I'd like to add a picture to the Croston Hall article and have found a few online [1][2][3]. Could these images reasonably be uploaded under a {{PD-UK}} or {{PD-US}} lisence, or would further enquiries need to be made to determine if those lisences are applicable? Failing that, I should be OK with a claim of fair use as this is a demolished builing. Small-town hero (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
For PD-UK-Unknown (which is what it's called at Common) to apply, you really ought to be able to show reasonable enquiry, should you be questioned at a later date. An email / a few google searches may not go amiss, and will also provide some useful background information. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've sent an email asking for any further information regarding the image singled out by Hammersoft. Regarding the Commons license, how could it be determined whether or not the image was "made available to the public" before 1939 if the author is unknown? Small-town hero (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Images and Copyright Tags
I am really new to Wikipedia and I received messages that my images had copyright problems. I probably did not include the information properly, and just want to know how and WHERE to insert the information. (What code to I put in, Where does it go... under the Information section of the file description?) In general, I am very confused. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's consider this edit for a start. You've put in a copyright tag, but in such a place that it's smashed the information box. It should have been placed after the last closing double curly bracket, so change the first line from
All your uploads look rather like commercial images that came from a website. Did you actually make the original images or did you just copy them from a website? And even if you made them for the company, do you have their permission to release them under the free licence you added? ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I do have permission, but I realize now that I probably should have used the GNU copyright license. How do I go about changing the images I want to use to the GNU license? And how can I delete images that are either not being used, similar, or duplicates? I cannot find a delete option anywhere. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
To add a copyright tag to an image, follow the instructions at the top of the page. To delete an image, see Template:db-self. You cannot delete the image yourself, but you can tag it with that template, and an administrator will delete it. That said, you are uploading images that come from a already published source. You either need to log into the webpage superfabric.com, and add a licensing notice stating the images are released under the GFDL, or you need to e-mail a consent form to our e-mail response team (see WP:CONSENT and WP:PERMISSION). As we have no evidence these files were ever licensed freely, and since anyone can edit wikipedia, we need further verification of permission. Hope this helps. -Andrew c[talk]17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! However, I cannot make further changes at the moment until I get the correct, authorized personell to log into our website (which might take a few days). Should I tag these images for deletion in the meantime, or will I be able to re-upload these images under the correct license after they've been deleted by an administrator? I mainly don't want to lose any text while I'm waiting to confirm these copyright issues with my superiors.
Another question, however: take Gore-Tex as an example. I am unsure what legal documnetation on their website gives permission to put information on Wikipedia. Where is this consent expressed? I do not see anything that mentions their images are released under the GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles with quotations (concerning spoken-word articles)
According to the third pointer of the article choice guidelines, "spoken word audio clips of Wikipedia articles that incorporate copyrighted text pose legal problems (since the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL)" and should thus be avoided. The article I'm looking to narrate has a few (two or three) block quotations. Would this be considered "copyrighted text" that would make the article unfit for this project by WP rules? Ink Runner (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(Without seeing the articles in question,) presumably. Unless each piece of text in question has been explicitly licensed by its author - or if it is public domain for a valid reason (age, implicit release by US Fed Gov, etc), then it remains problematic for the licensing of the resulting audio file. -Seidenstud (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Origin template for PD-US but not-free-in-source-country images?
File:AlbertaHomesteadMap1918 t13-14 r7-9 map33a.png and several similar images were published in Canada in 1918 and are thus PD in the USA, but (as far as I know) are still copyrighted in Canada, so they're tagged with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Do we have a template that says "This image was published in Canada and is still copyrighted in that country", with a link to a source discussing Canadian copyright law? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
However, given that this is a faithful reproduction of a drawing by an artist who died in 1830 (i.e. more than 70 years ago), can they actually claim the copyright on the image? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Upload to commons and use PD-art would my advice: {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} I think, to give the relevant disclaimers/info. That's based on the assumption it's a photograph, of course. If we know it's a scan, we can go further, but that seems unlikely. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this question must have been answered before, but I've been unable to find the answer.
I'm very familiar with the various forms of Creative Commons licence. I notice many of the photos displayed on Wikipedia are noted on Wikimedia as being under a CC licence, which requires attribution.
What bothers me is that although the image is correctly attributed in Wikimedia commons, it's not attributed on Wikipedia itself. Most users of Wikipedia would not understand the relationship or go and check the Wikimedia image, leaving the photographer without proper attribution as required under the license.
Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisawriter (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If the image is held on commons, but used on Wikipedia, then viewing the image page from Wikipedia actually shows you the commons description page. Whatever licensing, attribution etc. that it carries on commons will also apply to Wikipedia; the two cannot differ unless Wikipedia also holds an image of the same name. In these two cases, WP does not hold similarly-named images; you can tell this when viewing the image from Wikipedia in the following two ways: (i) it shows a "create this page" tab at the top, instead of the normal "edit this page" tab; (b) beneath the image itself, but before all textual information, there is a box containing the text "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.". I note that a thread now exists at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#File:Albanian prisoners in Belgrade.jpg; and since the images are held there, and not on Wikipedia, it's best discussed on Commons. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to terminate the deletion of my image
This is the link of my image: File:Discuss sc.jpg there were some template about deletion.
I have uploaded an image of Professor Raj Vir Singh Yadav on Wikipedia. I recieved a message from Wikiepedia saying that the image may be deleted within seven days. This image is sole property of the Raj Vir Singh Yadav Foundation and his family. I intend to upload more images in order to complete this article.
