Wikipedia talk:Restricted materials

As the original creator

I think we should move this to Wikipedia:Non-copyright restrictions, has a better and more neutral name. I'm just concerned about the "wikilegality" of moving it during a *FD. ViperSnake151 12:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave it for a while, the remit of this page is quite large, trademarks, currencies, perosnality rights .....etc. We only have a vague idea of where this page is going at this stage, I don't object to moving the page, but I think this page will be in a state of serious flux for a few weeks yet Fasach Nua (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not move it until it is, in a way, finished. The title I would favour is Wikipedia:Restricted usage, since restrictions are on usage, and not in any way on the images themselves (at least not in Florida.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

I had to look up the shortcut (because I didn't put the emphasis on the 2nd syllable.) Once I did, it made me smile. Just perfect, even if it does prejudge the conclusion somewhat! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The apple example gave me the idea :D For those who are wondering what we're talking about, we actually have an article for it: Sosumi. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Length

I would like to see the essay being brief and to the point. The unwritten message I would like people to get is the same one I got from Gmaxwell and Postdlf when I first got involved in the current round of this discussion: “Nothing to see here.” My gut feeling right now is that it is too long, but I can't see clearly what to cut out. Maybe let it grow some more, and then refactor. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to see... But at the same time it needs to answer all the common arguments people sometimes make on this point or people will attempt to rehash them out on the page. With that in mind, I wouldn't be opposed to making it shorter, but I don't see how. Some of the examples could be culled (like the Nazi symbol one), but at a minimum I'd like to keep a trademark example and an exaggerated example (Using a WP article for murder). :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Guideline tag?

MBisanz, you restored the guideline tag with "per me missing point". I guess I missed the point too. Could you explain for the clueless? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That Gmaxwell added it and knows a lot more about image law than I ever will. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Guideline?

The page is certainly interesting and informative but I don't see how it is a guideline. I don't see what advice the page offers (apart from the last line about tagging), how does it guide the way users should edit or act on Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be better off as an explanatory section or footnote in Wikipedia:Copyrights or Wikipedia:Non-free content than as a stand alone piece? Guest9999 (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My thinking here is that it represents the long standing consensus with respect to this particular issue. (And in fact appears entirely uncontested now, which pretty good as such things go). I was opposed to creating a separate page for this: This subject has been previously noted to be a non-issue, but it was correctly pointed out that this was a perennial issue and that having an explicit statement on our view on this subject would be helpful. Saying that it's a mere essay would be misleading with respect to its authority: The position the page is roughly expressing is the longstanding consensus view on this subject by users here, users on commons, and is in accordance with statements by the Wikimedia Foundation. ... as far as guiding the way users should act on Wikipedia, it informs them how when we talk about free content being mandatory the notion of free that we're using has particular bounds and that they should stop claiming "nothing can be really free so you should abandon the non-free content policy". :) Okay, thats a stretch. The guideline tag can go, I provided it largely to see if anyone would claim that the page didn't represent the standing consensus. We use the essay tag too broadly: from things which are nearly one person's rant to things which are deeply enshrined in the core of our community. It would be nice to have something that said "This is is essay, but not one you should dismiss as 'just some essay'". :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, it more than answers all the questions I had. Um... keep up the good work. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions

Is it time to start writing a brief section about exceptions? Here is an early draft: feel free to edit it in place. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions to the above guideline are very rare indeed. If you find yourself deleting a page, media file, text or link because of a legal restriction other than copyright, read this whole page carefully, think twice, and talk it over with other editors. It is very unlikely indeed that the law in question applies to Wikipedia, and there are only a few specialized exceptions. The following examples should be interpreted very narrowly.

Location of editor

If you are from (or visiting) a jurisdiction where rules are more strict than Florida, you may violate local law by uploading, transcluding or even viewing restricted materials. However Wikipedia is not censored.

See also: Wikipedia:General disclaimer § Jurisdiction and legality of content

Hate speech, violence and sexual exploitation

Hate and harm usually depend on context. Aim to build an encyclopedia; don't appeal to prurient interest, and don't aim to cause or abet harm and offence. Consider putting the most potentially misused images that are legitimately hosted at Commons or English Wikipedia on the MediaWiki:Bad image list.

