Commons talk:Stock.xchng images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

==discussion of whether the terms are enforceable this has been brought up in three different places. We need to bring all the discussions together and get some consensus on this. I have moved the other two discussions to this page and placed them under this section please add new discussion in the new discussion subsection at the end of this subsection Plugwash 20:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from here[edit]

They are clearly saying one thing on the image pages themselves and another burried in there terms of use.

Which one holds legal weight and why? (i would think the one with the image itself would but im not a layer) have there been any precedents on similar situations. (unsigned comment by Plugwash)

The message is generated automatically by the stock.xchng software if no extra restrictions are entered by the user. Legally I don't think this is very solid ground for us to claim usage on the images as clearly the users have not explcitly freed their images from the stock.xchng license. Really it's a bug in the software, and I don't think we should be exploiting this, nor getting ourselves into any legal challenges. Image talk:Placa de asiento.jpg demonstrates a case when a stock.xchng user has objected to our use of their images. ed g2stalk 20:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would disagree with this. The stock.xchng 'conditions of use' is not a license; it is an implied contract that stock.xchng seeks to place on the DOWNLOADER. The uploader does not specify that their images are held to these terms.
When you upload an image, you get a dropdown box to select your terms. The options are: "no restrictions"; "contact me"; "contact and credit me"; and "written permission needed". I'd say, personally, if you select "no restrictions", you are explicitly specifying no restrictions.
I would also say that the user complaining about their stock.xchng picture being used was complaining about his photo being described as public domain. "No restrictions" is NOT equivalent to "public domain".
However, it still might be better to contact a stock.xchng user first before using their image; it's the well-mannered choice. Morven 20:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
its difficult to tell if the terms of use are legally enforceable on users downloading the images but commons has to err on the side of caution to prevent disputes and lawsuits which even if decided in our favour would be a major drain on rescources. contacting the author directly for permission is the safest course of action. Plugwash 20:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Every photographer adds a usage right to every photo (this is a written permission):

  • no restrictions
  • contact me
  • contact me and credit me
  • written permission needed (only in this case you are needing another written permission)

And we are not building a gallery we are building an encyclopaedia.

So these terms of use are clearly compatible with the Commons. -- Habakuk 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I personally would agree. One never agrees to other restrictions AS AN UPLOADER. The terms in the site's terms and conditions are conditions agreed to by downloaders, and are thus in the form of a contract (valid or not, enforcable or not) with the downloader specifically. Thus, the contract violation is by the downloader, not anybody else (who has not agreed to the contract). However, as a practical matter, stock.xchng seems to disagree with our interpretation of their contract and the permissions on those photos. Thus, to save everyone concerned from uncertainty, asking the photographer for clarification is always best. Morven 20:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from commons talk:copyright tags[edit]

I created the Stock.xchng template, could someone verify if the template's text is correct? Gbiten 01:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You said All images are subject to the STOCK.XCHNG TERMS OF USE (http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms), except when author expess in other way (BTW a typo) but every photografer sets the usage rights for every photo (that's a written permission).
There could be the following restrictions:
  • no restrictions
  • contact me
  • contact me and credit me
  • written permission needed
And the last point: We don't build a gallery, we are building an encyclopaedia.
I think, we can use these photos (as long as the restrictions are not ignored)--Habakuk 20:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
its a difficult one. The main question is weather the restrictions from the user are in addition to the terms of use or if the terms of use are legally unenenforceable given the statement filled in by the photographer. I don't know of any leagal precendent on this and feel that its generally better to err on the side of caution. Secondly we ARE building a gallery of images for reuse here thats kinda the whole point of the commons. The individual wikipedias have thier own upload spaces and can make thier own choices to allow images not permitted here. Plugwash 20:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course the photographer holds the rights at his photos. When he says no restrictions there are no restrictions - it's different when you copy the whole database (and if you do it by hand even that would be ok) - but we don't do that. --Habakuk 20:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


from commons:village pump[edit]

Many people (I know of three others) have uploaded photos from stock.xchng, which is filled with free stock photos. The site makes it look like the photos are public domain; most pages say "There are no usage restrictions for this photo". But lately I've heard that stock.xchng photos in fact cannot be used by the commons. Could someone confirm that? If it's true, we need to mention it somewhere, because multiple people are confused about it. Dbenbenn 03:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See the STOCK.XCHNG TERMS OF USE, especially:
Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here. (emphasis mine)
If the statement of the author explicitly permits commercial use, then I think Images are OK at the commons. In case of doubt, it would be best to ask the author. -- Chris 73 03:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All that matters in this case is the permission of the author, and they give it by uploading their images with "no usage restrictions". —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (can't bother to login)

