Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / December 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Question about Copyright and Wikipedia image use policies.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Doc - 22 Dec 2007 06:19 GMT
I recently created a Wikipedia page and am encountering difficulty
with Wikipedia's policies on use of an image.

I inserted an image from a page on a performer's management company's
site that states the images are specifically for use in articles about
the performer.

But apparently this isn't good enough for Wikipedia and the image has
been flagged. Their policies on this matter at least to me seem
convoluted. They say the image could reasonably be replaced with a
"free" image. To them a "free" image seems to be one that's either in
the public domain due to age, one I personally took myself or that
someone gives full permission to use "in any manner".

Part of this is apparently that people have to be willing to allow the
photo to be used for commercial purposes for which they won't be
entitled to any remuneration. However, I see pics that are single
frames from TV broadcasts that are allowed under "fair use". How can
an image from a commercial broadcast which always has some "may not be
reproduced or rebroadcast etc. etc." and there's even a disclaimer
attached to the image saying that use of the image outside of
Wikipedia may be an infringement of copyright, so obviously the image
isn't "free". It isn't even obtained with permission.

And who's going to give permission for a photo to be used "in any
manner". What if someone puts it in a pornographic setting, or some
setting that would be offensive to the artist or their heirs. Don't
actors or other celebrities sue for unauthorized use of their
likeness?

Thanks for all input
May - 22 Dec 2007 09:32 GMT
It's my understanding that unless you have a written statement saying
that you can use an image in any manner it is protected under copy
write for 75 years. Perhaps you should get ahold of the site that has
the orig. image you wish to use & have them give you a release in
"writing" to submit to Wikipedia. If they have the copy write on file
then you should have no other problems.
VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG - 22 Dec 2007 13:13 GMT
>It's my understanding that unless you have a written statement saying
>that you can use an image in any manner it is protected under copy
>write for 75 years. Perhaps you should get ahold of the site that has
>the orig. image you wish to use & have them give you a release in
>"writing" to submit to Wikipedia. If they have the copy write on file
>then you should have no other problems.

It's copyright; not copy write.
Signature

VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
         
 "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

Deadrat - 22 Dec 2007 19:12 GMT
May <MorningSong21@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bae58f9c-2a51-43c6-a9fb-
a7624b984e4e@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> It's my understanding that unless you have a written statement saying
> that you can use an image in any manner it is protected under copy
> write for 75 years. Perhaps you should get ahold of the site that has
> the orig. image you wish to use & have them give you a release in
> "writing" to submit to Wikipedia. If they have the copy write on file
> then you should have no other problems.

I'm only gonna say this once (more):

              copy*right*
May - 27 Dec 2007 02:12 GMT
I know how to spell it. I did it to annoy those who are so anal about
spelling. The group is about photography not language. The more you
critize my spelling the more I'll spell something wrong. Why don't you
bust on the spammers instead of the typo's?
Tedski - 31 Dec 2007 03:30 GMT
> bust on the spammers instead of the typo's?

The word is "typos." You don't form a plural by adding an apostrophe.
I know, you did it on purpose just to bug us -- the last defense of
the clueless.

Ted
Deadrat - 31 Dec 2007 03:51 GMT
Tedski <tedski2000@gmail.com> wrote in news:03e1ea27-e6a9-42da-8b92-
64e5673de603@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

>> bust on the spammers instead of the typo's?
>
> The word is "typos." You don't form a plural by adding an apostrophe.

<sorry>
Except in cases that would otherwise create ambiguity:  "I count two lower
case a's in this sentence."
</sorry>

> I know, you did it on purpose just to bug us -- the last defense of
> the clueless.
>
> Ted
Tedski - 31 Dec 2007 04:02 GMT
> Tedski <tedski2...@gmail.com> wrote in news:03e1ea27-e6a9-42da-8b92-
> 64e5673de...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> case a's in this sentence."
> </sorry>

<I knew that, but didn't feel May could handle the information
overload>
Right.
</I knew that, but didn't feel May could handle the information
overload>
dj_nme - 31 Dec 2007 05:31 GMT
> Tedski <tedski2000@gmail.com> wrote in news:03e1ea27-e6a9-42da-8b92-
> 64e5673de603@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> case a's in this sentence."
> </sorry>

You meant '...two lower case "a" in this sentence' ?
Otherwise it looks like you're writing about something that belongs to
the "a".
" 's " should only be used for contractions (ie:  'net [internet],
doesn't [does not]) or for indicating possession [ie: "John's hat", "the
cat's claws"].
richard - 22 Dec 2007 13:50 GMT
>I recently created a Wikipedia page and am encountering difficulty
>with Wikipedia's policies on use of an image.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>Thanks for all input

It would be best to have the actual permission in writing and given to
wikip.
Yes, actors sue for unauthorized use frequently.
Bett Midler sued a company for using her photos and saying she
endorsed their product.
Julia Roberts sued exboyfriend and he had to remove the photos from
his website.

Chrysler attempted to sue a website owner for the improper use of
"jeeps" within a website. The owner pulled the photos, not because of
the lawsuit, but because he found out he had the wrong permission.

News media can use photos of celebrities purely for the discussion of
the news cast at the time. I'm not sure if they could legally use
those photos within a book about news items. In some cases though,
they are required to have a signed release authorizing the use.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.