Commons talk:De minimis

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 19:27, 1 July 2011 by Rd232 (talk | contribs) ({{Use Village Pump (Copyright)|DM}})
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Top

It's interesting to apply this to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HK Worldwide House The Beverly Hills Central Tram Stop 1.JPG. It's clear to me that that image should be deleted, but I would be interested to hear other views. --MichaelMaggs 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Culture?

Reading one of the stories in "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig (chapter 7 pp. 95-99 to be exact) one gets the impression that the de minimis principle is quite subjective, and assuming it even in cases that might seem obvious to you and me might not be the "safe" (legally speaking) choice. I'm not too comfortable claiming de minims on commons unless there are clear guidelines reviewed by lawyers as to what is really marginal. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are no real 'bright lines' in copyright law, but this concept is not significantly more fuzzy than a whole range of issues we already deal with (eg required level of originality). Commons already has huge numbers of images where this concept has been silently applied. The purpose of this page is not to add anything new, but just to clarify so far as possible what we already do. --MichaelMaggs 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with "claiming" de minimis rather than practicing it. This page explains brilliantly what de minimis is, but it does not tell the average user what to do. I just think that it is slightly more fuzzy than other aspects, that's all. It might be mistaken by the unaware uploader as "a way around" despite the guidelines attempt to make it obvious it is not so. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paper you mention is interesting, but I would never have expected use of the Simpsons in such a context to be de minimis. The reason appears in the statement between pp95 and 96: "As Else judged it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special about the scene." So the inclusion of the cartoon was intentional, and "helped capture ..what was special". De minimis requires the opposite: insignificance. --MichaelMaggs 20:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get your point. But I think the issue here was that it was "adults watching cartoons" that helped capture the flavour, not "the simpsons" in particular (I have not seen the clip myself so its 3rd hand info). But it makes the point ever more poignant; that a 4 second clip on a tv screen in a scene was not considered "insignificant" by legal beagles! --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsinn

Es ist absoluter Unsinn, hier alles Mögliche unter "De minimis" zusanmmenzuwerfen. Nur weil Maggs Engländer zu sein scheint, besteht keinerlei Berechtigung UK-Grundsätze hier zu behandeln, wenn man nicht auch alle anderen Länder behandelt. Die US-Rechtslage ist relevant, weil Bilder in den USA und im Ursprungsland frei sein müssen. Die UK-Rechtslage ist nur für UK relevant, in Deutschland gilt:

--Historiograf (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more discussion needs to be added about the corresponding Civil law approach. Lupo is looking into it: User talk:Lupo#De minimis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd do so, but I also said I'd have to visit the library to do this right. Haven't had the time to get there yet. And I won't have the time before August. If Historiograf already has researched this topic, he would be in a much better position to write a little about how this is handled in Germany. From what I see, the criteria are to be interpreted narrowly. Lupo 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to come and ask if this is some sort of Common Law thing. And I was also going to point out that there is a kind of "de minimis" in the Finnish law. That is already covered here: COM:FOP#Finland. Samulili (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

As this has been in place for 4 months without serious argument, it's time to label it as policy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Conflict: Crops of de minimis images