According to the image summary, it was taken off the website which owns it and it says here: "This image is a sole property of The Raj Vir Singh Yadav Foundation (the Foundation), New Delhi, India. All copyrights reserved to the Foundation". Meaning, we cannot use this image because they are the sole owner and if anyone uses it without their permission, is liable to be sued for infringement of copyright laws. Another thing, please do not claim that you are the owner of the image, it makes you look really bad in such cases above. --Dave118507:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If The Raj Vir Singh Yadav Foundation has given its consent to use the image(s), it must follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to complete the release. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Duke Kahanamoku 1920.jpg
I was going to move File:Duke Kahanamoku 1920.jpg to commons when I decided to take a look at the original source.[4] On Wikipedia, the uploader altered the image (cropped it) and tagged it as public domain. However, the source specifically states that it is "Copyright Regents of the University of California, UCLA Library" and is licensed as a "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License". The photograph was originally published by the Los Angeles Times in 1920, but these images are now stored in the Los Angeles Times photographic archive at the UCLA Library, where they are copyrighted and licensed for noncommercial use. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
However, images published in 1920 are PD because of age, regardless of what UCLA may want to say. Someone who faithfully digitises a PD printed image doesn't have copyright over the digital image. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that those technical adjustments are sufficiently "creative" to trigger U.S. copyright, they are not. — Walloon (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Images from the Provincial Archives of Alberta
Apparently, the Provincial Archives of Alberta are wanting to charge usage fees for PAA images that are on Wikipedia. I recieved an email about some images they saw on Wikipedia, here is a snippet of it:
Please note even though images are in the public domain the original is held at the Provincial Archives of Alberta. Therefore we can reserve the right to charge usage fee for them, which we do at a price of $20.00 per image. You have not been granted this permission to publish these images and we request that you remove them.
What do we do? I have asked for which ones specifically. I don't think this makes sense. Public domain and usage fee don't somehow mix. Please know that most images from the PAA on Wikipedia are from their online website, where they have scans/digitalized versions of these such images. I'd appreciate any input you guys could give me. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
'Course it doesn't make sense. But there it is. Not the first time it's happened. I care to give a personal opinion: It's their loss. Kill the images. I thought Alberta was a nice, pretty place. Now I think: Remind me never to visit Alberta (note the pendulum swing in opinion: it's meant solely to demonstrate my point). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We've emailed them about this and are waiting to hear back. I don't think we're ready to kill the images yet. Most images are very important to the articles that they are included in. Connormah (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The image that Adobe uses for the Birth of Venus by Botticelli is copyrighted by the Bettman Archive. The painting is not copyrighted but their image if it is. so...if you took the picture or know who did take the image of the picture, then that person has a claim, and not PAA, If they took the image, then they can charge for it. The picture is not copyrighted. BUT!! They admitted that the images are in the public domain ( their boo boo...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.15.50 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
In most jurisdictions, a two dimensional reproduction of a public domain work is necessarily in the public domain, as there is no creative component involved in creating the reproduction (and mere technical expertise does not trigger copyright protections).
In the email I sent requesting which ones specifically they want removed, they made it clear that they want all images removed (which are public domain) that we do not have 'permission' to use. Please do note that most of the images we have on here are pre-1949, which makes them public domain in Canada. Unless I'm missing something, they have not responded to an email sent that requests them to cite the statutory or common law provision granting the holder of the original copy of a public domain work any degree of control over use of copies of that work. I'm not taking any action until we get a response from that email. Connormah (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problems notice
I am new to Wikipedia and received this notice along with the other images I uploaded.
I thought I had filled out properly the information requested but evidently I missed "copyright tagging" them.
How can I do this to all the images I've incorporated in the Article?
Thanks for your assistance,
Donald E. Jiskra Sr.
Thank you for uploading File:WAA-08-16x20-COLLAGE-WEB.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
please scroll to the top of this page, and read the section "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". If you have more specific questions, please ask then. Thanks. -Andrew c[talk]16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Alec Soth photo
I have tried EVERYTHING i could to have a photo of Alec Soth re-posted. I OWN ENTIRELY this photo. it was posted a long time before your effin BOT took it down. while i am not an IT i am not a computer newbie either. i read EVERYTHING about posting photos and sent permissions exactly as specified to evey entity you suggest. still no photo. wiki is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to use for everyone who doesn't know html language. it was much easier BEFORE YOUR BOT.
soooo who's ASS do i have to KISS to get a photo of ALEC SOTH, which i own entirely, posted to the article about him.
wiki SUCKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkansascajun (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Frustration understood. The case you're referring to is the article, "Alec Soth" and the file, Alec Soth 2007.JPG, if I understand correctly. While more details or templates may be required on the file (I don't know, I'm fine with it as it is), I'm not seeing a problem with re-adding it to the article in the meanwhile, and have done so. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Maynard Jackson Photo
I am attempting to load a Photo of former Mayor Maynard Jackson as photo within the Public Domain. The Photo is available at City Atlanta of Atlanta Online is widely used throughout the internet and has no copyright limitations.
Look, I don't think the PD argument is winnable, by any stretch I can imagine. But, since the person is deceased, if you can admit "I took the picture from the City of Atlanta's web site", I think maybe you might be able to qualify the picture under all 10 criteria of the WP:NFCC. In order to start down that road though, you first have to admit that some other entity owns the picture and its copyright, and that your reasons for using it on Wikipedia fall under fair use. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
File:HK G41 pic2.jpg clearly has a copyright of other than the uploader (whom I would presume to be a different entity) watermarked on the image, which is inconsistent with the fact that the image is slated to be the public domain; if the uploader is not the copyright holder, and the copyright holder has not placed the image in the public domain, then the image cannot be slated to be in the public domain, can it? That, and if it was in the public domain, the watermark would be irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velociostrich (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Googling "O.K. TO USE ONLY IF THE WORDS COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF WWW.AUTOWEAPONS.COM APPEARS IN THE PHOTO" shows this is clearly not a clear cut case: 15-odd have been deleted, a few transferred to Commons, others still here. Groan. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Public domain is public domain, it cannot be "public domain subject to XYZ's copyright" which is what the permission on that file is tantamount to. Attribution is OK, but not a copyright proviso. Take a look at the opening paragraphs of WP:PD. In any event I have tagged the article with a {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Upload error
Hello
I am new to Wikipedia. In connection to an article I am working about Octaga AS in in the Sandbox, I tried to include an image. By a mistake I managed to upload the companys logo in Wikipedia Commoms. The files is named:
The file is trademarked, and is a proprerty of the company Octaga AS
I only tried to use the image as part of the article, but realized that I uploaded it to Wikipedia Common files.
I have tried to find out how I can delete the file, but it is very confusing to a newbe. Can you help me in deleting this file. I am sure it violates the copyrights for the company.
