- File:Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)
The images for deletion discussion was cut short in an unclear state when the deleting admin found the picture on the Corbis website (see Corbis). Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument indicated that the presence of an image on the website of a major image library is not in and of itself sufficient for deletion. Our featured article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima uses Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which can be found on the Corbis website. The previously linked discussion contains other examples. I therefore ask that the deletion be overturned and the discussion restarted to allow a fuller discussion of these issues for this particular image. Carcharoth 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (From deleting admin) More then adequate time was allowed for discussion before the image was deleted. WP:NFCC #2 requires a respect for commercial opportunities and this has been interpreted in the past to pretty much delete any Corbis/Getty image and most news agency images. After looking at the way the image was used in any of the articles, I did not think the use of the image added siginificantly to the article either.. This is my interpretation of Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still missing the point. You found it on the Corbis website and appeared to conclude from this that it "a Corbis image and so we must delete it". It is patently clear that this logic is false. If all the other admins participating in image reviews have this idea of image rights, then we are in trouble. There are many old images for which copyright status is highly unclear. Merely being sold today through commercial companies (who often buy up old archives of photos) does not mean that they know any more about the copyright status of these old images than we do. They are taking the position that until someone turns up to claim rights on an image, they will go ahead and sell it anyway. Conversely, we should take the position that until someone turns up and claims it, we can use it under fair-use if it will contribute to an article (I accept that it may not in this case, but that is a discussion we should be having at IfD). What we should not do (and what you did in this case, through no fault of your own), is assume that because an old photo is being sold by Corbis and Getty and other photo libraries, that those photo libraries have exclusive rights over the photo. Do you understand the point I am making here? I am saying that you (and others) should not be saying "since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2" - exactly the same argument can be used to delete hundreds of photos - did you know that Corbis (and many other photo libraries) sell free pictures? They add value to them, but ultimately they charge for being the middleman for people who don't have the time to go and get the free images themselves. I'm not saying this is a free picture, but I am saying that an image being on the Corbis website (or any other website) doesn't automatically mean WP:NFCC #2 is being violated. Every admin dealing with image deletion needs to understand this. It is not easy, but then no-one ever said image rights were an easy thing to understand. Carcharoth 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you show that this image is not copyrighted to Corbis, you'll still have to show what's the copyright status for this image. --Abu badali (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but should that discussion take place here, or in a new IfD? Carcharoth 17:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We might begin a preliminary analysis of the Planck-Einstein image by noting that copyrighted works originating in Germany expire after 70 years, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Example_cases . The photograph was taken in Germany in 1930, and the previously displayed image of the photograph did not appear to come through Bettman/Corbis, but rather from a German-language website if I recall correctly. In any case, this photograph exists in forms other than the one displayed at Corbis. ... Kenosis 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's 70 years pma, not 70 years after moment of creation of the work. Jkelly 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's 70 years after the death of the author. -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, thank you. So we have some research to do. Appreciate it. ... Kenosis 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, back to square one on this issue. The reference to 70 years p.m.a. requires a public claim of authorship. Lacking such a claim of authorship, any copyright lapses 70 years after the date of creation. See article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. On the evidence we have thus far, this photograph is very much in the public domain. ... Kenosis 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, here's an initial lead to a German-based website that attributes the photo to Einstein, A Centenary Volume, ed. A.P. French, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p58, which in turn attributes it to "AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection". Plainly this photograph is quite well traveled and there is no single copyright holder that's clearly disclosed. I'll look for more info and report back later. ... Kenosis 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... And Here the photograph is for sale, but is said to have been scanned at the American Institute of Physics. So thus far we have two sellers of different manifestations of the photograph, neither of which has disclosed how they obtained rights to it or what the rights are claimed to be. Credit in this case is given to "AIP [American Institute of Physics] Emilio Segre Visual Archives, Fritz Reiche Collection" The price for obtaining a print is said to be a "service fee", presumably meaning that the buyer is merely paying the