See also Wikipedia is not censored

Trademarks

Image:Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911.png is in the public domain, but it is a trademark, so don't use it to link to Encarta. Don't make a confusing text link, such as:

[[ Wikipedia | Britannica ]]

See also: Wikipedia:General disclaimer § Trademarks

• I like the layout, I wouldn't use "Child pornography" as a heading, I think the scope has to be less specific, something like "Potentially morally offencive materials" (maybe something more catchy), to include other items such as the German Swastika, and it seems now the Soviet Flag[1] Fasach Nua (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I tweaked it a little.--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call these exceptions, at least not to the whole page, ... rather, they are things which are probably illegal for you to do on Wikipedia .. they are exceptions to the generally strong legal position that we have on Wikipedia with respect to non-copyright laws over the content here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines....giving guidance?

We still have a trademarked logo being used to advertise a commercial service competing with the trademark owner at Template:TardisIndexFile, thoughts? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not advertise Wikia; we merely link to it. Further more, their use of the trademark is not our problem. — Edokter • Talk • 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we do advertise their site, I have removed our use of the BBC's trademark from our site Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Derivatives or restatements of guidelines/policies are not guidelines themselves

It is clearly disputed that this is even a restatement of NFCC, as was clearly shown on the NFCC talk page. I refuse to just take Gmaxwell's word for it either, since he has shown to be highly polemic in free-content disputes. I've reverted the tag to essay, you must seek a brand new consensus on NFCC talk if you want to promote it. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm glad but disappointed. I'd hoped that marking it guideline would bring out any objections that existed if any did exist. You've objected, which is great. But your objection is that there are unspecified objections elsewhere, which is not helpful. Can you please show me where this page is being disputed? Thanks. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This page should be marked as a proposal and advertised if it is intended to be a guideline. I have no opinion on the content, but it is not appropriate to just declare guidelines without due process. If a few editors want to write an essay, then that is there right to express an opinion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So, is it true, or not? If not, please propose changes, or propose withdrawing it for errors. Kat's email came out over a year ago, and I have not heard of objection on wiki that says non-copyright restrictions are in the scope of the EDP. (This was hashed out at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content earlier this week, apparently not for the first time.) We should use seek consensus to tag a version of this page as a guideline, to clarify this consensus for ordinary editors like me, so we don't get confused about "freedom to use", as I was a week ago. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. The page says many thing which were understood by some to be both consensus and common sense, but were not clear to all. Now will we have some people saying what was previously understood by many to be policy is "only an essay" because we bothered to write it down completely?

Dragon695 has not replied to my request above to point out the dispute, although he's been editing ... perhaps he missed it, I'll leave him a note.

Incidentally, Kat was speaking for the board when she wrote that email (explaining the then unreleased resolution, see the signature line). So at least that part is not ambiguous. The page does go beyond covering the WMF position, and that should be subject to consensus. ... I would have thought the inability to find people who disagree would be pretty good evidence of consensus. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I was working on electrical diagrams. Give me an hour or so. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have no objection to this essay, I do have an objection to automatically making it a guideline because you say so or because it is obvious. It is important that an essay receive sufficient community input and consensus before it gets promoted, otherwise it detracts from the seriousness of other guidelines like WP:V. That is my only objection. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How?

How can you kill someone with a WP article? Stifle (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps no-one knows. If I recall this began as a joke about a rolled-up article used as a weapon. We used it simply to illustrate that the possibility of using an article to break another law (trademark, hate speech and so on) does not influence our concept of free content. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikia links

Edokter mentions in his edit summary that a "decision entailed all wikia links". I am not aware of that decision, so a link to it would be helpful if you can find it. Unfortunately at the moment we only link to Template talk:TardisIndexFile.

Do you mind if I put the image and caption I proposed in the examples section, as a concrete example?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You can put the image back, but the decision to change {{TardisIndexFile}} to not use the image was taken primarely following a discussion on using boxes to link to non-sister projects in general. That discussion can be found at Template talk:FreeContentMeta. — Edokter • Talk • 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - very interesting discussion. Perhaps that is a reason to delete the example altogether. Since the box was changed for other reasons, the example of removing the image is more or less hypothetical, and no more or less interesting than the apple example. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Apple example is sufficient enough. — Edokter • Talk • 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Toys and other products images

Wouldn't an image like this be a derivative work? Or it is used under non-copyright restriction?Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right to me. If a toy were considered a copyrightable work of art, wouldn't a car or a necklace or even a chair be considered a work of art also? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For sure! I can't see a copyright infrigiment on this image but I'd like to know why. Mike Godwin said to through email it is not a copyvio. I do elieve in his words, but I' like to know why. Commons retains this photo as a copyvio. But it accepst photos from video game consoles, dvd players and son on. I don't understand that. I think United Staes paten Office page explain that. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

