Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright

Archived discussions from Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics germane to page.

Pictures of Comic Writers/Artists

I'm a newbie, so if this has been resolved, feel free to delete this. What about pictures of comic writers/artists and/or self-portraits? Is it ever okay to include these? Where is an acceptable place to find these pictures?

thanks. sparsefarce

Pictures for comics articles

I think that all the articles could be illustrated with at least one picture; after all, comics is a graphic medium. The thing I am unsure of is, can we use any copyrighted/trademarked images? Some of the articles have cover scans. It that "fair use"? ike9898 23:25, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

IANAL, but after reading fair use, Wikipedia:fair use, and Wikipedia:image description page#fair use rationale, I have come to a pretty firm "yes" vote. They are fair use. I suggest the following recommendations:

1. All scanned image files we use should be of a medium-small resolution.
2. All scanned image files we use should have an image description page that reads something like this:

1. Comics is an inherently visual medium consisting of the combination of pictures and words, so encyclopedia articles on comics-related topics are especially enhanced by the presence of images.
2. This image is a low-resolution scan of a copyrighted work, and could not be mistaken for the original page of which it is a scan.
3. This image is being used for educational purposes only. It does not, in any way, inhibit the copyright-owner's ability to sell merchandise related to this image.
4. The copyright on this image is owned by Foo Bar Corporation, 1994.
5. The character depicted in this image was created by John Doe.
6. This image was pencilled by Jane Doe, inked by John Q. Public, colored by Joe Blow, and lettered by Richard Roe.
7. This image was originally found in Awesome Super Duper Comixxxxxx #874 (June, 1942), on page 39.

The last three would be recommended, but not strictly required (since, at least in the Big Two, everything belongs to the publisher anyway and creators are irrelevant - speaking of which, we need an article on the creators' rights movement). Comments? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have had a bit of experience contacting comics artists and publishers about using repros alongside critical articles or interviews. The consistent response has been yes, go ahead and reprint images, but do not reprint an entire work (or a significantly long section of an expansive piece). These are all "alternative" comics people--no Marvel or DC--but based on my experience, it seems unlikely that well-credited cover images or images of single pages or panels would offend the copyright owners. I am not a lawyer, either--I'm just generalizing from experiences I've had with print publications. As to the attitude of "mainstream" companies or Manga publishers--your guess is as good as mine.--BTfromLA 01:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Should we go for it ? I quicky checked in some EU-comics articles (authors and characters) and there are almost no images. I can scan a few from my collection. Is it ok to do it ? Lvr 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I found used random page and found a artice from another project and they had "no image avalible" image, does anyone here know how to make one for this project?

Copyright status of covers.

I noticed the new copyright template Template:Magazinecover. I'm thinking of changing over the covers of individual comic issues from Template:Bookcover to this one, since they're periodicals, not exactly monographs. Trade paperbacks and so forth can still go under Bookcover, since they're books, with ISBNs and such. I think this is a mite more accurate, and hey, accuracy is always a good think. So, thoughts? Is there any reason we might want to actually create Template:Comiccover for issues of individual comics? Fine-grainedness is a good thing in copyright tagging, right? Do folks have particularly strong opinions about this? I think creating a new template might be worthwhile if we're going to have a significant number of comic covers... grendel|khan 21:42, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

It's done. Please use {{comiccover}} for all your single-issue comic book cover illustration needs. (Trade paperbacks, I'm going to say, go under {{bookcover}} as they've done up until now.) I'll be moving whatever I run across under that template. grendel|khan 16:59, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Copyright

I know that comiccovers are considered fair use and we have Template:Comiccover for them. However, I'm seeing an increasing number of comic book page scans or panel scans being uploaded (i.e. Image:Exs002b.jpg and I was wondering:

1. Are these covered under Wikipedia:Fair use?
2. If so, should we create a template to state their comic book status?

I'm not a lawyer, so I feel hesitant to assert my opinion until I know the status. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not a lawyer either, but as I understand it, panel scans are okay IF:

• They're short excerpts - a page or splash from a 22-page comic is probably okay, more is pushing it
• They're relevant to the purpose - the one linked to is bad, since less than half of it relates to what it's being used for (the Magnus (comics) article)
• They've been scanned by the person who uploaded them and NOT taken from another site without explicit permission (this one applies to covers as well, BTW)

SoM 21:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, these interior panels have bothered me for a long time. Covers are fine, but the copyright status of a lot of the interior panel images is sketchy. Without naming names, a few individuals are responsible for uploading a vast number of interior panels, many of whom look raided from other websites (as in I've seen them on other sites). Maybe we could have a policy wherein we delete them unless they are properly attributed, and by properly attributed, I mean more than just the {{fairuse}} tag; we should ask uploaders to give the exact source. —Lowellian (talk) 02:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

By "exact source," do you mean issue, page and panel nos? I'd be fine with that. - SoM 02:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed on all points. I'm pretty sure I suggested something extremely similar a few months ago on this page... -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think you did here. Would it also be worth putting a website source if we haven't scanned it ourselves but rather taken it from the web? (User:Hiding forgot to sign his name here)

• I think we'd need to - SoM 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, User:Exiles03 (who uploaded the Magnus image above) seems to be uploading several Exiles-related pages (at very high res, no less), without so much as a {{fairuse}} tag let alone info. I'm tagging these {{no source}}, but anyone want to ask him/her about the source (did he scan them, etc at the least), and are they beyond the pale for {{fairuse}}? - SoM 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I also feel that it's in the remit of this WikiProject to define our interpretation of Wikipedia's fair use policy in regards to comic books. If you like, we can involve the discussion board on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Ideally, I would like to come out of this with a set of guidelines like the ones we've been talking out above, and official templates to use for inner panels, pages, and other comic book materials (like sketches from TPBs and the like). We want to make sure we're on the right ground here. In the meantime, I'll post another message on Exiles03's page; I've already encouraged him to join this WikiProject, and maybe we can get him to start attributing his images. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure magazines can excerpt panels of comics and graphic novels when reviewing them, and that it is covered by fair use. Does that apply here?

