Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable image

My questions relate to the following image about sea creatures: File:Seamonstersanimals.jpg

It seems to me that the copyright is questionable on this image. The licensing is displayed on its page, but the original source claimed on the page does not actually contain the image at all. I'm not quite sure what to do as it's a really good image, and would be a shame to flag it for deletion.

I am also wondering about the content of the image (I wasn't sure where to discuss this, the talk page seemed to redirect me to here) as it seems out of scale. The largest creature (Leedsychthys) according to its own article is 9-10m long (max of 16m) but the Megalodon (shown as much smaller in the same picture) has an article describing it as around 18m long - making this very out of scale (or the articles wrong.) The original author has since left Wikipedia however, so it will probably be difficult if not impossible to contact them.

As a Newbie here, I will leave it to more experienced users to decide what to do about all of this and hope I haven't broken too many rules trying to help!

Abridge (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, it has not use rationale for any article. I have tagged it for that. —teb728 t c 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

  1. Is this true?
  2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
  3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge T\C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers = CC-BY or PD??

In an unrelated search, I stumbled upon the USACE flickr pool and I noticed that all the images are licensed under a CC-BY license. I had assumed that since the USACE is a US Government Agency, the images would be automatic PD. Clarification on what I just found?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now i've somehow stumbled onto The National Guard's page as well. CC-BY licenses all around.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Answering only about the National Guard, the National Guards are state militias, not part of the US national government. —teb728 t c 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless federalized, right? As when serving overseas? Would that change the status? Reading from the opening paragraph at National Guard of the United States. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Point. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
USACE is part of the Federal government, so I don't see how CC-BY applies. I would think automatic PD, also. I would contact the photo originators. Maybe it was an unintended differentiation. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Tried it before on flickr, many image users don't reply back for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

  1. Is this true?
  2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
  3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge T\C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers = CC-BY or PD??

In an unrelated search, I stumbled upon the USACE flickr pool and I noticed that all the images are licensed under a CC-BY license. I had assumed that since the USACE is a US Government Agency, the images would be automatic PD. Clarification on what I just found?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now i've somehow stumbled onto The National Guard's page as well. CC-BY licenses all around.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Answering only about the National Guard, the National Guards are state militias, not part of the US national government. —teb728 t c 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless federalized, right? As when serving overseas? Would that change the status? Reading from the opening paragraph at National Guard of the United States. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Point. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
USACE is part of the Federal government, so I don't see how CC-BY applies. I would think automatic PD, also. I would contact the photo originators. Maybe it was an unintended differentiation. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Tried it before on flickr, many image users don't reply back for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

  1. Is this true?
  2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
  3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge T\C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

It seems to me that the use of File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg in a gallery in USS Triton (SSRN-586) is contrary to both WP:NFC#Images #1 and the {{Non-free book cover}} template on the file's page which states: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" which it is not doing. How should the file be tagged? ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The uploading editor Marcd30319 has reinstated this book image, so I have nominated it for deletion. The same editor seems to have some other non-free images uploaded that are suspect or possibly being used improperly. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked thru his other uploads, and the vast majority are either legitimately PD or are used correctly under our non-free content policy. Thankfully this isn't a case of a major recurring problem. (We have enough of those.) – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Relicensing an image

I just came across File:Winstead Hill Franklin TN.jpg, which is tagged with {{PD}}. It was uploaded more than three years before the template was deprecated, so no problems. However, would it be right to retag it with PD-self? The photographer is given as being a "J. Williams", and the uploader was JW1805. I would ask JW1805, but s/he hasn't edited since January. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's safe. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And I suggest adding a brief note about this change at his talk page (User_talk:JW1805). Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation from a scientific article together with the citation

I have modified and simplified some figures from scientific articles. Can I upload them with the citation and source or do i need permission from the authors?--Cmsnmz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally your drawings are derivative works and you may released them under a free license only with a permission from the authors of the originals. However, in some particular cases the originals may be ineligible for copyright protection for various reasons. Sv1xv (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

card images

Two images File:Small-Red-Card.png and File:Small-Yellow-Card.png have been marked for deletion by a bot but the license is valid. Please help. Original version is from french wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_rouge.png and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_jaune.png

I added a blank template {{Information}} for each file. Would you please fill in the missing information (author, source, date of creation) ? Sv1xv (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I filled in the info from French Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to verify I can post a map I have scanned. It is a WWII soldier souvenir map from the 71st Infantry Division. It was my grandfathers but it is not the original, it is a printing. Given the large size of roughly 3' x 4' it is likely that many were printed.

There isn't a copyright declaration that I can see on it but the names of the artists are listed; it simply says "Drawn by Emil Albrecht, Roland Wille" in the bottom corner. I am relatively certain from the family history of the item that is was printed around the time of the war. If I interpret the information you link to at Cornell University correctly the lack of copyright notice puts it in the public domain. Is just wanted to make sure I interpret this correctly before I post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnus X1 Book 2 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: anything first published in the U.S. (or U.S. controlled territory in a war) before 1978 that does not have an explicit © notice is in the public domain. Also, anything a U.S. soldier creates as part of his duties is public domain. – Quadell (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers = CC-BY or PD??

In an unrelated search, I stumbled upon the USACE flickr pool and I noticed that all the images are licensed under a CC-BY license. I had assumed that since the USACE is a US Government Agency, the images would be automatic PD. Clarification on what I just found?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now i've somehow stumbled onto The National Guard's page as well. CC-BY licenses all around.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Answering only about the National Guard, the National Guards are state militias, not part of the US national government. —teb728 t c 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless federalized, right? As when serving overseas? Would that change the status? Reading from the opening paragraph at National Guard of the United States. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Point. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
USACE is part of the Federal government, so I don't see how CC-BY applies. I would think automatic PD, also. I would contact the photo originators. Maybe it was an unintended differentiation. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Tried it before on flickr, many image users don't reply back for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

  1. Is this true?
  2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
  3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge T\C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

It seems to me that the use of File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg in a gallery in USS Triton (SSRN-586) is contrary to both WP:NFC#Images #1 and the {{Non-free book cover}} template on the file's page which states: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" which it is not doing. How should the file be tagged? ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The uploading editor Marcd30319 has reinstated this book image, so I have nominated it for deletion. The same editor seems to have some other non-free images uploaded that are suspect or possibly being used improperly. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked thru his other uploads, and the vast majority are either legitimately PD or are used correctly under our non-free content policy. Thankfully this isn't a case of a major recurring problem. (We have enough of those.) – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png

Is it acceptable to create an image that compares two brief quotations of copyrighted text, for the purpose of critical commentary on this text? I've been told that this would be acceptable if I did this as part of an article's text, but not in a self-made image. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It honestly seems to be poking fun at the publisher for being careless, rather than showing anything significant. --NE2 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That this is referenced in a secondary source gives it enough basic significance for me. Whether the quotation is in a box at the side or in quotatation marks or block text while more incorporated in the article text should have no relevance on the copyright. Editable wikitext is just as copyrightable (and equally subject to fair use) as text trancluded as a png file.--BirgitteSB 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright, but there's no reason at all to turn this into an image. Just quote the text and leave it at that. Making an image of it makes the flow of text around it problematic, makes it huge on the page way out of proportion to its usefulness at that size, interferes with text to voice software for the blind and so forth. That's just a really bad idea. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Relicensing an image

I just came across File:Winstead Hill Franklin TN.jpg, which is tagged with {{PD}}. It was uploaded more than three years before the template was deprecated, so no problems. However, would it be right to retag it with PD-self? The photographer is given as being a "J. Williams", and the uploader was JW1805. I would ask JW1805, but s/he hasn't edited since January. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's safe. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And I suggest adding a brief note about this change at his talk page (User_talk:JW1805). Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission Given But...

Hey there. I have just gained permission for the use of a photo on an article of a band from the band itself, as long as I credit it to the photographer. Problem is I don't know how to go about explaining the copyright details within the photo's discussion page. Any help will be greatly appreciated. mÆniac Ask! 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. Besure the copyright owner understands that we require permission not only for use on Wikipedia, but for use by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but I still don't understand. I never was good at any of this copyight stuff. mÆniac Ask! 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you have read COPYREQ, and contected the copyright owner about granting a specific free license, right? So which specific free license did the copyright owner grant. The answer to your question of what to put on the image description page depends on which license. —teb728 t c 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation from a scientific article together with the citation

I have modified and simplified some figures from scientific articles. Can I upload them with the citation and source or do i need permission from the authors?--Cmsnmz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally your drawings are derivative works and you may released them under a free license only with a permission from the authors of the originals. However, in some particular cases the originals may be ineligible for copyright protection for various reasons. Sv1xv (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

card images

Two images File:Small-Red-Card.png and File:Small-Yellow-Card.png have been marked for deletion by a bot but the license is valid. Please help. Original version is from french wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_rouge.png and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_jaune.png

I added a blank template {{Information}} for each file. Would you please fill in the missing information (author, source, date of creation) ? Sv1xv (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I filled in the info from French Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to verify I can post a map I have scanned. It is a WWII soldier souvenir map from the 71st Infantry Division. It was my grandfathers but it is not the original, it is a printing. Given the large size of roughly 3' x 4' it is likely that many were printed.

There isn't a copyright declaration that I can see on it but the names of the artists are listed; it simply says "Drawn by Emil Albrecht, Roland Wille" in the bottom corner. I am relatively certain from the family history of the item that is was printed around the time of the war. If I interpret the information you link to at Cornell University correctly the lack of copyright notice puts it in the public domain. Is just wanted to make sure I interpret this correctly before I post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnus X1 Book 2 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: anything first published in the U.S. (or U.S. controlled territory in a war) before 1978 that does not have an explicit © notice is in the public domain. Also, anything a U.S. soldier creates as part of his duties is public domain. – Quadell (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg

I have re-uploaded File:Untitled-2.png, a cover of Upton Sinclair's The Journal of Arthur Stirling, as File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg; due to the publication date (visible on the cover) the image is in public domain in the United States. Now a bot has marked the image for deletion because of missing source/author information - could you assist me to provide the information (or otherwise help to prevent its deletion)? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all problems in the description File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg as far as I could. Please review them, make whatever corrections are needed and remove the bot tag. Sv1xv (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, while Upton Sinclair is the author of the book, the copyright of the book cover was probably held by the Heinemann publishing house. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:DKT_International_logo.png

Is Template:PD-textlogo appropriate for this logo? Just wanted to double-check. I can provide a FUR if necessary. Klubbit (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, although it gets close to the threshold of creativity. Sv1xv (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers = CC-BY or PD??

In an unrelated search, I stumbled upon the USACE flickr pool and I noticed that all the images are licensed under a CC-BY license. I had assumed that since the USACE is a US Government Agency, the images would be automatic PD. Clarification on what I just found?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now i've somehow stumbled onto The National Guard's page as well. CC-BY licenses all around.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Answering only about the National Guard, the National Guards are state militias, not part of the US national government. —teb728 t c 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless federalized, right? As when serving overseas? Would that change the status? Reading from the opening paragraph at National Guard of the United States. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Point. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
USACE is part of the Federal government, so I don't see how CC-BY applies. I would think automatic PD, also. I would contact the photo originators. Maybe it was an unintended differentiation. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Tried it before on flickr, many image users don't reply back for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

  1. Is this true?
  2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
  3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge T\C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

It seems to me that the use of File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg in a gallery in USS Triton (SSRN-586) is contrary to both WP:NFC#Images #1 and the {{Non-free book cover}} template on the file's page which states: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" which it is not doing. How should the file be tagged? ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The uploading editor Marcd30319 has reinstated this book image, so I have nominated it for deletion. The same editor seems to have some other non-free images uploaded that are suspect or possibly being used improperly. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked thru his other uploads, and the vast majority are either legitimately PD or are used correctly under our non-free content policy. Thankfully this isn't a case of a major recurring problem. (We have enough of those.) – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png

Is it acceptable to create an image that compares two brief quotations of copyrighted text, for the purpose of critical commentary on this text? I've been told that this would be acceptable if I did this as part of an article's text, but not in a self-made image. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It honestly seems to be poking fun at the publisher for being careless, rather than showing anything significant. --NE2 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That this is referenced in a secondary source gives it enough basic significance for me. Whether the quotation is in a box at the side or in quotatation marks or block text while more incorporated in the article text should have no relevance on the copyright. Editable wikitext is just as copyrightable (and equally subject to fair use) as text trancluded as a png file.--BirgitteSB 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright, but there's no reason at all to turn this into an image. Just quote the text and leave it at that. Making an image of it makes the flow of text around it problematic, makes it huge on the page way out of proportion to its usefulness at that size, interferes with text to voice software for the blind and so forth. That's just a really bad idea. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Relicensing an image

I just came across File:Winstead Hill Franklin TN.jpg, which is tagged with {{PD}}. It was uploaded more than three years before the template was deprecated, so no problems. However, would it be right to retag it with PD-self? The photographer is given as being a "J. Williams", and the uploader was JW1805. I would ask JW1805, but s/he hasn't edited since January. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's safe. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And I suggest adding a brief note about this change at his talk page (User_talk:JW1805). Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission Given But...

