This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Shortcuts: WP:NFR WP:NFCR The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A list of current content review requests is maintained on the Category:Non-free content review requested page. Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law. How to nominate Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review: Add the {{Non-free review}} template to the media page. Start a new section with level 1 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the media as the header title.[1] For example: == [[:Image:ImageNameHere] == Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated. Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. How to close When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any editor may close a discussion. Closing the discussion Put a {{discussion top}} template above the media's header. After the last comment, add four dashes (----) on a new line. Enter closing comments and/or action taken under the dashes. Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~. Put a {{discussion bottom}} template under your comments. See this diff for an example closure. Media action Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media page with {{Non-free reviewed}}. If the media is to be removed, the closer should remove the media from the applicable articles. If the media is removed from all articles, it may be tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} or, if the closer is an admin, deleted at their discretion. If the media has a remediable problem, the closer is encouraged to implement the fix or tag the media as appropriate. For example: If the media is deemed to be too high resolution/fidelity (NFCC#3), add the {{Non-free reduce}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a source (NFCC#10A), add the {{nsd}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a copyright tag (NFCC#10B), add the {{nld}} template to the media page. If the media does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C), add the {{frn}} template to the media page. Notes ^ To nominate multiple media files in one section, title the section "Multiple files" (or similar wording, at your discretion) and ensure all files are linked in your comments. edit guidelines

Archives

1. March 2006–July 2007 2. August 2007–December 2007 3. January 2008–September 2008 4. October 2008–present

Contents 1 How to nominate 2 How to close 2.1 Closing the discussion 2.2 Media action 3 Notes 4 These Logos 5 Image:Metro martin carrera.gif 6 Image:Hans Island 003.jpg 7 Image:Polkadotpuss3.jpg in Measles 8 Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif in M1 carbine 9 Ne me quitte pas#Original meaning 10 Image:Microsoft Update in Windows XP.PNG 11 Image:Hand of God goal.jpg 12 Image:MerkelMax.jpg 13 Image:Cajkovski zlatko.jpg 14 Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg 15 Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg 16 Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg 16.1 Arbitrary section break 16.2 Some responses 16.3 Final comment 16.4 Points of information 17 Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg 18 Baseball cards in 1950s Topps 19 Image:Maharaj_Ji_Holy_Family_photo_cropped.jpg 20 Image:Roni browers.JPG 21 Image:Pinoy Idol billboard.jpg 22 Image:Timehenryford.jpg 23 Image:OhioDUIplate.jpg, Image:LAplateSonsOfConfederate.jpg, Image:343 plate.jpg, and Image:Poops.jpg 24 Image:LukasRossiByGEAPhotography-IMG 31092.jpg 25 Image:50s Topps Logo.jpg

Image:Metro martin carrera.gif

I'm bringing this logo here to be on the safe side, because it actually does seem to fall within Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria--more than many logos, I would image, since the content of the logo itself is discussed in the article. However, the image was listed at WP:CP on June 27th, and the IP editor who tagged the image here was quite correct in noting that "iconography and typography of Sistema de Transporte Colectivo de la Ciudad de México owns copyrights and its replica is not permitted without authorization of STC-Metro, check-it in the bottom of website http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/red/linea1". Yup, it says that at the bottom of the website. That same IP editor has requested deletion of the related image at Mexico City Metro from commons. Given the "whois" check on that IP, I wouldn't be surprised if the objection were not somewhat (or someone) official. Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is such a specific claim of rights sufficient to off-balance NFCC?". No. Part of the reason for the strict rules in WP:NFCC is to ensure that that law would allow us to use the non-freely licensed work even if its copyright holder isn't happy about our use. (Although I suspect most logo usage is on the weaker side on that point). Public discourse requires that we sometimes be able to take from some copyrighted works in order to identify and discuss things. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Microsoft Update in Windows XP.PNG

Uploaded image resolution is 1600 x 1200 x 24BPP. Image size is 123KB. This appears to breach WP:NFCC #3b. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've accordingly tagged it as Template:Non-free reduce. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A screenshot is only a tiny part of the original work (Windows Update), so we don't need to make it smaller for NFCC reasons. Still, the important parts would be shown more clearly in a lower resolution. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original image. The absolute resolution is high, sure, but that doesn't mean the image should be resized down so that the text is unreadable. I don't have Windows XP anymore so I can't create a more suitably-sized image, but I'm sure someone will get to it eventually. Warren -talk- 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hand of God goal.jpg

I realize this image has been reviewed previously, and I'm not arguing for deletion, but I believe this requires a second look, as the current rationales are based on a misinterpretation of fair use in my opinion.

