Wikipedia's Use of The Giant's Images

[Admiral_Kelly]

Are they legal? Several claim to be of 'fair use rational' but they can make up whatever they want and let none be the wiser. So is Burlew's artwork being 'stolen' or is this legit?

[MorkaisChosen]

It's legit, Wikipedia has a legal code and stuff. They aren't being stolen.

[AmberVael]

Speaking of which, if you read their rationale here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oots0224.gif#Fair_use_rationale) of why they believe it is free use, and then just click the picture, it collapses part of their argument.
They say that they believe the use of "low resolution" allows them to reproduce it without giving people a chance to copy it...
...but if you just click on the picture presented, it gives it in complete and full resolution.
Eh? What's wrong with that picture?

[tenguro]

That is a very good point. Although I have to say I like the pick of comic they used for example.

[factotum]

I think fair use applies here. They have one picture of the entire Order, plus one strip from the more than 500 that exist on this website--doesn't seem excessive to me.

[boomwolf]

Maybe they asked the giant?

[Saco de Carne]

No profit.

[Zifna]

While the question you ask is good, there is, perhaps, a more meaningful question here to ask:

If Wikipedia is violating copyright, are they doing so in a way that helps the Giant, hinders the Giant, or neither helps nor hinders him? It seems obvious that even were this a copyright violation, it is one that is only helping the giant.

It is most likely not one, due to the clauses in copyright law regarding fair use for reporting and review. Is it a tad fuzzy? Yes. But these people were almost certainly acting in good faith and the result is helpful to the Giant.

Copyright law is meant to protect owners of copyright from two things:
-images being used in ways counter to the intent of the creator (i.e. someone using a picture of the photographer's wife in a genital disease ad without permission)
-profit being derived from a work that does not go at least in part to the creator of said work

The flagrant abuse of copyright law for the creation of spurious lawsuits does not mean we should encourage this state of affairs to continue ^_~

[Kizor]

I am a Wikipedia editor, though my only work with images is restoring those that have been deleted for incomplete but fixable fair use rationales. If you ask me the place is fairly paranoid about copyright violations and has Mike Effin' Godwin on the payroll as legal counsel, so there should be no reason to get worked up about its image use unless it rouses the personal ire of the Giant.

[SPoD]

Speaking of which, if you read their rationale here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oots0224.gif#Fair_use_rationale) of why they believe it is free use, and then just click the picture, it collapses part of their argument.
They say that they believe the use of "low resolution" allows them to reproduce it without giving people a chance to copy it...
...but if you just click on the picture presented, it gives it in complete and full resolution.
Eh? What's wrong with that picture?

What's wrong is that you are misunderstanding what "low resolution" is. The pictures in the Wikipedia article are 72 dpi, which IS low resolution, and too low to print. Typical print products use a 300-600 dpi image, as I'm sure Rich's books use. If you tried to print and sell a 72 dpi picture, it would obviously be fuzzy and pixelated. So yes, that image is low resolution enough to prevent it being copied for print.

At any rate, it isn't up to us to protect Rich's copyright anyway. Presumably he knows that Wikipedia exists, unless he's living in a cave. And the Fair Use copyright laws specifically have clauses for encyclopedia-type references, I believe.

Not to mention that just about every piece of pop culture in existence is illustrated on Wikipedia with similar "fair use" images. I imagine if places like Hasbro and Disney tolerate it, it's probably acceptable usage.

[Rutee]

No profit.

Not a valid defense. Mind, Wikipedia isn't breaking the law in any case. Here's a link to the US Copyright Law, with the relevant section for Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I'm not digging through precedent for free, but the short version of it is that Wikipedia's use is completely legit.

Factor 1: Non Profit educational Use. Check.
Factor 2: This is why I really need precedent to give a 100% legit analysis.. I'm guessing this will refer to presentation of the product in this case; Namely, it's all on a free to view website that any yahoo can look at without even one iota of registration rigamarole.
Factor 3: 1 picture, one comic. It's hardly a large amount of the total amount of work.
Factor 4: Effect on Market Value. Absolute nil in any realistic sense (Aside from perhaps advertising) One comic and one picture are not acceptable substitutes for anything the Giant is actually selling.

In the future, Admiral Kelly, when someone claims a defense (Such as Wikipedia's claim of Fair Use) it behoove you to learn what the defense /means/.

[Zeitgeist]

Why is this even a concern? If this were actually illegal, it would have come up a long time ago, and resolved since.

What, you think OOTS is the only thing on Wiki that had images used from it?

If something were not right, they'd have been stopped long ago. OOTS isn't going to be the place to set the new standard there.

Honestly, I think the readers of OOTS are more concerned about the copyright than Rich is.

[Spiky]

What rutee said.

The sum total of all the understanding of copyright law on this forum could fill an entire...phrase.