Commons talk:Fair use

Company Logo Policy is UTTERLY confusing

So what is the deal with uploading the logo of a notable US company for its wikipedia page if you are the owner of that logo and give permission? I've seen company logos hosted in the commons on ALL SORTS of other company wikipedia pages, but according to guides like this one, all those logos should be "speedily deleted." What is the real story here, and how does a contributor contribute "properly?" --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the following template, Template:Logo_fur, makes it seem like it is ok to upload non-free media/non-free logos. Since many non-free company logos exist in the commons, they must have been uploaded somehow, and this guide may be inaccurate. --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Logo_fur has been deleted; it was indeed inappropriate to upload images here based on a Fair Use rationale.--Elvey (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ayoubimil (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

enwiki

...is not the only project. This needs to be generalized accordingly.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Double Standard

I've found fair use material uploaded to Wikipedia (this, for example). Why hasn't it been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantfindanunusedusername (talk • contribs) 06:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, maybe because they allow fair use? This page is for Commons, not the English Wikipedia. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a double standard when there's some Wikipedia-sites in other languages that only use Commons for uploaded photos for whatever reasons. For example the Danish one. I can't seem to upload any photos to the actual site there. Everything goes through here. And since Commons doesn't allow copyrighted material, that essentially means that posters for big Blockbuster movies are not allowed on the Danish Wikipedia. Does that make sense to you? Especially when a page like the one The Big Bang Theory is allowed to keep their logo, while I get a warning for uploading an image for the article for Mystery Science Theater 3000 I am writing right now. This is confusing and nonsensical. --Luka1184 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Luka1184: You have to complain at your local wiki (if it does not allow fair use). Wikimaida Commons is a media repository of freely usable media files, not a Fair-Use hoster. Please note that FairUse is not allowed on all countries. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done that just now. But it makes no sense. It states that images are allowed if they've been posted on other wikis. But even then, I had the image deleted and got a warning! That is just nonsense. Or maybe I am bad at reading? --Luka1184 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused

Ought there be another input option for non-free logos if in fact File:The Microsoft logo & slogan.png is properly licensed and uploaded? -- Ke4roh (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not at all clear how to properly upload company logos, even if you are the owner! --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No; read the page the logo is on. There is no FUR. It's NOT allowed here here based on a Fair Use Rationale. It's allowed here here based on it not being protected by copyright law. --Elvey (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Title of the policy

The term fair-use seems US-centric. The Wikimedia Foundation uses another term, EDP (see wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. What wording change do you propose?--Elvey (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

CommonPedia

Fair use is needed in articles, mainly for logos and similar. Are allowed in English Wikipedia, but the same image cannot be used in Spanish Wikipedia. So suggest create CommonPedia, to use language Wikipedia images in other language Wikipedia.--Diamondland (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia could have an EDP (see wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy). That's a better solution, and uses already exiting framework. As the policy states, "If you are unable to persuade your local wiki community to adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy then there is no option but to try to find replacement files that are free."--Elvey (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussions on Commons processes

Per discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, specifically at the Meta discussion about Commons thread, I wish to add some amendatory language concerning the use of small quotations as fair use when discussing Commons internal processes. I realize this might go against the letter of the Resolution:Licensing policy, but I believe it to be in the spirit of the resolution as it seems to speak more about the use of media files on Wikimedia Commons. The problem would probably be drafting an appropriate exemption doctrine policy that would appear not to "erode or circumvent" the policy handed down by the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing resolution. As it stands, we run the risk of copyright infringement even when we copy snippets of legal opinions published on other websites, yet they are central to our self-determination on how to run Commons properly, effectively and efficiently. And currently, the quote at Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? is a likely copyright infringement... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether we have a policy page allowing quotes does not affect whether they actually infringe copyright, so that is no reason to change the policy. I agree that using quotes on fair use grounds on Commons does seem to conflict with the letter of the WMF's licensing resolution. Whether this is what they intended is unclear to me. I think the best thing to do would be to contact the WMF and ask them to clarify this. An EDP is not an option, since the licensing resolution explicitly prohibits Commons from having one. Amending this policy to allow the quotes does not seem much better, at least not without some change or clarification of the WMF's position, because it would directly circumvent the licensing resolution. --Avenue (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @TeleComNasSprVen: ! Per the licensing policy, EDPs are not allowed for Wikimedia Commons - that is pretty clear and explicit, and only the board can change that.