requested price of producing the print. ... Kenosis 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... OK, I called the librarian at the AIP, based on the information at this page. The archivist is away until next Monday. He may be able to provide more specific information about the particular copy of the image they hold in their archive. Even at this stage, it is my initial impression that a low-resolution reproduction of the image, depending on where it was obtained, is likely meet all four fair-use criteria as well as the 10 WP criteria. But a clearer response from the AIP will need to wait until next week. Perhaps others will be able to provide further info about all the copies of this photograph that were initially circulated in 1930 and later, and if anyone has ever asserted a claim of sole copyright on it. I also haven't been able to confirm who the second Mrs. Einstein, who died in the 1980s, might have given rights to their copy of the image. Perhaps it will suffice to say, at the moment, that copies of this photograph have traveled far and wide through multiple routes with no indication thus far that anyone has ever claimed exclusive rights to the image. ... Kenosis 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic research, Kenosis! I wish we had 100 of you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if we can do the investigation here, let's do it. If DRV regulars would rather us not hijack the page for a licensing investigation, then overturn and relist because NFCC #2 was clearly the wrong reason. (Note that I argued for deletion of the image in the first place.) howcheng {chat} 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be in favor of putting it back up as a still-active IfD and just letting the consensus take its course at this point. Nv8200p gave a reasonable justification for closing based upon Criteria for Speedy Deletion #12 and evidence of display and rights claimed by Corbis per NFCC #2. But it seems fairly obvious at this point that the image is quite likely in the public domain and that no one of the routes it has taken (the Einstein, Planck and Bohr families/friends/colleagues at an absolute minimum) has visibly claimed any kind of exclusive copyright on the image. It's virtually impossible to conclusively prove a negative here, but the evidence thus far appears to indicate multiple routes of dissemination and no visible exclusive copyright holder. So, if Nv8200p is agreeable at this stage, it seems to me it can (a) be closed as a "keep", (b) re-opened to continue discussion, or (c) relisted from scratch. Or it can be left here for presentation of any further evidence and "voting"-- personally I have no strong preference except for a reasonable outcome consistent with the evidence we find. ... Kenosis 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it's not that easy. The work was still in copyright in Germany in 1996, so the copyright term in the USA is 95 years. See the various "published outside the USA" categories in this table. [8] -- Jheald 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not clear where you get the 1996 date from. Could you clarify and explain this, please? Also, do you have to be able to indicate authorship of the photograph? That is what Kenosis is saying above - the authorship was not given, so it lapsed 70 years after creation. And finally, can you re-confirm that none of this uncertainty about copyright status affects the possibility of using the image under fair-use. (ie. this is two separate arguments going on here). Carcharoth 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a proposal to revise the speedy deletion criteria G12, a criteria that under the arguments put forward by the deleting admin could equally have been used to delete this image, is being discussed here. Carcharoth 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn this is almost certainly public domain. And it's a highly iconic picture.DGG (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn based upon evidence presented thus far. This image doesn't appear to violate either CFSD #12 or WP:NFCC #2, nor any other WP:NFCC criterion such as #8 in at least several of the articles in which it was previously used. . ... Kenosis 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispute - How doesn't if fails #8? --Abu badali (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispute what? The image appears to be in the public domain under German law, EU copyright law, and US copyright law. Importantly, no author has been clearly disclosed in conjunction with display of the image as is required by EU copyright convention, thus any claims of copyright would have expired after 70 years, which would be June, 2000. At an absolute, absolute minimum, a low-resolution version is quite within fair-use criteria and there's no exclusive holder of copyright. And, it is plain that #8 is a subjective "catch-all" phrase, one which most certainly does not apply here. This picture is worth the proverbial thousand words, and cannot be replaced by text of any kind or any length. ... Kenosis 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image can be really proven to be PD, then we don't have to worry about NFCC and you can use it wherever you want. But if it's not PD, NFCC applies. And "a picture is worth a 1000 words" is a very weak argument against NFCC#8. --Abu badali (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're certainly entitled to the opinion on #8; and I already gave a hint of mine--it's essentially a weasel clause, a balancing test that no one admin or other user should ever be able to assert singlehandedly without a discussion and consensus about its merits or lack thereof to an article. Why is this discussion still going on at this stage? I noted above the actual text of the 1993 EU copyright rules, today's standard, and they require the author's name to be publicly disclosed in conjunction with circulating the image. Is the argument here now to be that we must conclusively prove all these negatives? It's