all photos taken on a military base are public domain

[FlyingKiwi]

Wikipedia has quite a history of claiming that they can use anyone's photos whenever they want (usually under a misapplication of "fair use" rights).  Here's something new I noticed while I was looking at a photo out there:

"This photo was taken on a U.S. military reservation which makes the photo property of the U.S. government and thereby public domain, even if the photo was taken by a private citizen."

This was on the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

Comments?  Thoughts?

Richard.

[Ken Cheung]

..... sounds like kiddie logic gone awry... 

[RichardVM]

Wikipedia has quite a history of claiming that they can use anyone's photos whenever they want (usually under a misapplication of "fair use" rights).  Here's something new I noticed while I was looking at a photo out there:

"This photo was taken on a U.S. military reservation which makes the photo property of the U.S. government and thereby public domain, even if the photo was taken by a private citizen."

This was on the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

Comments?  Thoughts?

Wikipedia strikes again. Give enough people incorrect information and eventually everyone thinks it's real...

Copyright belongs to the creator (creator of the image that is) unless one of a handful of very specific circumstances, like being a salaried employee photographing for your employer, being a government employee photographing as part of your job, giving up your copyright (in writing) for some reason.

Otherwise the photograph owns the copyright of the photo from the moment he/she presses the shutter button.

Richard

[k5083]

Ironically, Wikipedia's own article on "works of the United States government" makes clear that the exception is much narrower than Wikipedia pretends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government

August

[LAshooter]

As a side note, I'm sure a lot of us have seen the video of this crash taken by some photogs outside the fence. The angle appears to be the same so is this a still frame taken from the video or from another photog at the same location? No doubt they didn't bother to determine whether or not the source was on or off the base at the time. Not that it matters really because they are full of it either way. 

[André]

I sent Wikipedia an e-mail about this item. Let's wait what they respond.

I doubt that its public domain as the USAF does not release photo's for the media where their personal is visible when killed in action.

Their source shows a book or magazine scan which they photoshopped to remove the vertical line in the middle.
I wonder what the editor of that printwork thinks of this 'public domain' . 

[Bernardo Malfitano]

It's probably not public domain but it might still be fair use. If that's the case (fair use in the case of Wikipedia but not public domain), then it would probably have to be removed from any version of Wikipedia made for monetary purposes, such as a printed edition for sale.

In the beginning Wikipedia used to be very strict about what images you could upload. They either had to be public domain images (photographer dead for more than 70 years, taken by US govt employee (soldier/airman/sailor/marine photographer, NASA released image, taken in communist Russia), donated by photographer into the public domain) or they had to be licensed in "copyleft" licenses like GNU or Creative Commons. This was all so that anyone who wished to reproduce a Wikipedia article could reproduce all the images along with it and not worry about copyright.

But then I started to notice some exceptions to this. Copyrighted images could be added if this could be seen as fair use, e.g. a promotional photo or a still from a movie in an article about the product/movie, in a smaller size than the original, in such a way that the market for the original is not reduced (if anything it helps to promote the original). These images probably could not be carried over to most works derived from Wikipedia, but at least they mean that Wikipedia itself can (theoretically) include almost any image.

If the copyright holder disagrees, then they can make their case to Wikipedia. They can send a polite request, then a DMCA takedown notice, then a lawsuit. But Wikipedia's stance is probably "This is fair use", and that stance will arguably be valid until a court decides otherwise.

And yes, the idea that pictures taken on military installations by anyone are automatically in the public domain is ludicrous.

[Bernardo Malfitano]

PS: I thought the image in question was a still from the video that was released about this incident, but if you compare it to a still from that video, you see that it's not quite the same angle (and the video image is not that sharp).

And as you can see by following Richard's link to that image's page, the image is marked for deletion. I'm not sure it will get deleted, though, since Wikipedia uses other copyrighted images under fair use without saying who the photographer is. I'm curious to see how this will turn out.

[Bernardo Malfitano]

Apparently the user who uploaded the image is contacting the webmaster of the site where the image was found to try and find out where it originated and who might own the copyright. Sure, it was wrong to post the images without establishing those things first, but given that, I say the wikipedians are handling this in a reasonable way.

I can't claim that everything on Wikipedia is true, but I do tend to be a big fan.

[FlyingKiwi]

Apparently the user who uploaded the image is contacting the webmaster of the site where the image was found to try and find out where it originated and who might own the copyright. Sure, it was wrong to post the images without establishing those things first, but given that, I say the wikipedians are handling this in a reasonable way.

I can't claim that everything on Wikipedia is true, but I do tend to be a big fan.

I really love Wikipedia too, but I'm annoyed by their blase attitude towards copyright.

I've had good results when I've told them to remove photos purloined from my website, but ridiculous statements from Wikipedia like the one at the top of this thread punch my buttons.

Richard.

[Photogal]

It now shows it'll be deleted...
"This image has been requested since 25 June 2007 for deletion. See deletion requests for the discussion.

Reason given for the deletion request is: This image has insufficient sourcing and the claimed reason for being PD contravenes US law"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

[FlyingKiwi]

It now shows it'll be deleted...
"This image has been requested since 25 June 2007 for deletion. See deletion requests for the discussion.

Reason given for the deletion request is: This image has insufficient sourcing and the claimed reason for being PD contravenes US law"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

Very interesting outcome!

Richard.

[Bernardo Malfitano]

This happened immediately. The "outcome" will be when the picture is deleted altogether!

And as you can see by following Richard's link to that image's page, the image is marked for deletion.

[Mike Kopack]

Sorry I'm late, and I'm definately not a lawyer, but if we follow the "U.S. military reservation" why would National Parks or any government property be any different? Why buy that Ansel Adams when you can just 'run one off' on the machine down at WalMart?

Mike

Wikipedia has quite a history of claiming that they can use anyone's photos whenever they want (usually under a misapplication of "fair use" rights).  Here's something new I noticed while I was looking at a photo out there:

"This photo was taken on a U.S. military reservation which makes the photo property of the U.S. government and thereby public domain, even if the photo was taken by a private citizen."

This was on the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

Comments?  Thoughts?

Richard.