Hey there. I have just gained permission for the use of a photo on an article of a band from the band itself, as long as I credit it to the photographer. Problem is I don't know how to go about explaining the copyright details within the photo's discussion page. Any help will be greatly appreciated. mÆniac Ask! 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. Besure the copyright owner understands that we require permission not only for use on Wikipedia, but for use by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but I still don't understand. I never was good at any of this copyight stuff. mÆniac Ask! 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you have read COPYREQ, and contected the copyright owner about granting a specific free license, right? So which specific free license did the copyright owner grant. The answer to your question of what to put on the image description page depends on which license. —teb728 t c 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation from a scientific article together with the citation

I have modified and simplified some figures from scientific articles. Can I upload them with the citation and source or do i need permission from the authors?--Cmsnmz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally your drawings are derivative works and you may released them under a free license only with a permission from the authors of the originals. However, in some particular cases the originals may be ineligible for copyright protection for various reasons. Sv1xv (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

card images

Two images File:Small-Red-Card.png and File:Small-Yellow-Card.png have been marked for deletion by a bot but the license is valid. Please help. Original version is from french wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_rouge.png and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_jaune.png

I added a blank template {{Information}} for each file. Would you please fill in the missing information (author, source, date of creation) ? Sv1xv (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I filled in the info from French Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to verify I can post a map I have scanned. It is a WWII soldier souvenir map from the 71st Infantry Division. It was my grandfathers but it is not the original, it is a printing. Given the large size of roughly 3' x 4' it is likely that many were printed.

There isn't a copyright declaration that I can see on it but the names of the artists are listed; it simply says "Drawn by Emil Albrecht, Roland Wille" in the bottom corner. I am relatively certain from the family history of the item that is was printed around the time of the war. If I interpret the information you link to at Cornell University correctly the lack of copyright notice puts it in the public domain. Is just wanted to make sure I interpret this correctly before I post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnus X1 Book 2 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: anything first published in the U.S. (or U.S. controlled territory in a war) before 1978 that does not have an explicit © notice is in the public domain. Also, anything a U.S. soldier creates as part of his duties is public domain. – Quadell (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg

I have re-uploaded File:Untitled-2.png, a cover of Upton Sinclair's The Journal of Arthur Stirling, as File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg; due to the publication date (visible on the cover) the image is in public domain in the United States. Now a bot has marked the image for deletion because of missing source/author information - could you assist me to provide the information (or otherwise help to prevent its deletion)? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all problems in the description File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg as far as I could. Please review them, make whatever corrections are needed and remove the bot tag. Sv1xv (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, while Upton Sinclair is the author of the book, the copyright of the book cover was probably held by the Heinemann publishing house. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

peterbaillie question

I have images to upload which are photographs of original paintings. I have permission from the artist, gallery and the gallery photographer who photographed the paintings. Which tag do I use? In uploading these images, do I in any way diminnish (or appear to diminish) the rights of either the artist or the photographer in relation to others' possible use of the images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.42.183 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. It tells what permission is needed and where to send the permission confirmation. The tag you use is the tag corresponding to the specific license that th artist grants. As for your last question, we cannot give legal advice. But be sure the artist understands that that he needs to license the photo not just for use on Wikipedia but for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. —teb728 t c 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:DKT_International_logo.png

Is Template:PD-textlogo appropriate for this logo? Just wanted to double-check. I can provide a FUR if necessary. Klubbit (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, although it gets close to the threshold of creativity. Sv1xv (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Ani

Please we do want to know more about Jeremiah Ani a Nigerian footballer we heared he is a new sensation packed with talents in the game,so please tells more about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpenny (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.8 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How to tag a Photo

How do you tag a photo to stop it being removed? Unsure how to use wikiapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.77.159 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which image is it? Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Presumably you are talking about File:JoshCrutchley.jpg? This image has no image copyright/licensing tag at all. See WP:TAG. Since this image is from myspace, it is plausibly not OK to use this image because there is no evidence this image was released under a compatible free license. If you are the creator of this image or own the copyright to this image, you can do two things. 1) you can log into your myspace account and add a note to the image stating what free license you are releasing the image under (i.e. releasing it into the public domain, or CC-BY-SA or GFDL or whatever you choose). or 2) you can send an e-mail with a declaration into the OTRS system, see WP:CONSENT. As of right now, there is nothing you can reasonably tag the image with that would prevent it from being deleted, because you uploaded an already published image from the web with no evidence it was released under a free license. If you own the copyright to this image, you are free to choose whatever license you want, and once that is verified, the image can be tagged according to the license you chose. Hope this makes sense, it can be a bit confusing. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadashivgad Fort & Kali Bridge as seen from Nandangadda Village.jpg

How to add/change copyright information for images. The Wikipedia user interface doesnt show any option to update Image info/ This picture is taken from my camera. Kindly suggest ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivo78 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the top of the image page, you will see the "edit" button. Click this to access the contents of the image page, such as the description and licensing information. Unfortunately, the drop down menus from the upload page will be gone and you will be editing the raw code, but fortunately, the wikicode is pretty intuitive and not hard to get a grasp of. WP:TAG has more information on licensing tags, and WP:ICTIC may be helpful for your situation. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:By78

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:By78 has uploaded a lot of images and released them in the public domain, highly unlikely that any of the images were taken by the uploader. He/she has uploaded well over a hundred images, have we a way of dealing with them other than searching for the originals one-by-one and adding copyvio or pui tags to the them all one at a time? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems impossible for this uploader to have taken these two photos, File:PLAN-Shang-class.jpeg and File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg, with 19 minutes of each other according to the images' metadata which makes one suspicious of all the files uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are incorrectly reading the metadata. The data didn't come from a camera, but instead perhaps a scanner or photo editing software. So it is plausible that someone could scan or edit these two photos within 19 minutes of each other. That said, these look like professional, if not official photos, and it's likely they came from the web. I'd ask the uploader about it and see if there can't be OTRS permission (or if no permission, delete all the images). -Andrew c [talk] 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the watermark at the bottom of File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg. These photos are obviously not the work of a random Wikipedian (unless they happen to work for the PLA, in which case they could give us a copyright release ;) Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
OK I have left the user a note, he/she has said that My own work as a commissioned officer of the PLA. in one of their edits. Still concerned if we can we just delete the images if no permission is forthcoming without individually tagging the images or going through PUI. MilborneOne (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No response from uploader - all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 28. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting license statements

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time of upload, Commons file File:Snow Hill NC Courthouse.jpg was tagged with a {{self|cc-by-3.0}} and given the words "full use for non-profit purposes" in the permission line. In the light of the permission template, are the words of any value? I guess my question is basically "which one trumps the other"? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this image is on the commons, so questions should probably be directed there... That out of the way, the user likely just picked a license from the drop down menu without reading it. Since this was their first upload, I believe the text they added to the upload trumps the default license, meaning we should delete this image as having improper permission, and contact the uploader regarding why to see if they want to reconsider how they release the image. -Andrew c [talk] 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've emailed the uploader. By the way, I would have asked this at Commons, except I wasn't aware that Commons had something equivalent to MCQ. Link, please? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother coming up with a link; Andrew c just gave it to me, Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which tag to use

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive posted a diagram from an expired US patent and am not sure which copyright tag to use - there's no copyright on the diagram since it's from a fully expired patent that is now 100% in the public domain, plus, there is no copyright notice on the image or in the patent disclosure which, according to the patent office, means there is no copyright protection. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_71.htm#cfr37s1.71 It's the rumble generator in the topic "Sensurround" Ty Chamberlain (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the image File:SensurroundRumbleGenerator.jpg which is currently tagged as having no copyright info, which is what you are asking about. However there is also no source info or link and you don't tell us anywhere what the date of this patent and the drawing is and there is no author info. Both of these should be provided. Please do that and maybe we can help you more. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It comes from the US Patent Office and I got my copy from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3973839.html - the date the patent was issued is 08/10/1976 to MCA Systems, Inc. According to the patent law (USPTO.gov link provided above) a patent must have an explicit copyright notice otherwise it's drawings and contents are non-copyrighted. —Preceding Ty Chamberlain (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) comment added by Disclord (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You need {{PD-US-patent}}. I have done it for you. HairyWombat (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I flag these for deletion again?

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello.
I keep forgetting how this works... The current logo put up for Coffee Crisp (here: File:Coffee_Crisp_logo.jpg, with commons entry here: [1]) is listed as having been "created" by a wikipedia editor, and thus released under GFDL. The problem is that the work consists solely of a company's logo for a commercial product. Surely this can't be legal (At best, he just traced the logo. And I'm pretty sure that a tracing isn't an original creation. That said, I don't think it was even traced).
Could someone do me a big favour and tag it for immediate deletion? (It can't really be considered for fair use as the same article already has a picture of a coffee crisp bar that gets the idea across sufficiently) And, could someone (who knows how) also tag the commons version?
Thank you. 72.88.69.221 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to think it may be a problem with the editor. I took at look at his recent file contributions, and found this: File:SW_antenna_cost_2009_USD.png. I found it strange that some entries were underlined, almost like html links, so did a quick search. Sure enough, I found this page: [2].
The picture seems to just be a screenshot of the webpage. Surely taking a screenshot of someone's work doesn't qualify as your own creation, right? I know it's a lot to ask, but could someone take a look at his other past file contributions, and check for other... um... "mis-tagged" images? (I'd also love if someone could notify him of his conversation, because I don't personally know how to politely tell a person about something like this.) 72.88.69.221 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, both of these are copyright violations. I'll look through the uploader's other contributions. – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to save this image: File:Liquefaction_at_Niigata.JPG, which I found to have this original source from several US websites that use it: “Niigata Earthquake, 1964,” Japan National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Volume III, pp s.78-s.105.

So, it's a work of Japanese government. How does copyright work for the Japanese government? No US seismological organization that uses the image seems to append a copyright tag, so I am appending the tag mentioned. What to do here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowist (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how works of the Japanese government work, but your tag is certainly wrong.
If it had been originally published within the US prior to 1978, then that might be different. However, just because some people choose to reuse it in the US without a proper tag does not, in and of itself, put it in the public domain. (Otherwise, by that logic, anyone would be able to put the works of others into the public domain by simply being sloppy with copyright tags)
(Incidentally, this is excluding the fact that you'd have to verify that those other US sources didn't have copyright tags anywhere. Those things tend to be kinda hidden sometimes) 72.88.69.221 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan considers works of the Japanese government to be copyrighted for 50 years after publication. In the U.S., corporate works such as this that were first published outside the U.S. are considered copyrighted for 95 years after publication, so the U.S. will consider the image copyrighted until at least 2059. – Quadell (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A Drawing from a photo

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have drawn someone from a foto. Now I´d like to load it up for the side where it is needed here, but in one thing I`m not sure : I dont have the copyright of the foto. My drawing is black and white, instead of coloured as the foto is and its my "painting interpretation" of this foto, so not exakt the same foto. Now my question: Am I allowed to upload it? (Excuse me, my english should be better ;) Thanks for reading, Moidame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moidame (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A drawing that reproduces a photograph is a derivative work of the original photograph, so you would still have to get permission from the photo's copyright holder in order to use the drawing. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

commons:File:Limerick Nuclear Facility from 422W.jpg

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of this facility are not permitted as per their security team, Recently I was confronted by them while taking pictures of the facility and was made to delete them from my camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.80.174 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a copyright question about this image? ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a matter between the photographer and the nuclear facility and has no impact on copyright. I think you'll find that nobody can make you delete pictures from your camera. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How to dleted uploaded photos

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to delete the photo because I wanted to changed them. Please help. thanks. Lolshehe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

As the info tag at the top of the edit page says "This page is for questions about copyright on images and media on Wikipedia. If you have a question about how to use Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk." Briefly, you don't have to delete photos if you want to change something in it. You can upload a new photo over an old version. Just make sure you use the same file name (or use the "Upload a new version of this file" link under the "File History" section on the image's page). -Andrew c [talk] 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, template:db-self may help as well.-Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:KevinWuniformtemplate.PNG

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded File:KevinWuniformtemplate.PNG as a cleaned-up version of another user's template to allow the other user to replace his template with the cleaned version. I'm not sure which type of copyright tagging to use. Any help would be appreciated. --Kevin W. 05:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the original (by User:JohnnySeoul) is licensed under {{cc-by-3.0}}, your derivative can be released under any license that insists that JohnnySeoul be credited. It would be simplest to release it under {{cc-by-3.0}} as well. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Champions eague final 2009.jpg

Resolved
 – Image deleted.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this photograph allowable on Wikipedia? It appears to be a photograph of the television broadcast of the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final, which leads me to believe that it is probably subject to the copyrights of either UEFA or the network broadcasting the match. Any insight? – PeeJay 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a photo of the television broadcast. In which case the author may not claim it as his "own work". decltype (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedied; copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It's back so I have tagged it again for G12. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Free Software Logo?