The "Crops of de minimis images" section conflicts with the policy that "derivative work must be allowed" Commons only accepts content "that can be used by anyone, for any purpose." The {{Policy}} template should be removed from this article until it agrees with precedent policy (or the conflicting precedent policy should be modified). —Danorton (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It agrees fine. Derivative works are allowed, it's just that those derivative works may not count as de minimis, depending on the crop. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the actual policy reads that Commons only accepts content "that can be used by anyone, for any purpose." So if the cropped derivatives are no longer de minimis, they aren't allowed on Commons. A work whose trivial derivative isn't allowed on Commons cannot be allowed on Commons. —Danorton (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has never strictly been the case that Commons only accepts content "that can be used by anyone, for any purpose". There are a vast number of reasons why content may not be re-usable in some contexts: trademarks, personality rights, defamation, forgery laws, censorship, criminal laws such as anti-nazi laws and so on. Not every use is allowed for every image. See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. If there is some other policy that suggests to the contrary we should correct that impression. If you are referring to the statement at the top of COM:L, you should also read the footnote, which says: "This may be regulated by geographical, trademark, or other laws unrelated to copyrights, which Wikimedia Commons can not account for". I don't think there is any conflict. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's possible to stretch "for any purpose" to an absurd interpretation.
So, let's talk about a reasonable interpretation of "for any purpose", specifically, that it means that the resulting content is unrestricted by any intellectual property license. Allowing the "cropping" exception creates a "de minimis wormhole" through which any copyright image can travel freely through Commons. It simultaneously re-creates the license while removing all license restrictions. The "crop" exception is simply incompatible with the "free use" policy. —Danorton (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apply the same argument presented in the Derivative works guideline to the question "If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?". Consequently, the "crop" also conflicts with this guideline.
I appreciate the de minimis argument, but the "crop" section drops the ball, as it fails to consider proper degrees in relative and absolute terms. Instead of saying that free uncropped content can be cropped to yield non-free content, the "crop" section should warn that if content can be trivially cropped to yield non-free content, the original content is also non-free, regardless of how de minimis the cropped portion appears in the relative context of the original.
This is easily prevented by not loading an original of such high resolution that trivial cropping can yield non-free content. Danorton (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To copy my reply from Commons talk:Licensing our lawyer has said these images are fine (per en:WP:MGS). To the extent a crop focuses on the copyrighted work the de minimis legal concept is defeated. This is not the fault of the original image, and does not make sense we would censor the resolution of the original image. Again, this is not fair use, if it were you would be correct. If you believe the wording needs to be updated, it's a wiki, go ahead and fix it. But toning down the resolution of an original, legal image to prevent people from using it to create derivative works by cropping is not the way Commons works. -Nard the Bard 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, unless you are referring to comments you didn't reference, the statement "our lawyer has said these images are fine" you are misrepresenting misrepresents the referenced comments of Wikimedia's lawyer. Here's what MikeGodwin actually wrote:
In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. MikeGodwin 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [1][reply]
Firstly, he doesn't make a blanket statement, but writes that they should be addressed "case-by-case". The current blanket discussion that has held images in limbo for months is inappropriate, and each image should be considered separately on various merits.
Secondly, with all due respect to MikeGodwin, I see no indication that he considered or addressed the specific problem of absolute image size (i.e. pixel and color depth). (In his defense, I don't see that that particular detail was was at issue.) Digital reproductions and increased image resolutions raise relatively new copyright issues that need to be considered.
I share MikeGodwin's view that it's not helpful to actively police images that happen to include otherwise protected portions, but when the otherwise protected portion is obvious, it's not policing, it's simply noting the obvious. When the otherwise protected portion is large enough in absolute pixel measurement to stand protected on its own, it's no longer de minimis.