ridiculous at this point. Please undo the deletion and replace this image in the articles which last chose to include it. ... Kenosis 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to Abu: did you know that Einstein and Planck were close friends (at least until they fell out)? Have a look at these sources: [9]: "They respected one another not only as physicists but also, for their inspired creation of world pictures, as artists. Planck helped to establish Einstein in a sinecure at the center of German physics, Berlin. Despite their differences in scientific style, social life, politics, and religion, they became fast friends."; and - a very nice look at the man behind the science: "Einstein described his friend as a man eaten by grief, yet one who still stood, “fully courageous and erect.” Rather than grow bitter and caustic towards life, Planck marshaled his spirits through work and the loving relationship with his only living son, Erwin." (my emphasis). There is more out there on Einstein's friendship with Planck. Now, say I wrote a section on that at Plank's article and at Einstein's article, and used this image of uncertain copyright status under fair-use to illustrate their friendship, would that satisfy you? I would also be interested in seeing your response to what Mr Isaacson said here: "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia, while someone else who interprets the criteria more liberally could defend almost every such picture." - this will be a perpetual problem if NFCC#8 remains so subjective. Carcharoth 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <sarcasm>I'm sorry but I could make no sense from all these Einsteins-friendship-plank thing you talk about. Don't you have picture of of Albert Einstein and Max Planck sitting together to illustrate your point? Without that, this topic is really difficult to be understood.</sarcasm> --Abu badali (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So from the tone of your sarcasm, I take it that you are "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly [and] could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia"? I recently pointed out to you a picture where you had provided a non-free use rationale, where you had written "never to illustrate the event it depicts" - and pointed out to you that the image is being used to illustrate the event it depicts. Which of these two images do you think is more likely to be problematic? My point here is that at the end of the day NFCC#8 is subjective. In cases that are subjective, specific arguments about the topic should carry more weight than general hand waving. Carcharoth 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:SOFIXIT. If that image is not being used according to the rationale, it should be removed, or worked out to be used in accordance to the rationale. I see this as only a distraction for your tentative above to explain how the EinteinPlank image passes WP:NFCC#8 --Abu badali (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm trying to work out whether you concentrate on areas that you know about, or whether you are indiscriminate in your image interests. Do you know enough about historical images to be comfortable in participating in image deletion debates for historical pictures? And I would genuinely like an answer to the point raised in that now-closed deletion discussion: are you "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly [and] could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia"? At some point, a line has to be drawn. We are obviously drawing it in different places, but let me ask you how much difference it really makes. What is the worst-case scenario if you adopt a more liberal interpretation of WP:NFCC#8? Will Wikipedia collapse overnight? You could ask the same question of me, but I will stand by my stance that a Wikipedia that errs on the side of caution in cases of historic images like this will be a lesser encyclopedia than it could be. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the deletion review, if the licencing issue should be sorted once and for all here, I can only suggest that we wait until the American Institute of Physics librarian gets back to Kenosis with more information. If the deletion review should be closed before then, then I suggest overturn as WP:NFCC#2 was not valid, and relist at IfD to discuss the WP:NFCC#8 issues there. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no valid NFCC#8 debate-- see my comment immediately below. ... Kenosis 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At this stage it's clear the image is in the public domain. As I noted here, farther up on this page, there is not any author's copyright because 70 years p.m.a. requires an explicit public claim of authorship appended to the image when it's published. Lacking such a claim of authorship disseminated in conjunction with the publishing of the photograph, any claim of copyright (e.g., "hey people, I'm the author of that photograph") lapses 70 years after the date of creation, which in this case is June, 2000. See article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. In the US, for works published in other countries without publicly claiming authorship, any image published prior to 1978 is in the public domain. The only exception to this is a widely criticized 1996 decision in the 9th Circuit (West Coast U.S.) which extends the possibility of copyright protection for works originating in other countries, but which would require someone to actually step forward and assert authorship, such as the direct descendants/heirs of the photographer who took the 1930 photo of Einstein and Planck (see footnote 11 in this synopsis ). Do participants here begin to see how ridiculous this becomes here? that lacking a scenario wherein a descendant of the photographer emails or has a lawyer write Wikipedia saying "Hey Wikipedia, I'm the grandson of the photographer, and (ahem!!) the particular low-resolution image is not in the public domain, but is merely 'fair use'!!!"
