Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Imported pictures/Images from Amazon.com

Past discussion (2004)

March 8–9

[This is the original thread, archived from User talk:LarryGilbert. —LarryGilbert 17:38, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)]

I've started filling out KMFDM albums - insterting album cover, track listing, year. I've also done MDFMK (making a single entry for band and album) and have been making a single entry when an album and a single have the same title, but with a tracklisting for both. eventually i'm going to goink that menu thing you have on Nihil (filled in the album art, btw), and transfer that to other albums. Unfortunatly, i can't find the cases for most of my KMFDM, so i'm unsure of whether i'll be able to find all the info. Crackshoe 05:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do have some cover art scanned already; I just haven't uploaded it yet. I'm still trying to grok Wikipedia's policy on "fair use", which is one reason I've been putting it off. Here's what I have in the hopper:

Adios
Agogo
Attak
Boots
Glory
MDFMK (single)
Naïve: Hell To Go
Nihil (d'oh, you beat me to it) :-)
Symbols
WWIII

So you do not have to scan those, unless you really, really want to. :-)

By the way, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for information on style for album articles. That's what I based the layout on.

Thanks!

—LarryGilbert 08:52, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

I've been goinking most of the cover art off amazon, so I would have consistant quality and wouldn't have to find all my KMFDM albums and singles. I found a few entries (Please Please Me and the style sheet you linked to for albums) that contained cover art, so i'm choosing to believe that it consitutes fair use. i'll move onto using that album chart once i've got just tracklistings down for most of the tracks. unfortunatly, because a large number of my KMFDM albums are now missing their cases or are lost somewhere in the depths of chaos (or my room, whichever), i don't have most of the info needed for the fied - i.e. producer, writer for each track ,etc. When i get around to starting that, i'll look around online, or steal my friends copies. Crackshoe 18:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please do not take graphics off of Amazon.com. I am certain that is a copyright violation and would get Wikipedia in trouble. —LarryGilbert 22:38, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, Amazon.com does not claim copyright to the images, and themselves use them under fair use, as does wikipedia. i'm going to look into this further. i've pulled down the graphic on the album i was most currently working on (MDFMK), and will remove the rest after i look further into the matter. Crackshoe 23:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Amazon isn't claiming copyright over the images, since they couldn't, legally. therefore, using their scans of album art is, as far as i can see, fair use. simply by scanning the image (which, in this case, we're assuming, although i think its unlikely), they don't gain any rights to the work itslef - it would be like me scanning in someone elses work and then assuming control of that scan and derivative works. since amazon can't claim copyright over those lower resolution images, i don't see any problems with using them under fair use. unless theres evidence to the contrary (amazon.com holding a copyright or some other violation of fair use) i see no reason to take down the images. Crackshoe 01:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is incorrect. See their Conditions of Use: "All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of Amazon.com or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Amazon.com and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws."

Please understand, I don't want you to think I am being a hard-ass on you personally. It is good to see your effort in fleshing out those pages. I am just trying to make sure that we keep our noses clean and keep Wikipedia legit.

—LarryGilbert 01:35, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

I understand this isn't you being a hardass. but the images in question do not, in fact, belong to amazon.com (unless sascha sold out), and are thus the property of the appropriate source. from that, i don't see how its any less fair use to use an already scanned image than to rescan a hard copy - i'm trying to see if anyone else on wikipedia has gone over this before. Every Beatles album i've looked at on wikipedia has a smaller (than life size) image of the cover art. What I do need do do, and have neglected to do so, is put a tag on each image, noting that it is, in fact, a copyighted image but used under fair use (check the page for the album cover from Help! for instance). I'm not trying to argue with you (well, I am. but i'm not trying to be a dick), but i do believe this is fair use, as long as it is noted as such. 68.37.187.220 02:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The place to see whether anyone on Wikipedia has gone over this before is Wikipedia:Possible copyright violations, and so I have raised the issue there. —LarryGilbert 02:53, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