I wish that wikimedia supported smileys of some kind so i could include the one that is totally baffled here. Like I said, I have no legal understanding of fair use, and I'm hesitant to assert anything here. The precedent for magazine panels sounds pretty promising though, do you have an example of that being used somewhere on Wikipedia? Is there some other wikiproject or group that has dealt with this for a different media? I'm going to post a note on the fair use talk to see if any legal eagles want to help us out. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say, badly, is that when a magazine like The Comics Journal or a newspaper like The Guardian reviews a comic, they usually print an interior panel or two, which I believe is covered by fair use, but at this point I should point out I'm no lawyer either.

Here, have a read of this What is fair use, I think that the use of one interior panel per article would satisfy all the conditions for fair use in the US: since it is for nonprofit educational purposes; has been published to a wide audience; it is one panel, so it won't constitute more than 5% of the comic book, and in an ongoing series it's even less, in some cases miniscule, even if it is a full page, (although the smaller the panel used the better); and finally, I don't think displaying one panel would harm the sales in any way.

However, would it be an idea to contact the comic publishing companies and ask for a GDFL release to cover wikipedia use of one interior panel or cover image per article?Hiding 08:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't one panel a bit of an odd choice of unit? After all, a panel can range in size from one-sixteenth (1/16) of a page to two whole pages. - SoM 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I think I meant "page" not "panel", but we had been using the term throughout the discussion. I would rather that we try to get a license per issue rather than article. For example, the X-Men article, which covers a wide swath of X-Men history should link to many different important covers and panels. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - SoM 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum. I contacted 2000AD about using the image at Robo-Hunter, and they were happy for it to be used as long as "2000 AD and Robo Hunter copyright Rebellion A/S 2005" and a link to their website was included, which I've done. I'll ask them if that applies to all images, and then move on to contacting other publishers.
  • Awesome work, Hiding. We should have a list on the main WikiProject page with a list of publishers and what our agreements with them are, as well as our interpretation of fair use for publishers with whom there are no agreements. Oh... can you also place the e-mail conversation either here or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics#Copyright? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

End archived discussions from Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics germane to page.

• Re: 2000AD. Sorry if I'm raking over old ground here, but the discussion above and the email quoted below only mention Robo Hunter. Hiding says he will ask them if this applies to all other images, but I've not seen anything further on this. However, on the project's copyright page, it is stated that Artwork from 2000 AD in general can be used, provided the appropriate copyright notice is added. Many people, myself included, have been happily uploading 2000 AD artwork following that guideline, but do we actually need more clarification from Hiding, or from Rebellion? Also, does this permission also include artwork from sister publications such as the Megazine--Bwmodular 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I think the position has changed since then, and now we don't use anything "with permission", it all has to be used under a fair use provision. But I did get an email back at that time from Dominic stating all images sourced from the website which were copyright Rebellion could be used in a similar manner, and I forwarded that on to the permissions team. Since the permission basically amounts to us linking back to their site, which we have to do anyway as part of the image use policy, it's as broad as it's long and the guidance is probably okay, but bear in mind images sourced from the rebellion site would still have to satisfy the fair use criteria to be usable. Hiding Talk 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Great, thanks for that clarification, Hiding. --Bwmodular 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Contact with Rebellion, publishers of 2000AD

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was wondering if it would be possible to use the prog 259 cover image at http://www.2000adonline.com/?zone=prog&page=profiles&choice=259 to illustrate an article about Sam Slade in wikipedia?

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, and the image would be covered by fair use laws. Any copyright notice you require can be tagged onto the image.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Hiding

Response:

yes that should be fine, please include

2000 AD and Robo Hunter copyright Rebellion A/S 2005

and

www.2000adonline.com

we only have a high res black and white though unless you are happy to use the image from the web.

http://www.2000adonline.com/functions/cover.php?Comic=2000ad&choice=259

Kind Regards,

Dominic Preston

www.2000adonline.com

(Note, due to privacy concerns I took the liberty of removing specific contact information.))

Merged discussions from Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics.

Prior discussion

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Images
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image problems
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use/Archive1#Re:_.7B.7BComiccover.7D.7D
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fair use and GDFL

Discussion

I guess the main areas where we want input are:

• Should there be any limit on the number of images included in an article?
• Are images used to illustrate an artists style acceptable under both fair use and Wikipedia fair use policies?
• Do articles on Wikipedia qualify as critical examinations?
• Are "model sheet" pics from the various Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe or Who's Who in the DC Universe editions fair use or should their use be prohibited as these products are akin to an encyclopedia and as such competing products and fair use might not be granted due to the harming of the commercial nature of these works?
• Are images from trading cards featuring comics characters also prohibited for similar reasons as outlined above?
• Should cover images only be restricted to articles about the actual issue the cover is an image of, or is it acceptable to use it to illustrate the comic book series of which the issue forms a part?

