Wikimedia Commons

[PennLady]

Has anyone used images found at Wikimedia Commons? I was looking for public domain artwork today and came across this. Poking around a little at their licensing and such seems to indicate that the pictures are available to anyone for any use; they won't take them otherwise.

Still, I was curious if anyone else had used the pics there or anything.

 

[justsexmaam]

Has anyone used images found at Wikimedia Commons? I was looking for public domain artwork today and came across this. Poking around a little at their licensing and such seems to indicate that the pictures are available to anyone for any use; they won't take them otherwise.

Still, I was curious if anyone else had used the pics there or anything.

Could you provide a link to the image in question please?

 

[PennLady]

Could you provide a link to the image in question please?

Oh, I didn't mean a specific image (although I was looking at this one of the Pepsi Forum in Montreal.

I just wondered in general if anyone had used an image from Wikimedia Commons.

 

[justsexmaam]

Oh, I didn't mean a specific image (although I was looking at this one of the Pepsi Forum in Montreal.

I just wondered in general if anyone had used an image from Wikimedia Commons.

It depends on the usage I would think. The photo itself isn't an issue since the tag says free use, the places have a right to control images of their property unless a release has been signed between them and the photographer. How do you plan to use the image?

 

[sr71plt]

I didn't see evidence of anything I'd want to use for erotica.

 

[PennLady]

It depends on the usage I would think. The photo itself isn't an issue since the tag says free use, the places have a right to control images of their property unless a release has been signed between them and the photographer. How do you plan to use the image?

I was thinking of using it for an e-book cover.

I didn't see evidence of anything I'd want to use for erotica.

True, so it might only be part of what I'd use. Also I would eliminate the center ice logo. I would think that the Montreal Canadiens would retain some control over the logo.

And I might not use it at all. But Wikimedia seems to have a wide selection of pics and I thought it might be better than some places I've looked at. So again, I was curious if anyone who did their own cover had used an image from here and how it had gone, etc.

Also -- the story in question is more romantic than erotic. Which doesn't mean I shouldn't use people, but the story does center on the old Forum and even specifically on those seats.

 

[sr71plt]

I was thinking of using it for an e-book cover.



True, so it might only be part of what I'd use. Also I would eliminate the center ice logo. I would think that the Montreal Canadiens would retain some control over the logo.

And I might not use it at all. But Wikimedia seems to have a wide selection of pics and I thought it might be better than some places I've looked at. So again, I was curious if anyone who did their own cover had used an image from here and how it had gone, etc.

Also -- the story in question is more romantic than erotic. Which doesn't mean I shouldn't use people, but the story does center on the old Forum and even specifically on those seats.

The question was on the Web site offerings in general. I didn't focus on a specific image.

 

[justsexmaam]

I was thinking of using it for an e-book cover.



True, so it might only be part of what I'd use. Also I would eliminate the center ice logo. I would think that the Montreal Canadiens would retain some control over the logo.

And I might not use it at all. But Wikimedia seems to have a wide selection of pics and I thought it might be better than some places I've looked at. So again, I was curious if anyone who did their own cover had used an image from here and how it had gone, etc.

Also -- the story in question is more romantic than erotic. Which doesn't mean I shouldn't use people, but the story does center on the old Forum and even specifically on those seats.

If you are committed to using that image then I suggest your send an email to the arena and team both just to be safe. It might be easier to just find a fair use pic of an arena without any logos in it.

 

[PennLady]

The question was on the Web site offerings in general. I didn't focums on a specific image.

I see. Sorry -- didn't realize what you meant.

If you are committed to using that image then I suggest your send an email to the arena and team both just to be safe. It might be easier to just find a fair use pic of an arena without any logos in it.

I'm not. It just fits very well with the story. I will look for something else.

 

[MaxSebastian]

You're free to use the pictures on Wikimedia Commons, although a lot of them have the requirement that you attribute them correctly.

If you find one that says the owner has placed it into the public domain, usually accompanied with a crossed-out copyright symbol, you can use the picture for any purpose without attribution.

 

[PennLady]

You're free to use the pictures on Wikimedia Commons, although a lot of them have the requirement that you attribute them correctly.

If you find one that says the owner has placed it into the public domain, usually accompanied with a crossed-out copyright symbol, you can use the picture for any purpose without attribution.

I had read some of their requirements and all. I just don't know about a picture like they one I found, with the hockey team's logo front and center. The team may object to commercial use of such an image.

 

[emap]

They may not as well, I mean if the team is featured in the story and portrayed in a positive manner they won't mind. I mean free advertising is always nice.

 

[sr71plt]

If a logo is where the public can photograph it, the owner of the logo has no say concerning the artistic use of those photographs. (Do you think Andy Warhol asked permission for all that iconic product image artwork?)

 

[PennLady]

If a logo is where the public can photograph it, the owner of the logo has no say concerning the artistic use of those photographs. (Do you think Andy Warhol asked permission for all that iconic product image artwork?)

I didn't know that, so thanks for the info.

As for Warhol, I really hadn't thought about it.

 

[Brandie69]

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but trademarks don't enter the public domain by being displayed publicly. Such a rule would weaken the value of trademarks to the point of collapse.

There is a great deal of uncertainty about just when and where you can use someone else's trademark in a completely different context, like using a hockey team's logo on a book cover. For that very reason, it's best to avoid doing it.