I was getting ready to do that myself. Once they figure it out, i'll follow whatever remedy is agreed upon. Crackshoe 03:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Amazon.com obviously does not hold copyright over the images of KMFDM's album covers (or Slick Idiots, Pigs, or Drill, for that matter.), thus, the copyright belongs to the content providers as described in Amazon.com's Terms of Use. Now, these album covers fall under the fair use guide wikipedia provides [here], which you linked to in the blurb you put on the images uploaded. So i feel that adding the text mandated in that article will resolve this issue entirely. Crackshoe 21:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we have both belabored our opinions on this matter. Let's wait to see what the others decide. —LarryGilbert 22:34, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

The image picture-fair-use.jpg is being linked here; though the picture is originally copyright I feel it is covered by fair use because:

it is a low resolution copy of a CD album cover;
it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the CD album in any way;
copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD;
the image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist, name.

Is linked from here. All 4 conditions are met (well, the last one is debateable). others have already decided. i'm going to be going back over those images and replacing them with the text dictated by that link. correction - i'm goign to wait a week, then do this, unless that post to copyright violations yields anything. Crackshoe 22:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 9–10

[This thread was archived from Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. —LarryGilbert 17:47, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)]

Images uploaded by Crackshoe. Please see discussion at User talk:LarryGilbert#KMFDM. I'm not sure this person was aware of any wrongdoing, so please take any action with that in mind. These are images Crackshoe says were downloaded from Amazon.com and re-uploaded here. (Edit: I've confirmed all but one of them with links below.) —LarryGilbert 02:47, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

P.S. Could someone advise me whether uploading over the violating images with "fair use" images (scanned from original covers) is sufficient to remedy these? Thanks. —LarryGilbert 02:22, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

RedIckulous source is here (Slick Idiot Official Webpage). Crackshoe 03:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Low-resolution album covers should be fair use. Since they are being used under fair use, it doesn't matter where we get the covers from; scanning an image doesn't grant a person ownership.

--cprompt 00:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the usage of these images. I believe it is "fair use" for a non-profit educational website to display these images. At any time, if Amazon itself objects, it is free to contact Wikimedia and address the issue. I doubt Amazon will object; if they do object, at that time we can remove them without legal penalty. The Amazon.com copyright statement states, "This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Amazon.com." -- We are not a commercial purpose. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I have no problem with cover art being uploaded under a "fair use" defense. In fact, I probably wouldn't have objected at all if Crackshoe had scanned these in himself from his own CDs. There were two big red flags for me: (1) Amazon.com was not acknowledged as the source in the image descriptions (at least not until I put up the copyright-violation notices); and (2) the copyrights of the original works were never included in the image descriptions. My understanding is that both of those are big no-nos on Wikipedia (and, if nothing else, they're general ethical no-nos). —LarryGilbert 06:04, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

WHen uploaded the pictures, i had, in fact, neglected to put fair use notices on the images. the next day, howver (i think it was the next day, at least. it was as soon as i realizzed the mistake, anyway) i put fair use tags on them - which you followed up later that day with copyright violation tags. That was an error on my part. so do i put the fair use tags back up, aknowledgeing that the material is copyrighted but used under fair use? do i credit amazon.com, which i'm fairly certain doesn't hold the copyright, or whoever does for that particular image? Crackshoe 13:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Amazon.com images, I have a proposal. I've created Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com and thought that we could use that page to work out some quasi-formal practices for handling Amazon.com images. (I've also made a couple of new notes there.) So, I propose we downgrade the Amazon.com images from possible copyright infringements (at least unless new information comes to light), link them to the aforementioned link somehow (details to be determined), and move the discussion over to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Images from Amazon.com). Does that sound good? (Note, I think we still need to work on what to do about the SlickIdiot.com image separately.) —LarryGilbert 20:27, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. gives us a central database of Amazon.com images, in case that comes up. I still maintain that, regardless of the amazon.com issue, the RediCkulUs cover should be fair use - but i'll still note the source in the whatsamacallit - image page. Crackshoe 22:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current discussion

