Reinhard Kraasch
- Please use my talk page in the German Wikipedia.
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Is modification on image and uploaded it on wiki violates copyright?
editDear,
There are so many discussions about my uploaded files. I just want to know if I edited or modified any taken photos as such that it looks so different from the original photo. Is that still considered copyright infringement or violation?
Scenario 1:
If that's the case, then how are youtube channels like Failarmy, KhilliBuzzChiru, chottochele, BadmasBipua, SSTroll and so on uploading others' Tiktok videos, Insta reels? Not only this but these YouTubers are trolling, abusing the original creators and using their videos they’re making money, and yes that too without permission.
Also, YouTubers like magicshowfootball, 6oonclassic, NinetyVirus, Football-Show, TeoCRi kGZ, soccerprime697, J9Studio, AshStudio7, Score90 and so on are using live football matches videos with some edits on their channels. No! none of them are affiliated or associated or authorized with those tournaments or by fifa or by leagues. Some of them even have subscribers in millions and are also verified by youtube.
They literally making money with those videos so aren't they violating copyright?
Scenario 2:
Even many free images are also selling ”as it is” on photo selling sites like shutter stock, adobe stock. Need proof? Here are some of them:
Example 1: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Alamy 1, Alamy 2, Alamy 3
Example 2: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2 these are also available on photo-selling site Adobe Stock 1, Adobe Stock 2
Example 3: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Shutter Stock 1, Shutter Stock 2, Shutter Stock 3
Example 4: Where this same image is freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay, it is also available on photo selling site Dreamstime
Note: All of them from Pixabay (The 2nd best free image source after Wiki) are either featured in the Editor's Choice or Outstanding by Pixabay which means it was reviewed rigorously by the team to choose if those are genuine or not.
As the photos are selling without the original author’s permission (yes, the Pixabay and photo selling owner are completely different - checked through their social medias and names) so aren't they violating copyright?
Scenario 3:
Even I got many promotional emails (as I subscribed) from “Trademark Factory” ( a company that registers copyrights and trademark like stuffs) is using others’ gifs in the emails. You may say ohh they are doing that because it’s meant for personal use. No! It’s not! Promotional emails are also a commercial asset and many are buying products from those email links. How can that be meant for personal use?
I got a image in my emali in which they’re using others' copyrighted materials (yes the below image not belongs to them):
That image was originally taken from the Buzzfeed
I have many of these. But due to laziness, I just mentioned one.
So aren’t they also violating?
Then you might say Youtube and Wikipedia are different at their field. But they originate from the same country "USA" and isn't the copyright law apply equally to them?
On the other hand, I just uploaded photos that were modified as such which makes totally different from the original photos. Where these YouTubers literally using others clips without permission and making money.
Where I just uploaded them for nonprofit - wiki and obviously want to help travelers. How? Because as most of them seek wikipedia for many travel related infos, if they get appropriate images with that it will be greatly helpful.
Even most of the news websites use others image just by citing the source. Is just citation enough to bypass the copyright and that too without permission?
My Intention:
To be honest, I have no bad intentions at all in uploading these images.
- I uploaded Belgharia Railway Station.png, Agarpara Railway Station.png, Barahat railway station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg because there were no better images portraying the station/subject or the previously uploaded image were insufficient in portraying the station/subject.
- I uploaded Sealdah Station.jpg, because that will give better comparison between past and current view of sealdah station with the image Sealdah Station (BOND 0481).jpg with the image Like this:
.jpg){kind=link}
- I uploaded Eleta Kingsley.jpg because there was no other image of him.
- By uploading images on wiki, I really want to help travelers and people who are hungry for knowledge. Travelers will get appropriate images along with infos. Seriously I felt this too helpful and needed when I have gone through this situation while traveling to mnay places.
Modification:
Below I am mentioning the images I modified:
Agarpara Railway Station.png was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/eShLwydsyoN5Bifg6
Barahat railway station.jpg was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/gq4AVizsbd6oKDYV8
And the similar was done for the images Belgharia Railway Station.png, Eleta Kingsley.jpg, Sealdah Station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg, Habra Railway Station.png (on these images collection from 3rd parties was involved but with modification)
But also note: Among my uploaded images 1) বন্ধু (Friends).png; 2) খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png 3) Old Sealdah Station.jpg the first two I completely own.