This image qualifies as fair use, not because of what it illustrates, but because the photograph itself was at the center of the controversy, as this was the only image, still or moving, that conclusively showed the Hand of God goal was indeed a handball.

So clearly, it needs to be in the Hand of God goal article. However, it should not be in Argentina and England football rivalry, as the latter article does not discuss the photograph itself, and the photograph is rather irrelevant for the Argentina and England football rivalry.

It seems that the current rationales are written with using the photograph to merely illustrate the subject, which is not fair use. Fair use is permitted for discussion of the image.

For the same reason, while it should stay in the article, it should be moved down to the section discussing the media reaction, rather than at the top. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and remove the image from the rivalry article and delete the corresponding rationale. So in effect, I'm withdrawing the review, but I would still appreciate any feedback. --Mosmof (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:MerkelMax.jpg

• Image:ADM Mike Hudson, RAN.jpg

I know this may seem a bit odd, my bringing these here, since I wrote their FUR. I encountered both of them working at the copyright problem board and believed that since the subjects were dead a fair use could be made. I based my FUR on Image:Paul Hill.jpg. Since that image had been around a while, I presumed it was properly done. Now, however, one that I questioned at MCQ has been nominated for IfD, and a responder there indicates of that image (a similar situation, with same rationale):

**Allow me to point you to [1] which discusses the famous JonBenet Ramsey photo which was widely distributed, mainly this quote from David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press:

• • The fair use arguments for ignoring ZUMA's [the copyright holder of the JonBenet photo] assertion of rights to control the image are very weak. Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news.

  • Our usage of this is not even close to fair use by U.S. standards at all. howcheng {chat} 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)}}

If that's correct, then these aren't fair use, either. Since that contributor is an admin at commons, I don't doubt he knows quite a lot more about fair use allowances than I do. :) Other than these, the vast majority of my image experience has been with album covers, which are relatively uncomplicated. Most others issues I've broached at MCQ. I bring them here for review, because it seems a bit odd for me to write a FUR for them and then delete them because of an inadequate FUR. I am also going to separately list one that I uploaded myself, because I suspect is may have a stronger claim to presence than these, though I don't know that for sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out Fair use. A small image used for educational purposes by a non-profit organisation has a very strong claim to fair use. Ty 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be true if Wikipedia weren't one of the top ten visited sites in the world (i.e., our usage of the material reaches a wide audience, as opposed to a teacher reprinting copyrighted work for use in a classroom of 20 students). Additionally, our non-free content criteria are intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. laws allow because it is inconsistent with our mission of providing free (as in unrestricted) content to everyone. howcheng {chat} 02:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cajkovski zlatko.jpg

The last image used to illustrate the article Zlatko Čajkovski was listed at WP:CP and deleted, as not only was it a plainly copyrighted image featuring this man, but it featured two others, as well--one of whom was alive. I found this photo at the Croatian Wikipedia and uploaded it with a FUR, since the permission at the Croatian Wikipedia likely does not cover us. If the images above fail FU, this may also. I list it separately because it is under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported at its source. I don't know if that makes a difference. I bring it here for evaluation from more knowledgeable image editors. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg

This image, despite being under copyright, is being used all over the place, and I wonder if having it in nine separate articles is within the spirit of our non-free content policy.

I cannot argue with its inclusion in Guernica (painting), of course, nor in Pablo Picasso, as it is perhaps his seminal work. What concerns me are the other seven. Two days ago, it appeared in eleven articles but had FURs for only four. I removed the image from the other seven articles; five have since been restored with rationales. However, these new rationales are largely copied from the previous ones, and thus may not apply. In particular, the rationale for use in the article Spain says "Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s)," but it doesn't really, and there are plenty of free images of Spain available.

I would like a review of this image's use in Wikipedia and whether the claimed fair uses are appropriate.

-- Powers ^T 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I do agree that Guernica is used more often than usual and more often than other works of art; I disagree that it appears in inappropriate places - it isn't being used in any inessential or trivial articles.

Guernica is an essential and pivotal work of mid-20th century art; it graphically depicts and represents both history and the history of art. The painting is one of the most important paintings by one of the most important painters of the 20th century. It conveys powerful and historical information beyond the ordinary information conveyed by a work of visual art. It has become a symbol of Spanish heritage and culture; as well as a symbol of Western art and culture.

It was a politically charged message against Fascism at a crucial moment in history. Consequently it appears in a few important and historical articles including Spain, Spanish art and The Spanish Civil War. It appears in Guernica (painting), Pablo Picasso, the History of painting, (the history of) Western painting, as well it should and in Goya's The Third of May 1808 (FA) and in Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) the place that exhibited the painting in the first place in 1937.