Since it's on commons, you really ought to ask on commons; I think a suitable place would be at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. However, all you should need to do is go to commons:File:Octaga logo grey.jpg, click the "edit" tab at the top, and insert one line above the existing content (which probably begins "== Summary =="). That one line should be:
{{speedy|reason for deletion}}
The double curly brackets are important. Amend the "reason for deletion" appropriately, try "Show preview", and if it shows a suitable message (in a red box), go for "Save page". An admin will notice the tag, and delete the image. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I am the Sxth Form Administrator at an upper school in Bedfordshire, and our Sixth Form students are currently producing their free Sixth Form magazine to be distributed around the school. Although the magazine will not be released outside of the school environment, in recognition of any copyright issues, I would like to enquire about your rules on the use of images from your site to be placed into the publication. Are there certain images that we can and cannot use in our publication or are they able to be, due to Wikipedia being a free public encyclopedia?
Hello Stephanie. It would depend on the images involved. An overview is available at Wikipedia:REUSE#Images_and_other_media. In general, you can reuse most material hosted at Wikipedia, unless it's copyrighted. Copyrighted material is generally obvious through the presence of some type of fair use tag on its image page. If you're not sure, you could list the images you want to use here or on my talk page and I can advise you further. Black Kite14:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright information on own photo
I recently uploaded a photo here: File:Cotton.Sateen.Fabric.JPG. I'm relatively new to photo-adding, but my previous two images haven't raised any flags. As this is my own work, what do I need to do to make it no longer "flagged" for copyright-related deletion? Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
hello
i would like to upload an image of a painting by an artist named duggie fields who is still living and gave me the authorization to upload it.
i have uploaded already on the italian wikipedia, and as far as i know it should respect the fair use and the authorization code.
can you please enlighten me about?
many thanks
Fiank (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to use the image on a number of Wikipedia projects and the artist is prepared to release copyright in a manner that complies with Wikimedia policy, you should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and ask the artist to send an appropriate release as described here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Image license
I have an image that I was permitted to use on wiki by the author through an email File:Rod_divers1.jpg. However, the information on my ability to use this image is still unclear. Please let me if further steps are needed to ensure that the page will not be deleted. Thanks you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjpeters13 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Econ Engineering, which is a apparently a corporate role account, has uploaded a mess of images to the Commons and licensed them claiming to be the author. Since they are all apparently corporate photographs, I don't think this qualifies as "author licensed" in the proper manner; but I don't know what to do in the Commons to raise this issue. I have blocked the user's account as a role account, urging them to apply for a change of username; but that won't fix the copyright/license issue. --Orange Mike | Talk16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike, probably the best thing to do is post a message on the Commons Help Desk, it's actively patrolled but not quite as busy as the En Help Desk. I'll head over there too and take a look at the images you are referring to. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Images and Copyright Tag for Heather Armstrong Entry
Hi - I recently uploaded a picture of Heather B. Armstrong to her page, and although I do have her permission to use the picture, I'm not sure how to tag it in terms of copyright. I'm checking with Armstrong via email to make sure I know who holds the copyright (I'm pretty sure it's hers), but after that, how do I update the file? Or more specifically, what do I type and where do I type it?
I'm still pretty new at this and I'm still learning the ropes here!
Hey Akariari. Looking at the Wikimedia Commons version of your file, you need to forward a copy of the permission you have received to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - preferably mentioning exactly where you uploaded the file. If you have any questions, just ask. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jarry1250, thanks for your quick reply! So I got the copyright info for this picture of Heather Armstrong, but I'm getting a little confused about where I should put that info: Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? I see you provided an email address for me to send that info too, but I'm still unsure which place the info will end up considering I've created two entries that are I foolishly created an account on Wikicommons which is NOT a shared account with my Wikipedia account, and thus have I made a big mess about this particular picture.
So I guess I'm asking: Do I put the copyright tag on the image uploaded directly to Wikipedia, or to the one on Wikimedia Commons, or both? And in terms of the permission to use this image, should I just have Mrs. Armstrong email me something specifying her giving me permission to use this image (I want to make sure I get the wording correct)? BTW, the picture is from the dooce.com website on the 'about' page, so at least that part is easy.
Indeed :) Um, I guess what we're going to do here is forget that the Wikipedia ("local") image exists, and focus on saving the image at commons, since that works out better for everyone. That email address goes to commons, so that should all be fine. Then, the local image will end up being deleted for some reason or another, but it won't really matter. Regards wording, a somewhat lengthy explanation of the ideal scenario is at WP:COPYREQ. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your notification regarding stating the source of the photographs i upload. They are my work and i have edited the page appropriately. I hope this is ok.
Kamal-din (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Can deleted images be restored?
These images were self-made from files of own original work.
1.12 File:Beowulf Cartoon bookwork.jpg
1.13 File:Space Opera book 2000.jpg
1.16 File:Vis assc cat. cover.jpg
These images were self-made from files permitted by, or on behalf of close non-living associates, living associates and affiliated organizations.
1.4 File:A Pocket History of the Soul (chapbook cover).jpg
1.7 File:SGR recruitment leaflet 09 001.jpg
1.8 File:Furst fruts uvl 977.jpg
1.9 File:Axe Hero cd insert cover.jpg
1.10 File:Dust jacket The Joy of Letting Women Down.jpg
1.11 File:WF workshop & book launch flyer 2002.jpg
1.14 File:Ssf6+Processural.jpg
1.15 File:Positive future.jpg
1.17 File:Chainsaw -2 cover.jpg (file 72 DPI).jpg
All image files were uploaded in good faith on understanding they complied with copyright & licensing requirements. Can you please assist with undeletion and help restoration to original articles.
You will need to raise each of them up at Wikipedia:Deletion review with an appropriate explanation. Although I suspect you would need to provide some evidence of why you think they should be restored. You will probably need to explain who the copyright holders are and how they released them to you and that the licences are appropriate for wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I keep trying to put up pictures that Nespresso has the copyrights for yet they keep being deleted after 30days. I can't understand what I am not doing correctly. I have selected different copyrights but the pictures are removed after 30days
What am I doing wrong?
The idea is simple: I have pictures from Nespresso that Nespresso has taken. They belong to Nespresso. What copyright option do I need?