Comments

Regarding question #1, I don't see a problem with more than one image. From an encyclopedic point of view, it's good for historical characters such as Superman or Batman, because you can learn how the character's design evolved throughout the decades. For other characters, such as Spider-Man or Captain Atom, it's important show drastic design variations (for Spider-Man, the original and black costumes, for the Captain, the Charlton and DC designs, as well as the Kingdom Come update). However, minor changes such as have ocurred for Hawkeye or Nightwing are less important.
The artist style illustration is a bit more difficult. Personally, I'd be more comfortable in using an illustration if there was a photo of the artist in the article as well.
I don't really understand the third question. Could you elaborate?
Images from Who's Who and the OHOTMU are a definite no-no in my book. As I've said in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, those particular series were encyclopedic in nature, and it would be the same as copying from another encyclopedia. A more generic image from a generic comic book gives it a more... natural feel from an observer's POV. The same could be applied to trading cars, where the object is to look at those specific pictures.
Cover issues should be considered equal to comics panel, as long as they illustrate the character or the series covered by the article. - Pc13 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Question #3 basically refers to a dispute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics where the use of images in articles was defended as being "fair use" based upon the following statement:

• According to fair use, a small portion of a work may be reprinted for educational or critical purposes, without getting the permission of the copyright holder.

Others argued that Wikipedia articles do not qualify as critical evaluations. I think it is germane because if we discuss an artist's style, such as Paul Grist's, it is helpful to include an example of his work, and I believe this is a critical evaluation of, for example, Grist's style. Another example would be Kirby dots or Buscema's cheek bones. Hiding talk 19:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I missed the original discussion, but that was my concern about the templates as they exist now. I agree that it should be permissible under fair use to "quote" a panel or, occasionally, a page in order to illustrate a point about an artist's style. I think, for example, that a panel illustration of Luba (comic book character) and her family would say more about Gilbert Hernandez than a photograph of Beto himself would. It should even be permissible for a comic author's page — for example, a page or panel from Promethea could theoretically be used to illustrate the Alan Moore article, as well as J.H. Williams III.

I don't understand the argument that Wikipedia articles aren't critical evaluations. True, we don't want to publish original content, but surely the purpose of an encyclopedia is an educational one? And one of our goals is, or should be, to summarize various critical perspectives in an NPOV fashion. Doesn't that qualify as "educational or critical purposes"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be to include a drawing of the artist by the artist himself, as that would serve both as a portrait and an illustration of visual style. It's obviously not a realistic possibility for everyone, but for someone like Frank Cho who inserts himself into his work frequently, it would make a great deal of sense.

I do agree that in the general case usage of one or two panels by a particular artist to illustrate that artist's style might be justifiable, as long as there is specific mention in the image caption of the stylistic trait being described. We'd need to closely watch to make sure that the articles don't become gratuitous image-farms, though.

It's also worth sending the artist in question a copy of the license and a request for a quick sketch to include with their article. You never know until you ask, and that'd potentially be an easy workaround for the issue. -Colin Kimbrell 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image description requirements

Further, it occurs to me to add that we are also looking for what requirements we need for images that are uploaded. Should the image description include the following as a requirement for uploading:

• Physical source of the scan, i.e. if sourced from a web-site the actual paper source, Awesome Super Duper Comixxxxxx #874 (June, 1942), on page 39.
• Source of the scan if not scanned in by scanner, i.e. the website.
• Copyright information of the owner.
• The creator of the character depicted.
• The artists (and writers for interior sourced images) of the image in question.

Any thoughts on those?

Comments

In order

1&2) Yup, very definately both the paper source & scan source, and the quicker we get these into some sort of official policy the better. The only possible glitch to get sorted revolves around ads - sometimes people include the ads in counting page numbers and other times they don't (it's rare for the comic pages to have page nos on them, unfortunately). Probably best to specify story pages where page nos are absent - i.e., exc. covers, ads, etc.

3) Obviously - although the DC/WS/Vertigo and DH declarations could use some work so that they include the possibility of creator-owned work (i.e., specifically limit it to DC-owned characters, etc) - someone made {{Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright}} based on the declaration I'd been using, which in turn was based on the dec. from Marvel's now-defunct website authorisation program.

4) If we must (although only a few are recognised as creators, and then there's the Batman problem whereby one of the co-creators got DC to say he was the sole creator in perpetuity...)

5) Artists, yup. Writers only if it includes relevant dialogue. - SoM 14:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

2) Good point on the page numbering, I'll find out what people do elsewhere.

3) The DC one came from their website, although they've updated it, and have a page listing exceptions here. Dark Horse state "Published by Dark Horse Comics, Inc." here although they don't have a list for licensors.

4)Yes, probably an idea to drop it.