This is a crucible of Modernist art, and while it probably should not appear in any other articles beyond where it is now, I don't think the painting is overextended. Modernist (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is potentially valid in those articles, but this depends on the text in the article. Where there is no text about it, but just the image and caption, as in for example Spain and Spanish Civil War it isn't justified. In fact there should be text about it in the articles, as it played a significant role and had an international repercussion. Ty 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree with Ty that the text in Spain probably doesn't justify its inclusion there; the caption in Spanish Civil War which reads - was painted as a representation of the bombing of Guernica, serves as a link to the article on the bombing. The image appears as a thumb in the section Atrocities during the war - seems apropos...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it as justified in its current use in that article. There's hardly anything on the bombing itself. Ty 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is more on it below in the "The war: 1937" section, to which the image should be moved (the article is hugely under-illustrated, but has two pictures left & right together). I'll do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Powers point about the Fair Use Rationales is valid several can be reworded better, I'll change them. Most seem fine to me...Modernist (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the wording wasn't the best in some of the rationales, but it can be difficult to understand what rationales are acceptable and what some of the wording that seems to be acceptable actually means. In the article Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) where the painting was first shown, there is definitely wording in the article that specifically refers to the painting, and it is a central part of the article (and Exhibition) with a parallel to the artistic (and soon to be real) conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia at the Exhibition. With the central themes of the exhibit (and article) best illustrated by artwork produced by 3 states which later collapsed it is impossible to illustrate the article without using some of this work. If Fair Use doesn't apply here, where does it? But how does all that fit into our pre-packaged rationale boxes? Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B.: The two articles that currently have not had the image restored are Biscay and Around the World in 80 Treasures. Powers ^T 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• N.B. They weren't restored because they weren't essential or necessary IMHO. Modernist (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't really matter what the reason was; I just thought it important to mention for the historical record. =) Powers ^T 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg

• [See below: two images deriving from same YouTube source and blog copying from earlier Wikipedia version of YouTube; materials are unauthorized uploadings of photographs of an indoor exhibition in the Auschwitz-Birenau State Museum, which prohibits visitors from using cameras (both still and video) and photographing such exhibits from its photo archives and other holdings. U.S. copyright law, not Polish copyright law, governs uploading of images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

And as outlined below, US copyright does not grant the rights to anyone since the Nazi Party forced the photographer to take photos of forced subjects. At best (and worst) US law regarding the creation of works for an employer apply and the Nazi Party gets rights which, as it does not exist, cannot claim rights. The museum makes no claim to owning the images and only prohibits photos to maintain a respectful atmosphere rather than out of copyright claims. Last but not least, by Polish law the images are free because there was no copyright noticed attached and they were made before 1994 and because the images were taken to be used in official documents regarding prisoners in a death camp. Since there is no evidence to suggest anyone can claim copyright control of the images and a great deal of evidence to suggest that these images are free they should be retained as they contribute directly to the article's subject matter and no better replacement can be had. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AND

Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg

Please see the questions already posted in the talk pages of both images and in the related article(s). If this is "FUR" (WP:FUR), I am posting them here for review. I looked for a place to post them right before seeing a ref. to "FUR" in a recent edit summ. by Piotrus; this appears to be what is intended. I welcome review of these images. If they can be kept, fine; if not, fine. --NYScholar (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear if the images are not in public domain. If not, than FUR is acceptable. The museum has no right to prohibit the display of those images under Polish law.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When trying to figure out if the images are free, we have to look at both US Law and what the law of the country of origin this. That is how it works on here and the sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. These images are copyrighted in Poland, since the photographer is still alive and has copyright protection of his work from the time he dies and 70 years after that. Some claim that works like these under duress are not copyrighted in Poland; no such provision exists in the copyright laws of Poland. So the uploader is correct that these images related to Czeslawa Kwoka are copyrighted. The problem I am seeing that the claim is now that these images were from videos that are from youtube (which I have never seen, so I can never vouch for it.) I think only one image of Czeslawa Kwoka should be kept, since both depict this girl in prison uniforms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec): Sorry; but it is also not clear that these images (one is a cropped piece of the three-pose image) are in "public domain" in the U.S. [or in Poland]; U.S. copyright law governs the content of Wikipedia. There is full discussion and related links to relevant information posted in each image talk page. This review cannot take place independent of the discussion already placed on the image page; it took a lot of work and time to develop it, and it needs careful consideration with respect to both Wikipedia media/image inclusion policies and U.S. copyright law, which applies to Wikipedia's uploading of images to articles and other Wikipedia space. --NYScholar (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [added accidentally-omitted words. --NYScholar (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Addition: Contrary to a statement made by another user above: The Museum is not prohibiting "display" of the photographs; it exhibits them (which is a display of them, for visitors to the Museum to look at); but the Museum does prohibit visitors from bringing cameras (both still and video) into its indoor exhibits and from photographing its exhibits. It also protects its indoor exhibits (Museum property) and photo archives, photographs of the exhibited photographs, and publications by the Museum from copyright violations through a clear copyright notice on its official website. The above user confuses the matter. --NYScholar (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to US Copyright Law, works published from 1923 until 1977 without any sort of copyright notice fall into the public domain. Plus, about the US and country of origin, that is how I was told policies work on here, regardless of law. I think we are tougher than actual law. That is why we have many photos from WW2 licensed under fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping one photo under FUR sounds reasonable to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of what Wikipedia policy relating to images in Wikipedia???? This is not a personal matter but a policy matter. Your statement does not seem "reasonable" at all in view of the copyright infringements and lack of licensing of the image and false fair use rationale claims of "public domain" etc. --NYScholar (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the uploader has been claiming that the images are not copyrighted in Poland and that they are, therefore, in the "public domain" in Poland, which I contest, and consider irrelevant in relation to U.S. copyright law and the sources that the uploader has actually used in copying, editing, and then uploading these 2 images to Wikipedia; please see the editing history of each image. --NYScholar (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If one hasn't seen the videos in YouTube, one is not able to comment on them. They are easily accessible via the URL cited in the image page(s) (various versions) and via any simple YouTube search or Google search for these particular photos; they are copied from YouTube and a blog--a self-published site that copied the 3-pose version w/ the Museum's exhibit captions intact from the YouTube source posted in an earlier version of Wikipedia and gives only a URL to this very Kwoka Wikipedia article (earlier version) as its source: feedback plagiarism loop. --NYScholar (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog image was at one point actually "hot-linked" in the fair use rationale. It may still be; I tried to change it to "nowiki" format but it was reverted at times; it may still be nowiki format, so one can just copy and paste it. Due to its being a self-publication, it is no longer listed as a source in the article on Kwoka or Brasse or The Portraitist, and neither are the spurious YouTube videos. --NYScholar (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am disputing the inclusion in Wikipedia of both photos, not just one of them, and I am asking for review of each one; one comes from the other, but the uploader has identified them differently, even though the source is YouTube in both cases, bec. the blog took it from Wikipedia which took it from YouTube (in earlier version of this article); see the URL to Wikipedia as the "source" given in the blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article in which both images appear (one in infobox and one in section), even though they both come from same 3-pose photograph exhibited in the Museum and posted w/o permission in YouTube and other Websites and blogs and message boards: Czesława Kwoka. --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog is "TACSE", self-published; blog post gives Wikipedia as source at a time when YouTube version was in Wikipedia: <http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp2.blogger.com/_CkVCzqsazOk/RtlNY3kUTSI/AAAAAAAAAGE/akPPl2SIAco/s320/czeslawa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tacse.blogspot.com/2007/09/lori-schreiner-and-i-collaborate-for&h=145&w=320&sz=10&hl=en&start=3&um=1&usg=__B-2MbEWAZO3UhdXA1VK2jeVjJRA=&tbnid=I01WMQUF6vibgM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCzes%25C5%2582awa%2BKwoka%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-34,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN>: Poeticbent (the uploader) has identified this blog (which I actually had provided as a source before realizing the unreliability) as the source of the 3-pose image; but this image was originally taken from YouTube video, which took the image without license or authorization from the Museum exhibit which does not allow photography and/or from elsewhere on the internet that did that...unclear and unreliable source; lack of license to feature the photo in YouTube or in blog. --NYScholar (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've provided the URL in nowiki format to this and other YouTube videos w/ the images from the Museum exhibit uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec" before, but it has been continually deleted from the speedy-deletion and fair use rationale templates by the uploader et al.: e.g., <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAcoG3ju0vw>. Please consult the talk pages of both images for this information and the editing histories of the image pages for both images. I can't keep repeating information I've already given. It's accessible. The YouTube videos have been flagged, but are still online. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption in the TACSE self-published blog reads: "Wilhelm Brasse photos via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czes%C5%82awa_Kwoka." In Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia itself is not permissible as a source. --NYScholar (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of these images is permissible in Wikipedia; I am aware that they duplicate each other, however, and that is more reason why the same image (1 of the 3 poses) does not belong in the same article; I've seen arguments about that before (e.g. piece of a book cover used in both an infobox image of an author and in a section in same biog. article of that same subject (person). Here the repetition is not justifiable either. But in neither case is the image within fair use according to Wikipedia's policies on non-free images, because the images are actually copyrighted and from the Museum's photo archive (items in an exhibition which visitors to the Museum are prohibited to photograph at all), not in the public domain, and not free or out of copyright in either the U.S. or in Poland. The photographer is living and 91 years old. --NYScholar (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, relax for a moment please. I am watching the video now and from what I am seeing, it is just a slideshow of pictures from the museum. I personally never been to the museum, let alone Poland itself, so I personally cannot comment on their specific policies when it comes to photos. Regardless of all of that, the original copyright holder of the photographs has been identified as Wilhelm Brasse and he is still alive. They are still copyrighted in Poland, but not in the USA. Plus, I am checking to see if we have policies about museums and photographs on one of our sister projects. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already documented the Museum's policies in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs and already done so in the image talk pages; photography (cameras, both still and video) are explicitly prohibited from use in indoor exhibits; this is indoor exhibit of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. Couldn't be clearer. Please consult the talk pages of each image. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photos are credited to Brasse, who took them in either 1942 or 1943; they are not out of copyright in the U.S. --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the U.S. Copyright Law and provision of fair use and Wikipedia's own policies relating to them (which are in some cases relating to images even stricter than U.S. copyright law, see: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues. --NYScholar (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If the images have no copyright notice, then the images are PD in the USA, as I mentioned above. But they are still copyrighted in the country of origin, so we both know it is going to have to be used under fair use here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The photographs from the same exhibit have featured copyright notices in publications of the Museum advertised and featured on the website of the Museum (I've quoted them in both the image page and in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs. There is no reliable source to prove that this particular 3-pose photograph made by Brasse has no copyright notice on it in the Museum's Photo archive materials published in books later (much later, in 2004, e.g.); in The Portraitist (2005) Brasse identifies his own photographs as such; re: public domain: see Cornell: PDF etc. I think too much guessing is going on here. But I agree, it is copyright in the country of origin and proper fair use notice would be required to claim fair use, but in such a rationale in Wikipedia the actual source of the image must be given, and that is actually a blog citing Wikipedia and a YouTube video which basically infringes the Museum's intellectual property (the Museum provided the captions for its exhibit of this particular photograph (as with the others) and also in its own publications (e.g., 2004); and it does not permit visitors to photograph its indoor exhibits (which this one is). --NYScholar (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube video was made after 2004, and uploaded just a few months ago, according to YouTube. In 2006, a person claimed to photograph this photograph at the Museum in 2004 in Wikipedia Commons, but the uploaded image was deleted from WC for "copyright violation." (That person created the Kwoka article too.) It's the same exhibit. --NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyrighted film made in Poland, The Portraitist (Portrecista), TVP1, 2005) includes the work of Brasse; it is a commercial film, screened at film festivals and for sale via contact with its distributor's website. The photographs are part of the film's poster (see the W. article; this is copyrighted intellectual property, and Brasse is the subject of the film, intereviews with him are the content of the film as well as visual illustrations of his work in the film; copyrights pertain there as well. --NYScholar (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I already told you the photo is copyrighted in Poland, the country of origin, so that is no longer the question. The question now is should a photo from a museum be allowed to be uploaded here. I don't have the answer to that question now, and I won't have one for at least a few days. I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your post: "I am telling you now that I am not concerned about the blog or youtube video, those issues are moot anyways." Someone just deleted the image from the film (the press kit photograph; featured in the distributor's press kit materials) which did have a proper fair-use rationale. Without any clear explanation of why. Please look into that now as well. That fair-use rationale was entirely proper and gave all the necessary information required by Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean in the quoted portion? Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain. Status of those photographs did not change after Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 was enacted. (See: Template:PD-Polish). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this already; what evidence is there that this particular photograph (credited to Wilhelm Brasse was "printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994"? No source to support that cited anywhere in the articles about Brasse or Kwoka or the film about Brasse, The Portraitist; that is an assumption not a fact about this particular photograph of 3 poses of Kwoka; the image has been published since 1994 with a copyright notice attributing it to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, which exhibited Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners beginning in 1955, which is a "permanent exhibition" in the Museum, and which visitors are not allowed to photograph, because it is an "indoor" exhibit. This is legalese without factual sources to establish its relevance to this particular photograph. --NYScholar (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The museum published a photographic book with photographs of Auschwitz prisoners from this area of Poland, etc., in 2002 to 2004 (various editions). Not 1994. The photographs in the book come from its Photo Archive. The book is copyrighted. If someone uses the book as a source of the photograph (which is possible; without acknowledgment) that is a copyright violation of the publication copyright. How do you know when this photograph first was "printed": where was it first "printed?" And who printed it? "Author"? "Publisher?" "Date of publication/printing?"--NYScholar (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish Copyright Law has been amended re: intellectual properties since 1994; I've linked to the law already in the image talk page(s). U.S. copyright law pertains, however, in relation to Wikipedia's uploading of images re: "fair use" claims, whether or not "public domain" and so on. You need to supply evidence to support your claims. --NYScholar (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[I'm located on the East coast of the U.S., in New York; it's too late to be up anymore re: this; I'm going to bed. --NYScholar (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break

