On 11/22/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: For what I see, they've been used decoratively, fialing criteria "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." at WP:FU I'll take the example of schools 1. air pictures are useless to identify a subject, a picture of the school front or characteristic buildings is better. This is also related to "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." A free alternative that identifies the school can be easily obtained, so fair use holds water 2. No relevant sections deal with the images themselves. So, delete

Andrew's right, NASA images should be PD. On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Joe Anderson [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: For the UK there is a datated but free high quality alternative for anyone who is prepared to do a search through the national monuments record archive. -- geni

On 11/23/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Yes. Crown copyright photos over 50 years old. -- geni

On 23/11/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Unfortunately, most of what people want to use is high-res shots of local areas, which are the bits (IME) most likely to be honest-to-god-actually-copyrighted work as opposed to USGS-with-a-label-on-it copyrighted... It's a nicer-executed program, too ;-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 24/11/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: IANAL, of course, but I believe that the work that Google has done in stitching together all the various image data sets to produce a derivative work (Google Earth) based on them would count as creative and original, so a screenshot of such a stitched area would infringe their copyright. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

I think Google have done enough for it to count as a derived work. It's not just a compilation of images, they are put together in a very careful and precise way. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if something is done by hand or by computer - it's still copyrightable.

Anthony wrote: Um, have you ever looked at Google Earth? It contains much more than satellite photography. Most major cities (including the ones people are snipping scenes of schools from) are overlaid with high-resolution photographs taken from airplanes. Those datasets were collected (as far as I know) by commercial aerial photography companies, and licensed by Google for big bucks. Typically you see two or three different copyright notices at the bottom of a Google Earth screen, covering the licensed, commercial photographs used, the data overlays (roads, rivers, etc.) applied, and anything else. (And the notices change as you pan around, and hit coverage from different datasets.) The stuff ain't PD. I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but as far as I know, it's quite legitimately copyrighted.

Anthony wrote: Oh, okay, sorry. Well, I was going to hazard a guess that most if not all of the *interesting* portion of it is not PD, where "interesting" means "is likely to be screenshotted by Wikipedia editors". That would be interesting, and I'd be happy to help, but I don't have access to World Wind (it's Windows-only, AFAIK). We could start with the five images which Bogdan Giusca cited to start this thread: Someone has already replaced this with a World Wind image. Since it covers a wide area, it's comparable. This one's already tagged as a copyvio, and will be deleted in a few days. It's centered on lat/long 33.663065, -117.806551. If someone can make a 2000 foot (600 meter) wide World Wind screenshot centered on those coordinates, that would be a useful comparison. This is also a wide-scale image, so the World Wind data is likely to be comparable. It's about 300 miles / 480 km wide, centered on lat/long 8.90, 28.94. This one is pure map data, not satellite or aerial photography at all. This one has evidently already been deleted. (But, hmm, given that two out of three of the remaining images are wide-scale, I may have been wrong in my guess that "most of the interesting data" is unavoidably copyrighted.)

On 11/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Looking at the vehicles on the highway, it's obviously derived from the exact same photograph. I believe this is a USGS photo, which would make it public domain, but I'm not sure how to prove it. Anthony

On 11/27/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Here's a list of most if not all of it. Some of these are apparently proprietary though (they are listed as for viewing only - no downloading). http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/products/listofortho.asp Where the coverage is (only in the US, but starting to get a lot of cities), the resolution is really good. That shot from Los Angeles was 0.3 meters (per pixel). Some of the data is at 0.15 meters. Geocover 2000, on the other hand, which covers the entire globe, is 14.25 meters. So outside the US most of the public domain imagery is not very good (I think, please prove me wrong!).

Anthony wrote: Is such satellite imagery copyrightable in the first place, in the U.S. anyway? Isn't it just mechanical imaging of the earth's surface, and therefore no more copyrightable than a mechanical reproduction of the Mona Lisa is? -Mark

On 25/11/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: This dizzying shot of Chicago skyscrapers colliding from different perspectives has clearly been edited by a human. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=17&ll=41.881544,-87.6310… Even if it was done algorithmically, which I doubt, then any algorithm smart enough to produce a result like that is pretty damn creative. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

On 11/26/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Depends on the purpose of the algorithm. If the purpose of the algorithm is, for instance, to simulate as accurately as possible the curvature of earth, then while the algorithm itself might be creative, and worthy of copyright, the resulting output wouldn't be. (If the purpose of the algorithm is to make a pretty picture, then it probably would be.) A painting made using a rubber stamp is a copy of the stamp. Not all output from computer algorithms are copies of that algorithm. Would you say a photograph made using a camera was copyrighted by the person who wrote the firmware on the camera (the image stabilization algorithm, the sharpening algorithm, etc.)? Of course not. The algorithm is likely copyrighted by the programmer (the standard for creativity in computer software is unfortunately very low), but that doesn't mean the output of the software is copyrighted by the programmer. Anthony