5)I think the writer is important because he/she has created a panel or scene just as much as an artist, whether it contains dialogue or not. A silent page or panel will still have to have been included in the script for the issue, if you see what I mean. Hiding talk 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily, especially if its' a "Marvel-style" plot (i.e., plot, art, script rather than full-script, art). And even in "full-script", only some writers specify angles at all except for "key" pages (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). - SoM 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Whether the writer has specified angles or whatever, he's specified who is in the panel. Therefore he has had some input into the creation of the panel, yeah? And are we going to be able to tell which panels were heavily "directed" and which weren't? I think it is best to have a blanket "credit the writer" clause if we can't be sure, because writers like Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman detail quite heavily individual panel composition and it could be POV to only list writers on panels they wrote. What do you think? The other option is, as you suggest, panels with dialogue in, although I think I have to argue that if it is a scene, the writer has to be credited. Hiding talk 16:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As to page numbers, I can't find anything better than your excellent suggestion to to specify story pages where page nos are absent - i.e., exc. covers, ads, etc. Hiding talk 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've given the page a rewrite to absorb information from other policy pages, any comments on it as it stands now? Hiding talk 13:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is really good

I was directed to take a look at this page... I think this is really good work. I made a few changes, which are explained in the edit summaries... I doubt anyone will object to them. Once this is done I'd love to see it used as a model for pages in other fields of interest. --Gmaxwell 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: Would this page be the wrong place to suggest to editors that it would be useful to try to include some non-fair use illustrations in such articles when we can? For example, in an article about a comic series beyond the cover and some images for commentary it would be good if we also had free images of the author working, or perhaps people at a convention dressed up like the characters. Not only would such illustrations provide a wider outlook for our readers but they would help us avoid the article becoming totally unillustrated if used someplace where fair use can not be claimed (or if future legal action causes us to remove fair use images). --Gmaxwell 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if the thought of including a pic of people dressed up as Spider-Man at a con made me burst out laughing (and it would STILL be fair use, since the Spider-Man costume and all closely-related visuals are trademarks of Marvel). As to images of people working - how many prominent characters have been worked on by only one person? And where the hell would you get pictures (let alone PD/GDFL pics) of people typing or drawing the actual comic anyway? - SoM 17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

heh I laughed at that too, don't worry. I'm sure that some of our genius editors could figure out how to include such thing in good taste.  :) As far as the latter case, perhaps you call them up and ask if you can come take some pictures. Such pictures exists for some TV programs. I didn't say it would be easy, only encouraged. --Gmaxwell 14:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Caption: Clarification?

Is this what you mean?

When the caption is mentioned, what exactly is being discussed - is it the tag within the grey frame (Monobook skin) on the page (see right), or is it the text on the image page itself? - SoM 17:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that info should be in both places, or is that unworkable? Hiding talk 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Its a bit m:instruction creepy if we don't need it, plus it's horribly clumsy if you have (e.g.) six images on a page, all using {{Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright}}} witht he length of the thing. - SoM 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All rights reserved

I looked this over very briefly and it looks very well thought out. One thing that came to mind is the ALL RIGHTS RESERVED on the copyright notices though. All rights reserved is no longer actually a meaningful phrase for U.S. copyrights, legally speaking. I'm afraid it might also give the wrong impression that we have the ability to say what rights are reserved or not. If what is really meant is "our usage of this does not indicate that it is in any way not protected by copyright", then maybe something more directly to that effect would be appropriate. But it was just a thought I had. --Fastfission 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• shrugs* The Marvel notice came from a "fan-site authorisation" program they briefly ran... in 2003. I only changed the end date to 2005, being as it is the current year - and the indicia on current Marvel Comics STILL makes a point of including the words "All rights reserved." So no-one has told Marvel's lawyers. - SoM 01:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Another RfClarity

• Please note that nontrivial changes may invalidate our claim of fair use. Trivial changes like cleaning up dust or reflections are still acceptable.

What, exactly, is at issue here? Specifically:

1. Cropping. Is taking other than a whole page (or panel) or complete cover a "nontrivial change"? Note Kelly Martin's remarks @ WT:CMC here in that.

   Additional - Either way, what's the situation for using {{comiccover}}/{{comicpanel}} if either cover or panel has been significantly cropped?

2. Other edits. If context is important - particuarly with respect to use of {{comicscene}} - or the critique is on the dialogue/colouring/etc, I can clearly see why you would want to keep the scene "as published". If, however, the discussion is on the artistic depiction of a specific character and, as an extension of the "crop the image" direction I linked to above, focusing on that specific element is desirable, again I don't see why removing extraneous information (which in fact lessens the likelihood of, "it [...] limit[ing] the copyright owners rights to sell the comic book in any way" or "copies [of the image being able to] be used to make illegal copies of the comic book") weakens the FU argument - SoM 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this page here [4], it seems to state we might be better cropping and/or modifying:

• Courts also favor uses that are "transformative" or that are not mere reproductions. Fair use is more likely when the copyrighted work is "transformed" into something new or of new utility, such as quotations incorporated into a paper, and perhaps pieces of a work mixed into a multimedia product for your own teaching needs or included in commentary or criticism of the original.

That seems to say that if we have transformed the work to better fit our critical analysis, fair use is more likely to be granted. However, I don't think we should add anything to the art, merely take away. Hiding talk 19:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In the cases discussed here changes which directly transform the image as opposed to transorm it via embeddeding it in another context, will likely invalidate our claim of fair use. For example If you were using a scene to talk about Superman's super powers and you decided his cape would look better green you would be making the image factually inaccurate, which would defeat our entire purpose of allowing the fair use image in Wikipedia. It is, however, okay to crop or rotate or make any other change which doesn't impact the factual accuracy of the image. --Gmaxwell 14:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I think we'd all agree that altering the factual accuracy of the image is wrong, but would creating a transparent background be doing that, or is that a form of cropping? As I said above, I am of the opinion that as long as we add nothing to the art, we are not impacting on the factual accuracy of the image. Changing a colour is making an addition. Removing a caption or background is more like cropping, at least in my book. That's where I would draw the line anyway. I can see problems with cropping to remove context for a claim, but that would be covered by original research I would think. Hiding talk 14:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What Hiding said - cropping or removing a background is certainly "nontrivial", but it doesn't impact on the factual accuracy.