The legal position would appear to turn firstly on the date of first publication of the image, ie not when the work was created; nor when the work was first publicly exhibited; but when authorised copies of the image were first generally distributed so people could own them.

NYS says this first occurred in 2002 in a book by Helena Kubica [2]. But I haven't yet seen his evidence for the claim that this was the first publication of this image. He also doesn't give a page reference that the image was published in this book. The picture subsequently appears to have been distributed to the press in the United States in 2005-6.

According to our talk pages here, the image may also be currently displayed as part of the permanent exhibit in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners. This exhibition has apparently been in place since 1955; though presumably it may have been re-made a number of times since then. Now, public exhibition doesn't count as publication; and we don't know how long the image has been included in the exhibition. But prima facie it's at least possible that the image may have been published in a catalogue of that exhibit prior to 2002.

If the image was first published in 2002, then it might be copyright to Wilhelm Brasse. On the other hand, original copyright might have vested with the Nazi state, which organised and directed the work of the Erkennungsdienst at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz museum itself in 2007 was in dispute with one Dina Babbitt over copyright ownership of sketches and paintings she had been forced to make for Mengele. [3] If the original copyright was owned by the Nazi state, it's not clear to me who that would now rest with. Another question is whether these photographs in fact attract copyright at all: the current EU requirement under Directive 93/98/EEC (enacted in Poland in 2000-2002) is that for full protection photographs must be "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality". Do standardised mug-shots qualify? Finally, note that the same directive also institutes "publication rights" for previously unpublished works in which the possibility of copyright has expired (being 70 years pma etc.). Such publication rights in the EU are granted to the first publisher, for 25 years. However, they do not apply in the United States.

So, if the work was first published in 2002, and if the work is considered sufficiently original to qualify for copyright, and if Wilhelm Brasse is considered the legal author, then it would appear to indeed be under copyright (both in Poland and the U.S.A.)

If any of those conditions aren't met then things are more questionable.

In particular, if the work was legitimately published before 1994, then things turn very closely on whether it was published with a clear copyright notice (identifying the copyright owner of the photo, not just the book it was contained in). The relevant U.S. law then becomes the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restores U.S. copyrights in non-U.S. works, if they would be copyright in their home countries as of January 1, 1996.[4] According to Polish law, [5] for photos before 1994 this will be the case only if the photos were published with a clear copyright notice. Otherwise they would be public domain in Poland, and therefore also in the United States.

(Note added) One other thing. Under Article 4(2) of the Polish copyright law, the following are excluded from copyright: "official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols". This image looks as if it might qualify as "official documentary material", that being on the face of it the very purpose for which it was created. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some other points

You tube, etc. At least per US law (Bridgeman vs Corel), there won't be any additional copyright in the faithful reproduction of a 2d work. So the only copyright we need to consider is the copyright in the original work.

Museum photography policy. We don't have a contract with the museum. If the image is not copyright, the museum does not acquire any rights in it merely by putting up a sign saying "no photography".

Museum ownership of the copyright. On the face of it, unless anyone can add better data, there seems no reason to assume that the museum would own the copyright. If copyright exists, it might be held by Wilhelm Brasse, or by whatever body has inherited the copyright of the Nazi state; but there seems to be no a-priori reason that such copyright would be owned by the museum. In Europe, if the copyright had become extinct before first publication, then the museum might have a 25 year publication right; but such a right would not apply in the United States.

