not be able to profit from their crimes. I'm not frankly sure how well that would hold up in court, and I note in an earlier discussion somebody else (can't remember who) pointed out that it's not "illegal graffiti" until a court says it's illegal graffiti--but if you can upload it there, you should be able to use it here. I still haven't been able to find any case law; this one may still be theoretical. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here's one on which I need feedback. Please contribute it to the question at the Copyrights policy talk page. Directive 2001/116/EC is tagged as a copyright violation of [4]. The originating body claims copyright here. U.S. law doesn't recognize copyright in legal code: "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."( 206.01, "Edicts of Government") Does this apply to legislation of the European Union? I was thinking so, but I am seriously second-guessing myself. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Dead links are not perfectly acceptable. It's a fact of life that some links will go dead, but you're trying to push an link into the article that was dead on arrival. No one but you knows if that link ever went anywhere, and nobody but you can confirm it ever said what you claimed it said. It has no value that couldn't be replaced by the bald claim that the Florida Supreme Court did what you said it did.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I find no mention of works placed or released by the copyright holder into the public domain! It is possible (I've seen several wikipedians who do it), there are many such works, and some good content at wp:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain. Policy should reflect that such works may be acceptable, with the caveat that the releases must be credible, among others. I decided to check in here before devising and making what I feel are appropriate changes.-- Elvey ( talk) 18:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 |
Does anyone know the answer to this? Do images claimed as PD on Wikipedia have to be PD in the U.S., or is it enough that they be PD in their country of origin? I'm not talking about the Commons, which is discussed here. I'm asking only about Wikipedia. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Following a link from the US Fish and Wildlife I found some Flickr galleries placed there by the USFWS (check them out [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsnortheast/ here). I assume these are Public Domain regardless of whatever license they put in the box, and that we can use them, right (Flickr doesn't have a Public Domain setting)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Nike Air Max 1 Supreme(black / black / sunburst) The Nike Air Max was first released in 1987 in a nylon/synthetic suede combo with a transparent window for the Max Air-sole unit. Despite incredulity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wujack116 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have raised this issue on the "Non-free content" board but apparently it's in the wrong place, so I'm sorry if I'm asking in the wrong place again. What I need to know is exactly what I can and can't do with public domain content? Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain says Public domain images are not copyrighted, and copyright law does not restrict their use in any way which seems to imply I can use the image as if I created it myself.
I work on article List of vegetarians which is illustrated with images, and this Image:Fleishersuperman-big_cropped.jpg was removed on the pretext of having an invalid Fair use rationale: [1]. I see nothing about having to provide a fair use rationale for a public domain image, so I would like to clairfy that. It's certianly not clear form the guidelines that I have to.
The second concern by another editor is that while the image may well be public domain, Superman's "likeness" is probably copyrighted by DC meaning that by using a public domain image I am still violating copyright rights in regards to likeness. Can someone let me know if either of these two concerns are valid, or I am indeed free to use the public domain image as I choose provided its licence is in order? Thanks for any assistance. Betty Logan ( talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, the image is hosted on the Commons. Care to present your arguments there at a deletion request? - Andrew c [talk] 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know whether graffiti in public spaces is in the public domain? I'm thinking of a photograph of graffiti on a wall, where the photographer is known, but the original artist not. If I get a release from the photographer, is that enough to claim it as free? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I haven't found a password yet. But, Slim, it looks like you can upload it to Commons so long as the Commons casebook allows so long as it's illegal graffiti. I've read through the conversations that I found about it, and there seems to be an opinion on Commons that people should not be able to profit from their crimes. I'm not frankly sure how well that would hold up in court, and I note in an earlier discussion somebody else (can't remember who) pointed out that it's not "illegal graffiti" until a court says it's illegal graffiti--but if you can upload it there, you should be able to use it here. I still haven't been able to find any case law; this one may still be theoretical. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here's one on which I need feedback. Please contribute it to the question at the Copyrights policy talk page. Directive 2001/116/EC is tagged as a copyright violation of [4]. The originating body claims copyright here. U.S. law doesn't recognize copyright in legal code: "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."( 206.01, "Edicts of Government") Does this apply to legislation of the European Union? I was thinking so, but I am seriously second-guessing myself. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Dead links are not perfectly acceptable. It's a fact of life that some links will go dead, but you're trying to push an link into the article that was dead on arrival. No one but you knows if that link ever went anywhere, and nobody but you can confirm it ever said what you claimed it said. It has no value that couldn't be replaced by the bald claim that the Florida Supreme Court did what you said it did.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I find no mention of works placed or released by the copyright holder into the public domain! It is possible (I've seen several wikipedians who do it), there are many such works, and some good content at wp:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain. Policy should reflect that such works may be acceptable, with the caveat that the releases must be credible, among others. I decided to check in here before devising and making what I feel are appropriate changes.-- Elvey ( talk) 18:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)