The reason these image are being deleted is most likelbecause they were images that are copyright of the company Nespresso, just as you state, but you don't have any evidence of permission to use them. What were the images called? File:16CAPSULES.jpg and File:Boutiques Nespresso worldwide.jpg are still here because no one has challenged your copyright tags on those image (which I have now done) but these are Nespresso's copyright images and you cannot use them unless the company releases them under as freely licenced and you can do this by following the instructions in WP:PERMISSION. These image, and I presume the deleted ones, are replaceable, so you will not be able to make a justifiable fair-use claim. IIRC similar Nespresso images were uploaded and deleted previously. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good photo for the Luke Burbank article. It appeared in a Seattle magazine, and I have credited the photographer and have provided a link to the original source. What licensing should it be placed under? Luke (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is copyright and we don't accept such images of people who are alive, except in the most unusual circumstances, because it is a replaceable image. ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
While not always the most productive use of one's time, you could also try contacting the claimed copyright holder, Encore Media Group, and see if they would place the image under a free license. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dubious copyright on images
Rahuljohnson4u (talk·contribs·email) has added a couple of images that he found on Picasa Web Albums. At first glance, the pictures listed in the albums are indeed listed as Creative Commons licensing, but I see no indication that the owner of the actual web album is the copyright holder, either. It seems that Rauljohnson4u is acting in good faith and is probably unaware of the potential copyright issue, as well. Anyway, I'm not an expert on licensing, so could someone else look into it? 216.163.247.1 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I’m working on a criminal law text for community college criminal justice students and would like to include the picture of Rebecca Schaefer. I’m attaching a permission form for your review. The chapter is on Stalking, and I can’t think of a more appropriate image than of Rebecca. The publisher is LawTech.
Thanks,
Rick Michelson, Professor
Grossmont College
8800 Grossmont College Dr.
El Cajon, CA 92020
Rick.michelson@gcccd.edu
619-644-7321
LawTech Custom Publishing, Inc.
1060 Calle Cordillera, Suite 105
San Clemente, CA 92673
Permission Request for: Wikipedia Date: 12/10/09
Image of Rebecca Schaefer
Media/Permissions Editor:
I am preparing a product to be titled: California Criminal Law: Concepts and Applications
Projected publication date by LawTech Custom January 201
0Estimated price of product: $50-
Based on the guidelines set forth, may I please have your permission to include the following?
Image of Rebecca Schaefer
In my work and in future revisions and editions thereof, in print and in any electronic format, including,
Nonexclusive world rights in all languages
____ Nonexclusive distribution rights throughout the world in English
_X___ Nonexclusive distribution rights in the U.S.A. and its possessions and Canada in English
May I also have your permission to include the material cited above in the following supplement(s):
_ Instructor's Manual __ Transparency Masters X –(PowerPoints) Other ________
As used herein, the term "electronic format" shall mean any method of copying, recording, storage, retrieval, or delivery of the work, by any means now known or hereafter devised, including by electronic or electromagnetic means, or by analog or digital signal, on any physical media, now known or hereafter devised including, for example, magnetic tape, floppy disks, CD-I, CD-ROM, laser disk, optical disk, 1C card or chip, and any other human or machine readable medium; and the broadcast and/or transmission thereof by any and all means now known or hereafter devised. These rights will in no way restrict republication of your material in any form by you or by others authorized by you. Should you not control these rights in their entirety, please let me know to whom else I must write.
Unless you indicate otherwise, I will use the following credit line:
Image with permission of Wickipedia
I would greatly appreciate your consent to this request. Please complete, sign, and return the white form. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your files.
Sincerely,
Rick Michelson (Author)
Professor – Grossmont College
8800 Grossmont College Dr. El Cajon, CA 92025
I (we) grant permission for the use requested above. Name/Title
I've tagged File:Rebecca schaeffer closeup.jpg as not having permission from the copyright holder. It clearly says the image came from a website, and then goes on to make an apparent fair use claim. We have no OTRS record that the uploader is the copyright holder, or that the website has released the image as such. Maybe it could be re-tagged as non-free as this is not a living person? -Andrew c[talk]16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Created in the USA in 1853, uncertain publication date
I've found an interesting and potentially useful image that was created in the USA in 1853 and published at some later time. Because I don't know when it was published, I can't be sure that it's PD-US-1923, but I rather doubt that a work more than 150 years old could still be copyrighted even if it had never been published. I've seen a flowchart somewhere that deals with this kind of thing; can someone supply it? I've consulted the flowchart at the bottom of public domain, but it confuses me, and it's definitely not the one that I'm asking about. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; this is the page that I wanted. So theoretically if I discovered a privately-made drawing by Julius Caesar and published it tomorrow, it would be copyrighted, because it was a previously-unpublished work published after 2002 and we know the death date of the author? Somehow this situation seems rather similar to my Caesar example: after some research, I've found that it appeared in a book published in 1934. I'm confused partially because I had been under the impression that everything created before the late 19th century in the USA was now public domain. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If today you found a previously unpublished work of Julius Caesar, it would be in the public domain because Julius Caesar died more than 70 years ago. However, if you found a previously unpublished work of Julius Caesar and published it in the period 1978–2002, it would be under copyright for 95 years after publication, or through 2047, whichever is longer. That extra protection for works created before 1978 but published 1978–2002 (a 25 year grace period) was passed by Congress in 1976 to encourage copyright owners to publish previously unpublished works. But the 1853 work you are interested in has already been published, so the preceding rules about unpublished works do not apply. If you can find that the work was published before 1923, it's in the public domain. If it was first published in 1934, it still might be in the public domain if the 1934 copyright was not renewed for a second term. The Copyright Office estimates that 85% of works first published in the U.S. 1923–1963 were never renewed for a second copyright term. — Walloon (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright on sound files pre 1923
I'm thinking of uploading some of my files to Wikipedia or Commons, but I'm not sure how they stand with regard to copyright law. In particular I'm wondering if sounds published and copyrighted before 1923 are in the public domain, as it is with print sources. It would make sense that sound recordings be included here as well, but it appears that some lawyers think otherwise, with different provisions for sound recordings such as those stated on this page. What is our practice for uploading pre-1923 sound files? Any help is appreciated. ThemFromSpace01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The related commons page is a good place to ask this but it seems clear that pre 1923 they are PD and given the wording this may be as far as 1934 or even later - Peripitus(Talk)03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No, not true, Peripitus. Very few sound recordings are in the public domain in the United States, from the earliest sound recordings to the present. Federal copyright statutes apply to sound recordings fixed only from Feb. 15, 1972 onward. Sound recordings made before that date are covered by state statutory law and state common law, and there is typically no duration limit for copyright coverage. The sound recordings statute in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are located. A legal analysis of the copyright status of Edison sound recordings. — Walloon (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
William Hogarth image for myspace?