Plus, in addition, if - hypotheticallly - in one panel of one issue Superman's cape was accidentally coloured green (and, while I don't remember an instance of that specific mistake, mistakes like that do and have happened), but that panel is otherwise ideal for commentary of a specific point in the Superman article, I would have no qualms about turning the cape red and uploading it unless it was for use in a colouring errors in comics article. - SoM 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cover galleries/miniseries articles with a cover for every issue

What do others think of this? I don't like it on principle, since I think it's moving in the direction of images for decoration rather than information, but I'm noticing more and more (e.g., Livewires, House of M (story) (recently demerged from House of M)) and attempts by me to cut the numbers down usually end up with reverts. - SoM 21:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would favour curtailing this too. There's plans to deprecate all the fair use tags apart from fairusein, which we can only use if we make a legitimate fair use claim on the image description page. I think we should start thinking along those lines, and I think that would move us to the position that galleries are out. I've also had thoughts regarding the Dazzler dispute, that we should perhaps be careful in how soon we display interior panels of costume changes and the like. We shouldn't display them too soon after publication, possibly because we may be infringing on the commercial impact of the costume change. Where such changes appear on the cover I think it is less of an issue, but interior panels we should perhaps hold off displaying until perhaps the next issue is out. Hiding talk 15:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I remember fairusein was depreciated itself a year or so back for reasons of sorting...

Oh, and that treatment of the Dazzler mess would ironically enough have favoured the new costume, since that pic was from the cover and the "old" costume was from page 1. - SoM 19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Missed your response here. The dazzler costume I could care either way how it went, but my suggestion feels right, what do you think? However the new costume image was a cropped cover image, wasn't it? The ne there now is a better image than the previous one anyway, so I think that problem is sorted, yes? As to fairusein, it's being resurrected, look at Category:Fair use in... images. Hiding talk 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

preventing a forest of articles on each book

It's stated that although we can't include snippets of the whole story arc of the death of Superman arc, it would be OK to include a frame from it in an article about that event. It should be stated somewhere that it's unacceptable to create, say, 100 articles about every little event that occurs in the arc, to pre-empt those who will argue that Wikipedia is not paper, etc. Tempshill 01:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to speedy delete such articles as copyright violation. Hiding talk 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

Any objections to making this a guideline then? Hiding talk 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead, since I've just had a guy saying some of my {{no source}} tags are "nonsensical" on my talk page. Sooner this is active, the better. - SoM 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm that guy. While it's nice to supply "scanned it myself" vs "got it from a website" (one could imagine comparing versions of an image), it's not actually a requirement of copyright law. This is what Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is all about; the copyright resides with the original owner, no matter how many layers of copying, printing/scanning, e-mail forwarding, etc that it goes through. Another way to look at it is - if I got an image from a website, but told you I scanned it myself, how could you ever tell the difference? The real source is the creator of the image (just as it is for art in general), not the hard disk on which a digital copy happens to reside. Stan 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy states that a source must be given, regardless of what copyright laws might say: Always provide a detailed source for where the image came from from Wikipedia:Image use policy. Hiding talk 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and what is the actual source of a book cover? It's not the person scanning the cover, that person is merely copying from one medium to another. Suppose you say you got an image from a website, well where did they get it from? Is your "detailed source" insufficient if you don't know whether that website did the scan, or got it from still another site? What if the website you got an image from goes offline? Does that means all images from that site are now unsourced? You have to use a little common sense here - the actual source of a published image is the publisher. If you have the publisher, you have the source; any intermediate steps are irrelevant. Stan 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Always provide a detailed source Therefore, if you're stating what the actual source for a comic book cover is, then it is the comic book issue from which it is scanned, the publication details of said issue being found in the indicia. If the image is sourced from a website, it's prudent to also give that information alongside any other information regarding the primary source of the image, as in some jurisdictions that information may be relevant, or if there is information missing that source may be useful in attempting to discover such information. It may also be the case that the image has been altered by the person who performed the scan, thus potentially allowing them copyright of the image. Hiding talk 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Note also, that describing something as a comic cover isn't, in and of itself, a description of source. Such information does not help us to uncover the copyright holder and thus protect against copyright infringement. Please also be aware that in many instances the publisher of the comic in question is not the copyright holder. The information being asked for is the comic book the image is scanned from. This allows better identification of the copyright holder. Hiding talk 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, if a comic cover does not mention the publisher/copyright holder (weird, but I'll take your word for it), then the description page ought to supply that. A similar situation holds for screenshots; we at least have to say what it is a screenshot of. In current practice the article on the game/film typically mentions the copyright holder, although it would be better form to replicate into each image. Stan 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Covers do not intrinsically and specifically mention the copyright holder at all. The Invisibles was published by DC but copyright to Grant Morrison. The work Alan Moore and Alan Davis did for Marvel UK is copyrighted to them as creators, although characters remain copyrights of Marvel Comics. Any comic published by Fantagraphics will most likely be creator owned rather than publisher owned. A lot of smaller companies work that way, and given the licensing deals Dark Horse Comics for one enters into, sometimes the copyright information is mired within the small print of the issue's indicia, something not presented upon the cover of the issue in question. For example, I wouldn't like to put money on who the copyright holder or copyright holders of Image:Nos4.jpg are, given the property itself is a 1922 movie character. And regardless of what the cover image may or may not say, the image description page is required to contain source information. It is helpful, it is policy, it allows for an easier understanding of the copyright position and, as you have pointed out, is not burdensome since the information is already to hand. There is a duty to report the copyright holder of the images, and as the source information will facilitate that reporting, I fail to see any reason not to report as fully as possible the source for the image upon the image description page, and once again remind you this is already policy as detailed above. Hiding talk 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bloodstone article