Fair use. The copyright position seems at least murky. But if the image were copyright, there seems to me a reasonable fair use case per WP:NFCC. The detail picture identifies the subject of the article, and is the picture the recent artwork has been based on, which is identified as the main source of the article's wikipedia notability. It therefore very much is right on the spine of the subject of the article. The full picture (from which the detail is taken) conveys the full context of the original picture. But before jumping to conclusions, I think we should investigate more the actual copyright situation first. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some responses

"But if the image were copyright": If? Another part of the same exhibition of photographs has already been removed from Wikipedia Commons for "copyright violation" and another photograph from the same exhibition uploaded by the same uploader to Wikipedia Commons is also currently disputed. I placed the link to it in the talk page of these images. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a whole host of unverified assumptions being made about the indoor exhibition from the Photo archive of the Museum in the post by Jheald. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum makes its position about ownership of its exhibitions very clear in its website; that position is already documented (with reliable sources from the Museum) in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs and in the talk pages of these images. The Museum states that it does not allow photography by visitors of its indoor exhibits. There is no published catalogue with the particular photograph that the uploader uploaded to Wikipedia being cited by the uploader. If there were such a catalogue, it would be a printed and copyrighted work with copyrights of the publisher of record (the Museum). (The Museum makes no reference to any such published "catalogue" of its exhibition Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners (which contains these photographs containing the 3 poses of Kwoka, and of many others.)

The Museum's copyrights for its exhibits are not in the "public domain" in the United States (as claimed by the uploader and others citing Polish copyright law w/ respect to 1994), which is not complete citation of current Polish copyright law (I provided the links to it in the image page for others' convenience a few days ago).

All "fair use rationales" in Wikipedia image pages are required to state the actual source used for the image and why uploading from it to Wikipedia is permissible in an image uploaded to Wikipedia. I dispute the description page of this image in Wikipedia.

The current image page refers to use of a YouTube video featuring still photographs from the Museum exhibit.

There is no doubt that this photograph is part of the exhibition called Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners.

"There is no reason to assume....": This is not an "assumption":

• The captions included in the image w/ the 3 poses are clearly and undisputably photographs of the Museum's exhibition in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners, over which it claims ownership rights in its website and which it disallows visitors to photograph (still or video), as it does all its "indoor" exhibits.

Another photograph from its Photo Archive and featured in the exhibit is also posted on its official website with a clear copyright notice and credit to the Exhibition Department photographer for the Museum. (It is a photograph of a photograph, produced by the Museum's Exhibition Department photographer credited.)

The Website features a copyright notice with the dates 1999 to 2008. I have provided this information with URLs for further investigation already in the talk page of the image. Both this 3-pose photograph and the one copied and uploaded to Wikipedia taken from both YouTube and a blog are Museum archival photographs that make up the exhibition in Block no. 6. The Museum features a portion of the larger exhibition on its own copyrighted Website, and I have provided a link to the Museum's Website for verification of that. There is also the matter of the copyrighted documentary film about Brasse, made in 2005 and distributed commercially. I have provided the credit to Rekontrplan Film Group and its website location in The Portraitist; the video clip advertising the film on Rekontrplan Film Group's official Website contains stills of the photographs from the exhibition of photographs (and other items) in Block no. 6. Fair use rationales (if that is the route for any of these images) need to identify sources used to upload the images (what source[s] they were taken from by the uploader of the images). In the past (I haven't checked it again today) the fair use rationale and identification of sources used have not been presented correctly.

One of several remaining questions is: what is the source used by the uploader to copy and upload this image (3 poses) and the close up part of one of the poses (part of the same photograph) to Wikipedia. It appears to be a derivative work not original with the uploader but taken from Website content. Wikipedia has clear stipulations about the problems about uploading potential copyright infringing material from Websites to Wikipedia.

The film about Wilhelm Brasse featuring archival materials and iconography (according to its distributor) is a commercial property and has its own copyright as well; fair use rationale for the use of the image of the movie poster is provided in The Portraitist image; click on its image page in the infobox image. That is a clear situation of fair use with proper Wikipedia procedures followed in the creation of the fair use rationale and licensing information.

These images uploaded by Poeticbent do not have a proper fair use rationale and proper licensing information in the image pages.

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to provide evidence that the museum claims copyright over the images. They state themselves that photography is prohibited out of respect for the material and mention nothing about copyrights. That same respect for the material would suggest they would not agree with your opinion that the works are capable of being copyrighted. The copyright notices on the website itself are common on all business and organization websites and apply to the website and its layouts and mention nothing about specific photos. You've yet to address the objections raised over these photos being public works, being part of public documents, and lacking a copyright claim on them. As for first date of publication, the Nazi's published them when they included them in their documents regarding their prisoners. That says nothing about the host of special laws regarding Nazi works and their general ineligibility for copyright. Until you can provide some proof of your claim that the image is under copyright, the wealth of evidence here that suggests it is a free image should prevent its deletion. Use as a free image is the best option given that it is supported by the evidence, no evidence has been raised to suggest otherwise beyond the fact that a website has been copyrighted and work has been done on the images (as has been done on many free images made about the subject), and it contributes significantly to the article it is featured in. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Final comment

Firstly, I would like to thank User:Jheald for this professional assessment of the images in question. I can really appreciate your knowledge since copyright law is a stuff of life for me being a professional artist. By the same token, for those who might have difficulty understanding the premises of copyright law due to its complexity, I suggest you expand on your knowledge by additional reading. You can start by visiting the web site of photographer Dan Heller for his in-depth article on the subject of releases.

