Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 16	October 18 >

1 October 17

[edit] October 17

[edit] Image:Power_Coin_Montage.jpg

As this image is a compilation of close-up shots of copyrighted toy designs, shouldn't they themselves still be protected by copyright? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The coins themselves are almost certainly copyrighted and not free, and since they are 3D, that copyright applies here in addition to the copyright of the person who took the images. So I agree this is a clear example of a nonfree image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picasso Images

The following paintings of Picasso most probably are not in the public domain, not even in the U.S. Maybe "Fair use" cases can be made for some of them. The Picasso estate claims copyright on these, and even explicitly claims copyright in the U.S. on many of these, too: they've filed "Notices of Intent to Enforce" (NIEs) their copyrights at the U.S. Copyright Office. The image description pages present no evidence that these works were published before 1923 (or 1909) but give just the creation dates of these paintings. Without such evidence, these images cannot be considered {{PD-art-US}}. Lupo 11:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Violon, verre, pipe et encrier.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Tête d'homme.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Arlequin et femme au collier.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Evocation.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Composition avec tête de mort.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Trois Femmes.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Pains et compotier aux fruits sur une table.jpg: NIE here as "Compotier aux fruits et au pain sur une table".
Image:Maisons sur la colline.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Portrait de Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler.jpg: NIE here.
Image:Reading The Letter Picasso 1921 small.jpg: NIE here (as "Le lecture de la tettre" [sic]). -- not deleted, added non free tag and fur for article about painting Shell ^babelfish 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Picasso three musicians moma 2006.jpg: NIE here. - not deleted, added non free tag and fur for article about painting Shell ^babelfish 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lesnoces.JPG: NIE here. -- not deleted, added non free tag and fur for article about painting Shell ^babelfish 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For the following Picasso images, no NIE was found, but they only have a creation date. When were they first published? Lupo 11:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Compotier avec fruits, violon et verre.jpg (created 1912) - not deleted, added non free tag and rationale for two articles, painting is significant as first oil collage and first oil to appropriate non-art works. Shell ^babelfish 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:L'aficionado.jpg (created 1912)
Image:Au Bon Marché.jpg (created 1913)
Image:La jeune fille a la chevre.jpg (created 1906)
Image:Femme nue au bord de la mer.jpg (created 1908/09)
Image:Pressoir d'olive à Horta de Sant Joan.jpg (created 1909)
Image:Le guitariste.jpg (created 1910) -- not deleted, added non free tag and rationale for use in Cubism Shell ^babelfish 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Femme aux Bras Croisés, Picasso.jpg (created 1902) -- not deleted, added non free tag and rationale for use in article about painting Shell ^babelfish 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Le picador.jpg (created 1889)
Image:Couple espagnol devant une auberge.jpg (created 1900)

Lupo 12:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the status of all of these images, but I tentatively agree with Lupo. I know that some of the are not in the public domain, as I myself have searched through the Federal Register Notices of the United States Copyright Office, and Lupo has presented confirmation that quite a few of them are not in the public domain. Later this week I will do more investigation.

For those who wish to look for themselves, see http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/. The relevant notices began in 1996 and ended in 1998 (I believe). I would recommend downloading them and using grep (or some Windows version of it), as they are very large files.

Regarding copyright restoration and the URAA, remember that these works are now copyrighted at least until 70 years after Pablo Picasso's death in 1973, i.e. 1 January 2042, 2043 or 2044 (I don't know exactly which date without doing research). Some of them may be copyrighted even longer, depending upon date of first publication in the United States.

Anyways, I think also that many of these works can be used under "fair use" (Guernica and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon definitely come to mind :-). I am, however, glad that Lupo brought these here, because otherwise an individual would probably be reverted en masse and labeled a troll for changing the copyright statuses.