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the logo for free software be used as free use, or as fair use? Like the logo for Google Chrome, which is free software. Would the logo be free use then?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's free software doesn't make the logo free. (Wikipedia's logo isn't free, for instance.) So {{Non-free logo}} would be best. – Quadell (talk) 3:59 pm, Today (UTC−4)

how to correctly document photos

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have struggled with this page (I'm new at this) and thought I had it in good shape. I wasn't sure how to document the photos so asked for help in the Wiki Commons area. They told me the image of the book could be posted directly into the article without going through WIki Commons according to Fair Use policy. I did that. You can see my question and the answer there - it's # 2.23.

Then the author's picture they told me could be used IF the person owning the copyright would give their permission. I emailed the author and he told me the photographers name but that he totally owned the copyright to the photo and that he gave his permission to use it. So I used {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} as I was told to do.

The image files are these: File:Columbinebookcover.jpg and File:davecullen.jpg Columbine author Dave Cullen.

Now I've gotten messages in my talk area that both of these are wrong. (They also say a third file is wrong but I didn't upload a third one.) Any help or advice you can offer would be most welcome. I'm very frustrated.

Please reply to my talk area.

Thank you,

Wikiboss43 Wikiboss43 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I repled on the user's talk page. —teb728 t c 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed PD tags on Scanned Postcards

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor recently scanned several postcards and placed the images in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts article - the majority are stated to be from the early 1900s, and so would seem to be in the public domain, but a few are from the 1950s and 60s, and I believe they might be copyvios. Could someone please take a look at them? Files in question include File:Downtown Pittsfield 1960s-1.JPG, File:The Maplewood 1930-1.JPG, File:North Street 1957-1.jpg, and File:Aerial Downtown Pittsfield looking East-1.jpg. The uploader, User:Aaronlife, tagged the postcards as {{PD-Pre1978}}, but I am not sure what his/her claim of "published without copyright" is based on if the publishing company and photographer are listed. Others such as File:New Pittsfield High.-1.JPG (and countless more on the Pittsfield page) don't have dates, so I'm not sure if {{PD-US}} is appropriate either. Thanks, Rai•me 01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no © notice on the postcards anywhere, and the images on the postcards had not been previously published in a different place that had a © notice, (and if they were first published before 1978), then these postcards are in the public domain and are tagged correctly. – Quadell (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks - just wanted to check. Cheers, Rai•me 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help with image upload

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. This is my first article, and I'm quite confused about how to upload a file image. I am writing a brief biography for the band, Koinonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia_(band)

They have given me permission to use one of their album covers for the photo, but I can't seem to get it to work.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MTStern (talk • contribs) 10:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've chatted to the user via Talk pages. Helpers: fancy reviewing - or adding to - the advice I've given the user? Trafford09 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i found a case of exessive "Flickrwashing". Thats uploading images to Flickr first under a cc-by or cc-by-sa license and then to Wikipedia or Commons. All images from this flickr account are unfree. I deleted all duplicates on Commons. Evidence is, that the same images where uploaded to Commons by various, now blocked users:

The relevant user on Wikipedia is User:LL290368. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You should list the flickr username(s) at Commons:COM:QFI. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats already done (now). Dealed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, so done here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Website

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to add additional pictures to my article Auburn Tigers swimming and diving.

Are the pictures on this page acceptable here: http://auburntigers.cstv.com/facilities/aub-facilities-swim.html
and the picture with George W. Bush in this one? http://auburn.scout.com/2/515418.html

AUburnTiger (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Those are copyrighted photos, and do not appear to meet the non-free content criteria. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

State Government images in Public Domain

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In Oregon, State Government agencies may release images into Public Domain. For example, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife images are Public Domain per ODFW web-site. What tag do I use when uploading one of these images? There are lots of tags for Federal Government images which are all Public Domain, but I can't find any tag that covers State Goverment images that are in Public Domain.--Orygun (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You could use {{PD-because|works of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife employees, taken during the course of the person's official duties belong to the Public Domain per
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/photo_gallery/photo_gallery_wa.asp}}. —teb728 t c 04:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Most helpful--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable image

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My questions relate to the following image about sea creatures: File:Seamonstersanimals.jpg

It seems to me that the copyright is questionable on this image. The licensing is displayed on its page, but the original source claimed on the page does not actually contain the image at all. I'm not quite sure what to do as it's a really good image, and would be a shame to flag it for deletion.

I am also wondering about the content of the image (I wasn't sure where to discuss this, the talk page seemed to redirect me to here) as it seems out of scale. The largest creature (Leedsychthys) according to its own article is 9-10m long (max of 16m) but the Megalodon (shown as much smaller in the same picture) has an article describing it as around 18m long - making this very out of scale (or the articles wrong.) The original author has since left Wikipedia however, so it will probably be difficult if not impossible to contact them.

As a Newbie here, I will leave it to more experienced users to decide what to do about all of this and hope I haven't broken too many rules trying to help!

Abridge (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, it has not use rationale for any article. I have tagged it for that. —teb728 t c 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers = CC-BY or PD??

In an unrelated search, I stumbled upon the USACE flickr pool and I noticed that all the images are licensed under a CC-BY license. I had assumed that since the USACE is a US Government Agency, the images would be automatic PD. Clarification on what I just found?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now i've somehow stumbled onto The National Guard's page as well. CC-BY licenses all around.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Answering only about the National Guard, the National Guards are state militias, not part of the US national government. —teb728 t c 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless federalized, right? As when serving overseas? Would that change the status? Reading from the opening paragraph at National Guard of the United States. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Point. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
USACE is part of the Federal government, so I don't see how CC-BY applies. I would think automatic PD, also. I would contact the photo originators. Maybe it was an unintended differentiation. ~PescoSo say•we all 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Tried it before on flickr, many image users don't reply back for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

  1. Is this true?
  2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
  3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge T\C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY/SA images of copyrighted 3D art?

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to use some CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images from flickr, but the objects in the images are of copyrighted 3D art (dolls), and as such would be used in the article under fair use. I'm not sure how to tag these images correctly on wikipedia. Do I use the CC template and then also add the 3D art and non-free media rationale templates on the image page? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very complex and grey area. If the dolls are unquestionably copyrighted works, then you would want to tag them with both cc-by (for the photo) and 3D art (for the underlying object). But be sure the dolls are copyrighted. If they were created before 1989, and they don't have a © sign on them somewhere, it's likely the doll design isn't copyrighted at all. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply! Indeed, I've been trying to wrap my head around how to deal with this properly for a while now. I guess I'll go with the dual license tags then. The specific types of dolls I had in mind are definitely copyrighted as they are contemporary identifiable brands (like Pullip and Super Dollfie.) But do you have a link/more information on the 1989 cut-off date? I've also been trying to figure out what would be the free-est possible way to illustrate more general toy and doll articles, and that might be a good option. Siawase (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Anything "published" (reproduced or sold publicly) in the U.S. before 1976 is in the public domain if it was first published without a © notice. (Look close; the notice may be on a tag or hidden under Barbie's hair or something.) The same is true for anything published before March 1, 1989, but there's a catch; those can still be copyrighted if their copyright was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. This can be determined by searching the U.S. Copyright Office Online Search though. A source is here. – Quadell (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, that helps a lot! Siawase (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Grey's loving little book under public domain? Renaissancee (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can tag its images with {{Gray's Anatomy plate|caption}}. —teb728 t c 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sledje_in_February_2009_with_Hellstrum.jpg

Photo was taken by me and is not licensed or protected in anyway. I hope to have corrected the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommiebish (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it with this edit. —teb728 t c 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sands_Bethlehem (ore bridge signage for the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem)

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm raising a possible concern with File:Sands_Bethlehem.jpg . I suspect that this is an artist's conception, and that the publication rights to this particular graphic likely belongs to the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem (or a related intellectual property holding firm). While there are several details that lead me to this conclusion, the most straight-forward point is that the depiction of the ore bridge lacks the level of detail of the actual structure, as shown in several pictures that I took for a recent post in my personal blog on the same topic. In fact, there's one (attributed) graphic on my page which appears to be from the exact same artist's conception series (created around February 2009) as the graphic in question.

I'm a brand new user here; this is literally my first contribution. Apologies in advance if I've done something wrong.

David Beroff (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your right, it's a copyright violation. I found where it was swiped from. Someone has deleted the image. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! – Quadell (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The General Electric logo is used currently as fair use in Wikipedia, but isn't the logo in the public domain, because it was published before 1923? Here is an pamphlet published in 1915, where the current logo is used as black-and-white. --Joku Janne (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark rights are different from copyrights so it's still protected. WP:LOGO got some more info. Siawase (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons allows trademarked logos which are in the public domain. --Joku Janne (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If the design of the trademark is public domain due to old age or for any other reason (see Coca Cola trademark, File:Coca-Cola logo.svg), it is ok to upload on Wikipedia, but in addition to the proper license tag you must add the {{Trademark}} tag. Trademar restrictions are independent of the copyright status. Sv1xv (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Larimer avenue bridge

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about this photoFile:Larimer_avenue_bridge.jpg. It's from an article I wrote. It was originally a painting by John Kane. I took the photo from the magazine article I wrote. I know the quality isn't good. Is it protected by copyright?? Jmz1902 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the painting is protected by copyright. --Joku Janne (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why? John Kane died in 1934. Was this painting published after his death? Sv1xv (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it wasn't published after his death. I guess I can't use it??? Thanks.Jmz1902 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no evidence that the painting was published prior to 2003, I believe the copyright expired 70 years after the artist's death, which would have been at the end of 2004. – Quadell (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

National Research Council

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a website with some great information on the Worcester tornado, and article I've been looking to improve. My question is this: are works by the National Research Council in Public Domain? The website I found uses a lot of pictures from this online report by the National Research Council, claiming the pictures are "not in copyright". Would uploading these to Wikipedia under {{PD-USGov}} be okay then? -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, a private, nonprofit institution. — Walloon (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Like the Smithsonian, the UPSP, and the Federal Reserve, these are federally-chartered but not federally-owned, and they can hold copyright on their works. :( – Quadell (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:MattJacobson.jpg

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Uploader uploaded this image with the claim that the copyright holder has released it into the public domain. When I asked the uploader if he was the photographer, and therefore the person who has the right to release the image, he replied back to me the copyright belongs to Matt Jacobson, but as I noted in the file, he has released permission for it to be used on the wikipedia article (and basically anywhere else also).. When I asked him where this release was made, he replied, As it clearly states at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MattJacobson.jpg - the licensing section of image says: This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide.. Yes, that's what User:FreeRight claimed when he uploaded the image, but where is the proof that the original copyright holder actually made that release? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the image with a Template:di-no permission which requests the uploader to provide evidence of release through the OTRS system. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

It seems to me that the use of File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg in a gallery in USS Triton (SSRN-586) is contrary to both WP:NFC#Images #1 and the {{Non-free book cover}} template on the file's page which states: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" which it is not doing. How should the file be tagged? ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The uploading editor Marcd30319 has reinstated this book image, so I have nominated it for deletion. The same editor seems to have some other non-free images uploaded that are suspect or possibly being used improperly. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked thru his other uploads, and the vast majority are either legitimately PD or are used correctly under our non-free content policy. Thankfully this isn't a case of a major recurring problem. (We have enough of those.) – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture taken between 1910 and 1914 but date of first publication unclear

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of Hastings Ismay as adjutant of his regiment, a position he held from 1910 to 1914 in Ronald Wingate's book Lord Ismay (first published in the UK in 1970). There is no indication that this picture was ever published before Wingate's book in 1970, but it may well have been. The book also does not make the origin of the picture or the original copyright holder clear (it was quite likely from Wingate's personal collection). So, is this picture in the public domain as it was taken prior to 1923 or is it most likely still under copyright? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely in the public domain. If it was published before Wingate's book came out, the photo would almost certainly be PD, since the copyrights for individual photos were almost never renewed. If it was first published in Wingate's book, then it would have been published anonymously, and copyright would expire 95 years from creation (end of 2005 to end of 2009). The only way it could be copyrighted would be if Wingate's book was itself a copyright violation -- if Wingate didn't have the photographer's estate's permission to publish then the work would be an "unpublished work" still, and copyright would expire 70 years from the death of the creator (the photographer), or 120 from creation if the photographer cannot be determined. But that's unlikely. – Quadell (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I find it highly unlikely that Wingate's book, this book for reference, published by a major company (Hutchinson (publisher)) included copyright violations, so if I understand correctly we just have to wait until 95 years after it was created? The last possible date of creation would have been late July 1914, so I guess I'll wait until the first of August and upload then just to be safe. When I do upload, though, what would the proper template be? Cool3 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-US}} is fine. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image of Kevin R Stone twice now, having modified the copyright tags appropriately after the first time the image was deleted. It has now been deleted a second time, and Im not sure what exactly is missing or is necessary in order to keep this image up. It is simply a photo of said person, and I own the rights to this photo. What is needed at this point specifically? I would appreciate some clearly outlined direction here.

