Agreed - it's for description of the campaign and events so it'll be fair use - also serves the purpose for which it was produced, so it's pretty easy - the analysis resembles that of a press release and is almost always fair use for almost all users. Add in the news/history aspect and it's even easier. Jamesday 09:30, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also clearly neither is a work derived from the other. The image here has hair missing at the top of the head, which is in the Guardian image, so the Guardian image can't be derived from the one here. the one here has part of the right side of the face which isn't in the Guardian image, so the one here can't be derived from the Guardian image. Add in the different lighting and this being uploaded by a very keen Gore supporter who may well have been at that event and have taken the picture himself - though I doubt it. The possible microphone or pin on the tie also rules out the one here being derived from the Guardian image. May still be infringing some other source, though. Jamesday 12:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Clearly they are both derived from the same photo. And microphones can be removed, so being derived fromt he Guardian image is not at all ruled out. Anthony DiPierro 21:23, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think they are two different photos at slightly different times, taken by the same photographer. BUt I want to see what the uploader says about it. The image here is less tightly cropped than the Guardian image at the sides and bottom (the mic portion was cropped out of the Guardian article, I think), which means that for ours to be derived from the one in the Guardian, the bottom portion of the jacket and the mic would have had to be reconstructed by hand. That's entirely possible technically (I could do it) but I don't see any signs of that sort of reconstruction in the image - and most people would leave signs, like repeated patterns from copy and paste or discontinuities in the suit fabric. More likely a common source for both or two different photos. Jamesday 01:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Which is clearly a publicity image and is probably being used for news reporting and similar purposes here, making it fair use. Jamesday 12:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is not fair use to take a GFDLed work and add non-GFDLed photos to it. Anthony DiPierro 21:23, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. You do not have a copyright which prevents fair use - that right was never granted to you (it's one of the reserved rights not granted), so you're not entitled to grant or withold it contractually because you don't own the right in the first place. That sort of contractual restriction of rights been tried and rejected in court in several different contexts and cases (licenses for software distributed with computers, which attempted to stop the software from being sold without the computer; licenses to software which prevented public domain data stored within the software from being copied; both rejected). However, even assuming that you're right, the image wouldn't be infringing or infringed because it's combined with the article. It's your text which would be what has possibly been infringed and your text which should be listed here. Or both could be infringing, of course, and both could be listed here, the image if it may be infringing the copyright of the creator of the image and your text if you think the inclusion of the image makes the continued use of your text infringement. If your only reason for listing some of the images is that they have been combined with your text, please note that you withdraw the nomination of those (which may be only some of them) and we'll concentrate on the possible infringement of your text, which I agree we should remove, even though I don't agree that it is infringed. Jamesday 02:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In order for it to be fair use it has to be fair use in both directions. It has to be fair to use the image without permission, and it has to be fair to use the text without permission. This particular image, even if fair use to use in and of itself, is still infringing on the copyright of the rest of the text. Not just my text, which has been removed, but everyone's text. As for withdrawing the nomination, I feel that this is still possible copyright infringement, as the GFDL does not permit adding of non-GFDLed images. However, I will note that on this page, and I won't add any new images which likely fall under the Wikipedia notion of "fair use." If you want to delete these, I won't add them back, but I don't know what the standard is in this situation. Anthony DiPierro 08:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's for description of the campaign and events so it'll be fair use - also serves the purpose for which it was produced, so it's pretty easy - the analysis resembles that of a press release and is almost always fair use for almost all users. Add in the news/history aspect and it's even easier. Jamesday 09:30, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Re: all of the Al Gore images: Why? Whose copyright is being infringed here? Can you provide links to the person or organization whose copyright has been violated, please? --MIRV 05:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My copyright is being infringed. Anthony DiPierro 05:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So you are the Associated Press or the legal representative thereof? Then you have access to its photograph archives, and it should be a simple matter to verify all the other images as well. --MIRV 05:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, but by adding proprietary images to my GFDLed modifications he is violating my copyright. Anthony DiPierro 06:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What did you modify? Evil saltine 06:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is relevant or why you couldn't just look it up yourself, but [2].