........ And even if it's not in the public domain, it is on extremely solid ground as fair-use, and the issue of #8 has already been decided by consensus in the IfD that the image added explanatory power to at least two of the articles in which it was used. NFCC#8, being a highly subjective measure, must be decided by consensus and never by administrative decree. The consensus in the IfD was to keep the image, thus overriding Abu badali's assertion that #8 applied. And among the participants in the IfD who are not already known specifically for being intensively-focused-image-deletion advocates that regularly operate in this area, the consensus was unanimous to "keep" the image for at least one or two of the articles in which the image was previously placed. Even the closing admin did not raise the issue of #8 with respect to the Albert Einstein article, but only with some of the seven articles in which the image was used as a "fair-use" image. So close this please, and restore the image to the articles in which it was placed. Please make arguments for removal of the image based upon #8 individually for any articles to which it is asserted to apply. When I hear back from the librarian at AIP, I'll let everyone know what I find. ... Kenosis 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenosis, I wish what you were saying was right. But it's not. The crucial fly in the U.S. Copyright ointment is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1994). Very roughly, that says that anything still in copyright in its original country on 1st January 1996 should be granted the U.S. copyright it would have been entitled to in the USA if all the formalities had been observed, all the renewals made, etc., such that it would have been in copyright in the USA on 1 Jan 1996. The effects can be seen in the table from Cornell here [10] (see "Works published outside the USA"). Because this image was still in copyright in Germany in 1996, it gets a copyright term of 95 years in the USA. So, whether or not it is now out of copyright in Germany, it is still subject to copyright in the USA, and will be until 2025. Jheald 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert, but I think the fly in the ointment here is really that there has been no claim of authorship made in Germany. In other words, we don't know who took the photo, and it is not clear this was ever recorded. In other words, "if all the formalities had been observed" there would still be no chance of the photo being copyrighted in 1996. It really is possible to have "ownership of historical photo unknown" cases, and it is misleading to pretend that these cases should be treated like any other case of "ownership of modern photo unknown". Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there are flies in the ointment, as is quite typical of intellectual property law since the advent of the internet. But none of them affect this situation on the evidence we have. A claim of authorship requires an author to step forward and say "hey, I took that photograph". The EU convention is explicit about this in Article 1. You can't just publish a photograph without attribution, then let 70 years elapse and have someone step forward and claim sole author's rights to something like an old photograph-- show me one case where this type of claim has been successfully made for a photograph in excess of 70 years after the fact-- just one. And, even in Germany, despite the major quirks involving newly granted copyrights on material that previously was in the public domain, it still requires, in keeping with EU copyright convention, public notice of authorship to be disclosed in conjunction with the publication of the photo in order to engage the "70 years p.m.a." clause. In other words, this photograph is not unpublished, but published without copyright, without an identified author. Incidentally, this also has nothing to do with the issue in the Copyright Act of 1976 regarding display of the "©" or the word "copyright", but rather has to do with notice that someone has actually claimed authorship of the already published "work", the original photograph. ... Kenosis 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone else is still reading, I'd also like to note the following: Have a look at this copyright notice (which I found linked from Template:Otto Perry image) which sums up 'historical uncertain copyright' issues nicely. "The Denver Public Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in the collection. We encourage use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. [...] The nature of historical archival photograph collections means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine." It would seem logical to me that fair use be allowed in cases like this, but some people say that WP:NFCC#10a vetos that. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Uncertain copyright for historical images. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that library knows what they are doing (or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing). They are saying they don't own the copyright or know you does, yet seem to claim copyright on the digital images in their collection, which would seems to go against Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Then they say use under the fair use clause, which is not necessary if they have no copyright. And again, fair use is secondary here to NFCC #10. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That library are doing exactly what we did with Template:Non-free unsure. I don't believe that NFCC #10 was ever intended to apply to historical pictures where the copyright and authorship of a photograph was never recorded or asserted, or where the records have been lost. I suspect that NFCC #10 was intended to stop people from just saying "I don't know who took this picture", when with a bit of effort they could find out. If efforts have been made to find out the copyright holder of a picture, and those efforts prove fruitless because it becomes clear that the records no longer exist, then NFCC #10 becomes meaningless. I'd also like to point out that even if the Bettmann Archives have a record of who they purchased the photo from, that in itself would not be sufficient, as that may just have been one of many copies made from the original negative (or whatever they used back then). Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a point of order, the date of the photo is June 28 1929, not 1930 as some have been saying. We also have the article Max Planck medal. I suspect a very strong case could be made for fair-use of the image in that article. Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very strong case for fair use is unnecessary unless someone can show us a claim of authorship. The evidence we have indicates no claim of authorship. After someone shows us a claim of authorship, we can, of course, discuss fair-use criteria upon such a showing of authorship. ... Kenosis 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I'm not clear what the difficulty is in comprehending Kenosis' points. I've seen that picture, with no clear copyright, in several of the books I own on physics. This entire dispute appears to be based on an inability to comprehend copyright laws. Also, NFCC#8 is so subjective and nebulous that its value is practicall nil. •Jim62sch• 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Note that people generally were not so copyright-greedy back then, and the photo probably was taken by some member of the physics community with no thought of ownership. I too have seen it reproduced in various textbooks, and had the impression that it was considered to be in the public domain. Anyway, the argument that just because it exists on the Corbis/Getty website it must not be used in the Wikipedia is wrong, as noted previously. As to whether the photo adds anything of value to the article, it seems to me that very few Wikipedia photos have that property. — DAGwyn 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't establish PD status based on such speculation. And please, notice that there's a great difference between asking "whether the photo adds anything of value to the article" and whether "the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --Abu badali (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer you to Max Planck medal - a picture of the inaugural award of the medal, to two of the pre-eminent physicists of the 20th century, is extremely relevant and informative for that article. If I uploaded the picture again and gave it a fair-use rationale for that article, would you need to open a new IfD to contest that? And I ask you again, do you see the difference between historical images and modern images? (for a longer version of this, see my unanswered question above #carcharoth1. Carcharoth 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A picture of Einstein and Planck together is completely unnecessary for the understanding of the content of Max Planck medal. There's no way you could write a valid fair use rationale for that article without ignoring NFCC#8.