On 11/26/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, I certainly shouldn't have been saying that copyright depends on the intention of the creator, because I'm fairly sure case law disagrees with me on that one. If the purpose of the algorithm were simply to make a pretty picture, and the output of it happened to be an extremely accurate representation of the curvature of the earth - well, I really don't have any clue what the courts would say. But it doesn't matter, because the chances of that are pretty much nil. In the hypothetical I'm talking about, I assume the purpose is to make an accurate representation of the curvature of the earth, and that the algorithm succeeds in serving that purpose. We're getting a bit too hypothetical, though. I don't have the source code to Google Earth sitting in front of me (and even if I did I wouldn't care enough to thoroughly examine every line), so I really can only really speculate as to what they're doing to manipulate the imagery they receive from others. One interesting thing to look at is just how much Google Earth screeshots differ from 1) World Wind screenshots; and 2) the real thing - from that location and angle. Of course, once you've done that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, you might as well just use one of the two "safe" images. Anthony

On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain &lt;stephen.bain(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: YES Delete them all, as WorldWind is a free alternative and they all fial criteria 1. When deleting, point them to http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ so they get the free program. Also, not ALL the stuff on WorldWind seems to be PD, as long as you stay away from "Zoom IT" feature (uncheck it from layer manager) you're fine. *** drini [n=84fe6805(a)madmappers.freeearthfoundation.com] has joined #worldwind *** Topic is: World Wind Bugs to Squash before release page: http://www.worldwindcentral.com/wiki/World_Wind_1.3.6_-_1.4_Bug_List_For_Re… | 2bn.net = new upload site | TwoBeds is back-ish *** Topic set by ShockFire [Sat Nov 4 19:46:49 2006] *** drini Mordoch maurizioSA ominiverdi m_k Starfury^ spoop T_Servo Hillwang +nhv ctweedie mlucas_ what_nick _adam_gfx _dreaminofjeanni +Llynix +ShockFire NeoThermic mazzanet Apagador Selar Bull_[UK] nelson Ghostwolf +Nowak- @ChanServ @Nowak hacker Kuutio Puuhis anselm *** Channel created on Tue Nov 16 13:51:47 2004 *** #worldwind [freenode-info] if you need to send private messages, please register: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#privmsg <drini> while worldwind is free, what's the copyright status of the images? <drini> are they PD? (i.e. can I use the images it produced as PD as NASA is a gov agency) ? <m_k> Landsat, BM and USGS are public domain <drini> how do I know if I'm using only them?= I want a view of Irvine CA <Bull_[UK]> US images should be pd <m_k> by looking at the layer manager? :) <drini> :) great idea <drini> yes Bull_[UK] , but I wanted to know for sure, specially when I'm doing any place, not just US <drini> (for wikipedia licensing details) <m_k> everything that comes with WW OOTB is PD (not sure about ZoomIt!) <drini> ok I'l stay away from zoomit <Bull_[UK]> http://www.worldwindcentral.com/wiki/Add-on:ZoomIt%21 - zoomit details <Bull_[UK]> you can checkthe specific liceses <drini> great <maurizioSA> Robben Island is copyrighted <maurizioSA> if you want to use you must send details to info at madmappers dot com and I might get permission <maurizioSA> depending what is for <Bull_[UK]> the US stuff should be ok its from gov agencies iirc <Bull_[UK]> and new zealand is from LINZ <Bull_[UK]> http://www.linz.govt.nz/home/index.html <Bull_[UK]> what_nick - is LINZ data D? <Bull_[UK]> PD* <drini> how do I know a map is getting its data from linz or madmappers... within the program <what_nick_> pd ? <Bull_[UK]> public domain <what_nick_> yes <Bull_[UK]> drini - open layer manager->zoomitthen untick any layers you are unsure about <drini> ok <Bull_[UK]> like untick south africa <maurizioSA> in ZoomIt! South Africa is mad mappers supplied image <maurizioSA> If there is any commercial aspect I can tell you now that I will not manage to get permission <drini> no, I?m only interested in PD stuff <drini> we want to delete as much google map "fair use" images that have been uploaded <maurizioSA> even the name Robben Island has been registered since it is a world heritage site administered by a private company <drini> into wikipedia <Bull_[UK]> cool <what_nick_> :)