Very much agreed. This is what the photographer agrees to. The other is a contract stock.xchng is attempting to impose on the DOWNLOADER, not the uploader. The uploader never specified those terms. Since implied licenses of that kind have no legal validity, stock.xchng is just blowing smoke. Morven 19:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

new discussion[edit]

the quesion comes down to three posibiltitys
1: we think the terms are unenforceable but we get direct permission anyway to be on the safe side.
2: we think the terms are unenforceable and we ignore them.
3: we thing the terms may be enforceable and we get direct permission from the author.

finally remember lawsuits are an expensive buisness EVEN IF THE OTHER SIDE HAS LITTLE HOPE OF WINNING Plugwash 20:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think on balance it sounds much better to get direct permission. It can do no harm and can only do us good. I would seriously doubt any stock.xchng photographer who placed the 'no restrictions' permission on there would deny us permission anyway, and if they did, well, do we really want to be using someone's images who doesn't want us to? Morven 21:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As an addendum, obviously, statement #1 is the one I agree with: their terms are unenforcable, but we should get permission to be on the safe side. Morven 22:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's repeat the terms: "Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited.

That's the deal with every copyrighted material - you need a permission by the copyright holder. Every copyright holder at Stock.XCHNG explicit tags every of his photo with one of the following usage restriction tags:
  • no restrictions --> the use even in wikipedia is ok (I would credit him)
  • contact me --> the use even in wikipedia is ok (You have to contact him and say I used your image in wikipedia). (I would credit him)
  • contact me and credit me --> the use even in wikipedia is ok (You have to contact him and say I used your image in wikipedia and to credit him near the photo.
  • written permission needed --> the use even in wikipedia may be ok (You have to ask him)

And the spirit of Stock.XCHNG is to have pictures freely available for everyone.

"You are not allowed to use any of the images found herein for the purpose of spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures."

We don't do that in wikipedia.

"...you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here."

That is a protection of the Stock.XCHNG database, you are not allowed to copy all (or many of) the images (and build up something similiar).

And the main term of stock.XCHNG is: "You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download."

That is what we want in wikipedia.

So, if the terms are enforceable we use the photos legally. --Habakuk 09:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's the result of the discussion? Can we change the template and the text on this site? --Habakuk 22:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It sounds like there hasn't been any agreement yet. ed_g2s below disagrees with Habakuk above. Dbenbenn 17:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although the commons doesn't itself break any of these (SXC's) restrictions, images we host are supposed to be free of these restrictions. They are clearly incompatible with the GFDL, so for now, I think think we still need to rely on personal approval from the authors. ed g2stalk 12:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'll find here my legal point of view on this topic : User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu. I'm going to launch a poll about it, based on this analysis, in a few days. villy 17:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Villy, if your point of view prevail, I think it is better tranform current {{Stock.xchng}} to {{Stock.xchngCopyrightFreeUse}}, {{Stock.xchngGFDL}}, {{Stock.xchngCC-by}} and {{Stock.xchngUnknown}} than delete the template. I agree, we need to vote. Gbiten 10:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gbiten, I rearranged the end of the analysis to explain why IMO Stock.xchng should not be categorized by all means. Vote on the topic is now launched, time to reach a decision here :) villy 09:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How can a vote amongst Wikipedians resolve a legal dispute with Stock.xchng? If you are wrong, we cannot simply authorise ourselves to use the images. ed g2stalk 14:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A vote has started: Commons:Stock.xchng_images/vote --Habakuk 20:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Upload and download[edit]

The uploaders know what the download terms are so they are part of what they have agreed to. ie "2.) Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here." We redistribute pictures, make galleries, and allow people to sell them. So they are not valid. Justinc 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

gallery[edit]

Pictures on commons are supposed to be free. not being allowed to set up a gallery, in point 2 on the project page is a violation of my freedom. These are not free images. Justinc 01:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed - we just advise against it because were "nice". ed g2stalk 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree[edit]

The site it's clear: all image published in this is under the follow license:

You may not use the Image
  • For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures.
  • To endorse products and services if it depicts a person.
  • In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image.
  • As part of a trademark, service mark or logo.
  • SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!

Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image

  • In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
  • For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
  • On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way.

FML IconSP.jpg hi 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)