User:Tyrenius/Image FU
PD tags
[edit]Copyright info
[edit]Hirtle chart shows years when PD applies.
Fair use rationale for artwork
[edit]==Fair use rationale==
This low resolution image is used in [[NAME OF ARTICLE]], an article about the artist and his work, and is credited as a piece of artistic work. It is considered that this significantly helps the reader's understanding of the topic and that understanding of the topic would be impaired without it. It is considered that this will not cause commercial harm to the copyright holder. It is believed that this is fair use and does not infringe copyright. There is no known free alternative available.
According to [[fair use|section 107]] of the [[United States Copyright Act of 1976]] :
''The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec=107]
The image is used for non-profit purposes. This factor is noted as relevant by the Act.
{{Non-free 2D art}}
Foundation Licensing Policy
[edit]Excerpt from Kat Walsh post on Foundation mailing list:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Safe harbor provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
[edit]Hi. Can I remind everyone, please of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? No Wikimedia project can be sued simply because either defamatory material or copyvio material has been posted there unless the injured party makes a formal request that the material be removed, and that request is not honored. I have never yet heard of any copyright owner requesting the removal of material from Wikiquote, nor have I yet heard of a purportedly defamed person making such a request. In short, there is no need to panic. We will reign in our problems (and are working on it now), but no one faces any liability over anything we presently host. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC) [1]
Mike Godwin's view
[edit]Wikimedia's counsel, Mike Godwin, [2]:
| “ | I can't speak for the Board, but I don't see in this case a compelling argument for Wikiquote to change its current practice.
Copyright law cases typically involve multifactorial analyses and lots of nuance. I would not assume that a commercial book publisher's use of "Seinfeld" quotes necessarily tells us anything about a non-commercial reference's use of quotations. Many people believe that copyright jurisprudence gives clear and obvious guidance about how one should use copyrighted materials in future cases. My experience has been, however, that this belief is mistaken. If we were contacted by a copyright holder with a complaint about Wikiquote, of course, we would attempt to respond within reason to resolve the complaint without anyone's having to resort to litigation. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually provides for services like Wikiquote a way of resolving copyright complaints without serious risk of litigation through its notice-and-takedown procedures. I'm not aware of any DMCA notices regarding Seinfeld quotations on Wikiquote. |
” |
| — Mike Godwin 21:20:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC), The foundation-l mailing list | ||
Replaceable fair use disputed
[edit]If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
Copyright material in photos
[edit]In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. MikeGodwin 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[4]
Bridgeman Art Library case
[edit]Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.
List of image pages edited
[edit]You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Image size policy
[edit]There is a policy relating to image size which should be followed Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size:
- In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting).
There is also a guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:
- Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
- On images with extreme aspect ratios
- When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
- When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
- Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.
- The current image markup language is:
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]]