Hi
I would like to use an image by him for my myspace page - I saw them in the 'Creative commons' section so it appears to be out of copyright, but there is no facility for downloading only uploading.
Can somebody please advise me ?
thanks
j —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmynitcher (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just right-click on the image and do "Save As..." (or, "Save Image As..."; depends on which browser you're using). There's no need for a downloading facility when the browser can do is that easily. :) As long as you use the image in accordance with the terms of the specified Creative Commons license then everything's fine. On a side note, if an image has a Creative Commons license then, implicitly, that means it is a copyrighted image. It just means that, unlike most copyrighted works, the author has decided to give up most of their legal rights over it. -- Hux (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} will be the best licence to use, but you must provide a source URL and description of the image. Please add details to the fields in the information template I have added to File:Mick Dec 13 2100UTC.jpg as an example and also add it to any other files you have uploaded where such detail is missing. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Photos of the E Street Band in concert -- allowable use?
On the page for the E Street Band (of Bruce Springsteen fame) there are some photos by Wasted Time R that were taken during concert performances. While the user has released them under Creative Commons licensing, I'm not sure that the user actually has the right to do so. My experience with live concerts is that cameras are explicitly prohibited; so, aren't photos taken within the paid concert venue thus impermissible use? The photos in question are File:EStreetBandNov2007.JPG, File:AmLandBANDcartoon.jpg and File:ESBMay2009.jpg. 152.17.59.56 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the photographer still owns the copyright to the image, even if taking it represented a breach of contract. Contract, not copyright, is the governing principle here—if he agreed to not take photographs as a condition of buying a ticket, the concert promoter could pursue legal action against him on the basis of these photographs. (Good luck....) Not being familiar with the contract of sale for the ticket, it's possible that terms of sale stipulated a transfer of copyright to the concert promoter for all photographs taken—but I doubt it (for fear of diluting the provision imposing a prohibition on photography). TheFeds20:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thom Yorke's live band
I have created (for the most part) this page [5] and want to upload this picture [6] for it, I don't know what license it's on or how to find out or if I'm allowed to upload it, how can I find out?Iminrainbows (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it is difficult to find the licencing of an image but generally unless an image is specifically noted to be freely licenced with a suitable public domain or creative commons copyright tag it is likely copyright and you will not be able to use it. Because the band exists, you would not be able to use it under a fair-use claim either because it is considered replaceable. Finding a freely licenced concert photo is more likely easier than getting permission to use the image you are thinking of. ww2censor (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
According to this page even though the site owners claim most images are in the public domain, they also disclaim any responsibility for the actual copyright status in so far as some images may still be copyright. The copyright status of any images you uploaded could be challenged because the source does not prove the copyright status of the images and the burden of proof is on you, as the uploader, to prove the status. Besides which the same page says that it only allows non-commercial use which makes the licence incompatible with Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the right place to ask, but it looks like the pic has already been deleted as a copyright infringement. So, problem solved. :) -- Hux (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
We have images we have displayed on the page Mary Tuthill Lindheim. All have copyright/license issues, and I don't have the knowledge of copyright law to resolve them. To take one photo as an example: File:MaryTuthillLindheim-towards-unity.jpg, the photo was taken by a professional photographer, and will be used in a soon-to-be-published book about Lindheim.
The photographer has given the Lindheim book author a PDF file containing his Usage License. The pertinent text in this License follows:
Usage License
Subject to the terms and conditions below, WTphotography the licensor ("Licensor") of the work ("Work") referenced in this document (number 1005) hereby grants to The Estate of Mary Lindheim and Abby Wasserman, defined herein ("Licensee"), an Exclusive license to use all the images of the Work created. This license is valid worldwide. This license shall be valid for 15 years from the date of first use and shall cover publication of the Work in the following media only: Retail Picture Book and any reproductions electronic or printed, Internet Website, Blog, or Email Campaign, Packaging Product Box/Wrapper, Promotional Brochure/Collateral. The number of reproductions of the Work authorized by this license for the retail picture book, is limited to 100,000.
The only credit line to be associated with the Work is "Will Taylor". No advertising rights granted. Any other use of the Work by the Licensee shall require a separately negotiated license.
In addition, Will Taylor has provided an addendum, which reads:
Addendum to license rights granted on invoice number 1008, dated 24th November, 2009 : In conjunction with the license granted on invoice number 1008, licensor hereby grants the Licensee the explicit right to publish the Work on Wikipedia.
Additionally, the license is hereby clarified to include rights for promotional and informational usage of the Work on an online website, such as, but not limited to, blogs, social networking sites, and wikis.
Advertising rights require a separately negotiated license.
Sincerely yours,
Will Taylor
Can you tell me which, if any, license/copyright I can use to provide permission to display this photo on Wikipedia?
I don't think that is sufficient for Wikiedia purposes, in particular the 15 year duration of the release and other limitations on use. See the form of consent set out at WP:CONSENT. The only sure way to get an appropriate releas is for the copyright owner to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Mikado Heli (RC Helicopter) Logo and Helicopter images.
Hello,
I am creating a new Article on the Mikado Heli company and the RC helicopters related to them.
There logo which can be found here: http://shop.mikado-heli.de/ I would like to upload and display, but I do not know the copyright on it.
I would also like to upload each model of helicopter, for example the following links:
The logo would be covered by the non-free use of logos explained at WP:LOGO. As for the other images, the website does not appear to contain an explicit copyright release so we must assume that they are copyrighted and it doesn't look to me as though they would fall under any of the non-free use criteria, basically because someone could take a picture of each product and upload a free use image. So, the logo is OK, the others not (unless of course the company specifically released them per the process set out at WP:IOWN). Let me know if you need help uploading the logo and please also read WP:YFA, WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:Spam. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
A question about new drawing downloads
Today I noticed that User:Rama has begun downloading his own line drawings like this one File:Nigel Hawthorne.jpg of various actors into the infoboxes on their wikipages. Now I have been away from wikipedia editing for awhile and, even when I was here, I know that images are a tough item to understand as to what is okay and what is not.