While a copyright image may be de minimis in the relative context of an entire image, a digital image requires additional consideration regarding absolute dimensions. The "crop" section of this article fails to properly consider this. —Danorton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree about a cropping "wormhole". A crop is a separate work -- if that work violates copyright, then we would not allow the crop on Commons. We cannot control what other people do. For one example, there are French cases where photos of an entire plaza are not copyright violations, even if a photo of one particular building would be. In that situation, making a crop of a photo like that (to focus on a building or included sculpture) could definitely result in a copyright violation even if the original is not -- and I would emphatically not support trying to lower the allowed resolution on such photos. Screenshots are no different. That said, if it is easy to create another screenshot that does not use said icons, that would be preferred, but may not always be possible (and I would likely recommend waiting until a replacement is uploaded before deleting them outright). Any image trying to use this policy to get around usual copyright restrictions could definitely be a problem (i.e. a screenshot where copyrighted elements are pronounced enough that someone could directly use it as an illustration of the element itself, say on a Wikipedia article unrelated to any other aspect of the screenshot -- that would basically mean it is not de minimis). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To denote something as a separate work requires some additional "art" or creativity. A trivial crop or re-sizing does not satisfy that requirement. (I cannot reasonably respond to your nonspecific reference to a specific legal judgment on a specific case in a single country.) I agree that screenshots do not warrant separate treatment: from Commons:Screenshots: "If a screenshot contains icons or content of non-free sites, it is not free." —Danorton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take an example. As I understand it, you object to Image:L1090686.JPG (1449884165).jpg because a user is not free to crop it to show the TV screen only. The Corollary is that any image which includes any copyright element within it, no matter how small, cannot be hosted here. That is not the policy and I doubt if you would get much support if you were to suggest that it should be. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, taking an individual image considers the image as a separate case, and I have no objection to case-by-case consideration. The problem is of scope, and I believe that the de minimis policy contradicts with precedent licensing policy. Second, I appreciate and respect that a properly expressed de minimis policy can be helpful and reasonable so, no, I do not assert that any crop that contains any form of copyright material cannot be considered de minimis. Third, in the example you provide, I see no obvious portion of the image that, if trivially edited, would result in an image of sufficient quality (color or resolution) that would restore any protection. (On my computer I can't display the entire image at its full resolution, but I don't believe that doing so would reveal anything else that is unacceptable.)
The issue that I am raising is that the "crop" section of the de minimis policy is excessively broad. Of course there are many examples similar to the one you note that would not be excluded by any test I have suggested. There are, however, many images that would plainly fail such a test. Such images should be excluded from Commons. There are images that fall somewhere in between, and those might warrant further discussion on a case-by-case basis.
I don't generally object to a de minimis policy, I object to one that plainly conflicts with several existing policy and guideline statements: one that fails to properly balance relative de minimis issues with absolute image quality. —Danorton (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are importing fair-use type concepts in saying that you cannot see any crop that would result in "an image of sufficient quality (color or resolution) that would restore any protection." A close crop around the TV screen would result in an infringement of the broadcaster's copyright, and it would be no defence to say that the resultant quality is low or the colour is poor. A substantial copy is a substantial copy, and does not stop being one just because it is of poor quality. That may be relevant to Fair use, but such arguments are not applicable here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would argue that the quality of an image can be reduced to a de minimis level. As "fair-use" relates to U.S. law, I cite this U.S. District Court decision which states that when considering the de minimis principle, "the Court must look to the quantitative and qualitative extent of the copying involved." (emphasis added) —Danorton (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitative, in that context, is referring to subjective importance not to pixel count or colour accuracy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you dispute my assertion that the de minimis principle applies if the comparison is trifling due to the poor quality of the copy? —Danorton (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as you are arguing that a close crop of the TV screen counts as a "trifling" copy that would not infringe any copyright, then yes I do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems that, with this specific example, you would consider the derivative obtained by this trivial edit as an image that warranted copyright protection, while I would not. Presuming we both are giving it reasonable consideration, this would make it one of the middle-ground cases. At the one extreme, there are almost certainly images that we would both agree can yield copyright-protected derivatives by trivial editing. At the other extreme, do you believe that there are images that could be trivially edited to produce a result that would be subject to copyright by strict technical interpretation, but where reasonable judgment would consider it too trivial to bother with? —Danorton (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we are speaking about US law, there must be cases where the quality of the copy is so poor that it would fall within category 2, mentioned on the COM:DM page "Where the extent of copying falls below the threshold of substantial similarity (always a required element of actionable copying)". So, indeed, there is a continuum.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are copyvios. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would this conflict be resolved by adding a footnote, or slightly rewording the existing footnote on Commons:Licensing? Maybe like this?

Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.[1][2]

  1. ↑ Reuse for any purpose is also, exceptionally, restricted in the case of otherwise free images that contain copyrighted material as a small part (see de minimus...)
  2. ↑ The note on reuse restrictions unrelated to copyrights ...

In other words, qualify the cropping exception so that commons both allows upload of such images, but at the same time also warns reusers that cropping of certain parts of certain images will result in a copyright violation. For examples of images where trivial crops yield large copyright violations, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FoP-France. I see the same problem that Danorton does, but would prefer to see Commons modify the exact definition of any purpose, than lose otherwise free images. Would that work? -Wikibob (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, that template may not be the best possible example, since, at a glance, almost all of the images it's currently used on appear to feature a single building or sculpture as their main subject. I'm not sufficiently familiar with French law to say whether that really makes them all copyvios (and at least some of the buildings are probably old enough for the copyright to have expired), but I wouldn't expect cropping to make any difference to the copyright status of most of them (unless you crop out the building, in which case it of course helps). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of German law

This page gives the translation of § 57 of the Federal German UrhG Unwesentliches Beiwerk, Zulässig ist die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Wiedergabe von Werken, wenn sie als unwesentliches Beiwerk neben dem eigentlichen Gegenstand der Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung oder öffentlichen Wiedergabe anzusehen sind, as Inessential cowork, Copying, propagation and public repetition of works are permitted if the work is inessential cowork besides the actual object of a copying, propagation and public repetition. I suggest a couple of emendations :

  • First, 'Beiwerk' means 'accessory'... no need to call it a *'cowork' when there are already real words to use in translating ;)
  • Second, I suggest translating 'Wiedergabe' as 'reproduction' rather than 'repetition'.

So, I suggest: Copying, propagation and public reproduction of works are permitted if the works are non-essential accessories to the actual object of the copying, propagation or public reproduction. What do you think? Beobach972 (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Can you change the text? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of media merchandise on store shelves

Are photos of books/DVDs/video games on store shelves OK? I think de minimis applies here since the focus is on the shelves as a whole and not on a particular item. I also have a photo of a Harry Potter merchandise display that I'm wondering would be fine to upload, again with the emphasis on the myriad of associated products and not on any particular item. Thanks. --BrokenSphere 04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If it were a photo of the store or a photo of the shelves at an oblique angle, you'd have a good argument for de minimis, but if it were a straight on shot of the shelves, it's difficult to argue that the items on the shelves are not the primary subject. A rule of thumb is, could you in theory edit out the copyrighted content without diminishing the value of the image? If not, then it may not be de minimis. You may want to also leave a note at Commons talk:De minimis referring to this discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been of the opinion that a photograph of a collection of copyrighted items, if the collection is sufficiently large, at a certain point becomes an image of a collection rather than of individual works, and DM arguably applies. That is just my own view, though, and obviously it would on a case by case basis. However, I don't think it would apply to a collection of works all involving the same subject (i.e. Harry Potter). --skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De minims in audio

A deletion discussion related to de minimis in audio: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guitar Wolf.ogg. In case anyone wants to join in. Kaldari (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even as an avid inclusionist I would normally not vote keep for anything including copyrighted audio, as some sampling cases have established copyright violation for just one or two notes. But this appears to be an ending riff, not actually part of a copyrighted work, and hardly recognizable at that. This is a very unique case and I don't expect very many other files to qualify. -Nard the Bard 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising facility

Please help to discuss, correct and improve a draft of a new template Template:Advertising facility/en. --ŠJů (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

de minimis ... the extended way

maybe a series of photographs exhibited in a museum → de minimis according to the DR close

If someone wants to have an example which seems undeleteable by a DR on Commons because it is surely / "to the best of our knowledge" free → look right. Does someone know the photographer? I want to illustrate his article with it to show his works which create such a nice atmosphere in the museum. --Saibo (Δ) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis related deletion discussion

Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Egypt_Uprising_solidarity_Melbourne_protest,_4_February_2011.png. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...but what is the policy?

I assume the point of this is that these sorts of images are allowed on Commons, but can we actually say that? Right now it reads like an article describing the law in various countries, but doesn't actually say what our policy is. Clarification would be good, especially considering that fair use is legally acceptable, but not allowed on Commons. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De minimius of collage of copyrighted photos

I nominated the image File:Journalists Memorial Wall.jpg for deletion a few months ago because it is a photograph of a collage that consists entirely of other photographs. Two editors said that each one of the images is de minimus (including the admin who closed the "discussion"), and said it should be kept for that reason. While each one may qualify for de minimus on its own, I disagree that as a whole it is not subject to copyright. If the collage was in the background of another photograph I would see how it would be acceptable, but the entire photograph is a collage of other photographs, so I don't see how de minimus would make this image free. Dream out loud (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:De_minimis&oldid=56146201"