Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
74 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Durova
An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.

Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-WWII-WARSAW-GHETTO-UPRISING-Jurgen-Stroop-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380794664QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a04728&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
Restored:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg
Unrestored:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06.jpg

Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations
for sale, all without credit.  Other featured picture contributors may want
to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being
exploited.  I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are
copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation.  Made relevant phone
calls this afternoon.

http://cgi.ebay.com/GEORGE-WASHINGTON-MOUNT-RUSHMORE-CONSTRUCTION-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798081QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05481&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Mount Rushmore

http://cgi.ebay.com/1910s-VERNON-IRENE-CASTLE-Ballroom-Dancing-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380821338QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0af5a&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Vernon and Irene Castle

http://cgi.ebay.com/LUDWIG-VAN-BEETHOVEN-German-Composer-Death-Mask-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329176753QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396ab1&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Beethoven

http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-HELENE-DUTRIEU-Female-Aviation-Pioneer-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819313QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a771&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Helene Dutrieu

http://cgi.ebay.com/1873-NAVAJO-DINE-NATIVE-AMERICAN-INDIANS-NM-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819488QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a820&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Navajo family

http://cgi.ebay.com/1900S-RAMALLAH-WOMAN-Palestinian-Costume-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329177046QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396bd6&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Ramallah woman

http://cgi.ebay.com/1882-OSCAR-WILDE-Irish-Playwright-Portrait-Photo-3_W0QQitemZ200380821152QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0aea0&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Oscar Wilde

http://cgi.ebay.com/1879-CHARLES-ROBERT-DARWIN-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380820462QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0abee&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Charles Darwin

http://cgi.ebay.com/1916-LOUIS-DEMBITZ-BRANDEIS-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819778QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a942&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14
Louis Brandeis

http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-TYPHOID-VACCINATION-DOCTOR-SCHOOL-GIRL-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798806QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05756&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Typhoid vaccination

http://cgi.ebay.com/1941-PEARL-HARBOR-HAWAII-USS-WEST-VIRGINIA-RESCUE-Pic_W0QQitemZ130329160904QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392cc8&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
USS West Virginia

http://cgi.ebay.com/WWII-1945-US-Army-63rd-DIVISION-WALDENBURG-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329160282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392a5a&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Waldenburg, Germany

-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Mike Peel

On 15 Sep 2009, at 23:05, Durova wrote:

> An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.

They are profiteering off public domain material (at least in the  
case of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). As it's public domain, there's no  
actual legal requirement to provide attribution...

Although it's certainly not nice, is it actually breaking copyright/
the law in this case?

For copyrighted / Creative Commons images, it's obviously a very  
different matter...

Mike

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Durova
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29

In particular, though, it happens to be useful that along the line they're
selling Walt Disney's portrait with Mickey Mouse.

Cheers,
Durova

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Michael Peel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 15 Sep 2009, at 23:05, Durova wrote:
>
> > An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.
>
> They are profiteering off public domain material (at least in the
> case of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). As it's public domain, there's no
> actual legal requirement to provide attribution...
>
> Although it's certainly not nice, is it actually breaking copyright/
> the law in this case?
>
> For copyrighted / Creative Commons images, it's obviously a very
> different matter...
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

John Mark Vandenberg
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29

If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do
not have moral/authorship rights.

Even if you were the author, how does ebay business violate your moral rights?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Durova
A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement
into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and
then pokes at the holes it created.

Note the actual statement:
"The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale."

And the rebuttal:
"If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do
not have moral/authorship rights."

This vendor offers hundreds of items for sale, a substantial number of which
are obviously copyrighted: among a group of NASA photographs, a publiciity
shot of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura, a portrait of Thurgood
Marshall owned by the NAACP, and a potrait of Jane Russell taken by George
Hurrell.

The vendor does not credit Hurrell or any other creative contributor.
Several of them, such as Carol Highsmith, are still alive and active.  Some
of these images may violate Wikimedians' copyleft licenses; featured
pictures have been stolen for commercial purposes before.

In his eagerness to construct a strawman, John Vandenberg ignores all these
factors.  This is one reason why the pool of featured picture contributors
is small.