Sorry for long comments. I'll try to be back later this week with more definitive comments. --Iamunknown 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Federal register (FR) files are sorted. If anyone wants to verify my searches, just search for "Succession Picasso", which is then followed by an alphabetical list of work titles. Check both French and English titles, and omit leading articles. There "NIE here" links I posted above are to the three FR files that do contain NIEs of the Picasso estate. The files also explain what an NIE is. They are not proof that the items listed are indeed copyrighted, but they are proof that someone thinks he has an enforceable U.S. copyright on these items and that he intends to enforce these copyrights even against so-called reliance parties. On the other hand, an NIE is not needed to enforce copyrights against users who started using the items after 1996. Lupo 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep all they are public domain in the US if they were created before 1923 (servers are in Florida, not California), as stated at {{PD-art-US}}. This is not a valid commons license, but it is a valid US license. I believe, if you wish to challenge the validity of this template, then perhaps TFD is the way to go. Otherwise, this should all be kept. The pages can be found to have a valid date (e.g., [1]) by a simple google search. Anyone can claim an intent to enforce, but if they don't have the law behind them, it is meaningless.

If you read the text of the copyright notice, you will see the following text, which shows any claim to be invalid (the work does not fall under any of these):

Specifically, for restoration of copyright, a work must be an original work of authorship that:

(2) is in the public domain in the United States due to:

(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, publishing the work without a proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;

(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or

(iii) lack of national eligibility (e.g., the work is from a country with which the United States did not have copyright relations at the time of the work's publication)

You will also notice, that even if it were valid, the following text makes it quite clear the copyright would have died out by now:

A work meeting these requirements is protected "for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States."

The text is quite clear that this work is out of copyright. The Evil Spartan 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the link to the Guggenheim Las Vegas website you provide does have a valid date. But it is only a date of creation, not a date of publication. Copyright generally depends upon the date of publication, as detailed in Hirtle's chart at the Cornell University website. Do you know when Picasso's works were first published? I have done some such research, and have not gotten very far, so any help would be appreciated. :) --Iamunknown 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After doing a fairly exhaustive search of the New York Times and google archives, I am currently convinced that it is extremely difficult to give the date of publication on any of Picasso's works; in fact, the date of creation that is given might just as well be the date of publication (it's hard to say, as many sources have simply stored the date, often without specifying anything else). I find it quite unlikely that these paintings would have sat around without being "on sale, sold, or publicly distributed" for 10-15 years after their creation. From my brief reading of Picasso, it was common of him to tour around with his works. What's more, it would seem obvious to me that it's incumbent upon the Picasso family to prove that these works, which for all intents and purposes appear to be published pre-1923, to prove they were not. It seems more likely to me that the Picasso family was targeting the post-1923 paintings which fall under the category "Published without compliance with US formalities" or "Published with compliance with US formalities and not renewed". The Evil Spartan 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you cannot prove when something was published does not mean that the date of creation becomes the date of publication. And "published without compliance..." etc presupposes publication. Under section 101 of the 1976 copyright act, "public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Here's what my IP textbook says: "Another problem involves the exhibition of a one-of-a-kind work of art. If an artist makes such a work available for viewing by the public at large, and if the work lacks a copyright notice, the usual question arises as to whether the work has been injected into the public domain. On general principles the answer should be no. The artist has not really relinquished control of the work, nor has he or she taken the final steps toward exploiting the work economically--namely the preparation of the multiple copies for sale. [One 1907 Supreme Court case created ambiguity about this, but in] drafting the 1976 Act Congress eliminated the ambiguity and made it clear that mere public exhibition or display of the work does not constitute a publication." Nimmer, the author of probably the most influential copyright treatise, wrote that publication is "when by consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur." Without proof of publication we should err on the side of caution. Mangostar (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I saved any that I could come up with a use/rationale for and deleted the rest since we still lack proof of publication dates. If anyone can make a fairuse case for the others or show date of publication, feel free to undelete. Shell ^babelfish 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yushchenko_OurUkraine.jpg