904.04 Material Not Appropriate as Specimens for Trademarks
904.04(a) Drawing or “Picture” of the Mark

A photocopy of the drawing required by 37 C.F.R. §2.51 is not a proper specimen. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c). Similarly, the specimen may not be a “picture” of the mark, such as an artist’s drawing or a printer’s proof that merely illustrates what the mark looks like and is not actually used on or in connection with the goods in commerce.
04.04(b) Advertising Material

Advertising material is generally not acceptable as a specimen for goods. Any material whose function is merely to tell the prospective purchaser about the goods, or to promote the sale of the goods, is unacceptable to support trademark use. Similarly, informational inserts are generally not acceptable to show trademark use. In re MediaShare Corp., 43 USPQ2d 1304 (TTAB 1997); In re Schiapparelli Searle, 26 USPQ2d 1520 (TTAB 1993); In re Drilco Industrial Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1671 (TTAB 1990); In re ITT Rayonier Inc., 208 USPQ 86 (TTAB 1980); In re Bright of America, Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979). However, an instruction sheet may be an acceptable specimen. In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903 (TTAB 1984). See TMEP §904.03(j) regarding manuals and TMEP §904.04(c) regarding package inserts.

The following types of items are generally considered advertising, and unless they comprise point-of-sale material, are not acceptable as specimens of use on goods: advertising circulars and brochures; price lists; announcements; publicity releases; listings in trade directories; and business cards. Moreover, material used by the applicant to conduct its internal business is unacceptable as a specimen of use on goods. These materials include all papers whose sole function is to carry out the applicant’s business dealings, such as invoices, bill heads, waybills, warranties and business stationery. See In re Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 455 F.2d 563, 173 USPQ 8 (C.C.P.A. 1972); In re Bright of America, supra; Varian Associates v. IMAC Corp., 160 USPQ 283 (N.D. Ill. 1968); Upco Co. v. Speed Crete of La., Inc., 154 USPQ 555 (TTAB 1967); Dynacolor Corp. v. Beckman & Whitley, Inc., 134 USPQ 410 (TTAB 1962); Pendleton Woolen Mills v. Eloesser-Heynemann Co., 133 USPQ 211 (TTAB 1962); Boss Co. v. Homemaker Rugs, Inc., 117 USPQ 255 (N.D. Ill. 1958).

As to display of trademarks on company uniforms, see In re McDonald’s Corp., 199 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1978); Toro Manufacturing Corp. v. John B. Stetson Co., 161 USPQ 749 (TTAB 1969).

Bags and other packaging materials bearing the name of a retail store and used by the store merely for packaging items of sold merchandise are not acceptable to show trademark use of the store name for the products sold by the store (e.g., bags at cash register). When used in this manner, the name merely identifies the store. See In re The Pennsylvania Fashion Factory, Inc., 198 USPQ 568 (TTAB 1978), aff’d, 588 F.2d 1343, 200 USPQ 140 (C.C.P.A. 1978).
904.04(c) Package Inserts

If material inserted in a package with the goods is merely advertising material, then it is not acceptable as a specimen of use on or in connection with the goods. Material that is only advertising does not necessarily cease to be advertising because it is placed inside a package.

Package inserts such as invoices, announcements, order forms, bills of lading, leaflets, brochures, printed advertising material, circulars, publicity releases, and the like are not acceptable specimens to show use on goods. See In re Bright of America, Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979).

Stamps and Other Images: Policy & Resizing

There are noncopyright legal constraints on images being published. Many of these images already appear in Wikipedia. I propose edits, probably to Image Use Policy and Wikipedia: Uploading Images, to list some issues and advise cautions and solutions. I suggest the legal limits be explicit in policy.

I recently discussed this in Village Pump (Policy) (archive). One reply was largely about past practice elsewhere and the (non)utility of copying images for fraud but didn't rebut the legal argument.

I suspect some previously uploaded images need to be reviewed, probably to resize some of them. The sooner those reviews begin, the better. A technology patch to the Wiki software would help if it implemented size limits when an uploading person checkmarked the nature of the content. At the least, we should by policy discourage future uploadings that are barred by law.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stamp sizes?

Digital images of stamps cannot possibly be said to have a physical size. How does the law affect us then? .froth. (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)