-Durova
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
>
> If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do
> not have moral/authorship rights.
>
> Even if you were the author, how does ebay business violate your moral
> rights?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

John Mark Vandenberg
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement
> into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and
> then pokes at the holes it created.
>
> Note the actual statement:
> "The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale."
>
> And the rebuttal:
> "If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do
> not have moral/authorship rights."
>
> This vendor offers hundreds of items for sale, a substantial number of which
> are obviously copyrighted: among a group of NASA photographs, a publiciity
> shot of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura, a portrait of Thurgood
> Marshall owned by the NAACP, and a potrait of Jane Russell taken by George
> Hurrell.
>
> The vendor does not credit Hurrell or any other creative contributor.
> Several of them, such as Carol Highsmith, are still alive and active.  Some
> of these images may violate Wikimedians' copyleft licenses; featured
> pictures have been stolen for commercial purposes before.

Have you identified any items for sale which are from Wikimedia
projects and not clearly marked as being in the public domain?

Luckily the ebay items have sufficient metadata that we should be able
to track them all down.  A big job, but worth doing.

> In his eagerness to construct a strawman, John Vandenberg ignores all these
> factors.  This is one reason why the pool of featured picture contributors
> is small.

You started this thread with "An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer
restoration of the Holocaust." and "Going through their online store
revealed a dozen more of my restorations
for sale, all without credit."

Obviously I assumed that you were concerned that you and other
restoration volunteers had some moral rights being violated.

My apologies for that assumption.  It was a cop-out for me to say that
faithful restorers have no moral rights.  I wouldn't go as far as to
say I was being simpleminded, but I am a bit biased in that regard.

As I am shocked to learn that I am somehow partly responsible for the
pool of featured picture contributors being so small ... I'd better
pick up my act and help identify the creators of these works and look
for cases where moral rights have been violated.

Moral rights are only available in the U.S. for works of visual art,
defined here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_101#work_of_visual_art
---
A “work of visual art” is—
(1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single
copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and
consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture,
in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer
that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature
or other identifying mark of the author; or
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only,
existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a
limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and
consecutively numbered by the author.
A work of visual art does not include—
(A)
(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model,
applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine,
newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service,
electronic publication, or similar publication;
(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive,
covering, or packaging material or container;
(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);
(B) any work made for hire; or
(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.
----

So I doubt that any visual art is on Wikimedia, and no moral right
violations according to that definition.

However non-U.S. creators have moral rights in their own
jurisdictions, which can be asserted anywhere, so we should be looking
for works by non-U.S. artists among the list of ebay items.

In the example you gave, the photographer is "Unknown Stroop Report
photographer", which raises the question of whether unknown creators
still have moral rights, given that they cant assert them.

In the next example, ebay item 200380798081 = Mount_Rushmore2.jpg, we
identify the photographer as Rise Studio, a U.S. author.

ebay item 200380821338 = Vernon_and_Irene_Castle2.jpg, and we identify
it as American photographer [[w:Frances Benjamin Johnston]].

To get the analysis underway, I have compiled a list of the 166 items
sold in the last 90 days, removed/merged dups, and put them into a
table.  Currently there are 140 distinct items, but there may be some
dups which I havent picked up.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/source4docs

I've added a comment for ebay item 200370665186, which is one of the
items that you have mentioned in your original email.

I can also compile a list of unsold items.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Durova
>
> Have you identified any items for sale which are from Wikimedia
> projects and not clearly marked as being in the public domain?
>

Part of the reason for notifying the list was to alert other Wikimedians to
that possibility.

>
> Luckily the ebay items have sufficient metadata that we should be able
> to track them all down.  A big job, but worth doing.
>
> > In his eagerness to construct a strawman, John Vandenberg ignores all
> these
> > factors.  This is one reason why the pool of featured picture
> contributors
> > is small.
>
> You started this thread with "An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer
> restoration of the Holocaust." and "Going through their online store
> revealed a dozen more of my restorations
> for sale, all without credit."
>
> Obviously I assumed that you were concerned that you and other
> restoration volunteers had some moral rights being violated.


> My apologies for that assumption.  It was a cop-out for me to say that
> faithful restorers have no moral rights.  I wouldn't go as far as to
> say I was being simpleminded, but I am a bit biased in that regard.
>
> As I am shocked to learn that I am somehow partly responsible for the
> pool of featured picture contributors being so small ... I'd better
> pick up my act and help identify the creators of these works and look
> for cases where moral rights have been violated.
>

A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a
long time.  Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after
five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the reactions
of text editors that range from apathetic to hostile when media contributors
express concerns over exploitation.