doesn't appear to be one of the PD categories under ukranian law Calliopejen1 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is "the" official photograph of the Ukrainian President and has been seen in many publications around the internet.. It's also necessary to illustrate how Yushchenko looked like before his poisoning; all other wiki images show him after poisoning. —dima /talk/ 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per DDima. — Alex Khristov 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the image is necessary.Ans-mo 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per DDima. Odessaukrain 23:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's not PD. Make a fair use claim. Lupo 12:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The image falls under category (a) daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information. Since Yushchenko is president, he is by default part of current events and this photograph is used to illustrate his person. It should be kept under current license. --Riurik^(discuss) 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any analyses of the relevant Ukrainian law? Because, to me, the photograph does not seem to fit "daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information" ... rather, it seems to fit "an original artistic creation in the form of portraiture that is indeed copyrightable". --Iamunknown 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right. This provision (plain news reports not eligible for copyright) is even in the Berne Convention, I think. It applies only to strictly factual news agency reports. As soon as any interpretation, analysis, background info, etc. are included, this provision does not apply anymore. And it does not apply to news images, since these always include interpretation (framing etc.) Lupo 08:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
keep. I retagged the image as a fairuse and wrote a convincing rationale. --Irpen 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image tagged as fair use. -Nv8200p talk 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1948-gmc-archives.jpg

Source site says "We do grant permission to download our photos if you include a link back to www.RemarkableCars.com.", but it says nothing about using, redistribution, derivative works, commercial use, and so on. Liftarn 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From Source: License clearly states that usage is free with attribution —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougW (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: requiring a link back is not free as it severly limits the use of the image in off-line contexts. Attribution generally can be fulfilled by just mentioning the author/source; it's not necessary to add a link. If they require a link, the license is non-free. Lupo 06:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: For whatever it's worth "If they require a link, the license is non-free" is Lupo's personal OR'ish opinion and should not be treated as an ultimate truth. --Irpen 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:000000085175-johanna santos-fullsize.jpg

User created? Looks like a promo shot and has a watermark. Liftarn 13:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, watermarked with the source website. Speedy deleted as orphan obvious copyright violation. -- Infrogmation 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ffgff.JPG

this is being used as a placeholder for an album whose cover is unknown. all of uploader's other contributions have been collages of nonfree images he labeled as PD Calliopejen1 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nick D'Agosto.jpg

I'm of the opinion that this is not, and never was, released under GNU. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cross_of_the_Millenium.jpg

well it's definitely non-free 3D art, but there's not any confirmatoin that the photo of it is free either Calliopejen1 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Daughters_of_Odessa.jpg

same as above, non-free sculpture, likely nonfree photo Calliopejen1 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep but recategorize under "fair use/low resolution" --Riurik^(discuss) 04:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't keep this one because the photo isn't even free. Even if the sculpture is necessarily copyrighted, we could get a free photo, so we're not simultaneously bumping up against two copyrights (that of the sculptor and that of the photographer). Calliopejen1 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep nominator, as is typical, ignores fair use. I suggest the nominator find a free photo himself/herself, contributing to wikipedia, instead of deleting and removing other peoples hard work. Odessaukrain 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
keep. The original GFDL tag was indeed inappropriate. I retagged it as fairuse and wrote a rationale. --Irpen 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image tagged as fair use. -Nv8200p talk 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as replaceable fair use for the reasons outlined by Calliopejen 12:26, 26 October 2007 UTC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ex_Nihilo_Maquette.jpg

another likely nonfree photo of a nonfree sculpture Calliopejen1 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thrinax ekmaniana.jpg

Listed as "courtesy and copyright © 1996, Carlo Morici of the Palmetum, Tenerife, Canary Islands" on this site; our image is also marked Morici 1996. Unless User:Lezumbalaberenjena is Carlo Morici, he isn't authorised to release the image into the public domain, as claimed on the tag. Not that the image probably isn't copied from the website linked to, since that image lacks the "Morici 1996" stamp. — Guettarda 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)