Below I have copied both messages received after uploading the image:

File copyright problem with File:Kevin R Stone MD.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kevin R Stone MD.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. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:KevinStoneMD.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KevinStoneMD.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. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

--Nicolejc (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you come to own the rights to File:Kevin R Stone MD.jpg? And which free license did you grant to allow Wikipedia (and everyone else) to use it? —teb728 t c 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I own the rights to this photograph, as I hired someone to take it. It is not copy written, but in personal possession. I was trying to grant a free public domain license, for use. I'm not sure if these are compatible. To simply restate what a user above has said: there seems to be a lot of information on this, but no simple answers. Guidance appreciated. --Nicolejc (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason why the answers are not simple is that the situation is not simple. In particular, the photograph was copyrighted simply by being made. Ordinarily a commercial photographer holds the copyright on his work and sells only prints to his clients. It is possible that your photographer was doing work for hire, in which case he transferred the copyright to you. If that is the case, you can release the photograph into the public domain by putting a {{PD-self}} tag on the image description page and indicating that the source was work for hire. —teb728 t c 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PD-self for website image?

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:5D Rubik's Cube.png was tagged for missing a copyright template, and today an IP user added {{PD-self}} to it. However, the image is clearly identified as being obtained from [3], and at the bottom of that website is a clear statement of copyright. It's unclear whether this image is really being used in conformance with the real author(s)'s wishes, since it looks like the uploader had merely assumed that it was public domain. It looks like perhaps a fair-use template is more appropriate. Or am I missing something here?—Tetracube (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this is a copyright violation, and I've tagged it as such. – Quadell (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png

Is it acceptable to create an image that compares two brief quotations of copyrighted text, for the purpose of critical commentary on this text? I've been told that this would be acceptable if I did this as part of an article's text, but not in a self-made image. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It honestly seems to be poking fun at the publisher for being careless, rather than showing anything significant. --NE2 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That this is referenced in a secondary source gives it enough basic significance for me. Whether the quotation is in a box at the side or in quotatation marks or block text while more incorporated in the article text should have no relevance on the copyright. Editable wikitext is just as copyrightable (and equally subject to fair use) as text trancluded as a png file.--BirgitteSB 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright, but there's no reason at all to turn this into an image. Just quote the text and leave it at that. Making an image of it makes the flow of text around it problematic, makes it huge on the page way out of proportion to its usefulness at that size, interferes with text to voice software for the blind and so forth. That's just a really bad idea. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged File:TO-Team-Manager.jpg as having no evidence of permission (the press release noted in the boilerplate has no copyright info or guidelines on whether or not the image can be used a/or modified). However, upon further digging on the website, I found this page and the copyright notice is confusing me. Second opinion/Interpretation please?? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

British Crown copyright, which lasts for 50 years from date of publication, covers this image, so it is not in the public domain. Press released photos are not public domain photos unless specifically so noted. This image should be fairly easily replaced by a freely licenced image, so it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ww2censor is correct as usual. – Quadell (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Relicensing an image

I just came across File:Winstead Hill Franklin TN.jpg, which is tagged with {{PD}}. It was uploaded more than three years before the template was deprecated, so no problems. However, would it be right to retag it with PD-self? The photographer is given as being a "J. Williams", and the uploader was JW1805. I would ask JW1805, but s/he hasn't edited since January. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's safe. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And I suggest adding a brief note about this change at his talk page (User_talk:JW1805). Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rochester, NY

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a message "This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination." on a picture I have loaded file:Rochester NY.jpg, in a thread image stitching why, and what should i do to fix it?

Thanks Noso1 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you added {{attribution}}. So long as you created the image entirely by yourself, there are no problems, and the image won't be deleted. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission Given But...

Hey there. I have just gained permission for the use of a photo on an article of a band from the band itself, as long as I credit it to the photographer. Problem is I don't know how to go about explaining the copyright details within the photo's discussion page. Any help will be greatly appreciated. mÆniac Ask! 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. Besure the copyright owner understands that we require permission not only for use on Wikipedia, but for use by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but I still don't understand. I never was good at any of this copyight stuff. mÆniac Ask! 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you have read COPYREQ, and contected the copyright owner about granting a specific free license, right? So which specific free license did the copyright owner grant. The answer to your question of what to put on the image description page depends on which license. —teb728 t c 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation from a scientific article together with the citation

I have modified and simplified some figures from scientific articles. Can I upload them with the citation and source or do i need permission from the authors?--Cmsnmz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally your drawings are derivative works and you may released them under a free license only with a permission from the authors of the originals. However, in some particular cases the originals may be ineligible for copyright protection for various reasons. Sv1xv (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

card images

Two images File:Small-Red-Card.png and File:Small-Yellow-Card.png have been marked for deletion by a bot but the license is valid. Please help. Original version is from french wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_rouge.png and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_jaune.png

I added a blank template {{Information}} for each file. Would you please fill in the missing information (author, source, date of creation) ? Sv1xv (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I filled in the info from French Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to verify I can post a map I have scanned. It is a WWII soldier souvenir map from the 71st Infantry Division. It was my grandfathers but it is not the original, it is a printing. Given the large size of roughly 3' x 4' it is likely that many were printed.

There isn't a copyright declaration that I can see on it but the names of the artists are listed; it simply says "Drawn by Emil Albrecht, Roland Wille" in the bottom corner. I am relatively certain from the family history of the item that is was printed around the time of the war. If I interpret the information you link to at Cornell University correctly the lack of copyright notice puts it in the public domain. Is just wanted to make sure I interpret this correctly before I post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnus X1 Book 2 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: anything first published in the U.S. (or U.S. controlled territory in a war) before 1978 that does not have an explicit © notice is in the public domain. Also, anything a U.S. soldier creates as part of his duties is public domain. – Quadell (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg

I have re-uploaded File:Untitled-2.png, a cover of Upton Sinclair's The Journal of Arthur Stirling, as File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg; due to the publication date (visible on the cover) the image is in public domain in the United States. Now a bot has marked the image for deletion because of missing source/author information - could you assist me to provide the information (or otherwise help to prevent its deletion)? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all problems in the description File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg as far as I could. Please review them, make whatever corrections are needed and remove the bot tag. Sv1xv (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, while Upton Sinclair is the author of the book, the copyright of the book cover was probably held by the Heinemann publishing house. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we have Georgian Folk photos, I dont know who, when and where they were taken. But I want to add these remarkable images at our encyclopedia. Please help if you can... or recommend smt. nikos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Unfortunately we don't know when the photos were first published, or in what country, or who the photographer was. Without that information we can't determine the photos' copyright statuses, so we can't use them on Wikipedia. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And what will be the (tag) of this Image? nikos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

For that one, we know it was taken in 1929 by a photographer who died in 1994. It will be copyrighted until 2064. Again, we can't use it here. – Quadell (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But what about this ? taken by Vittorio Sella (1859–1943)nikos (talk)

Since that photo was created in 1889, it would be PD in the U.S. no matter when or where it was first published. You can tag it {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. – Quadell (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

peterbaillie question

I have images to upload which are photographs of original paintings. I have permission from the artist, gallery and the gallery photographer who photographed the paintings. Which tag do I use? In uploading these images, do I in any way diminnish (or appear to diminish) the rights of either the artist or the photographer in relation to others' possible use of the images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.42.183 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. It tells what permission is needed and where to send the permission confirmation. The tag you use is the tag corresponding to the specific license that th artist grants. As for your last question, we cannot give legal advice. But be sure the artist understands that that he needs to license the photo not just for use on Wikipedia but for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. —teb728 t c 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:DKT_International_logo.png

Is Template:PD-textlogo appropriate for this logo? Just wanted to double-check. I can provide a FUR if necessary. Klubbit (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, although it gets close to the threshold of creativity. Sv1xv (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Ani

Please we do want to know more about Jeremiah Ani a Nigerian footballer we heared he is a new sensation packed with talents in the game,so please tells more about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpenny (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.8 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How to tag a Photo

How do you tag a photo to stop it being removed? Unsure how to use wikiapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.77.159 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which image is it? Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Presumably you are talking about File:JoshCrutchley.jpg? This image has no image copyright/licensing tag at all. See WP:TAG. Since this image is from myspace, it is plausibly not OK to use this image because there is no evidence this image was released under a compatible free license. If you are the creator of this image or own the copyright to this image, you can do two things. 1) you can log into your myspace account and add a note to the image stating what free license you are releasing the image under (i.e. releasing it into the public domain, or CC-BY-SA or GFDL or whatever you choose). or 2) you can send an e-mail with a declaration into the OTRS system, see WP:CONSENT. As of right now, there is nothing you can reasonably tag the image with that would prevent it from being deleted, because you uploaded an already published image from the web with no evidence it was released under a free license. If you own the copyright to this image, you are free to choose whatever license you want, and once that is verified, the image can be tagged according to the license you chose. Hope this makes sense, it can be a bit confusing. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadashivgad Fort & Kali Bridge as seen from Nandangadda Village.jpg

How to add/change copyright information for images. The Wikipedia user interface doesnt show any option to update Image info/ This picture is taken from my camera. Kindly suggest ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivo78 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the top of the image page, you will see the "edit" button. Click this to access the contents of the image page, such as the description and licensing information. Unfortunately, the drop down menus from the upload page will be gone and you will be editing the raw code, but fortunately, the wikicode is pretty intuitive and not hard to get a grasp of. WP:TAG has more information on licensing tags, and WP:ICTIC may be helpful for your situation. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use question

Alright, so I found this photograph of damage from the 1941 Florida hurricane, and I'm wondering if I could justify a fair use rationale. IMO it satisfies all of the WP:NFCC criterion, but I'd like to hear what the regulars have to say. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that 1941 Florida hurricane does not have any photos of the damage. If it is not possible to find some PD photographs (government or military), I believe you may use it, and add a text comment about it. Sv1xv (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, after extensive searching (with help from Dank (talk · contribs) and Cool3 (talk · contribs)), I've been unable to find any free-use damage pictures. Thanks for the help. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

I've found several images that I'd like to use which have this licence, and which seems to be approved for use by WP. However on the image upload pages, this licence is not one of the options in the dropdown licence box, and if you don't select one of the drop down options you get a warning that the image is likely to be deleted. So how do I correctly upload such images (indeed can I)? Is it the same as CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0? Thanks Danno uk (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably want {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, but I have no idea if the "generic" is something special (which would be oxymoronic, but who knows). --NE2 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've been to that page, copied the code and don't know how to apply it. Do I paste it into the summary box and then select "unspecified" or similar in the dropdown box on the upload page and ignore the "this may be deleted" warning? Or do I select 3.0 from the dropdown box and hope for the best? Danno uk (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably the easiest way to handle it is to select CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 from the dropdown on the upload and then after uploading edit the file description page, changing the 3.0 to 2.0. —teb728 t c 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
a simple and elegant solution. Thanks. Danno uk (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable Fair Use?

The Palm Pre is a newly-released mobile phone. Prior to its release, the article for this device was illustrated using this image. This was understandable, as the device was not yet released to public. However, this has now changed since it was released on June 6th. The fair-use for this image seems to be invalid now, because the phone could easily be replaceable with a free image now. It is still in use in the article. Should this image be deleted? Brianreading (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, it is no longer acceptable (if it ever was). I have tagged it as non-free and replaceable. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Good to know. Thank you. Brianreading (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Images - Queensland State Archives

Hi,

The files File:Queensland State Archives.jpg and File:Queensland State Archives Expansion.jpg were deleted from the Queensland State Archives wikipedia page on 6 May because I had failed to adequately include copyright information. I am now able to include this information, but wasn't sure how to go about it. Do I need to upload the files again or do I need to recreate the pages? Is there a way to reverse the deletion so that the Image pages are editable again? Your advice would be appreciated as to the most appropriate way to go about it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhowardqsa (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Did you take these photos yourself? – Quadell (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious images uploaded by now-inactive editor

International Committee of Military Medicine includes two images (File:JulesVoncken.jpg and File:Premiereassembleeinternationaleducimm.jpg) which both appear to have been lifted from the committee's website at http://www.cimm-icmm.org/page/anglais/summary.html (see under "historic") which has a copyright statement reserving all rights. They are claimed to be the copyright of the editor who created most of that article, and I've left him a note querying this, but he doesn't appear to have edited since the flurry of edits in Feb 2009 when he created the article. Much of the text in the article is marginal copyvio as very lightly edited from the website or the specific page at http://www.cimm-icmm.org/page/anglais/official_text/PracticalGuideforICMMsDelegate.pdf , so the editor may have a relaxed approach to copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs)

Each of these images is PD in the U.S. if it was first published before 1923... or if it was first published in the U.S. (assuming U.S. copyright formalities weren't followed, which they never were for photos)... or if it was first published before 1939 and was copyrighted by an organization. But if the copyright was held by a person, and that person died in 1939 or later, and it was first published outside the U.S., then it's still under copyright. With the limited information given, we can't tell, for either of these. The images are on Commons, though, so they would have to be deleted there I've nominated them for deletion there. For the text, if you think it's too close a paraphrase, you should tag it with {{copyvio}}. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

license tag for an uploaded file

I recently uploaded a picture file for an article I`m currently editing. I received direct permission from the government office to copy and paste the image provided on their (Japanese) website to use for the English Wikipedia article regarding their town.