I have the following concerns regarding these.
I know that the rules for what picture of an actor is okay for an infobox are specific (and sometimes contentious) and I don't know whether these meet those criteria.
They only look marginally like the actors that they are meant to portray (I know that this is in the eye of the beholder and others may disagree.) But this may cause confusion for other readers.
They seem to be promoting this editors work as an artist. I know that they are not signed but why would we use this artists drawings over anyone elses. So I fear that there may be a COI involved.
I don't know how much things may have changed, or stayed the same, since I have been away so I am just trying to find out what the wikicommunity thinks. If these drawings are okay I will be happy to let them remain in the articles and apologize to Rama for causing any worry. Also if this is not the proper venue for this question plz let me know and I will move it. My thanks in advance for your input. MarnetteD | Talk03:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"same encyclopedic purpose" is not an excuse to turn the Fair use policy into "anything goes".
"Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." and "only to visually identify elements in the article: should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." are the relevant quotes.
My images are not very good and I know it. I am not a genius. But I try to provide content, and I prove that work can provide perfectly Free images in this context. Rama (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, WP:NFCC is the "parent" policy, whereas Wikipedia:NFC#Guideline_examples and what follows is a child of NFCC, which extends NFCC, but does not limit the usage of an image that passes WP:NFCC. Whether the "drawing" is a suitable replacement is another question - I've opined that it is not. –xenotalk17:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not it is a suitable replacement is irrelevant; it proves that there can be a suitable replacement -- and the image is thus replaceable, which is sufficient (but not necessary) to end the discussion on Fair Use. Rama (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above, and just pointing out Susan Boyle as a counter example of where a freely available, but non-photographic image appears to be acceptable (there was a previous Boyle image but that was influenced by a TV screenshot and considered derivative, this one is pretty generic and thus acceptable) --MASEM (t) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No matter what you want to cherry-pick for a policy, you will always find that the images claimed as Fair use must be the subject of the article, or of part of it, which is clearly not the case here. Rama (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The photograph of Nigel Hawthorne seems to sufficiently satisfy WP:NFCC. Noting the primacy of policy over guideline and a parent policy over a child is not "cherry picking" - enough with the inflammatory language, please. –xenotalk18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you please stop twisting the spirit of the policy and consider the guideline? With your arguments, the Fair Use policy would be utterly irrelevant, anything could be taken for Fair use, under any circumstance, simply because the Free alternatives do not satisfy your tastes. Rama (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This is completely ridiculous. I appreciate that some contributors would prefer than Wikipedia never used any content that someone else has ownership of, but preferring a cartoon that I really don't think looks much like the chap in question over a photograph is total overkill and NOT required by the Fair Use policy. What is available as a free replacement has to meet the needs of the encyclopaedia - not make it a laughing stock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You are free to commission a better portrait of Hawthorne. You are not free to snatch copyrighted material simply to illustrate an article. The Fair Use policy does not read "anything goes". Rama (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
While I think it is a creative use of the concept of replacement to commission an artwork, I do not believe that this is required by the fair use policy. I also believe your use of the term 'snatch' is unnecessarily emotive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair Use is invalid is replacement is possible; in the present case, the replacement is not only possible, it is actually performed. I do not understand how you could possibly still argue.
Oh, and I am sorry for "snatch". I had no idea that it would be more emotive than "laughing stock"; your superior knowledge of English, you know... Rama (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Hawthorne line drawing, I would argue that a picture, as well drawn as it might be, of what appears to be a male individual and nothing more does not satisfy the argument that a replacement has been "performed" here. The drawn image is not informative in any way, in my view. Resolute19:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct, but out of the point. A drawing, better than this one, can be made. The Fair Use image is thus replaceable; it is unacceptable to the same extend that Fair Use images of living people are not accepted, because all we need is for somebody to create an image. Whether it is actually replaced or not is irrelevant. Rama (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this drawing theory holds water. If it did, it would potentially invalid thousands of fair use claims. I think an RFC on the matters should be taken up at WP:NFC. –xenotalk23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally reverted an edit by Xeno here, from my watchlist. I have not been following the debate, and certainly did not intend to disrupt it. My sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused. decltype (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the image File:DAscreenshot.jpg [7] which is used for the DeviantART article - the screenshot consists primarily of thumbnails of artwork created by dA users whom I'm certain have not been individually asked to be featured on Wikipedia. Does this web-page screenshot still qualify as fair use with allowance of all of the thumbnails within the picture? I don't know how this type of thing works; I would guess it is allowed but I am curious.
As a side note, the "How to Ask a Question" section says to click a link "below" it that is actually at the top of the page. Some guy (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Any way I can upload a picture...
I would like to upload a picture of a GM of a sports team, but he's never visible to the public, and theres no way I can get a fair use picture of him.
This would probably not pass the fair-use muster. Surely he is seen from time-to-time at press-conferences and the like where we a free image might be produced. –xenotalk15:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There would be no free license, at most you could claim fair use in an article about the competition between the two teams. However this still probably does not satisfy the fair use policy in Wikipedia, as two separate images could be used too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
cover of upcoming book
I have been in contact with the author of an upcoming book, and he wants me to change the cover
of one of his older books to that of his latest book, and asked me to copy the image from the publisher's website. He indicated to me that he was going to give me permission to do this.
The publisher, not the author, probably owns the copyright to the book cover, so the publisher will have to give permission as set out at WP:IOWN. It is possible however to upload and use non-free book cover art and we have templates specifically for that: {{Book cover fur}} and {{Book rationale}}. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Chilean Images with Third-Party Authorization Given
I have no idea what code to put. I located codes for other countries, but not one matches Chile. It is the picture of a public political figure who has authorized third-party use on his website. Please advise! Thank you and Happy Holidays! --NayadethFigueroa (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I can help you locate the correct license. But first, please tell me what image you are discussing, and link to the statement on the official website. Thanks. -Andrew c[talk]04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Nonfree for former band?