One of our featured picture photographers discovered her work in use in a
commercial advertisement, in violation of license and entirely without
credit.  Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my
restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used
uncredited by *Time* magazine.  To date, no one has joined my letter writing
campaign to contact the magazine.  The magazine still isn't replying to
email.

The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and
chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input
and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
matter certainly would be taken seriously.  The Brandeis restoration is also
among the items exploted by this eBay vendor.

Our pool of talented media contributors is not deep.  Wikipedia has exactly
one FP photographer from sub-Saharan Africa, who has expressed similar
complaints.  Much of our best visual content is location-specific:
cityscapes, landmarks, and species can seldom be transmitted via
interlibrary loan.

If it doesn't shock you to see even the Holocaust exploited then I'll shake
my head and move on.  It isn't easy to expand the volunteer pool under these
conditions.  But a new group of high resolution images arrived from the
Tropenmuseum today; when one door closes another one opens.

-Durova
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Steve Bennett-8
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:
> and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
> matter certainly would be taken seriously.

Do you think? Based on past experience, the reaction is usually to
laugh at the offending party for a) using Wikipedia text rather than
writing their own, and b) failing to cite it. Can you think of
instances where a high-profile plagiariser was reprimanded by the WMF
for not meeting licence conditions?

Perhaps the difference with images is that there is nothing wrong or
unusual with Time using a third party photo - no one expects them to
produce all their own photos from scratch. So there remains only the
question of the licence and giving proper credit.

And lastly, you're in the area of image restoration rather than image
creation, which makes your creative work even more subtle and
difficult to point to precisely. I guess these various factors combine
to subdue the hoped for outrage from your fellow editors.

Is there any policy (or even expectation) for the WMF to contact third
parties on editors' behalf? Ultimately, the issue of copyright
infringement is between the producer of the work, and the party using
it, with Wikipedia just an intermediary, right?

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Durova
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Restored:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg

Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
seller did. It even says "The right to use this work is granted to
anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions
are required by law." Your name only appears once on the page, and it
doesn't say "attribution required" or "copyright" or anything like
that...

Is this what you intended? Are you saying that they broke some
condition? Or just that it's tasteless to sell photos of the
Holocaust? What are you alleging they did wrong exactly?

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Rich Holton
In reply to this post by Durova
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my
> restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used
> uncredited by *Time* magazine.  To date, no one has joined my letter
> writing
> campaign to contact the magazine.  The magazine still isn't replying to
> email.
>
> The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and
> chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
> his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
> arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input
> and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
> matter certainly would be taken seriously.  The Brandeis restoration is
> also
> among the items exploted by this eBay vendor.
>
>
I am not a copyright expert. I probably have the proverbial "dangerous
amount of knowledge" of the topic. I am also not an editor for a major
magazine.

Nonetheless, I was a bit puzzled when, after reading the above, I visited
the commons image of Louis Brandeis you refer to (I assume this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brandeisl.jpg). There's a tag there
that clearly states that the image is in the public domain. Following the
link "Reusing this image" took me to a page that reinforced in my mind that
anyone could reuse the image without any legal obligations (at least in the
US).

I will readily admit that I could be wrong. If I am wrong, I'd love it if
someone would explain it so I can understand.

But my confusion arises from the apparent disconnect between Durova's
obvious frustration and the information I read on the image's description
page. I'm further confused when I see that the pertinent contents of the
page were apparently added by Durova at the time of the upload.

(As an aside, one of the tags there indicate that the image is available
from the US Library of Congress. I assume this actually refers to the
original, unrestored image, but it's not immediately clear.)

I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
Durova credit for the restoration. But the "should" I'm using has to do with
common decency--something that is becoming rather uncommon.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Steve Bennett-8
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
> Durova credit for the restoration. But the "should" I'm using has to do with
> common decency--something that is becoming rather uncommon.