How should I label these kinds of images?? Shakai jin (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Permission must allow reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. See WP:COPYREQ for how to what permission is required and how to handle it. If the copyright owner grants a specific free license, enter the license tag corresponding to that license. —teb728 t c 08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, if you are asking about File:Otsuki Symbol.jpg, it appears to be a logo. If so you might tag it with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale. This avoids the permission problem: non-free images are used without permission. But note that you can use a non-free image only in an article—not in your draft article in user space. But there is already an Ōtsuki, Kōchi stub article; so you should be working there rather than on your private draft. —teb728 t c 09:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

This is about the article Gustavo Marín, who was imprisoned by the Pinochet dictatorship, then released for exile thanks to intervention from Amnesty International. I have a scan of the latter's attesting to its support to Mr. Marín, and a scan of the Chilean authorities' commutation of his prison term to exile, and I would like to place these in the article.

What copyright do I choose? I can't figure it out.

Thanks a million for your help,

Vedah Eulalia (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The letter is copyrighted by the author, Amnesty International, and so can't be used here. The Chilean commutation might be PD as a law, or it might be copyrighted, depending on its nature. Either way, these seem to be supporting documents, not images; I think they should be referred to, but I don't think it would be appropriate to display them in the article. – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very useful and makes sense.Vedah Eulalia (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as that. Under US copyright law, only original, creative works enjoy copyright protection. Factual works that contain essentially no creative authorship are in the public domain by default. Not having seen these particular documents I couldn't say whether they fall into this category, but from the description Vedah Eulalia provides, I doubt that they are under copyright. Also, bear in mind that people and organizations routinely claim copyright erroneously when the works concerned are actually in the public domain, so you can't automatically rely on Amnesty International's copyright claims as being accurate. -- Hux (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA: specifying a precise means of attribution in the license?

I have been in touch with an editor who would like to upload images to Wikipedia, but is very concerned that any republished version of the image include not just the source URL but a clickable URL (where possible). He has suggested applying a license like this: 

 {{CC-BY-SA-3.0 | Anyone may use this image but must provide a link to http://www.mysite.com
                  if used online or if it is used in a printed medium they must credit www.mysite.com'}}

He is quite certain that this clause is permissible under CC-BY-SA-3.0, on this basis: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) He considers this a permissible way to interpret "in the manner specified."

I have argued that the actual full text of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license only requires that the author, title and URL be included in any derivative works, and that to place additional restrictions on how the work is attributed (such as insisting that URLs be made clickable) would be considered a modification of the license and therefore unacceptable.

Can someone clarify whether an image uploaded in this way with extra text in the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license would be acceptable to Wikipedia? Tim Pierce (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've explained the dilemma well. I would tend to agree with the uploader, that providing an actual link (for online forums) is a valid restriction that fits in "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". – Quadell (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this something where the summary is slightly misleading? I remember reading about this a while back, but it may have been a different issue. --NE2 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right. The summary is misleading. The actual license text does not mention attribution "in the manner specified by the author", but simply that:

... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work

As a consequence, I would consider using {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}, or similar, instead. However, IANAL. decltype (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. {{Attribution}} looks even more appropriate for his purposes. I have suggested that to him. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
One would think so, but that template doesn't seem to allow specifying a "manner", only a text. decltype (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary: the "text=" parameter is to be used "if a specific manner of attribution is required". It adds arbitrary text to the template. I think it covers this situation quite well. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the quote above, it says you have to list the author or pseudonym and the URL. You would have to work at showing the URL and not have it be a link on Wikipedia. I don't see the problem. – Quadell (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not how the image is used on Wikipedia, but how it might be reused or republished elsewhere. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It could be on the spam blacklist --NE2 05:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me make sure I've got this straight. We all agree that under cc-by, any republisher would have to include the author's name and a URL to http://www.mysite.com/. We all agree that in print this would look like "Photo by John Doe, http://www.mysite.com/." On Wikipedia we would certainly list it as "Photo by [http://www.mysite.com/ John Doe]." The whole issue hangs on whether a republisher could legally reproduce the work online as if it were a print site, without the URL being an actual link. Is that right? – Quadell (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not just that, but it seems also that the text allows the URI to be omitted if it "... does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work". I could very well be wrong about that one, though. decltype (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Quadell: correct. This editor wants to make sure that if someone copies his image from Wikipedia and republishes it on another web site, that the work is attributed not only with the source URL but with a clickable, active link to the source URL. I agree with decltype that the license appears to allow a republisher to omit the URL if it does not pertain to the image's license, but it seems to me that it's up to the author to make sure that the URL meets those conditions. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The short answer is that {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} should work fine. The longer answer is that in practice a cc license should work just as well. CC licenses are not self-enforcing; they don't physically prevent someone from reusing the content in an unauthorized way. In the event of a violation, the copyright holder would have to send a takedown notice, and if that didn't work, he'd have to sue.
Suppose that both Joe Blow and his brother Kyle Blow each create images, and both license their image under cc-by-sa. Both demand a link to BlowFamily.com, claiming that cc-by permits this restriction. Suppose then that Vic Neerdowell copies both images to his website Neerdowell.com -- for Joe's image, Vic credits Joe but does not link to the site; for Kyle's image, Kyle is not credited at all. What's the difference? In both cases, Blow would have to send Neerdowell a takedown notice. Most of the Vics of this world comply with such notices, whether they are correct notices or not, since it's not worth a legal fight. If Vic ignored the notice, Blow would have to sue Vic. This would be expensive and drawn out, and would probably get national attention, since I don't believe a cc-violation case has ever gone to court. The judge would have to weigh a number of questions. Are cc-licenses legally enforceable? (I believe they are, of course, but I don't think a court has ever ruled on this.) Is the particular use a fair use? Does the cc-by license have loopholes that would allow this particular use? And, of course, Is the "must link" proviso compatible with cc-by-sa?
In the end there are so many unknowns that 99.9% of the time, the result would be the same for Kyle's case and Joe's case. If I were your friend, I would simply insist on a link, claim confidently that the cc-by-sa license requires compliance, and state the intent to send takedown notice to anyone who uses the images without complying. In practice, it should be fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the author of the image in question. Here is an answer I received from a member of a forum where they discuss copyright issues:
The license says (on this subject), (4 (c)(iii)):
to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;"
It doesn't explicitly say "clickable URI". However, I think that most reasonable people interprete this it to mean a clickable URI on a medium that support hyperlinks, and a plain text or image of an URI on a medium that does not. The words "to the extent reasonably practicable" to me strongly suggest that the URI should should be fully functional to the extent that this is feasible.
You can certainly make such an request, and making such a request would not modify the license. So if your question if you are allowed to make such a request, the answer is "yes".
I also think that reasonable users would honour such a request.
However, courts are not always reasonable. If somebody used your CC BY-SA licenced image form (say) Flickr, and only included a non-clickable the image of the URL, they would (IMHO) be within the letter of the legal code. This means that even if you make such a request, you would have no recourse against such an user.
I also feel that the authors of the cc-by license intended that a URL be a clickable link but their wording left a case open for someone to argue that this isn't the case. I think then for this reason and for the reasons discussed above that the {{Attribution}} suits me better as it allows me to make a definite request as to what manner the image is credited. – QC2 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that there are two cases:

  • either the author permits the work to be reproduced in all media (including, e.g., print media) in which case the attribution requirement is OK under the principle of pseudonymous publication (which is, after all, as old as publication itself); Wikipedia reserves the right to host (or not to host) the material if the attribution requirements are silly or illegal, but let's presume that they're not
  • or the author only permits the work to be reproduced on the Internet (which is the implication of requiring a clickable link), which would certainly be an unacceptable restriction by Wikipedia policy and would, IMHO, invalidate the CC-BY-SA license.

My advice would be that {{attribution}} is a good choice for specifying the attribution required, but that it might not fit with the author's expectations in the long term. Physchim62 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean by "might not fit with the author's expectations in the long run" could you elaborate a little? QC2 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image, but didn't see any "nonfree image" use possibility to choose from:

Image:Sas-libel-2.png (linking to non-free image: a non-free image may not be shown on this forum)

Please go to that page and look at the URL I have provided and help me find the right category to choose.

-- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The only thing I see about copyright on the page you got the image is "© Sense About Science. You may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use. You are not permitted to copy, adapt or change in any way the content of these web pages without the prior written permission of Sense About Science. " This means that we could only (possibly) use the image under a fair use (non-free) claim, which means it couldn't be used in the user or template namespaces (the two places the image is being used currently). So right now, that image cannot be used on Wikipedia. You may want to contact the image creator to see if they would consider licensing it freely, or you could create something similar yourself.-Andrew c [talk] 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the express permission given for copying the image. It's on the right side of this page:
There it says: "Put this web button on your site." There are no restrictions placed on its use. My use here is fair use, whether in user space or in an article about the subject. I would like to use it in the Simon Singh article. It would be unthinkable and totally illogical for Sense About Science to object to such use. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The page you cite doesn't give you permission to copy the image. Rather it invites you to link to the image on their site, but that is not possible on Wikipedia. In any case Wikipedia policy does not allow a fair use image to be used anywhere but article space. It has nothing to do with whether Sense About Science would object. —teb728 t c 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there's a difference in meaning between British English and American English on this point, but in the USA it clearly means that one is free to copy the image and put it "on your site", which is basically anywhere one wishes to do so. Whatever other arguments there might be for not allowing its use here, that is not a legitimate argument, unless there really is a difference in meaning between the two dialects. Is there such a difference? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Read their invitation more carefully: The way you “Put this button on your site” is, “Click here to get it” which takes you to http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/337, which in turn gives you the html code that you are permitted/encouraged to put on your site:
<a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/freedebate"><img src="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/images/sas-libel-2.png" width="180" height="66" alt="free debate" border="0" /></a>
As you can see Wikipedia disables <a> and <img> tags.
Even if they had permitted you to copy it, they certainly don’t permit people to modify it. This means that its use on Wikipedia is restricted by Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content criteria. Among the restrictions: It may only be used in an article. And even in an article it may only be used when its presence is essential to understanding the article. And it can't be use if plain text would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 05:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the full explanation. I appreciate it and am hereby enlightened. As you know, these matters are complicated, and not being a copyright lawyer, I have been uncertain how to proceed. I have contacted Sense About Science and hope for a release of the button in question so that there will be no further problems. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding teb728's point, the bottom line is that the Sense About Science copyright notice permits only personal, non-commercial use of its content. This kind of permission is not sufficient for Wikipedia, so the only way we could use this image is in accordance with the non-free content criteria. There is a slim possibility that this logo could be public domain by default (per {{PD-ineligible}}), due to its simplicity, but we need to err on the side of caution, so I don't think that would be justifiable either. -- Hux (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If it were used in article space it might be ok. Without that there's a problem. DurovaCharge! 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Even in article space it couldn't be used, for no use of this image could possibly satisfy WP:NFCC#1. —teb728 t c 05:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Not true. Either it's uncopyrightable text (as it is in the US), or the fact that the logo was produced is notable and so should be identified. In the face of possible argument, I've run off fair use rationales for both Sense About Science and Simon Singh: the process took me rather less time than has been wasted here. Physchim62 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In both articles the image could be noted in plain text which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 05:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. It is very enlightening, and I see that much here at Wikipedia violates it, but that is of course no excuse in this case. I'm sure that the irony of this situation may be realized by some, considering the topic of the BCA vs Simon Singh case! I am awaiting a reply from Sense About Science. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Most likely discussing File:Raiblecleanshaven.jpg

This picture is from the Seattle Post Intelligencer from March of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbenash2008 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Scan of document from Museum/Library

I have a scan of a document from the Circus World Museum Library in Baraboo, WI. The document is from 1958 and is publicly available at this library. What copyright does it have? Can I upload it and use it in a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawtucketray (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends. What kind of document is it? Was it "published", meaning duplicated and distributed to the public? Does it have a © notice anywhere on it? – Quadell (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it was never published. It is a bill of sale between the circus and a city. There is no © symbol on it anywhere.--Pawtucketray (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blank forms are not subject to copyright, and the contents of a bill of sale usually consist of facts, not under any creative arrangement. I say not subject to copyright in toto. — Walloon (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it depends on what's in it. But are you sure this is an appropriate image to have in an article? We rarely use images of text documents. If you think it's useful, I guess upload it and tag it as {{PD-ineligible}}, and we'll see what happens. – Quadell (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:CGR en.jpg

Can you identify the map used for this image? I believe it is a USAF tactical pilotage map, so it is public domain {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. Sv1xv (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it's created by the USAF. It seems to have been created by Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, a Cypriot author and designer. This, his bio, and says he creates maps professionally, and reveals that he goes by the moniker "Neo_^" when online. Since User:Neo_^ uploaded the image, I'd say the tag of {{PD-self}} is correct. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, fine. Thanks. Sv1xv (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I managed to contact the uploader and he updated the image description page. The base map was created by the UK MoD. Sv1xv (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Licence question

Is this picture suitable to be uploaded to Wikipedia / Commons under the licence given, or would I have to claim Fair use? (the aircraft was destroyed in an accident and the photo cannot be recreated) Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not a compatible license, and you would have to include a non-free use rationale. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, many thanks. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Media Player Classic screenshot.png

I've seen the file File:Media Player Classic screenshot.png has been deleted by User:Stifle as "copyright violation". If I recalled correctly, it violates nothing, since:

  1. The image in question is a screenshot of Media Player Classic, which is released under GPL.
  2. The video in the screenshot is from Elephants Dream which is licensed under Creative Commons.