File:TheWeeds.jpg is currently used at The Weeds (UK band) for identification purposes of this now-defunct band. Such usage seems to me to be similar to using nonfree images to identify dead individuals, since we can't take pictures of the band together. Is this generally considered appropriate? If so, could someone please rework the fair-use rationale at the image? I discovered this situation while deleting disputed-fair-use images; the image was tagged because it currently has a rationale for a logo, not for a picture being used for identification. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually this is specifically cover art for their single according to this site, so the image should only be used in an article about the single, or as part of a discography, but not about the band in general or as identification of the band per WP:NFC#Images. I would dispute the fair-use rationale and IfD the image if the current deletion is not justification to the closing admin. ww2censor (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't necessarily matter that the image is cover art, though the license and rationale are specific to the image being used as cover art and should be changed. Fair use images of disbanded groups are acceptable per WP:NFC. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It is strange indeed to claim that defunct bands are comparable to dead people. So long as some of the band members remain alive, the image can obviously be replaced by one or more free images. Angus McLellan(Talk)14:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" If the non-free content has some significance, that is it is not simply being used for identification, it may not be possible to replace it with free content. But most non-free images of musical acts are simply used to identify the persons concerned. This is an invalid use according to policy whatever a guideline may say. WP:NFC appears to be so at odds with policy in many respects that it might best be fixed by adding {{historical}} at the top of the page. Angus McLellan(Talk)18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, the image could not be replaced by a free version that has the same effect. We're talking about a band which has not been active for 23 years. Even if you could get them all in the same room and obtain a free photo, it wouldn't "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (quote from WP:FUC) as an image from 1986. There's no conflict between the policy and the guideline here, nor any policy-based problem that I can see with regard to this image. Crop it, change the license and rationale, and IMHO it's a keeper. PC78 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The issues that I see still with the statement here is the it says that ...
On this page are some photographs which I have placed in the public domain. They can be used for any purpose as long as the correct accreditation is used. thanks Maria,
The photos are by Peter Gallia, in the statement above who is maria?
The photos are claimed to be released into the public domain, so what is this accreditation that is spoken about?
The woman and chocolate picture seems to me to be a picture of a magazine cover which I would imagine the photographer does not have copyright to, I imagine he has the copyright to the actual pic but not to the whole page including the article. If the pics are PD then as the pics that are already here on wiki and commons from another source and would they require removing and new pics uploading from the new source?
The angel in lights picture is reported to have been sold, it is not clear that the photographer has retained the copyright to the picture after sale, this need clarifying. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an image of a blue plaque in Birmingham, England. It is my thought that it is not copyrightable due to its simplicity, it only contains information not subject to copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not strictly 2D, the letters are raised ;) But seriously, break it down into its elements: a blue circle, which isn't copyrightable, and some brief text of a purely informational matter, which doesn't qualify for protection as a literary work. So yes, it's free. -Nard15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If you see this diff, there is a message that explains what was wrong. It appears all of this was performed by bots. They found a non-free image being used in an article that did not have an accompanying fair use rationale. However, with that said, 8 of the images that the bot removed were in a gallery/table. Non-free images are not allowed in such contexts. We have to make sure we aren't using non-free images for decoration. Non-free overuse and abuse can run rampant on Wikipedia, but we take such matters seriously. Just a friendly warning before you start restoring the images. Just read up on WP:NFC, and ask any more question you may have. Good luck,-Andrew c[talk]04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. It's the ones in the table that I'm most interested in, so if there's a blanket ban on such use then there's no point proceeding. However, I don't see anywhere in the docs that mentions such a blanket ban. I also can't see any logical reason why such a prohibition should exist. A table is merely a formatting device. It's simply used to get the image to display in the desired position relative to other elements on the page. How could that be germane to any copyright issues? Any ideas where this is documented? 86.150.101.30 (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
WP:NFG. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. We favor free content, though the English language version does allow some (minimal) use of non-free content under claims of fair use. However, our policy is much stricter than US law. While some uses may still be "legal", WP:NFCC limits non-free content even further, to help further our goal of being "free". We don't include images of album covers in discography lists because often each individual album article has an image of the cover in it. Similarly, we don't need a table of non-free coin images in an overview article, when more specific articles can be navigated to that show the content. -Andrew c[talk]14:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NFG, there is not a total ban on non-free content in galleries; it is just that (as WP:IUP explains), fair use may often require more commentary than such formatting allows.
However, coin and banknote images may to some extent constitute an exception, because it is generally agreed that for such objects, the act of showing the object in itself significantly adds to the reader understanding about the topic of the article, even without any additional commentary. Hence it is not uncommon to find tables including NFC in numismatics articles, and when discussed in recent-ish threads at WT:NFC concerning high NFC articles, this seems to be grudgingly tolerated.
It matters, and very much, that WP is primarily associated with the upload of new, completely free, content. But what WP:NFC makes clear is that what is ultimately decisive is maximising reader understanding. Per law and per policy, we take care to use no more NFC than is needed to achieve a particular end. But the bottom line is NFCC #8: if an additional piece of NFC does allow an article to increase reader understanding appropriately significantly, then it is permitted.
It may be better, for an overview article such as this, to include a single image of multiple coins (a group shot, if you will), instead of repeating multiple images of individual coins which are already included in other articles. -Andrew c[talk]16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Scouting award
Please see Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Bronze_Wolf_Award for background. We have File:Bronze_Wolf_Award.png, which is tagged as non-free, and File:Bronze Wolf Award photo.jpg, which is tagged as CC-BY-SA. NFCC #1 says if there is a free equivalent, we have to use it. So, I see no reason to have a non-free image, except, I don't know about the legality such a derivative work. Is the CC-BY-SA image incorrectly tagged due to it's derivative nature? Also, I'm a little confused about the non-free image, because the 1st revision came from the cited PDF, but I have no idea where the 2nd revision came from, so I don't know the source (or license, really) of the current image. I'm probably over thinking this one, so I'd like more opinions on these 2 images.-Andrew c[talk]15:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As it now stands, without any commentary about the particular cartoon and/or about the specific attack represented in the cartoon, being the Government House closure, it cannot pass WP:NFCC#8. Fix that omission and it may well be acceptable but right now it is just decoration. ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because there is a section about the alternate version, that does not explain why the cover needs to be here. The cover itself needs to be notable to justify more than one. Chase wc9101:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir, we would like to use this picture for a non-profit Canary Islands Government publication:
File:Submersible-pump_System.svg
from user confuciou
In order to attribute the work properly, we want to know how we should mention the author.