.png){kind=link}
For 1) I am the photographer and the editor for this image. I reuploaded this (originally uploaded in 2020) because I uploaded it with my site’s name in the photo, caption, and even in the description. That’s why I allow deleted the photo and again uploaded it. The pic was drawn on my finger and captured by me.
For 2) I edited this photo from the starting to finish by myself through photo editing software. So, yes in these 2 photos, no collection or source was made or any 3rd parties were involved. I completely own and photographed these.
For 3) It was already proven (though no way I ever claimed myself as the owner of that photo). It’s in the public domain and found on a 1900s postcard see the proof here.
In Short:
- Is modification on images violate copyright? Except for the 3 images বন্ধু (Friends).png; Old Sealdah Station.jpg; খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png simply delete those rest other files If modification still violates the copyright! If not, please keep them!
- I used modification on the image as such that it looks different from the original. Still people on the internet like youtubers, news agencies are using others images “As it is” and that too without permission. And they said they can use others as long as they cite others. Yes, I heard good YouTubers saying that citing images of others is enough: Source What? Is this called copyright? Just cite others and now you can use them? If that’s the thing then what is copyright? To what extent it can be used?
One more thing to ask: As per wiki CC4.0 stated Wikimedia images can be modified and used if it is distributed under the same share-alike license means CC4.0. I just want to ask if I use Wikimedia images as it is or modified in commercial blog posts or in any commercial writings, is this completely fine to use? Mean, is this copyright-free to use?
(I added many images while sending this same message to the VRT by email but as I can't add images here you can consider the sourced links)
Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi HridoyKundu,
- I'm not quite sure why you as me this and why you ask it here, since I am no regular contributor to the English Wikipedia. You might ask me this as a Commons sysop on Commons or as German Wikipedian in the German Wikipedia - or as a VRT member in VRT...
- Anyway: It does not matter at all what others do in other channels - no copyright violation on YouTube or of a stock photo supplier can justify a copyright violation with us. This is the general law principle "there is no equality in injustice".
- On the other hand, I don't see that there are any "discussions about your uploaded files", I even don't see any need for sending a release statement to the VRT team, since these images are your own work, which you can just state in the upload process.
- To your question "if I use Wikimedia images as it is or modified in commercial blog posts or in any commercial writings, is this completely fine to use? Mean, is this copyright-free to use?" - it is fine to use them, even to commercial purposes, however, the use is not "copyright-free", as re-users have to obey to the licenses which require mentioning the author (and in the case of an SA-license publishing the resulting work under the same license).
- All the best --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Dear, I asked you this you being a VRT admin. Hope you will give me better assessment as you're experienced enough for this. 😀
- "since these images are your own work, which you can just state in the upload process." - There is the confusion though I didn't click those photos but I did modification as such it looks different than original (at least to some extent). So do I still own the copyright of those images? if not then please consider deleting those (mentioned in my previous reply).
- "discussions about your uploaded files" - yes there was a discussion see here I was just having a major confusion about whether modification on 3rd party image and uploaded to wiki is allowed? As I said earlier in my previous reply "
- Agarpara Railway Station.png was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/eShLwydsyoN5Bifg6
- Barahat railway station.jpg was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/gq4AVizsbd6oKDYV8
- And the similar was done for the images Belgharia Railway Station.png, Eleta Kingsley.jpg, Sealdah Station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg, Habra Railway Station.png (on these images collection from 3rd parties was involved but with modification)
- Thanks, HridoyKundu (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- @HridoyKundu: Me being VRTS admin only means that I am in charge of maintaining the VRT system, not that I am in charge of the system queues (I am actually also a VRT agent, but mostly for the German queues, not for the international ones).
- If you did not take the photos yourself, the answer is clear: you do not own the copyright. You can get additional copyrights by modifying the images, but you cannot replace the original copyright holder. (At least not if the modifications are not very substantial - if you were just using the original image as a background for an oil painting, that would be a different matter).
- In short: It is not possible to put an image into the public domain by just modifying it slightly. Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- understand!☺️ HridoyKundu (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