There are currently two different articles for the Marvel Comics character Ulysses Bloodstone. The title of one is Ulysses Bloodstone, the other is simply Bloodstone. The "Bloodstone" article in it's entirety has been copied and pasted from this website: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/bloodstoneulysses.htm and that article should be deleted. I don't know if this is the proper section to discuss it or not, but I'm not spending all night looking for it. I tried to delete it but a bot undid it spouting something about vandalism and all that. Odin's Beard 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of multiple images from different issues

I am considering expansion of the article on Zatanna and doing a section on her costumes over the years. Would the multiple images violate fair use? Orville Eastland 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncopyrighted comics

Would it be possible to create a template for public domain images as well? Orville Eastland 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

{{pd}}

Just a note about comic "things"

I note that for both obaels and covers it must be depicting a character or a group of characters. I'm just wondering about what to do with comic "things". I'm talking more or less about significant artifacts/objects that have appeared over. I'm writing an article on the cosmic treadmill from the Flash, and I uploaded a picture of it. I'm just afraid that the Template:comicpanel won't cover the image of it that I uploaded. Can the wording be tweaked or am I just worrying about nothing?--Toffile 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your use would be covered, as far as I am concerned, by the phrase the scene or storyline depicted;, since you are using it in an article discussing the cosmic treadmill, the cosmic treadmill appears in the scene, and the caption clarifies that usage in context. Hiding talk 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.--Toffile 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Artists' pages

Are we allowed to include examples if an artists work on the page about them ? That doesn't seem to be covered by the existing fair use tag. -- Beardo 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, art is allowable as long as it further explains the artist and is not just for decoration. It has to have an informative use.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeal for help from interested parties

On my watchlist I have over 1100 pages to which I have contributed--from a single comma to full articles. During the past two years I have uploaded hundreds of popular culture images, making daily uploads at times. Some of these pictures are the result of hours of searching in order to find the perfect and relevant image. This includes quite a few comic book pages, comic book covers and comic strips. Some of these comic strips I pulled directly from ancient newspapers, so they appear nowhere else on the Internet.

Over 700 of these images have been designated as needing fair use rationale and will vanish from Wikipedia in a few days simply because there's no way I can add rationales to that many pages in a week's time. What is needed is a team of people dedicated to saving this material from banishment by adding fair use rationales. Please help if you can. Thanks. Here is a link that shows what is about to vanish from Wikipedia. Pepso 05:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't copy the "Fair use rationale" template?

In the "Fair use rationale" section it says not to copy the example shown. My question is: why not? Obviously, it should be adjusted to the specific image and its specific use. However, if all of the comics-related images had copied this template, we would be in a lot better shape. As it stands, a lot of the comics images have no justification other than the boilerplate tag. If anyone bothered to challenge their fair use, I suspect many images would be deleted. So why not encourage editors to copy the template and then modify it as necessary? --GentlemanGhost 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated fair use templates

The template {{Non-free comic}} has pretty much replaced the other comics fair use templates, so I have changed this page to reflect that. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple images?

1) When a single page deals with multiple character is it appropriate/inappropriate to include an image of each character? For example, if there is a page about a super-team with 5 members (where none of the team members have their own individual page) to have an identifying image for each of the 5 members on the one page.

2) When a character from question 1 has multiple identities (EG Clark Kent/Superman) or multiple versions (EG Spiderman/Spiderman-simbiot) is it appropriate/inappropriate to have 1 image per each notable identity/version (within reason)?

Any admin input would be appreciated.

perfectblue (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On DPI

I've removed the 72 dpi suggestion, please see Dots_per_inch#DPI_in_digital_image_files. Anyone with an image editor or a printer settings tab can change the dpi of a printed image, there's no reason to prescribe a specific setting. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

??????

Uhhh... Did I get this straight? You can scan in like a page or a few panels of a comic for a picture on an article, just so long as it's not too much because the reader wouldn't have to actually go and get the comic and read it for themselves, right? A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright notices

Common fansite mistake. IP claims should be made only by IP owners. Wikipedia editors (and fansites in general) don't have detailed copyright or trademark legal histories in hand as they upload, so don't have sufficient knowledge to be asserting these kinds of detailed claims. These notices do not strengthen fair use, and do not prevent being sued. In fact, certain litigious IP owners use these notices against defendants when they sue or threaten to sue, since the defendant has already admitted in detail the IP's ownership, effective dates, scope, and validity. (Which is possibly why certain litigious IP owners encourage fansites to use them in the first place.)