Is there a way to recover the image? Or is screenshot of GPL application showing CC-licensed video considered copyright violation? —29th ((☎)) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right that Media Player Classic is GPL, and Elephants Dream in cc-by. The image had been tagged for deletion with the reason "windows skin is copyrighted", but I don't think that's true. Very little in an OS's look and feel is eligible for copyright, and I don't think this image violates that. So 29dupe, if you want the image restored, your first step would be to ask Stifle on his talk page if he's willing to restore it, linking to this discussion. If he's not willing, you could list the case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Quadell (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've undeleted on the supposition that a fair use argument can be made, but GPL and CC-By aren't compatible licenses, so that's all that we can use it under. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Velology images

While doing a sweep of the improperly used non-free stamps, many of which are currently at WP:IfD if you want to contribute, I found a curious situation concerning these UK tax discs used in Velology which are using the wrong template {{Non-free stamp}}. What do you suggest doing with them? They too would seem to fail WP:NFCC#3a if they really are still in copyright and I assume that the 50-year crown copyright applies so the first three might be improperly licenced when they are actually in the public domain. However Quadell suggests they are {{PD-ineligible}}.

  1. File:Tax Disc (1923).jpg
  2. File:Tax Disc (1952).jpg
  3. File:Tax Disc (1956).jpg
  4. File:Tax Disc (1967).jpg
  5. File:Tax Disc (1983).jpg
  6. File:Tax Disc (1985).jpg
  7. File:Tax Disc (1986).jpg
  8. File:Tax Disc (1987).jpg
  9. File:Tax Disc (1990).jpg
  10. File:Tax Disc (1992).jpg
  11. File:Tax Disc (1993).jpg
  12. File:Tax Disc (1994).jpg
  13. File:Tax Disc (1995).jpg
  14. File:Tax Disc (1996).jpg

Any other opinions? ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the {{PD-ineligible}} suggestion. It's a little borderline, but I think you can make a good argument for there being insufficient, original, creative authorship on those stamps. They're not really much more than text/writing arranged on a circle. -- Hux (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

would it be possible to use this image (modified to suit our purposes) on our web page?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Human_skeleton_front_it.svg/310px-Human_skeleton_front_it.svg.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.70.244 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As stated at Image:Human skeleton front it.svg, that image is in the public domain. Algebraist 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Old discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

There are two old discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files that are overdue for a decision. Opinions or closures from anyone here would be welcome and appreciated.

  • From May 14: This photo of a Lego minifig was tagged GFDL... but is it a derivative work of Lego's design?
  • From May 15: Is this Coke can ineligible for copyright?  Done

Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A Chinese stamp

This 51 year old stamp File:Songyue Pagoda.jpg might be PD. Can someone familiar with China have a look and update as necessary? If non-free, it's current use fails WP:NFC#Images; in one case it is not even mentioned in the prose which would be sufficient instead of the image, while in the other it is replaceable with freely licenced photo as evidenced by this non-free Flickr image. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow this one's tough, but I believe it's not copyrighted.
Arguments that it's in the public domain: As Commons:Commons:Licensing#China documents (and other sources verify), China protects copyright for 50 years after death, or 50 years after publication for images or for corporate works. A stamp would be a corporate work, so China considers this stamp to be PD.
Arguments that it's copyrighted: Template:PD-China says "All images created or first published on or after January 1, 1946, in the People's Republic of China... are automatically restricted by United States copyright" which would mean the stamp is copyrighted. However, there's a {{dubious}} tag on the statement; there's also a reference to §104A. of the U.S. Copyright law as of 2007, but an HTML comment that says "not seeing anything in that document making that claim". Section 104a is complicated, uninviting, and indecipherable to a layman; it concerns copyright restored by the URAA in 1996, which says that if a work was considered copyrighted in its country of origin in 1996, then the copyright holder can file to have the work's copyright respected in the U.S. as if it were a U.S. work (i.e. 70 years p.m.a. or 95 years after publication for corporate works.) That's why 1946 comes into play for China; China may consider a Chinese work to be PD if it was published more than 50 years ago, but the U.S. may still consider it copyrighted if it wasn't PD back in 1996. Yes, the URAA sucks, but that's a separate discussion.
Arguments I'm discounting: Commons:Template:PD-PRC-exempt notes that the following are not eligible for copyright in China: "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature". It's possible that a stamp is a document of administrative nature, and therefore ineligible for copyright. But I'm not convinced. I could see this as being an artistic work as well, so I wouldn't stake too much on that line of reasoning. It's also possible that copyright restorations from the URAA will be declared unconstitutional, and a recent U.S. court case has eroded it partly; it's currently being appealed on up the chain. But there's no guarantee that these copyright extensions will be done away with, so we have to consider the law as it currently stands.
Why I think it's actually PD: This is a work of the Chinese government. If it were a creation by a Chinese citizen, that citizen could say to himself "China considers this PD, but I could still file to have the copyright recognized in the U.S., and I could make Wikipedia pay me to use it!" But it would be illogical for the PRC to claim that all works (including theirs) are only eligible for copyright for 50 years, and then at the same time to file for their own copyright to be recognized for longer in the U.S. This same discussion came up regarding Crown Copyright, and it was decided that we can safely consider Crown Copyright works to be PD when the crown no longer considers them copyrighted. I think the same should be true here.
So, yeah, that's an extremely long-winded way of saying I think the stamp is PD. – Quadell (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, can I breath now? Anyone else got a shorter, or longer, reply? ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Blatt Photo

I uploaded a photo of Thomas Blatt, one of the Sobibor death camp survivors (still alive) back from 1942. Photo was deleted for "(F7: Violates non-free use policy: non-free images of people who are still alive aren't allowed)." According to a reply from Mr. Blatt's website (sobibor.info), this is the only available image taken of Mr. Blatt in Nazi occupied Poland shortly before Sobibor. It is currently considered a Public Domain photo in Poland. Doesn't this fall under the historical images provision (1) non reproducible, (2) no copyright holder {67 year old image} (3) lowered quality than original? We can put a photo of how Mr. Blatt looks now, but that would not illustrate him during the time of the Sobibor revolt: the actions he is famous for. This is the link to the deleted image: [link]. I would like to place the photo back. This is the link to the photo [link] Meishern (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this photo is PD. As Template:PD-Poland documents, "all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain." Since this photo would have been PD in Poland long before the URAA took effect in 1996, I believe the photo is PD is the U.S. as well. I see you have been in contact with the deleting admin, Stifle, but the conversation is a bit confused since it focused mainly on whether the image passes our Non-free content criteria, which doesn't matter if the image is free. Please let Stifle know about this discussion, and ask if he's willing to undelete the image as a PD image. If not, you may want to take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved. Thank you Stifle and Quadell for your courtesy and prompt action. Meishern (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:OntologyBronco.png

I have created an SVG file of this. What licensing option should I choose on the upload page? Thanks. Ⓔcw.ⓣechnoid.ⓓweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 19:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you created this file then just use: [link]. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Ⓔcw.ⓣechnoid.ⓓweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I just got a copyright infringemrnt warning on my talk page. What should I do concerning that? Ⓔcw.ⓣechnoid.ⓓweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 16:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Images from book hosted at Internet Archive

I want to use an image from the book "Magic Motorways" which is available online at internet archive and is stated there as being not in copyright [4]. I do not know the reason why it has been identified as not in copyright.--Travelplanner (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's odd; Internet archive says here "visible notice of copyright; stated date is 1940". But I looked through the PDF and can't see a copyright notice anywhere. Regardless, for the book to still be copyrighted that copyright would have had to have been renewed 28 years after publication, in 1968. A search through the copyright records shows that the copyright was never renewed. Any images first published in this book can be tagged {{PD-US-not renewed}}. – Quadell (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Perfect! Many thanks--Travelplanner (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've recently uploaded the image File:Wingate.jpg, which is currently tagged for fair use in the article on Ronald Wingate, but I'm starting to suspect it is most likely in the public domain. The image was first published in the book Not in the Limelight by Hutchinson of London in 1959 and according to the Stanford copyright renewal database, the book's copyright has not been renewed [5]. Does this mean it's safe to assume that the photo is PD? Cool3 (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Any work first published in a foreign country before 1978 with a copyright notice receives the same U.S. copyright term as works published in the U.S. at the same time. Most foreign works published 1923–1963 that did not have their U.S. copyright renewed for a second term had their U.S. copyright protection restored in 1996 by the Uruguay Round of GATT, and so are protected for a full 95-year term. — Walloon (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Powahaypatch.jpg

Just need a second opinion on File:Powahaypatch.jpg. The uploader released this as PD and the upload comments indicate that the creator does not claim copyright. The image includes the universal emblem of the Boy Scouts of America, which is trademarked and protected by congressional charter. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I need help with a picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollica93 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would try to offer an opinion on the image itself, but it won't display for me. I should note, however, that I don't see evidence of the creator himself releasing the design as public domain. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a broken image to me too. – Quadell (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the rationale. When I first tried to open the image on this PC this morning, it would not come up. After I edited the rationale, the image appears. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Curren$y.jpg

What is the god damn copyright issue with me taking a picture off of Curren$y's personal MySpace page, uploading it to Wikipedia, and specifically stating that I got it from HIM, the article is about HIM, why can I not have a picture of someone that I got from THEIR OWN page? This site is total bullshit, you can go fuck yourself editors. Sv5290 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The MySpace page says "©2003-2009 MySpace.com. All Rights Reserved." There is no indication that the image has a free license. —teb728 t c 05:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran2009waves.png from the data at http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/linearvote-590x493.jpg

I am okay with a GFDL license for my contributions.

How do I add the proper copyright/license information to my image to avoid deletion?

The {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} you added looks good. —teb728 t c 05:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrowheads

Could this image qualify as {{PD-art}} as a faithful reproduction of 2D artifacts? Of course arrowheads aren't 2D, but this is essentially just showing them as flat, the only way that arrowheads can be pictured. For this reason, I don't see any originality in the way in which the arrowheads are being photographed: they're put down on a surface and photographed. I wouldn't wonder about this, except for an FFD discussion some months ago (can't remember the file, so I can't supply the link), in which a coin (depicted in a fashion similar to this image) tagged this way was nominated because it was a 3D object, but it was kept because it was simply showing one side in an unoriginal fashion. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable applying Bridgeman v. Corell to this. There are obvious lighting and arrangement choices made. So a court could well find that the photo itself is a work eligible for copyright. – Quadell (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, these are clearly not 2-D, and there is artistic judgment involved in how to take this photo. And the photo is poor quality anyway. Surely a better image can be found, both for legal purposes and for image clarity. DreamGuy (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

O2 MASK?

THIS O2 MASK LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE AN AEROSOL MASK......```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.9.10 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo non-sequitur. Non-helpful answer. Um, what 02 mask? – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Crediting the creator of an image.

How would I credit the creator of this image that I uploaded?: [6]

I'm guessing you took File:Virginia.Gov.2005.png, and modified it to create File:Virginia Senate Election, 2008.png? Is that right? Then just say so on the image description page. – Quadell (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bobgoodman.jpg

I dont quite understand this whole copyright part. I OWN the picture uploaded. I took it myself, with the express permission of the subject Bob Goodman. So why does it some how have to be referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DONKINGBOX (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When uploading the file, you chose the option that states you found the image on "some website". You also did not choose an image copyright tag. While it may be a hassle, we do have fairly detailed instructions on what sort of files are OK to upload, and what does all this licensing mess for. Please go back to the upload form and read the instructions. If you have specific questions about those instructions, I'd be glad to help you further. -Andrew c [talk]03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul.Dirac.monument.jpg

I think File:Paul.Dirac.monument.jpg is correctly identified, don't you? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Identification is only one part of what is necessary for the file to remain here. File:Niels.Bohr.monument.jpg is an identical image also uploaded by you and the same information is missing from both which is clearly requested in the file details; "Who created this image?, Who holds the copyright to this image? and Where did this image come from?" One will certainly need to be deleted and you can post the following template {{db|G7}} into the file to be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Peak Maths created the image. There is no copyright, since it has been release with a Creative Commons license, and it came from Flikr.com, which you can verify by going to http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=paul%20dirac&w=all. I will copy and paste this info onto the WP page involved. I've put in a request for speedy removal of the erroneously named image per your suggestion. I hope this is now satisfactory. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Image bot-nominated for deletion despite having source info

File:Jean-Claude_Forest.gif is an image that has been tagged by a bot for deletion. However,I believe there has to be some error, for I have uploaded the Non-free use media rationale for the image (which superfluous as to say, contains the source information) long before the bot tagged it. Thanks. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, there is nothing wrong with this image. The bot in question was acting up yesterday, and tagged some images (such as this one) that should not have been tagged. The bot operator shut down the bot as soon as he was notified; he has since fixed the error and started the bot up again. – Quadell (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Как мне восстановит в русском отделе своё авторское право?