As that page stands, I'm not sure they *could* have done that, let
alone *should*. There is not a single indication anywhere on that page
that this image contains much hard work by a Wikipedian, and that that
hard work should be acknowledged. There is the brief comment "Restored
version of Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06.jpg with
artifacts and scratches removed, levels adjusted, and image
sharpened..", and there Durova's name is listed as the uploader...but
you have to read between the lines to decide that Durova performed the
work, and that that work is worth acknowledging.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Rich Holton
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
> > Durova credit for the restoration. But the "should" I'm using has to do
> with
> > common decency--something that is becoming rather uncommon.
>
> As that page stands, I'm not sure they *could* have done that, let
> alone *should*. There is not a single indication anywhere on that page
> that this image contains much hard work by a Wikipedian, and that that
> hard work should be acknowledged. There is the brief comment "Restored
> version of Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06.jpg with
> artifacts and scratches removed, levels adjusted, and image
> sharpened..", and there Durova's name is listed as the uploader...but
> you have to read between the lines to decide that Durova performed the
> work, and that that work is worth acknowledging.
>
>
We're actually talking about different images...but I think your point still
applies.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Joseph Reagle
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
> would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
> seller did. It even says "The right to use this work is granted to
> anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions
> are required by law." Your name only appears once on the page, and it
> doesn't say "attribution required" or "copyright" or anything like
> that...

This is what I said last time this issue came up, these pages are confusing in what some think are the appropriate way in which they should be used, and perhaps this could be clarified.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Durova
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova <[hidden email]> wrote:
>..
> A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a
> long time.  Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after
> five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the reactions
> of text editors that range from apathetic to hostile when media contributors
> express concerns over exploitation.

Links?

> One of our featured picture photographers discovered her work in use in a
> commercial advertisement, in violation of license and entirely without
> credit.  Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my
> restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used
> uncredited by *Time* magazine.  To date, no one has joined my letter writing
> campaign to contact the magazine.  The magazine still isn't replying to
> email.

I found an email on WikiEn-l which is related, however it didn't
mention any letter writing campaign there.  The thread starts here:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101225.html
(Image reuse - Jun 18, 2009)

The image that Durova is referring to this one:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brandeisl.jpg

.. used here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895379_1895421_1895405,00.html

It is pretty poor form to not credit people however, as other people
have mentioned, these images don't mention that attribution is
required. {{Attribution|..}} would be the way for a restorer to
indicate that they require attribution.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution

> The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and
> chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
> his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
> arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input
> and no share of authorship.  If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
> matter certainly would be taken seriously.  The Brandeis restoration is also
> among the items exploted by this eBay vendor.

IMO, restorers are not creating a new work.  If they think that they
have created a new work, they should add additional
copyright/attribution templates.

Translations are legally considered to be a new work that is derived.
On Wikisource, contributors can release them into the public domain,
or license them under a free license.  Here is an example of each.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Balade_to_Rosemounde
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/J%27accuse

However asserting copyright over faithful restorations is considered
copyfraud by some people, myself included depending on the
circumstances.

An example of why can be seen in one of your own restorations that was
mentioned in that same email to WikiEn-l.  You were concerned that
this image was a unattributed copy.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_MacArthur_lands_Leyte1.jpg
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/images/kamikaze/MacArthur_250.jpg
(from http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/kamikaze.html)

You told me privately that the histogram is different, indicating that
it cant be proven that it is your image.  Two restorations can look
nearly identical, because it is skill rather than art.  Your
restoration is clearly much better because it is a higher resolution,
leaving less imperfections, but I can't label you an artist because of
this.

Opinions differ on this, and as a result different jurisdictions draw
the line at different points.  This is essentially the same problem as
a photograph of a visual art work, which has caused grief recently.

OTOH, Wikipedia/Wikibook/Wikinews/etc text is clearly a creative work,
so it is legally clear that it is a new work.

On the other hand, if Time was "plagiarising" text which was
"restored" on Wikisource, I'd be pleased as punch. ;-)

Here is a magazine blog using text from two of the Wikisource featured
texts, thankfully with links to Wikisource.  We have no idea where
they are used if they dont mentioned Wikisource.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21159

In regards to effort, featured texts all take at least as long as
featured image restorations, so I feel your pain there.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_specimen_of_the_botany_of_New_Holland
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fatal_fall_of_Wright_airship
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charles_von_H%C3%BCgel
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/The_Late_Mr._Charles_Babbage,_F.R.S.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Early_Settlers_Along_the_Mississippi

We have produced a PDF of the last one, and marked it as CC-0 (public domain).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Early_Settlers_Along_the_Mississippi.pdf