It is worth noting that the quote from Cornell Law in the article you cited is not a good example of why an EDP might be necessary. Despite being on the Cornell website, the "notes" on the U.S. Code that are quoted are themselves a US government work, and are therefore in the public domain, just like the statute itself. As Cornell’s Terms of Use states “[i]n those cases where the underlying texts are government documents, those texts lie in the public domain. The LII does not assert copyright in US Government works [...].” As the material is in the public domain, there is no infringement and the requirements of the licensing policy are met. Thus, no need for an EDP. Hope that clarifies! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response @Luis Villa and JTam. It was mostly that quote that I was most concerned with; to date, most quotes I've seen used around our discussion forums are small enough that they might warrant de minimis in terms of copyright law. I agree the example quote I used was not very good, but I'm not sure of an appropriate length quote that might have been copied verbatim enough to breach regular copyright rules, especially around Commons meta-discussion forums (and I haven't been around long enough to check all such quotes). Nevertheless, since these are mostly covered by de minimis, I'm no longer convinced most such quotes are worth the pursuit of an EDP to substantiate their inclusion here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Luis Villa, I found a case that I believe you might be interested in: this discussion contains a verbatim copy of an email reply, which may be copyrighted but is also necessary for internal Commons commentary. Do you think such email replies are eligible for copyright? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: Thanks for your continued concern about this issue. Unfortunately, we really can't answer every single question about specific examples like this one - it isn't a good use of our time, and the community correctly handles most of them.

More generally, there is no single good rule of thumb that you can apply to these sorts of issues. A very short section from a very factual email with little or no commercial value can likely be excerpted at great length; at the same time, a very short section from a very creative work of art with lots of commercial value might be strongly protected. (See w:Harper & Row v. NationEnterprises). So the best thing you can do when you see examples like this is to continue to use good judgment, and remove, paraphrase, or get permission from the author as appropriate. Sorry I can't be more useful.—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What about a "Fair Use" designated image on a U.S. government site?

{{helpme}}

What about a "Fair Use" designated image on a U.S. government site?

I am referring to a state of Maryland (USA) image, designated as "Fair Use". Thanks! Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No Fairuse on Commons whatever the source, US federal works are often PD, however that of individual states varies. If there is a specific wikipedia article you wish to use the file on see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content.--KTo288 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Book Covers

Book covers are plastered all over the'net. Do you think the artist or photographers mind? How do I get their permission? The Powers That Be at Wikipedia suffer from "Thin Skin Disease" or "Litigation Paranoia". Tell me what to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So if I take a look at it and say something about it. I have to get permission and or say it's theirs Annette Terry (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fairuse option should be removed from Commons upload process

I've uploaded about seven images to Commons believing fair use was an option because the Commons upload process gave me the option to use fair use. The files were then deleted and I was informed on Wikipedia that Commons doesn't accept fair use. The option should be removed, if it's not actually an option. Woofboy (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woofboy: IT'S A TRAP - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair use of document released by a federal government that is intended for the public to view, documents released in accordance with the US Freedom of Information Act, and/or documents released as a consequence of a federal judicial proceeding.

The entire reason for a federal government to release documents to the public is so the public has a chance to see them. If these are documents that are intended to be seen, then the public should be able to see them on Wikipedia too.

Many documents released by the Federal Government may not have been created directly by a Federal employee. I am going to speak to a specific case, however, this case applies to many instances.

Situation: Private US citizen Lev Parnas received a subpoena to produce documents on October 10, 2019 from the Intelligence Committee of the US House of Representatives. According to that subpoena he submitted documents that were received by the Intelligence Committee who in turn passed them to the House Judiciary Committee who subsequently released them on their website along with a press release. Hence the documents in question are freely available for anyone to view on the US website and intended for public consumption. The most important of the documents was a letter written by President Trump's attorney Giuliani and addressed to the Ukrainian President Zelensky as well a cc to another Ukrainian official. Note: This was not privileged communication between the President and his attorney. It is a letter written to Ukrainians. Other documents that users wanted to utilize that were obtained and released under the same circumstances. These were photographs from Lev Parnas that demonstrated he had extensive contacts with the White House and the President despite the fact the President denied he knew who he was. Also there was an email written by another attorney for the President of the US to a former attorney for the President that was supplied to Lev Parnas and in turn provided by him to the House.

Both "the House and Senate Reports on the Copyright Act of 1976 include the "reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports" among examples of fair use. See https://fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html. Hence it is legal for the Federal government to have copyrighted documents in the first place. As to the question can the Federal Government release copyrighted documents and can they in turn be used by the public for public purposes I turn to the US Department of Justice guidelines under the Freedom of Information Act can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-oip-guidance-copyrighted-materials-and-foia

"the revised Copyright Act specifically codifies the common law doctrine of "fair use," which permits the reproduction of copyrighted materials "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . scholarship, or research" without liability for infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 107."

Therefore, it follows directly that by law, no infringement is possible for documents released by the federal government since Wikipedia is not using them to make money.

One possible question is did the US Government legally release the document. Again we can turn to the US Department of Justice analysis for answers.

They outline two important reasons why a document may not be released:

Records "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), and, Protection of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) Neither of the conditions apply in these cases. Also see: https://www.copyright.gov/foia/foia-faq.html

It is important to note this burden to determine if documents comply with fair use and can be given to the public falls upon the US Government.

The operative term here is "released to the public".

In conclusion, I contend that:

1. 1 Provided the national government of the party that potentially has any copyrights officially releases the item in the course of their business that said media should be allowed on Wikipedia.

1. 2 The burden of proof that the media came from a released document provided to the public by that national government falls upon the person who uploads the document.

Pbmaise (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)