I suggest making a boiler plate tag (like the fair use tag) that goes on all images from amazon.com - this will allow us to keep the images centralized, should an issue arise. if possible, we should strive to settle whether this is, in fact, an issue or not, but until then, use an amazon tag for all the image. sounds good? Crackshoe 22:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yep, you read my mind. Also, as the policy develops, that tag can be updated so that the current status of things is always summarized on all of the image descriptions. Here's an idea...

This image was downloaded from Amazon.com and uploaded here. Amazon.com asserts that there is a copyright on this image file, although it may be copyrighted by another party. Its usage here is believed to be fair use. Also, an effort has begun to approach Amazon.com for formal permission to use images from its Web site. Please see Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com for the latest information. Below [or above? —Larry] you should find a link to the source on Amazon.com, the copyright of the original work (if known), and a fair-use justification.

Trying to make that as neutral as possible. Honest. :-) Thoughts? —LarryGilbert 00:51, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

I would just change the statement about amazon asserting copyright to something like "Amazon asserts that material is copyrighted either by itself or its content providers" to keep it more similar to the amazon terms of use. but once we figure this out, lets turn it into a tag, so we don't have to copy past all that every time (which i'm figuring out now) Crackshoe 03:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, on further though, that seems to be a trifle excessive. I think that something more in the vein of

This image copyright of Amazon.com or respective Amazon.com content provider. Its usage here is believed to be fair use. Please see Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com for the latest information..

followed by the applicable fair use argument (although thats a bit repetitive - the reason for all of them are, at least, thus far, the same, and are already listed in the wiki fair use section. I also feel that a link to the amazon.com image is a bit excessive. Crackshoe 04:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In interest of time, i'm happy to go with your original text, although i would still leave out the link to each individual picture on amazon.com, 1) because its tedious 2) all information needed to locate the image (band name and album title) are already present on the page. What do you want to call the tag? i was going to do amazon, but cprompt recommended a more verbose amazonfairuse. we could also go with amazonwehopeitsfairusepleasedon'tshootus... Crackshoe 04:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about {{msg:amazonimages}}? That omits "fairuse" because we may be able to get Amazon.com's permission, and in general, Wikipedia prefers more free over less free (and I think fair-use is considered the bottom of the freeness food chain when alternatives exist). As for linking to the source image, it is merely a basic courtesy that should be extended to all image sources, not just Amazon.com. (Though an argument could be made that it's such a given that it doesn't need to be in the tag's text.) I'll try editing the text later to get it closer to something we can agree on. —LarryGilbert 14:52, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Followup: How about this for the text...

This image was downloaded from Amazon.com. Please see Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com as well as Amazon.com's Conditions of Use statement.

Short and sweet. Fair use claims should then include an additional {{msg:fairuse}} tag so the folks working on Wikipedia:Fair use can do what they want to do with it. —LarryGilbert 15:57, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Perfect. Crackshoe 16:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I created the tag {{msg:amazonimages}}. Crackshoe 22:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of Amazon.com or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Amazon.com and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All software used on this site is the property of Amazon.com or its software suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws.

and

Amazon.com grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of this site and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with express written consent of Amazon.com.

