?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006, 12:15 am
nastajus:

So let's say I want to add this picture I scanned of Nutrition Facts to an article. I find everything involving pictures on Wikipedia terribly confusing. So I've got two questions. Am I allowed to add this? And how precisely would I go about this? -- Thanks and happy new year!

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 05:27 am (UTC)
aclockworkapple

Wow, copyright status on nutritional information...that is a doozie.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 06:04 am (UTC)
nastajus

REALLY? Aw, man, I was hoping I'd just wander in here, and get some plain down to earth explanation. And here I picked a complicated one. Heh.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 06:19 am (UTC)
njyoder

Facts aren't copyrightable. The Nutrition Facts form is standard, government issue and it's doubtful that simple table would be anything other than public domain.

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 03:33 am (UTC)
nastajus

I just don't get copyright. It just gives headaches.

Let's make this simple: The only time someone should be upset is if they weren't being paid for something they believe they should be paid for, for their picture or whatever. Right?

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 10:24 am (UTC)
pfctdayelise

yeah, it's kind of a pain in the ass.

this is probably fair use, which is lame.

If I was you, I'd make my own image with made-up figures for a made-up food. The table format and the elements (Fat, cholesterol etc) are what's important, right? So make your own, then you can definitely tag it whatever you want and put it wherever you want.

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 03:36 am (UTC)
nastajus

Why? It looks like work ... for no reason. Certainly the [whatever] company can't object to that being scanned and uploaded out there. Like they could even tell. Or is the question I should be asking: would Wikipedia have a problem with this?

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 09:46 am (UTC)
pfctdayelise

GFDL is bigger than WP. It's about being compatible with the GFDL. Third parties can use any WP material released under the GFDL (ie, everything but fair use contributions) for anything they want, including commercial uses.

But this is a really borderline example, and rather moot given the discussion below.

FWIW, I also find copyright a total pain in the arse.

Sat, Jan. 7th, 2006 03:56 am (UTC)
nastajus

Ahh. Thank you.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)
mendel

This Nutrition Facts label is a US Government publication (from this slide), but there's no explicit copyright information to be 100% certain it's not used with permission of someone else.

There's another label on this page; the PDF version of that document has a higher-resolution copy and has explicit licensing information on the last page (typical US gov't publication boilerplate, i.e., public domain.)

Either of those are probably suitable even for Commons; the second one is definitely suitable for Commons.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 05:43 pm (UTC)
mendel

Now that I'm thinking about it more, I'm not sure if you wanted a picture of a Nutrition Facts label, or the contents of that label you linked to. If you want the contents of that particular label (presumably for an article about the food the label is from), they're absolutely free of copyright, but you should copy them into text, not use the image, so that people reading Wikipedia on something that doesn't display images can access the information.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 07:26 pm (UTC)
penguin42

Hmm... how about a Template:Nutrition_Facts?

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 09:43 am (UTC)
pfctdayelise

Templates are most useful when they're used on multiple articles. Since this would only be used on one, a simple table would suffice.

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 03:31 pm (UTC)
penguin42

well, i know, but there might be other articles out there that could use it, too.

I really don't know -- how often is something like nutrition information included in an encyclopedia article, anyway?

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 03:38 am (UTC)
nastajus: f(x) 1 pic = 1000 words

Don't worry, I'll talk about the right words. But the article doesn't have to scroll until the end of time either.

Wed, Jan. 4th, 2006 09:43 am (UTC)
pfctdayelise: Re: f(x) 1 pic = 1000 words

I think mendel's point is that this image is essentially just text in a table format. Therefore an image is not necessary. Blind people have "text readers" (programs) that read out text for them, but obviously text readers can't read images. There is no compelling reason for this image to be in an image form. You can easily make a html or wikitable that has the exact same info. If you tell me your WP username, I'll put one on your Talk page.

An image might be necessary for showing the label in context, eg having a cereal box with the table visible, showing its location on the box basically.

Sat, Jan. 7th, 2006 03:54 am (UTC)
nastajus: Re: f(x) 1 pic = 1000 words

Sure it is! In a split second I can see that image and recognize it. I would say to myself "I remember seeing that on a package". "Now I know what this page is talking about". "Even if I don't understand it." But without it, then it's just long paragraphs of words. Long complicated words.

Sat, Jan. 7th, 2006 04:07 am (UTC)
pfctdayelise: Re: f(x) 1 pic = 1000 words

I didn't mean "don't include the information at all". I meant there's no compelling reason for it to be in an image format. Of course, include it in a table/text format.