Talk:Patera Building

[Untitled]

Image File:Geograph-6864623-by-Nigel-Dale.jpg is posted subject to Orphan Works Licence OWLS000258 Nigel PG Dale (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I am looking for some help here. Each time I put up the above image, others take it down. The image is available on Geograph, and I have an 'Orphan Works' licence for its use. On line and Wikipedia were specified as the uses to which the image should be put. As part of the orphan works procedure, I made extensive efforts to trace the poyright owners without success. Do Wikipedia accept the orphan works/Geograph licence? Wikimedia Commons do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel PG Dale (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel PG Dale: it appears that the image is only available on Geograph because you uploaded it there.[1] You are listed there as the photographer and copyright holder, but the above note indicates that this is incorrect. If so then this is licence laundering, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia and on Commons. Commons accepts Geograph licenses only when they are validly applied. Commons only accepts work that is either explicitly freely licensed or is in the public domain, see c:Commons:Licensing. English Wikipedia also accepts fair use images (see Wikipedia:Non-free content), but I think this picture would not qualify. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher, I can't win. I took advice from another user who told me that the way forward was to seek an orphan works licence, which I duly did. Please explain how I should use this image for which I have a licence. The copyright owner is unknown.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that you have obtained a licence from the UK Intellectual Property Office?[2] I am not familiar with that process. I suspect that it would be unacceptable on Commons (and on English Wikipedia), partly because of the seven-year expiry. You could ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I am confident that you should not claim to be the author (i.e. the photographer). The license does not mean that you own the copyright, so you cannot issue a valid Creative Commons license. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have crashed the buffers in the limitation of the Commons uploading system. As licencee I specifically have the right to upload to Wikipedia - that was the purpose of the licence. If it's not acceptable, then once again, the readers of Wikipedia are being denied a factual account of the history of this building. You should help me to resolve this - not just destroy an article in the way you areNigel PG Dale (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the exchanges that are archived at c:User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2021#a photo has been deleted and at c:User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2021#Image File:Geograph-6864623-by-Nigel-Dale.jpg? If so you appear to have misinterpreted Jim's comments. He described an image as an 'orphan work', but he did not suggest that you apply for an orphan works license and he appeared to be unfamiliar with the license that you have obtained. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Patera Building exhibition stand NEC 1981.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, You have worked against the spirit if Wikipedia by removing the Mark Whitby graphic that explains how the Patera Building's unique structure works. You seem to wish to protect the copyright of Whitby - who doesn't need your help. Readers who are interested will be worse off after your intervention. This article is of current interest due to the impending listing of the building by Historic England. Please reinstate the imageNigel PG Dale (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I understood that a licence from the copyright owner to use a diagram or photo was the equivalent of ownership of the title for the purpose of including it in an article. Please help me understand why this isn't correct in the world of Wikipedia. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel PG Dale:, Wikipedia and Commons are built on cooperation between authors, and you appear to have attempted to bypass their rules and processes. This has wasted my time and that of the administrators who process deletion requests.

As I wrote above, Commons only accepts files that are either explicitly freely licensed or are in the public domain. 'Freely licensed' means free for anyone to use, not just licensed for you to use.

A license to use something is not equivalent to owning it. If you rent a flat you are not normally allowed to sub-let it to somebody else. Similarly, a license for you to use a copyrighted work does not allow you to assign a different license that would allow anyone to use it. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the outcome is an incomplete article that is short on important content, and I have run out of options to complete it. I asked for help. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? It's a shame. I'll waste no more of your time - nor my own.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel PG Dale: I'm sorry that's how you feel. I have tried to be constructive with the articles you have worked on, but I did not seem likely that the photographs you used would be allowable. This article would be greatly improved by a photograph. If the building is still visible from a public place then it may be simplest to take one yourself. I think I have found it in Google StreetView here If you can't get to east London or you are not a competent photographer then you could add a request to c:Commons:Picture requests/Requests/Europe#London. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher, The Patera Building article details the history of this particular building from its manufacture in 1982 up to present. It is soon to be moved again to a historic site in London, making it moved three times. The 1982 graphics and photograph are essential to the understanding of its history. Present day photos could be easily arranged, but they would mean very little in the context of the article. Any copyright issues date back to 1981-1982, twenty two years before WikiCommons came into existence. There must be a means by which these old images can become 'commons' - otherwise there would be few old photos on Wikipedia pages. Please advise. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In the UK and several other countries the standard copyright term is 70 years after the death of the creator, see c:COM:UK. If the author is unknown then we usually add another 50 years so that UK works more than 120 years old are assumed to be public domain, although there are some exceptions. Anything newer should have permission from the photographer and sometimes also from the creator of the item depicted, or be a 'fair use' image for which there are tight requirements. There are numerous pictures on Wikipedia that should not be there, and when I notice one I aim to get it assessed. My main motivation for this is to help protect Wikipedia from attacks from its opponents. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your message is a confusing one. You cite UK copyright laws - but I know that I am within my rights so far as the UK laws are concerned. An orphan works licence or a written permission from the copyright owner to use these images on Wikipedia (which I have for the Mark Whitby graphic and the cropped image of the building in its present location) would be all I need to publish these images without fear of breach of copyright. I don't see how this can be seen as a threat to Wikipedia. You have not convinced me that I have done anything wrong. I believe you are at fault for failing to take account of UK copyright law - assuming that the later WikiCommons rules take precedent. I don't believe they do. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You probably do have the right to publish these images, for example in a book or in a blog. You almost certainly do not have the right to assign a different license to them, which would allow them to be used by anyone, at any time, for any purpose, which was the effect of the licenses you applied on Commons. Written permission "to use on Wikipedia" is insufficient because it does not make the images sufficiently free, and it does not ensure that the copyright holder understands the implications of a file being on Commons. We need evidence that the copyright holder has issued an acceptable free license.

The policy is set out in Wikipedia:Image use policy, which says Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia [...] are unsuitable. The reasons for the policy are discussed in Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues. The image copyright policies of Commons and English Wikipedia are essentially identical, except that English Wikipedia sometimes accepts fair-use content, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission discusses how to obtain permission from a copyright holder; I encourage you to follow this if you are in a position to do so. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, As you strive to protect Wikipedia from its 'opponents', all you have succeeded in is to ruin an article that will be of interest to a growing number of readers. You have left me without any options to rectify the damage you have caused. I can't simply go and take a new picture as you suggest - the building of forty years ago isn't there. As for the graphic illustration you removed, that was the key informative element in the explanation of a unique structure. Ask yourself - what have I achieved here, other than to enforce some random rules that are not widely understood? I can't find any positive angle for your actions - I see them as destructive to the purpose of Wikipedia.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Patera_BuildingNigel PG Dale (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I have requested copyright permission as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission from its owner for the graphic illustration to be placed adjacent to the section 'Structural Innovation by Anthony Hunt Associates' in the articleNigel PG Dale (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Ditto for recent photograph of building in its current location.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I received permission to use File:Patera Building Prototype Stoke-on-Trent 1982 Hybrid Three-pin arch Structure Mark Whitby Graphic.jpg from copyright owner via Permissions Wikimedia Commons [Ticket#2021080110003601] Patera Building Nigel PG Dale (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)