The following work would be at least a man-month of effort to scan and digitise.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_%28House_Report_No._94-1476%29

You can read more about the importance of that digitisation project here:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/06/17/an-open-access-success-story-just-in-time-for-cali/

These will all be at least man-months to complete.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Index:United_States_Statutes_at_Large

Further afield, the Gutenberg etexts rarely contain attribution, and
the Project Gutenberg license clearly states that redistribution is
permitted if either a) the file is unmodified, or b) all trace of
Project Gutenberg is removed (section 1.E)

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Header_How-To

> Our pool of talented media contributors is not deep.  Wikipedia has exactly
> one FP photographer from sub-Saharan Africa, who has expressed similar
> complaints.  Much of our best visual content is location-specific:
> cityscapes, landmarks, and species can seldom be transmitted via
> interlibrary loan.
>
> If it doesn't shock you to see even the Holocaust exploited then I'll shake
> my head and move on.  It isn't easy to expand the volunteer pool under these
> conditions.  But a new group of high resolution images arrived from the
> Tropenmuseum today; when one door closes another one opens.

Please don't use the Holocaust in this way.  You should know how
inappropriate that can be.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
In reply to this post by Durova
2009/9/17 Durova <[hidden email]>

> The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and
> chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
> his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
> arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input
> and no share of authorship.


I personally think image restoration is more like painting by numbers than
creative work.

It's like "creating" an Ikea bookcase: there is some *skill* involved but no
artistic or creative input. And if it's done properly, there's no way of
telling who did assembled the bookcase, or indeed restored the image.

Michel
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Carcharoth
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/9/17 Durova <[hidden email]>
>
>> The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor.  Extensive staining and
>> chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
>> his face.  It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
>> arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input
>> and no share of authorship.
>
> I personally think image restoration is more like painting by numbers than
> creative work.
>
> It's like "creating" an Ikea bookcase: there is some *skill* involved but no
> artistic or creative input. And if it's done properly, there's no way of
> telling who did assembled the bookcase, or indeed restored the image.

There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries
paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.

Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It
may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve
recognition. For example, writing some Wikipedia articles can be
formulaic and done "by the numbers". But you don't see people saying
this is not creative or skilful.

And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly
the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be
controversial.

See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation-restoration

In particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation-restoration#Preventive_Conservation

And also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_restoration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_conservation

There has long been a debate between conservation and restoration. Is
it better to conserve something, or to restore it? In the case of
digital photos, you can do digital restoration, while the original has
conservation techniques applied to it, as Durova or someone has
mentioned before.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

geni
2009/9/17 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:
> There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
> to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries
> paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.
>
> Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It
> may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve
> recognition.

That would be sweat of the brow. US law not care about such things
(which is why the NPG is sueing in the UK).



--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Carcharoth
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/9/17 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:
>> There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
>> to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries
>> paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.
>>
>> Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It
>> may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve
>> recognition.
>
> That would be sweat of the brow. US law not care about such things
> (which is why the NPG is sueing in the UK).

Yeah, I know. But you are missing the point. Re-read the thread.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Reagle
2009/9/17 Joseph Reagle <[hidden email]>:

> On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
>> would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
>> seller did. It even says "The right to use this work is granted to
>> anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions
>> are required by law." Your name only appears once on the page, and it
>> doesn't say "attribution required" or "copyright" or anything like
>> that...
>
> This is what I said last time this issue came up, these pages are confusing in
> what some think are the appropriate way in which they should be used, and
> perhaps this could be clarified.

Yes, I'd agree here - the key is to figure out what we think the best
practice for reusing these images would be, perhaps come up with a
worked example or three, and then start looking at how to structure
the image-description pages so as to encourage and help reusers to do
this.

I wonder if we can persuade the usability people to look at image
description pages next...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

geni
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
2009/9/17 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2009/9/17 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:
>>> There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
>>> to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries
>>> paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.
>>>
>>> Even if you can't do that, then the time involved is the clincher. It
>>> may not be strictly speaking creative, but it does deserve
>>> recognition.
>>
>> That would be sweat of the brow. US law not care about such things
>> (which is why the NPG is sueing in the UK).
>
> Yeah, I know. But you are missing the point. Re-read the thread.
>
> Carcharoth

A depressing number of people trying to argue their way around the
creativity requirement in US copyright.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234