Thanks,
Does WP:REUSE help? But note that I have just tagged the article with a missing permission tag as there is no evidence of permission from the apparent copyright owner to use the image on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect to the picture above which is released under the GNU GPL it is said:-
This screenshot is of a program that has been released under a free software license. As a derivative work of that program, this screenshot falls under the same license.
I beg to disagree. A screenshot is the output of a program and not its derivative. And the output of a program released under the GNU GPL need not be licensed under the GNU GPL as a result. Hence the above screenshot is not bound to be released under the GNU GPL as the license statement that accompanies it.
If I am wrong please point out the logical discrepancy.
This can be true under some circumstances, but since the source is "my computer" the uploader also appears to be releasing his or her work under the same license. -Nard23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Photograph Of Frankie Boyle
The Frankie Boyle article is currently lacking a photo, yet I think it is almost essential for one to appear for identification purposes. I have found an image on Boyle's official MySpace that would be appropriate. Would this qualify? TomBeasley (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at File:Tintin's dog.jpg and File:Tintin exhibit.jpg, I've got to wonder if they can be posted under the CCA or PD-self tags. In both cases the subject characters are not free to use.
PD-art tages are designed for pictures, or similar reproductions, of works that are themselves in the public domain. In these cases, the subject matter depicted is not in the public domain. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case of the second image, I haven't a clue, but I buy Jarry1250's assertion. But in the case of the first image, the uploader is User:Postdlf who presumptively knows what they're doing with regards to licensing. I'd inquire with the uploader if you have a question. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I just moved the image here from Commons when The Adventures of Tintin was a FA of the day, because the image was a derivative of the copyrighted toy, and Commons does not host derivatives. So my upload was basically just ministerial.
Note the separate licensing for the copyrighted photograph and for the copyrighted sculpture (the toy). When we only have a free license from the photographer, if the sculpture is copyrighted and not covered by freedom of panorama, we need a fair use claim for that element of the photograph.
If you're concerned with whether such use currently complies with WP NFU policy, Talk:The Adventures of Tintin would be the best place to raise that issue, to evaluate whatever information that image is providing for the article and discuss whether there might be an alternative. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok... I'm a bit of an idiot - I missed the split license on the toys. Though that doesn't address the issue with the museum exhibit. And it is a bit beyond these two images, I've run across others. It may be they fall under "panorama", though I'm really unclear on that one.
Also a pair of side questions: In cases with the split license do we need a FUR? And is the image as limited as a non-free image with a single license, or more so?
Whenever an image is a derivative, you need the right to use both the photograph and the copyrighted subject matter of that photograph. In that sense, it's more limited, in that you need rights/a rationale to cover two aspects of the same work. But as long as the photographer granted a free license, the derivative photograph is no more limited than any other non-free image.
Re: the exhibit image (which I am just now looking at for the first time)... According to the fine folks at Commons, there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium, which is where that photo was taken. So in addition to the photographer's grant of his photograph into the public domain, you need a FUR to cover the copyrighted sculptures depicted in that exhibit photo. postdlf (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
We almost always need to know the source, author, date of a work in order to first ascertain if the copyright has expired or not, and then to properly attribute the image. With no further information on this image, we'd have to assume it is copyrighted, and then we could only use it under WP:NFCC. There may be able to have a case made that since this individual is deceased, and this is basically the only likeness available, the it is needed for identification of the subject, but NFC 10a still might not be met based on what I said in the first sentence. -Andrew c[talk]15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Content Of Free-Licensing Agreement
I have secured permission from a copyright holder to use a photograph they created. It says on the upload page that I must forward the agreement e-mail to Wikipedia. What content do I need on this agreement for it to be appropriate? TomBeasley (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It would appear however that the copyright holder has appeared and uploaded the photo themselves, thus making life a lot easier for me. TomBeasley (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
NATO Warren Christopher image
I'm looking for an image to use for the Lift and strike (Bosnia) article and came across these images of Warren Christopher on the NATO website, which would be perfect. All the source page really states is "Please credit NATO photos". I don't know a lot about copyright issues so can someone advise whether it is acceptable to use these images on Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
NATO images are not freely licenced and because Warren Christopher is alive with free images available you can hardly claim fair-use for either image as its content can easily be described in prose. What would be the reason for using one of those images? ww2censor (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Christopher visited European states in May 1993 to try to get them to support the lift and strike proposals, and the photos were taken on that visit. They're the only photos I can find of the trip. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png - Permission of Author?
The person who added this image File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png asserts that he has the permission of the author to post the copyrighted image. How is this verified? What is to prevent any editor from simply asserting that they have the author's permission to post an image?Fladrif (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, people uploading an image under that condition have to forward the letter/e-mail in which it is agreed to Wikipedia. TomBeasley (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
How are we to know that the letter was sent/received? Is a copy of it appended to the file to show other users that the permission was genuine?Fladrif (talk)
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I think ones that haven't had letters sent about them are deleted swiftly. I don't know. TomBeasley (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is not obvious from the source that is has been released it needs to be tagged with Template:Di-no permission which gives the uploader a week to either link to a website with permission or email the permission into the OTRS system. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Put all of the links in the "source" line, in the same text form you used above so that only the filename displays and not the image (File:Filename.jpg). Clearly state that you, the uploader, had combined them in this image and whatever else you created, and designate a license for your own work.
Were the source images licensed differently? Don't concern yourself with public domain materials except to attribute the sources. But if any were non-free, then you'll need a NFU rationale to use them in your composite image. Otherwise, the image as a whole would be governed by the most restrictive license...or by all of the source licenses, if they have different terms that each must be complied with. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
in thier movie about how the family became famous, micheal sings with his brothers, then he went on his own, gordy asked him to appear on a show to reunite with his brothers and he accepted but wanted a solo spot, besides billy jean which he sung, he was in the studio recording a song that sort of went * why why tell her that * what is the name of that song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie431 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Deletion request created on Commons. Deadstar (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/images/80s%20filter.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DAscreenshot.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mandelson2009byGALLINA.jpg){kind=link}