Here's a test: walk through a bookstore and count the number of other peoples' trademarks you find on book covers. Putting aside "used by permission," I'm going to predict you find none.

That should tell you something.

B

 

[Bramblethorn]

Has anyone used images found at Wikimedia Commons? I was looking for public domain artwork today and came across this. Poking around a little at their licensing and such seems to indicate that the pictures are available to anyone for any use; they won't take them otherwise.

Be careful - the level of free-ness varies from image to image. Always check the individual license. For example, the one you linked to is under a "share-alike" license that requires that if you use the image, your work has to be released under the same license.

At a minimum, that means that anybody else can pinch and reuse your cover - this may not be desirable. I don't know whether it would affect the whole e-book; it seems sensible that contents and cover would be considered separate 'works' subject to different rules, but my limited experience of IP law suggests that "sensible" doesn't always come into it.

 

[sr71plt]

At a minimum, that means that anybody else can pinch and reuse your cover - this may not be desirable. I don't know whether it would affect the whole e-book; it seems sensible that contents and cover would be considered separate 'works' subject to different rules, but my limited experience of IP law suggests that "sensible" doesn't always come into it.

They could pinch and reuse the same image she used--not her cover. Her cover is a new artistic creation and it belongs to her or whoever created it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

They could pinch and reuse the same image she used--not her cover. Her cover is a new artistic creation and it belongs to her or whoever created it.

Here are the important words from the license on that photo:

"If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

If she creates a cover based on that image: yes, it's a new artistic creation and she owns it. But the license for the original work requires that she makes her derivative work available for others to re-use, under the same share-alike license.

If she attempts to prevent that re-use, she's in violation of the license under which she used the original work.

 

[sr71plt]

Here are the important words from the license on that photo:

"If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

If she creates a cover based on that image: yes, it's a new artistic creation and she owns it. But the license for the original work requires that she makes her derivative work available for others to re-use, under the same share-alike license.

If she attempts to prevent that re-use, she's in violation of the license under which she used the original work.

Well, yes. But that doesn't give them license to "pinch and reuse her cover"--which is that statement I responded to. Her cover is hers. They can reuse their own image that's part of her cover and they can limit her use of their image on her cover, but her cover is a separate piece of art. All of the added detailing that makes it a cover is hers. And it's hers to dictate the use of, not theirs (while passing on the limitations of the use of the image itself). They aren't free to "pinch it and reuse it." That was the point.

Yes, it's complex.

 

[ishtat]

I see. Sorry -- didn't realize what you meant.



I'm not. It just fits very well with the story. I will look for something else.

Does that make it a good choice? It means something to you but my initial response was 'what?' It meant nothing to me as a potential buyer. So, no matter how well it fits with the story, if it doesn't 'sell' to the un-knowing purchaser can it be an effective selling image.

The prime purpose of the image I presume, is to sell the book rather than to fit the story(in your mind).

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well, yes. But that doesn't give them license to "pinch and reuse her cover"--which is that statement I responded to. Her cover is hers. They can reuse their own image that's part of her cover and they can limit her use of their image on her cover, but her cover is a separate piece of art. All of the added detailing that makes it a cover is hers. And it's hers to dictate the use of, not theirs (while passing on the limitations of the use of the image itself). They aren't free to "pinch it and reuse it." That was the point.

Yes, it's complex.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I'm not talking about whether the original creator can pinch and reuse her cover without her consent (although they can), I'm talking about the fact that anybody can do so. To clarify this, a different example:

Arnold takes a photo of a lion and sticks it up on Commons under a CC-Share-Alike license. I then take that photo and combine it with my own original drawing of a unicorn to create a new artwork, "Lion And Unicorn".

Under the terms of the Share-Alike license, I am required to release the whole of "Lion and Unicorn" - not just Arnold's photo - under Share-Alike. Not just the "photo of a lion" bit, the "drawing of a unicorn" bit as well.

So if anybody else wants to pinch my drawing of a unicorn and reuse it for their own purposes, they can - they have just as much freedom in doing so as I did in using Arnold's photo. If they want to crop out the lion and use a bad scan of the unicorn as a cover for "Filthy Unicorn Sex At Candy Mountain", I can't stop them (as long as they also release under Share-Alike) because I released my work under a license that permits that.

If I don't release the whole of "Lion and Unicorn" under Share-Alike, then I'm violating the license on Arnold's work.

 

[PennLady]

Does that make it a good choice? It means something to you but my initial response was 'what?' It meant nothing to me as a potential buyer. So, no matter how well it fits with the story, if it doesn't 'sell' to the un-knowing purchaser can it be an effective selling image.

The prime purpose of the image I presume, is to sell the book rather than to fit the story(in your mind).

I see what you're saying, but there are some flaws in your argument. For one, you don't even know the title of the work. Second, you don't know how I might alter the picture. I might use a close up of one part, or make it a negative, or fuzz it out, or add some other things to it.

Ideally whatever cover image I end up with would both sell and fit the story.

 

[3113]

There is a question/answer area here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump

Maybe your question has already been asked there, or you can ask it. Get it from the "source" as it were.

 

[3113]

Double Post.

 

[PennLady]

There is a question/answer area here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump

Maybe your question has already been asked there, or you can ask it. Get it from the "source" as it were.

Thanks.