Я бессрочно заблокирована в рувике. Поэтому воспользовалась гостеприимством вашего отдела. На своих личных страницах пишу черновики статей о горнолыжниках и о герое России. Когда найду помощь для перевода этих статей на английский язык, тогда перенесу их в основное пространство enwiki.

Анонимный участник опубликовал некоторые из моих черновиков в рувике. В описании к первым правкам были сделаны такие ссылки на мои черновики: «Автор и лицензия здесь: User:Udacha/Кедрин, Максим Николаевич, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Анастасия Николаевна, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Людмила Владимировна, User:Udacha/Artsybycheva, User:Udacha/Макеев, Владимир Иванович, User:Udacha/Перец». Такое требование лицензии GFDL.

Сегодня обнаружила, что все эти первые правки удалены: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Моё авторство скрыто от читателей.

Полагаю, что бессрочно заблокированные участники не должны быть лишены своих авторских прав.

Прошу помощи от авторитетных участников. Спасибо.--> Участница Udacha (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

I would suggest e-mailing info-ru@wikimedia.org, and explaining the problem to them (in Russian). They should be able to make sure that the requirements of the GFDL/CC-by-SA are met. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
An appeal resulted in the delete of all this articles in ruwiki. Despite Constitution. I went to cry. Участница Udacha (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cosmo-2008-434.JPG

Can you help resolve "candidate for speedy deletion" for this image. I have responded to the Administrator's request, however he hasn't responded back. Thus, I am unsure what to do next. Below is a copy of my latest inquiry.

File:Cosmo-2008-434.JPG - Speedy Deletion

Below is communication regarding the subject image as noted on my talk page. I believe I have complied with the appropriate requirements, however as I am new I would appreciate any additional help to remove the speedy deletion tag from this photo.

"Thanks for uploading File:Cosmo-2008-434.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've forwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the full chain of GFDL request and the image owner's approval. The image owner is noted on the photo as http://hazaidivat.hu/ with the chief editor (Szilvia Darnyik) listed as creator and author. If there is a more appropriate email address to forward the hazaidivat.hu's approval please let me know. Please let me know if I've made the appropriate description changes. Thanks Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)" Thank you Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ThanksPete Rogers NYC (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion tag and replaced it with {{OTRS pending}} - that should do it for now. – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The following is the exact image source. I have also added this to the photo and will re-email the same to permissions. The photo is still marked on the Orsi Kocsis article as a candidate for speedy deletion. Is there a reason for this despite your change on the Image page? Exact source: http://kepek.hazaidivat.hu/Fehernemu-es-furdoruha-bemutato/2008/04-17-Cosmopolitan-Bikinishow-2008-VAM-Design/Cosmo-2008-434_Lg.jpg.111.html. ThanksPete Rogers NYC (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{deletable image-caption}} template from the image caption in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will usage of this image be acceptable on Wikipedia ?

I thought it'd be better to seek expert opinion here before uploading an image to illustrate the 2009 Lahore Police Academy Attack article which does not have an image attached to it. As this event is a past-event, wouldn't it qualify under the 'historically significant image' ?. The image which I propose should be uploaded can be found at this link copyright AFP and found on the BBC Website. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt it, it is clearly a copyright image and I doubt that it meets the definition of "historically significant". – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

image licensing

How would one license an image available under the license of Attribution-ShareAlike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moolowdy76 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image description page. – Quadell (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing image sources

I took the picture of the 47th street CTA red line station myself. File:47th_CTA.JPG A copy also exists on my Flickr page[13]. It is the same image. How do I properly cite my sources to avoid my images being flagged for deletion in the future?

--Zol87 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is very easy. If you are the original uploader at flickr, you can change the licence there to a "Attribution-ShareAlike License" allowing commercial use. If you do that, there will be no problem with uploading the image to either Wikipedia or Commons. Passportguy (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Geogratis Licence and NRCan.gc.ca

Are the Geogratis Licence Agreement for Unrestricted Use of Digital Data and the general Natural Resources Canada Copyright / Permission to Reproduce for Commercial and non-commercial Reproduction compatible with the needs of Wikipedia? I am of the opinion that they are. Dubious20 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably: [14] --NE2 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that the {{GeoGratis}} template will fit the bill.Dubious20 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable/not-acceptable images

File:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg is tagged for deletion. I see, however that images such as File:Hattersballposter.jpg are acceptable. Isn't it possible to use the same policy in the first case also? Kpant (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is the nature of the use of the image File:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg in the article Jovan Vraniškovski. If it is a notable fact about Vraniškovski that he has appeared on the cover of Orthodox Word magazine, then the use of the image is non-free image is justified. However, since the magazine is not mentioned anywhere in the text of Vraniškovski's article (and has no article of its own), it seems likely that his appearance there is not a notable fact about him, and that the image is being used simply as a picture of Vraniškovski. In that case, the image use fails the NFCC and the image should be deleted. Algebraist 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The first image is clearly not acceptable because it is using a non-free image (magazine cover) for the purpose of illustrating a living person. Fails NFCC #1, as nearly all non-free images of living people who are public figures could plausibly be recreated or obtained under a free-license. The second image isn't entirely comparable because it isn't being used to illustrate what the individual looks like. That said, I'm also not entirely clear how that image is being used appropriately in that article, and would suggest removing it as well... -Andrew c [talk] 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Orthodox word 242-243.jpg is used to illustrate the person on the cover— it is presumed to be copyrighted by the magazine and is a non-free image. Since Vraniškovski is a living person, there is every expectation that a free image would be available. Bottom line: we cannot use non-free images of living persons. Hattersballposter.jpg is a poster and irreplaceable, and may be used if there is significant related content in the article Les Claypool; such content is very weak, thus the article should be expanded or the image deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers! Ok, the purpose of using that picture is showing that Arch. Jovan Vraniskovski appeared on the cover of "Orthodox Word" with the title "21 Century Confessor" - since the article deals with persecution targeted against him, this is a notable evidence. "Orthodox Word" hold no copyright for the image, since that is an official image of the Arch. Jovan. And there is a reference to the magazine article. Kpant (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues at File talk:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg, please add your input there. Thanks. Kpant (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifying CC license from flickr on Wikipedia?

I asked earlier about CC-BY/SA images of copyrighted 3D art, but I realized there's no bot on Wikipedia like on common to verify the CC license. Is there some other way to get the license verified on here? Thank you, Siawase (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Any reason you're not uploading them direct to Commons? /wangi (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, they're photographs of copyrighted 3D art (dolls/toys) so they wouldn't be suitable for commons, even though the images themselves are under a CC (BY/SA) license. I'll be using them here under a claim of fair use. Siawase (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to recommend you use WebCite to document the Flickr page, but they seem to be down at the moment. Perhaps BackupURL will do it for you? – Quadell (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I tried it, and this URL is now a backup copy of this free Flickr image, certifying that it was cc-by on 6/17/2009. – Quadell (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh thank you! That's a great workaround type idea. I'll do that. Siawase (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

File:ReshevskyChild.jpg

Is fair use neccesary? Can anybody figure out if the photo was published already in 1922? In that case, we could use the PD-1923 template. User:Nillerdk (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. TinEye only finds [15], which gives no information. The New York Times apparently did not publish any articles containing the word "Reshevsky" before 1923. Do you have access to "This Crazy World of Chess" by Larry Evans? (Neither Amazon nor Google Books let you preview it.) It should credit the photographer and the date somewhere in the book, if the image is copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

File:FeisalPartyAtVersaillesCopy.jpg

File:FeisalPartyAtVersaillesCopy.jpg This is a photo taken at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It was uploaded with the public domain template, and someone subsequently noticed the photo had appeared online with an attribution of "LTA". That was a book titled "Life And Times of Abdullah" that was published in 1982. It was not the source of the photo. For some reason OrphanBot is removing it from articles for lack of copyright info. That is sort of unsurprising in the case of a PD image with an expired term of copyright.

I've put a note of explanation on the file page. Is there anything else that needs to be done, before the image links can be restored in the original articles? harlan (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine now. I've added an additional copyright template. Feel free to use it in articles. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if someone would clear a something for me which I don't understand. Recently, some pictures I had uploaded were deleted from wikipedia on the grounds that might have been scanned from a newspaper. I have in my possession the original photographs also. So, if I uploaded the original images then would that be ok? The only reason I had uploaded the previous images was because they had captions on them.

Secondly, the pictures that I uploaded were of a former minister from the Balochistan Province of Pakistan. The pictures were not copyrighted because at the time that they were taken there wasn't any awareness in this province (and even most of the country) about copyright laws. These pictures were given to me by the said minister's daughter to upload on wikipedia (since the person in the pictures, himself, is deceased). So, since the pictures aren't copyrighted, what tag should I attach with them when I upload them?

Your Help will be much appreciated.Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoriouskm (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I believe you're probably referring to File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg and File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg, which were deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 10. As you know, we have to take copyright very seriously on Wikipedia. Pakistan has had copyright laws in effect since before independence, even if they weren't very well understood or enforced in the past. Since Mir Gul Khan Naseer was in office in 1972-73, these photographs were probably created around that time. According to Pakistan's Copyright Ordinance of 1962, all photographs are copyrighted for 50 years after their publication, so these would still be under copyright. But if the photographer is willing to release them under a free license, we can use them. Do you know who the photographer was in these photographs? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2009

(UTC)

I don't know about the photographer of File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg as it is a portrait photo taken in a studio, but the File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg was taken by Mir Gul Khan Naseer's nephew.

I uploaded this file File:Dave Niehaus Winning Call 1995 AL Division Series.ogg, and I think I made it pretty clear who owns the copyright to the audio file, but the bot ImageTaggingBot marked it as missing information, maybe I put it in the wrong field or I am missing a required field. Some help is greatly appreciated, I've never uploaded an audio file before so maybe I just forgot something. --Gold Man60 Talk 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the description is fine. I've removed the problem tag, and I'll keep it on my watchlist. – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found out that the bot in question was acting up yesterday. The bot operator shut down the bot as soon as he was notified; he has since fixed the error and started the bot up again. Anyway, there was never a problem with this image. – Quadell (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help --Gold Man60 Talk 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum

Hi folks, quick question for you. I think I might know the answer but just wanna make sure before I do anything in case I'm wrong. The Imperial War Museum have a massive collection of images and I'm particularly interested in uploading this one from WWII. I've seen a lot of IWM images on wiki, typically with the UK government public domain tag (for instance here at File:HMS Stonehenge.jpg. Would I need to contact IWM first, and how do I select this tag on the image upload page? Sorry for the questions, I can normally work most wiki stuff out but find this one a little tricky - plus I wanna be totally legal! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That image seems to come squarely under {{PD-UKGov}}: it's a photograph created by the government before 1957. Algebraist 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Algebraist. Does that mean I can just use the image on that link, as long as I supply a link to it from the new uploaded images's page? Ranger Steve (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Just specify the source, and you can use the image in articles. – Quadell (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys Ranger Steve (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim Warnick

My name is Kim Warnick. I played in a band called The Fastbacks. You currently have a page about me. I would like to change the photo. How do I that? That photo is terrible.

kw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.201.95 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a photo which anyone can use for anything, you can upload it to Commons. Before you go to upload, be sure you know which license permits anyone to use it for anything. Note that a professional photographer usually will not license a photo that way. If it is not a photo you took yourself, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the permission. After you have upload your image, you can edit the article to use your image. —teb728 t c 05:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

what???

all my pictures are from wikicomons but wikipedia tells me I qualified for speedy deletion, why? the picture:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cincy_montage_part_2.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmeck22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The images that you blatantly pulled from google are obvious copyright violations. The montage images do not specify the source. If you got the images from commons, then just put the links where you got the images from under the description. The problem is as the image is now, there is no way to tell where you got the images from.--Terrillja talk 03:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The skyline photo is licensed {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}; you violated that license by failing to give the attribution and by failing to include the share-alike condition on your license. The bridge photo is licensed {{GFDL}}; you violated that license by failing to list the author(s) and by failing to license your derivative under GFDL. The fountain and stadium photos are in the public domain; so the authors may not have a rights to them, but Wikipedia still requires you to give the sources of all images. —teb728 t c 05:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Individual creation or a direct derivative?