To put it in simple words, copyright protection notices displayed in books, in film, and in public exhibits of historic photographs and paintings refer to layout, original copy text, vision, as well as the release concept. The actual historic 2D images (unless they are transformed in a creative way) fall into a separate category. For example, the picture taken of Mona Lisa does not make one an owner of Mona Lisa copyrights. Similarly, the picture taken of Mona Lisa painting by the museum photographer does not include copyright on the image appearing in the photograph. The museum exhibits are copyrighted, the Mona Lisa painting is not. In that sense, the copyright tag by the distributor can, but doesn’t have to be honoured with a mention, in the face of law.

To speak of You Tube anywhere around here is overly courteous already. It does not matter, who took the picture of the picture of Czesława Kwoka and where from, exactly... What is of interest to us is only the initial mug-shot of her and it’s legal status, including country of origin, the actual point in time, and all the accompanying circumstances. Nazi state was Wilhelm Brasse’s slave-labour employer (for further information see: Forced labor in Germany during World War II). The photographer was recompensed for his physical labour by being kept alive. So, is the image owned by the German Reich still, 65 years after the fact? Or, can the concentration camp photographer be perceived in relation to modern day release instead? Polish copyright law is pretty clear about that, and so is the American Fair use. With the proper tag, the images meet the bilateral criteria of display for illustration purposes regardless of where they originated from.
--Poeticbent talk 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I repeat a comment that pertains to WP:POL, specifically to: Wikipedia:Image use policy, particularly to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair use considerations; and to the Non-free use rationale guideline, linked therein as well: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline:
  

Until and unless proper fair use rationales and proper licensing information are provided by the uploader, these 2 images should be deleted from Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Points of information

I've added an EL in the EL sec. of the article on Kwoka to the "Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Publications: Albums and Catalogues"; it provides precise publication information, including dates of publication of these photograph albums and catalogues, all of which are copyrighted by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland. [Books by Kubica already listed in References sec. of that and other related articles.] --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The "identity pictures" of Kwoka were taken in 1942 or 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced in the article on her). She died in March 1943 in Auschwitz (sourced...). The photographs were not taken prior to 1923 (see U.S. copyright law re: "public domain"), and they appear in an indoor exhibition at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland, which visitors are not allowed to photograph. The Museum publication by Kubica, containing some (but not all) of the photographs in its archives, was published in 2002 and 2003 (in German/Polish), according to the Museum publications information (see post just above). Sources cited in the Wikipedia articles on Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist give credit to Brasse as the photographer who took these particular photographs of Kwoka. He did not publish them. The Museum exhibited some of his photographs and some of the photographs in its indoor exhibits are published in its publications, none of which were published by or before 1994, according to its Publications Webpage. It is not yet verified when (on what date) the "permanent" "indoor" Exhibition of Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners began to include the photographs that include the 3 poses of Kwoka (in these images). The exhibition was first mounted in 1955. --NYScholar (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion on talk page of one of these two images: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg#See similar problems already discussed in other image created by uploader, with links to Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which is another image nominated for deletion in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (since [July] 2008), which I just noticed this week). It is actually an orphan [in Wikipedia Commons--corr. (Ed. NYS); see below], and should be marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see listing of image below: have corrected the date, as explained there.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [see below. corr. (NYS). --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

I notice a lot have been posted. Anyways, the fact they are in a book or museum doesn't prevent us from using these photos at all. Under fair use, we can use what we want, in limited circumstances, regardless of when and where it is published and/or displayed. In this case, we should have one, just one, photo of this woman and that is it. The YouTube and blog stuff are irrelevant, since neither are the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, who holds/held the copyright? In this case, the photographer, who is still alive. Therefore, a fair use rationale is needed, which we have. End of story, problem solved. No problem in the first place, really. Taking a photo of something (or in this case, using it in a YouTube video) without significantly modifying the work to the point it is in itself unique does not give the re-user ownership of the copyright. It still remains with whoever created the original work. There is no reason to delete either of these photos. Hersfold ^(t/a/