That seems pretty clear... Secretlondon 22:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This debate is primarily a stopgap ( i think ) until we hear from Amazon.com, which Larry Gilbert is working on. I'm going to temporarily (or perhaps permanently) delink the images until this is further settled. Crackshoe

State of images in question

All known images from Amazon.com have been delinked from their respective articles, and have had their desscription page changed to {{msg:amazonimages}} and a link to the source of the image. Regarding Redickulous, mentioned above but not an image from Amazon.com, and am seeking to contact Slick Idiot more directly, which would provide us a similar resolution image of 'Dicknitty' (also on their webpage) if they allow its use. Crackshoe 23:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

images.amazon.com versus images-eu.amazon.com

What about other amazon sites? I've uploaded an image from amazon.co.uk - I think they're at least partly autonomous. fabiform | talk 17:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had a look at the url and it's from images-eu.amazon.com, so I've listed it above. fabiform | talk 17:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fabiform, I think that's fine for now. (Note to others: I moved this thread off of the main page; when Fabiform says "above," that's in reference to the main list of Amazon.com images.) —LarryGilbert 20:09, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Response from Amazon.com

I received a response from Gerald Overbeck of Amazon.com's PR department today. Here is what he said:

Thank you for sending your request to Amazon.com. Unfortunately we do not own the legal copyright for the images placed on our site and are therefore unable to grant 3rd party usage. You will have to contact the label, author or manufacturer to obtain permission.

The response reads like boilerplate to me, so it must be something they get asked a lot.

This does give the subtle implication (whether it was intended, I don't know) that they wouldn't object to usage of images from their site as long as we have the permission of the original copyright holders. Therein lies the real trick, of course. Anyway, I will probably want to follow up with him to clarify that question.

—LarryGilbert 05:23, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

in my (albeit pretty drunken) opinion, this grants the point i had earlier - that amazon probably doesn' hold copyright to the images in question. this was, i believe, the only real bone of contention -- the use of low resolution jpegs which could not be used to bootleg the artwork for pirated CD's is, as far as i can see, fair use. while idealy we should seek out permissions from the individual copyright holders, i feel we can still use them under fair use, and no longer need to use the amazon tag (although it may be good to keep it, simply for easy referance). Crackshoe 09:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've updated the main page to cover the two key points at this time: (1) Amazon.com does not claim copyright on the images it distributes, and (2) the images are usually still copyrighted by someone, so they must still be handled accordingly. People can use the {{msg:amazonimages}} tag as they like, if it makes them feel better. :-) —LarryGilbert 22:12, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

On a more sober glance, i'm just going to put fair use tags back on the images, and reinsert them into articles as needed. while on some (those i can easily track down the copyright holder) i may try and seek permission, but with the proper fair use tag and explanation, i think it'll be in the clear. Crackshoe 22:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

front page should be updated to say that amazon does not claim copyright. i'll do it in a bit , at the top of the meta page, unless others think otherwise. Crackshoe

Already there: "When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works." —LarryGilbert 01:09, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Why the interest in giving these obvious fair use images some special tagging treatment? Fair use is almost certainly how Amazon is using them (scans from the cover of the work, perhaps, hence no creativity by Amazon and no Amazon copyright). Using another scan other than Amazon's doesn't improve the fair use situation markedly - it's still a transformative use from sales material or cover art to a description of the work and in the context of a clearly fair use review and criticism context. Using them and identifing the source, plus ideally giving a fair use description based on what I've given here, is sufficient IMO. Worth noting, perhaps, that Amazon also makes available whole online electronic versions of books under the fair use doctrine, with some restrictions on how much of each work each reader can read at one time. Jamesday 12:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

More Current Discussion

So... it looks like this debate has fizzled a while ago. It looks like Amazon isn't claiming any copyright on its images of covers, the covers themselves are categorized under Fair Use, so what's stopping folks from re-uploading like mad? I'd start doing it myself, since I'm interested in adding book-covers to wikipedia articles about authors... but I'm nervous since no one else has done so. Can someone tell me if I'm missing something here? Thanks! Schwael 09:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. Go nuts. Amazon has no legal claim to the scans of works that they do not own the copyright to, because scans cannot be independently copyrighted. Even if this were not true, they have precluded themselves from any kind of infringement action by expressly disclaiming that they own any copyrights in the scans. Postdlf 00:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Category?

Rather than relying on what's linking to the template, why don't we have a category to which images tagged as {{amazonimages}} can be automatically added? _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]