- About your "unanswered question", you'll have to specify what are you calling "historical images". If by an historical image you mean an image illustrating an historical event, get to know that not all images of Elvis are notable (although Elvis himself is). And in the cases where the image itself is notable, fair use does not allow us to use the image indiscriminately, but only in the context of discussion the image itself and its notability and influence. --Abu badali (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very rare for an image itself to be notable. Have a look at Streamline Cars Ltd. The images there are not notable, but they are vital for understanding the article. That is why NFCC #8 is a useless and subjective criterion. When an image obviously should be kept under fair use, a strict interpretation of NFCC #8 would say it can't be used. This is why cases should be discussed on an individual basis. To return to an earlier example, since when was Image:inselian.jpg notable as an image? Are all Pulitzer Prize winning photographs notable enough that we can put them all in the article about the award? It is the event that is notable, not the image, hence that image should be deleted by your standards. But you wrote a fair use rationale for it. Can you see how that looks like double standards? Carcharoth 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the images at Streamline Cars Ltd are "vital for understanding the article", then they pass NFCC#8.
- Yes, Image:inselian.jpg is notable because it won a Pulitzer Prize. We could use Pulitzer Prize winning images in articles discussing those images. But a gallery on Pulitzer Prize won't be ok.
- What do you mean by "...obviously should be kept under fair use"? Do you mean the legal concept of "fair use"? Please, understand that WP:NFCC is far more restrictive than that.
- If you believe NFCC #8 is "useless and subjective", you should take your concerns to the policy discussion page, instead of refusing to follow it. --Abu badali (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they are. Do you? What is the objective way of deciding such matters? What happens when people disagree over NFCC #8?
- Is Image:inselian.jpg currently used in an article discussing that image? The only article I can see that discusses the image as an image is Pulitzer Prize. If each photo was accompanied by text about the impact that image has had, then Pulitzer Prize would be an article, not a gallery. I'm serious here - don't mistake a well-illustrated article for a gallery. If each image has extensive commentary and sourced analysis of their impact, there is no reason why we could not have all the photographs there with non-free use rationales. Of course, if the commentary expanded enough, you could have separate articles for each picture, but that would be no less a gallery than a merged list of those articles.
- I should have said "non free" - apologies, I sometimes slip back into the old language. I am well aware that NFCC is far more restrictive than fair use - please don't be condescending.
- I think I will start a discussion about NFCC #8, and probably about NFCC #2 at the same time. Do you have a link to the archived discussions, or a rough date for when the discussions took place?
- In general, though, I agree that any further discussion should be at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content criteria, as we are going in circles now. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Carcharoth 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A note here: reproduction in textbooks doesn't imply public domain. There should be a list of picture credits in the back of those textbooks. If anyone could find a text book with this picture in it, and tell us the credit given, that would be immensely useful. Even if it is credited, it doesn't mean that the credited organisation own the rights to the picture. It could just mean that the person searching for a suitable picture to put in the book, came across this picture on the image library's website, and paid them for a copy of it to use in the book. It is perfectly legal to sell free pictures. A picture being sold by a commercial library doesn't make it copyrighted. That bring us back to what started this deletion review, and again, I say overturn. Carcharoth 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and I'll have to go through my books. Nonetheless, it seems odd that no one has been able to prove that a copyright exists. I'd think that would be pretty easy to prove.
- As to this "rule", "the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", one could easily argue that we should get rid of 95% of our images. Hmmm, maybe I should just go around removing images from articles using that rationale. Oh, no, that would be a WP:POINT vio, wouldn't it? Good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a Though Police squad, I'd be hanged for even having such a thought. •Jim62sch• 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Free images can be used without having to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - free images can be used to decorate articles (note that I'm not using the word 'illustrate', as that, to me implies an informative aspect to the image). It's non-free images that have to pass NFCC #8 - a subjective criterion that is causing problems. A revision to NFCC #8 may have to be proposed soon. Carcharoth 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|