The copyright notices contained in the templates ("...the copyright...is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book...") are sufficient to establish fair use, and more accurately state editors' knowledge of the IP claims. The detailed copyright notices are unnecessary and harmful, and should not be used by Wikipedia or by any fansite. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the four templates for deletion at TfD. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The TfD nomination has closed with no consensus. I prefer not to respond to comments about my lack of adminship (see WP:NBD) or about my not claiming to be a lawyer (see WP:Credentials), but I'd like to continue the discussion otherwise. I won't be renominating any of the templates, because I agree that they can be a useful option to specify a likely publisher and date of publication. Other than that purpose, however, the notices simply duplicate or contradict established fair use templates (particularly {{non-free comic}}), and repeat publisher claims as unattributed POV (see WP:NPOV). Accordingly, I'd like to strip the templates down to just likely publisher, likely date, and properly attributed POV. For example:

It is believed this image depicts a work first published by Marvel Comics in (year). Marvel Characters, Inc., claims trademark rights in the names and likenesses of characters related to Marvel publications. (citation)

Sorry for the vague wording at the end, but Marvel is itself vague about which characters they claim to be trademarks, and I'm still tracking down a source for citation. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused as to what points you are making. You are suggesting we need to source what, exactly? Hiding T 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nutshell - He believes the current copyright templates are lawsuit bait.
    This is in the face of them being based on the publishers indecia boilerplate and statements on the published works. Also, he has not bothered to proved, when asked, anything beyond his opinion to support his base contention (lawsuit bait).
    Looking at his suggested change, sorry, it reads as "Marvel (or DC, or King Syndicate, or whoever) claims ownership, but we don't believe it." - J Greb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If he believes the notices are lawsuit bait I suggest he take it up with the foundation lawyer whilst the rest of us try to avoid copyright paranoia. What's the concern here? That we might mistakenly attribute copyright to a company when it is held by someone else? Isn't that scenario the one being a wiki that anyone can edit is supposed to insulate us from? Hiding T 11:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• The notices are not "lawsuit bait." I apologize for implying that they are.
  Neither are they necessary or desirable for fair use. IP plaintiffs like to bring them up to make their case look better after they've decided to send a C&D or sue -- a defendant admitting knowledge that it was the plaintiff's IP supports their case, after all -- but I doubt they make an impact in the decision either way.
  The pressing Wikipedia concern here is unattributed POV, specifically POV inserted word for word from a financially interested source. If a company makes a general trademark claim, given the fundamentally subjective nature of trademarks, that's POV, and needs to be attributed (and sourced, if possible). If a company claims a trademark registration in a jurisdiction, that's a verifiable fact, but should still be sourced if possible. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm getting confused. Which bit are you objecting to, the copyright assertion or the trademark assertion? Hiding T 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Both.
      Trademark assertions especially, since these are built on recognizability, which varies by context and locale. Also because certain Marvel trademark claims (such as SUPER HERO) are notable for being a disputed POV. It's an important POV, and there's no harm in stating it. But if we're going to be tagging every Marvel character, regardless of age or obscurity, with a boilerplate trademark notice, best show restraint, by attributing and sourcing the POV.
      Copyright assertions are less controversial, since authorship, rather than recognition, is a more objective cornerstone to build on. Also, I'm also not aware of any ongoing disputes against any Marvel copyright claim, just occasional disputes over licenses. Still, terms and scope of copyright protection vary by jurisdiction. It's OK to state a publisher and date of publication, but not OK to make hard legal conclusions based on those facts, since we don't know where or even when these notices will be read. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You've lost me again. I can understand the trademark issue, but I'm not completely clear on the copyright issue. Copyright law seems quite nebulous to me, but my understanding is that anyone can assert copyright on anything, and the courts ultimately decide who in fact has copyright. Is that right? To be honest I find it all really complicated. Take for example Superman. It seems to have been established that Siegel and Shuster held the copyright, which they then assigned to DC. So I get confused, because to me that means Siegel and Shuster still hold the copyright they have simply assigned all benefits that right conveys to DC, well, National or whoever it was if you want to get fussy. The law seems to take a different view, for reasons I do not understand, and has it that the copyright is held by DC, until such time as it reverts to Siegel and Shuster. That seems far more complicated and actually obscures the truth of the matter and adds layers of interpretation. Of course, given lawyers are involved, that may be the reason it has occurred. So any copyright notice concerning Superman becomes complicated. Who owns the copyright? Too complicated for words. You seem to be stating that we shouldn't have copyright notices at all, a position I actually tend to agree with, but sadly one not endorsed by policy. Since we have to attribute copyright, how are we to do this, if not our best guess? Since only a court can decide who actually holds copyright, all we can do is best guess, yes? As to your points about years, can you clarify what you mean? Isn't this again a very nebulous issue? I have no great understanding of copyright law, but, say Superman is in a piece of art alongside Animal Man. What would the copyright date on that image be? The date it was drawn, the date it was published or the date Superman was initially copyrighted? This is perhaps why we are using generic templates. It's too complicated otherwise, and consensus has dictated this is the best way forwards. Thoughts? Hiding T 10:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's odd. I know we have to put fair use warnings and rationales on unlicensed images, but I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia policy saying editors have to research the legal history as well. Other than that, I'm in agreement -- not telling readers the image is protected IP for a fact, but instead giving verifiable information such as author and publication date (or attributed POV such as trademark claimant and scope) and letting the reader make the determination for himself. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, particularly 10 (a), Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. That to me indicates we have to attribute the image's copyright holder. Hiding T 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I'll file that under "easier said than done." Anyway, I'll hold off on boldness until after the holiday weekend. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I think the best thing might be to raise this at WP:FUC, to be honest. The position you're taking probably needs a very broad consensus. Hiding T 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, that went nowhere fast. Inserting the publishers' position as fact into these templates is a clear NPOV violation to me, so I personally won't be using them. And I guess I'll leave it at that. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Folks, this is why we have the author field inside the rationale template, and the {{trademark}} template. ViperSnake151 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image resolution, cropping

Hi! J Greb has just resized all of the images I uploaded for the article Hungarian Comics and I thought the issue needs to be clarified here, because I think it has some special comics aspects.
To start with, this article gives us a hint on what's the correct resolution for an image. But I think it has to have some more precise descriptions.