How is your copyright being violated by adding images to your modifications? I don't see how you modifying the article makes the images a violation. Evil saltine 06:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is creation of a derivitive work. And the images were added after my modifications. Anthony DiPierro 06:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Your modifications were released under the GFDL which allows for the release of derivative works. Evil saltine 06:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Only if those derivative works are licensed under the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 06:53, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't represent Wikipedia legally, but I believe Wikipedia liscences the text under the GFDL (and the images that were released under the GFDL too). Some of the images may be fair use, but I thought those had no bearing on the text. I may be wrong. Evil saltine 07:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The entire derivitive must be released under the GFDL, not just the text. Anthony DiPierro 07:30, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Only the text here is released under the GFDL. The images often (usually) aren't. If you object to the normal way the Wikipedia presents GFDL articles and images, I recommend that you don't contribute to any Wikipedia article which may have images. However, if you do object in this case, please use the editing capability to remove your original text from this article to remove what you consider to be infringement of your text. Alternatively, let us know that you wish this to be treated as a DMCA infringement complaint and I'll expeditiously remove your text myself to remove the possible infringement. Jamesday 12:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That only the text here is released under the GFDL is precisely the problem. The entire derivitive work must be released under the GFDL. As for not contributing to Wikipedia articles which have non-public images, I don't. This image was added after my contribution. I did remove my original text from the article, got into an edit war with people adding it back, and the page is currently protected, fortunately with my text removed. If my text is added back while the copyrighted images remain I want this treated as a DMCA infringement complaint. But for now the article is protected with my only contributions being one word changes which are public domain. Anthony DiPierro 21:23, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Do you want the history entries which contain your text to be removed as well? Caution: that may require removing edits by all other contributors if their edits show your text, so this may require that we remove the whole article (some view the whole edit history fo their contributions as required by the GFDL, though I disagree). Since that's not acceptable (it would give you the capability to delete the article at an inconvenient time of your choosing if you object to the use of your text), if you answer yes, I'll suggest that you be asked not to contribute in the future, so that can't happen. Our problem is that we want to produce a work which is really easy for others to reuse and this sort of view makes that really tough to do, so it's far safer to ask that you not contribute, to reduce the risk to others. I don't much like the possibility of asking that you not contribute but do believe that it is right and in our best interests to let you remove your edits if you wish, even if it is very inconvenient and we don't agree that it is infringement. Jamesday 01:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Less facetiously: More links and fewer frivolous claims, please. --MIRV 05:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I made no frivolous claims. I proved my allegation that he is infringing my copyright, and the title of this page is *possible* copyright infringments. Anthony DiPierro 06:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No he can't. I happen to have those photos uploaded from my drive. As I said in the past, I have an Al Gore site with many pictures. Plus, this guest has been trolling on the page all day. ChrisDJackson
Just because they're on your drive doesn't make them public domain. Show where you obtained them in the public domain or under the GFDL, or put a note that you took the pictures yourself and have licensed them under the GFDL, and add that to the image description. Anthony DiPierro 05:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If you want to be banned for making accusations, keep it up. You don't think anyone knows that you are not a troll? Hmmm..., lets see: No registered name, accusations and editing only in the Al Gore page, yes, you are a troll. I said I HAVE A GORE SITE with pictures and that I loaded them to the harddrive. So keep it up and your IP will be banned. ChrisDJackson
A user should not be considered a troll simply because they question the copyright status of images within Wikipedia. If these photos are owned by someone (such as AP) then the Wikimedia foundation could be sued, shutting down Wikipedia. Which is obviously not desirable. So could you please answer these simple questions: where did you get these images to put on your Gore Site? Did you photograph them yourself? - Mark 05:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Can an admin not stop this person? HELLO? He provided a link on my page and the Gore page to a pic that is similar to the bearded Gore pic, but was not even the same and claimed it was Copyvio. This is some kid or troll just causing trouble by making accusations. ADMIN PLEASE DO YOUR JOB! ChrisDJackson
Calm down. It is quite possible that the picture from the Guardian is a resized and cropped version of the uploaded image, as they are identical in all other respects: observe the backgrounds; observe Gore's clothing and expression; they are the same in both photographs, which strongly suggests that the two pictures come from the same source originally. Try to settle this rationally instead of flinging insults and threats. --MIRV 06:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Quite possible? It is absolutely obvious that these two images come from the same photo. Anthony DiPierro 06:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is you who is wrong, Mr Jackson. I put together the AP picture in the news article and your Gorebeard image in a rough 'composite' of the two. Click here One is blurrier and darker than the other, (and you can see the line dividing one image and the other) but they are clearly taken by the same camera from the same place at the exact same point in time. The only conclusion is that it is in fact two modified versions of the same photograph. In that case, the copyright applies to both versions (as well as my composite - which I will be deleting soon, even though it is not on the Wikipedia server). - Mark 06:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
They do look to be the same event from about the same angle but the shots look a little different. What do you make of the different apperance of the collar button above the tie? How about the position of the intersection of the head shadow on the right with the jacket? The lighting difference and collar button prominence suggest to me that one was taken while a flash was going off and the other at a slightly different time. May still be the same photographer and infringement, though, even if not exactly the same image. Jamesday 13:23, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the collar button. The intersection of the head shadow on the right and the jacket look identical. The lighting difference is post-processing, and the microphone appears to have been airbrushed out. I'm surprised you didn't mention the crop and the difference in size. These are also clearly post-processing. Finally, I don't see why it has to be proven in the first place. ChrisDJackson has a history of copyright infringement, and won't even make any statements to back up this or any of these pictures. He just repeats that they've "come from his website" so therefore they're OK. In the case of the AP picture, it's absolutely obvious that they are both derived from the same photo. But it shouldn't have to be absolutely obvious. At the very least, ChrisDJackson should claim that these pictures were taken by him (or that they were taken from some other public domain source), in order for them to remain. Anthony DiPierro 21:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The button on the collar int eh Guardian article is much brighter than the buton in the one here - so bright that I don't think that it was achieved by general change in image brightness or gamma during post-processing. I think it really is a different shot - and I think it probably is by the same photographer and still infringing... but I also want to give him a chance to say so, if he so chooses - no need to prejudge when we can simply ask and see what answer we get. Jamesday 01:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Okay... where is the source of these images? Who created/took them? Evil saltine 06:29, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