I think the optimum to display an artist's work or a comic series' art is an 800-900 pixel wide scan of a whole page. Here are my reasons:

- Whole pages are essential. A panel shows us the artist, but only a whole page can show us the comic book artist. The way panels relate to each other, how they take place in a page is essential, and it shows great differences between artists. I don't think I have to explain a page as a unit since Scott McCLoud's great books. :) Plus advantage is that it reflects a bit of the storytelling (but not the story).

- Whole pages in my view still fit into WP guidelines on copyrighted images since they are far away from a whole story.

- 800-900 pixels are still not print quality. (Print quality starts around 300 dpi, a 8-900 pixel wide image of a page is around 120-130 dpi)

- 400 pixels in contrary make useless images for whole pages, because the art is blurry, only the main lines come through and the script can't be read. It's just as good as if nothing were uploaded...

I think these parameters are a good compromise: visible, but not print quality; valuable information, but not whole comics.
I would like to note that these images have been up for more than two years, none of the copyright owners have complained (but some have written in email or other form, that they felt privileged). The article has been checked against B class criteria, but image size problems haven't even occurred...
I understand that cropping and shrinking are to protect us/WP, but we also have to consider these images resemble the the original work or not. Zoli79 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The minor point first - the images being up in a state that bucks guidelines or policy for a protracted period doesn't exempt it from those. Since Wikipedia doesn't work to a deadline it may just indicate that no one has gotten around to it. And generally image size and count for non-free material doesn't happen until an article goes for "GA" review.

Beyond that...

WP Policy is for minimal use of non-free images as well as making sure the use here is not a potential way to under cut the commercial rights of the owners of the non-free material. At the time the project level guidelines here were put in place, the Wiki-level guidelines based on policy did make some general numeric limits. Even though the upper level guides have reduced the use of specific "targets" the rule of thumb used here at the Project level makes sense. In most cases an image doesn't need to be larger than the 250-300px across range. In the case of "full pages" 400px is generally where the layout, art, and rough text are clear.

Looking at "...the script can't be read." Aside from being clear that text is text, the need to clearly read the text exists in very limited cases, such as the discussion of lettering or the work of a particular letterer. And even there only small samples are needed. For depicting page layout or general style/tone, knowing where the text goes is the important part, not being able to actually read it. The case of the Hungarian comics images do also go one step further - if there was information to be passed on from the text, a translation would need to be provided in the article text anyway..

Lastly, most of this is moot if the page scanned is out of copyright. The piece from "Hazánk és a Külföld" seems to be a define for that and the one from Hári János a "likely". Zoli79, do you have a way of roughly checking if any of the other images have, or are likely to have, passed into the public domain under Hungarian law?

- J Greb (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers. As an engineer, I'm a person of numbers, and clearly written rules. Can these general guides (about whole pages) you wrote down be set somewhere else than a talk page? Even if I don't agree with 400 pixels, if I find it written down as a rule, I would keep it. (For different sizes of pages maybe a dpi limit could be also set.)

For me 400 pixel pages are still too small. I just can't make sense of them. Comic book databases generally use 400 pixel wide cover-scans, and those are larger, less detailed artworks and fonts. As you said, the policy is to "make sure the use here is not a potential way to under cut the commercial rights of the owners of the non-free material". I think, if we go a bit over 400, there still is no potential way to undercut commercial rights. But again: if this is already a set limit, than I'm not going to argue it.

In Hungary the work is copyrighted until 70 years passes after the death of the author. (For example Béla Bartók's copyrights are still owned by his family.) But I'll do a double check on these. In most cases I personally know the copyright owners, maybe it would be time to license these images, but I'll have to refresh my knowledge on that topic and it would be a hard one since some older artists don't use emails and computers. Zoli79 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolution cap revisit

Right now we've got here and the MoS stating "usually with a longest dimension no greater than 200-300 pixels".

The original discussions were referring to the width of the images since:

• The infoboxes currently default to 250px across and it's useful to have the image slightly larger than that. The 300px point.
• Cover as published tend to be muddled if reduced below 300px. And,
• The average default, hard coded or preference reliant, spot image width size floats between 180 and 220px. Images sized between 200-250px across accommodate that range.

Since these ranges, at 72 ppi, still make the image less than useful for commercial reproduction, is there any objection to changing the wording to "usually with a width no greater than 200-300 pixels"?

(Cross posted at the MoS page...)

- J Greb (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper comic strip copyright expiry

How long does the copyright of a comic strip published in a newspaper in the US last? Roger (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain, according to our article at Copyright law of the United States. However, per Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, the legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional. If you need specific legal advice please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area. Hiding T 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)