I made this image in Inkscape about a year ago, taking a picture in my pharmacology book (Rang, H. P. (2003). Pharmacology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Page 223) as a source. The colors, arrows, cell morphologies and box formats are all different, and frankly the original source looks much better, since I was pretty new to Inkscape at the time. Still, the overall layout is basically the same, so could this be regarded as a copyvio, and what could the general consensus here be regarding having it in the project? After all, it does much good to the world of free knowledge. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That image seems to have problems, and it shows up as a broken icon to me... but the png version is visible here. As with all copyrights, the factual data is free to copy, but the creative content (design, arrangement, and stylistic decisions) are restricted. I'm hampered in making a determination by two handicaps: I don't have access to the original image, and I don't know anything about lymphocyte activation. But I can tell you what the guiding principles should be. Any elements of the image that are dictated by factual reality (dividing into "cellular" and "humoral", showing the progression from Th1 to MT) are free to copy. Any elements that are obvious or standard in diagrams (showing progress from left to right, displaying units as circles) are free to copy. But stylistic decisions (showing one kind of arrow as green and another kind as black, choosing to display antibodies diagramatically and the cell visually) may be protected. Selection (showing which elements to display when choices are made) may be protected. Arrangement, when not trivial, may be protected. I hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it made it more clear to me. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act

What is the tag I should use/Wikipedia policy for adding documents released in Texas (not by the US Government) under the Freedom of Inforamtion Act or the State of Texas Freedom of Information Act? Txaggie2011 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are the documents free? Perhaps they are available only for fair use or for personal study. Sv1xv (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Most Texas government documents are going to be copyrighted, and so can't be hosted here. – Quadell (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Txaggie2011, a document released under a state's FOIA does not mean that the state has released the copyright into the public domain. Those are two different things. — Walloon (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use? Can this be recreated?

The image File:ElectricSineWave.jpg has been tagged as copyright and unusable. I was wondering a few things.

1) This is a photograph of a machine displaying results of the voltage over time of a household outlet. Given how generic the image is, would it not be acceptable as an image with no copyright? The image isn't a creative expression in any way, and if the same numbers were put into any oscillioscope, the result would be an identical image.

2) The image was published by a not for profit research group. Is any exceptions given here?

3) If the image is indeed copyright and I cannot get permission to use it, can I recreate the image? Can I trace it? Can I make it from scratch to show the same general information? Or would all of this make it original research or unverified? This image is significant to its article in that it quickly provides a visual example of what is being explained, so is it possible to make a recreation that isn't copyright, and isn't original research?

Thanks. -- Floydian τ γ 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For (2), no, that doesn't make a difference. As for (1), well, maybe, but we tend to err on the side of caution here. The same numbers in a different oscillioscope wouldn't show the same color or resolution, and it certainly wouldn't show the same words at the same locations in the same typeface. Probably none of this is copyrightable, but it can be easily recreated, so why push our luck? Which brings me to (3). The "data" is not eligible for copyright, so tracing should be fine. Only the "creative content" is eligible for copyright, which as I said before might possibly include colors and word placement etc. – Quadell (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The image currently doesn't have a license tag on it. I've tagged it as such.--Rockfang (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:File:Not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.png

An editor replaced one copyright image uploaded by a different user under this name File:Not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.png with another copyright image of the same name, but did not update any of the licensing and usage parameters. I have left a notification at the new uploader and placed a generic message of my concern on the file page, but do not know what should happen next to get issues resolved. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

creating PD images based on copyrighted ones

Can someone produce a GFDL or PD licensed portrait from using copyrighted images? Basically would it be legal for a wikipedian to create a GFDL or PD portrait for a deceased person if they base it on various copyrighted portraits wihtout infringement? The argument is that the images themselves are copyrighted but the person's face or body features aren't. So if we create a portrait that isn't exactly the same pose as those found in copyrighted images but still portray the person. For background see Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Official_portraits_of_Philippine_presidents_up_for_deletion_.28again.29--Lenticel (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically, yes, it's possible. In practice, it would be extremely unlikely to do so without introducing guesswork, inaccuracies, and original research. I would hate to see articles routinely host amateur portraits of deceased figures when no free photo can be found or created. It would become a laughing-stock quite quickly, I think. – Quadell (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The measure is whether the creative elements are all original. In principle, I would say that it's certainly possible to create a portrait from other portraits without it being a derivative work, especially if it's based on multiple portraits (making it less likely that any of the creative elements are being unconsciously copied), but care should certainly be taken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
So in theory we could find artistic wikipedians who could waste utilize their talents in creating the free images but they should be skillful enough to create a non-derivate work. Thanks for the info guys. But, if you don't mind, I'll let this thread open for a little while since we still don't know what the US copyright laws says about this.--Lenticel (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That's about right. Also note that it's likely to be easier to create non-derivative works from photographic portraits than from drawn or painted ones, since, though photographs are unquestionably creative works, their creativity generally doesn't extend to the depiction of facial features and the like, over which the photographer has little control, while the creativity of a drawn or painted portrait might. As well, what is it you're unclear on about American copyright law? I thought we explained the relevant points quite well above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you handled the question quite well but I think other editors' opinions won't hurt. Besides, I'm thinking of convincing the Philippine wikiproject about mass replacement of any fair-use Philippine portraits uploaded in the wiki with PD or GFDL friendly ones so I think I need all the arguments that I can get to convince them. I'm also unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the US copyright law but I think that's the one we're using since the Wikipedia servers are housed in the US so some info about that would be useful for me personally as well. --Lenticel (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, more opinions never hurt. However, the only relevant in or out of American copyright law (which is indeed what's used for images hosted on Wikipedia; for images hosted on Commons it's both American copyright law and the copyright law of the source country) is that creative expression is copyrighted, and if you produce a work that incorporates somebody else's creative expression than you do not have full ownership of the resulting work. There's not really much more to be said on the subject. Also, note that there are dimensions other than copyright law to consider: as noted above by Quadell, these include the prohibition on original research (which is laxer where images are concerned) and issues of quality. But indeed, let's leave this open and see what others have to say. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically, if someone can look at an illustration and a series of photos of the subject and accurately pick which one of those photos the illustration is based on then that illustration is derivative of the original copyrighted photo and not public domain/elligible for GFDL. In real world terms that means this really isn't a practical option. DreamGuy (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Passports

I was looking through a gallery of passport covers and noticed that whilst some have a specific license for government products (Examples: USA passport (free) and British passport (not free)) almost all of the images are tagged as being released into the public domain by the uploader (Examples: File:Eesti pass.jpg, File:Is vegabréf.jpg, File:Hungarian passport.jpg, File:Cover of HKSAR e-Passport.jpg. A lot are on Commons, some are not. Is this the correct way to license such images? Are the covers in the publics domain and if they are - given the lack of creativity on the part of the scanner/photographer - is the uploader release tag appropriate? 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a common mistake people make. If they really are public domain it has nothing to do with the uploader's wishes. Those should all be changed and the uploaders should get a friendly note on their talk pages explaining the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Individual uploaders cannot claim copyright and give a free licence on any passport but this is an interesting issue because this British passport Commons:File:British passport 2002.jpg (on the commons), very similar to the one mentioned above, is up for deletion. However, on the basis of the same issue with an Irish passport commons:File:Eirepas.JPG that I challenged the free licence of but was shot down at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eirepas.JPG because part was ineligible and part, the harp logo, was free having been in use for more than 50 years, I would say exactly the same applies to the British passport. IMHO, crown copyright applies to the royal cypher design for only 50 years and the design is more that 50 years old while the text is ineligible. The only other difference is the ineligible shape at the bottom. I suspect that if this argument is used, many apparently non-free passports could be defined as free. One editor claimed this has been discussed on this wiki before but he was unable to find it. Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, I think some passports, claimed as non-free, will actually be free because they are official documents. ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo licensing code

Hello- I am trying to add a photo (File:Portrait Croppedpja.jpg) of myself to Wikipedia that was taken by a photographer. The Photographer gave me permission to use it at my will. He only asks that I credit his name. What licensing code would I use? Before posting the image? I emailed (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) with my request and left the information about the photo and our contact information. Can you help me here? Both myself and the photographer have the photo posted on Flickr.com as well. My link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/pauljalessi/2483873477/ Nicks is http://www.flickr.com/photos/apphoto/2482711388/ Paul J. Alessi 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Paul J. Alessi http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1568493/ http://www.pauljalessi.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljalessi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Flickr upload states that the photographer is reserving all rights, so for the sake of clarity you might want to get him to change that. As for the tag you should use, maybe confirm with the photographer that {{Attribution}} reflects his intentions and, if so, use that one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeffmeck22

Hi is there any way some one could fix these images for me, I am not sure what to do. thanks!! [16] and [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmeck22 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't do it for you. You have to write on the userpage where you found the images - we can't read your mind! If you got them from a website specify the URL and if you took them yourself please write that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For Stifle

Stifle. Recently you pot-shotted an old FU image I uploaded to Wikipedia ages ago, File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg. Fortunately, it was fixed by the good man User:Seo75 who was kind enough to spend a few moments of his day fixing things rather than bandying about threats of deletion. My message left for him is here User_talk:Seo75#Thanks. I do hope that you read it and consider for a moment refocusing your tact towards something closer to what he has done; i.e. spending a modicum of effort updating FU content with proper FU rationale rather than being a negative nellie and lazily threatening deletes. Thanks.--Jeff (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a question for the group? – Quadell (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
More of a statement, really. However, if forced to rephrase my statement in the form of a question, I might say, "Why isn't there more of an effort to correct FU rationale on existing images rather than threatening to delete them? Does not this sort of action not betray a tendency towards destruction rather than construction?"--Jeff (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a test for you, Jeff. Please honestly consider trying it out. Hopefully this will give you perspective. Go to Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale. Spend an hour, or even 30 minutes straight working on fixing those images. Please report back on how many you were able to do, and if you'd want to do that every day. It is not anyone's job to fix broken images. However, non-free image compliance isn't optional. Please consider the number of problematic images on Wikipedia (and how many are uploaded daily) versus the number of admins active in this department. We issue warnings to the uploaders and alert the page where the images are used, so those with vested interest in the images have the option and time (due to the waiting period) to fix those images. The system isn't perfect, but it works fairly well. This image seems to be a clear case where the problematic nature of the image was identified, and then addressed by a community member. I don't see where the problem is. You are asking someone who volunteers their time to clean up this site (and often dirty and thankless task) to do more free work? Seriously, take an hour out of your day, every day, going through the images speedy deletion categories and start fixing them yourself. Easier said than done.-Andrew c [talk] 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, your response is valid and I appreciate that point of view. My response may be that I think I would rather see a dedicated volunteer spend the time it takes tagging 5 images for deletion instead fixing just one. Moreover, my response may also include the idea that Wikipedia and all of the people who do volunteer their time towards this effort are unfairly burdened by the idealistic and misguided crusade towards fully "libre" content, rather than the sensible and logical utilization of fair-use. I have always tended towards strengthening fair use on WP because it assists the end goal of creating a great encyclopedia. This is a battle I was involved in back a few years ago in '06-07 and that is for sure a battle lost. I feel the current atitude prevailed because the nature of the argument in this Utopian, drama filled society of Wikipedia is inherently tilted towards those with a more idealistic bent than that of a practical bent. Those more emotionally invested in an idea will tend to win in the end because they will also be the people who stick around and support an idea to the bitter end. That's the kind of viewpoint that "wins" on Wikipedia; a persistent, relentless unyielding effort.. the kind of effort pragmatists, capitalists and that sort of people just don't have time for. In the end, though, I'm not asking for more work out of the "taggers", rather, a different sort of the same work, perhaps more focused and more constructive than destructive. After all, if the image is deleted out of hand after a certain period of time of no one fixing it, it merely re-creates the work to re-upload and then once again properly retag it. Know what I mean? There seems to be, in total over the long run, more work created for a lower quality greater goal. I might suggest that if people want to run about tagging images rather than fixing them, the tag may be one that says "Hey someone who likes fixing stuff, this needs to be fixed", rather than a threat for and inevitable deletion when not fixed. --Jeff (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) While this discussion might be better placed at WT:NFC another issue to consider about images with copyright problems is where the burden of proof lies. It is with the uploader (or even on those interested in the page where the image is placed) and not on those who see the problems. This may not be very constructive and while an occasional easy fix may be possible, but Andrew c has indicated just one problem involved in making fixes. ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, those who upload images get angry that someone threatens to delete them over seeming trivialities, instead of offering to fix the problems. On the other hand, those of us who work hard to keep Wikipedia free of copyright errors get frustrated with people who upload dodgy images and who won't follow clear instructions. Snide accusations are common, and we tire of them quickly. It seems like the choice is to either clean up after uploaders (an uphill battle which we don't have the manpower to keep up with), tag images for deletion and hope the uploaders fix them (a thankless task, guaranteed to earn you complaints like the one at the top of this section), or else give up and allow Wikipedia to be a haven for rampant copyright violations (and eventually get shut down for it). We copyvio cleaners need to do better at being polite, and we need to be willing to explain things over and over to many indignant uploaders each day... but you uploaders, please, give us the benefit of the doubt. We're only trying to keep Wikipedia running. Sarcasm and accusations just make it unpleasant for everyone. – Quadell (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the use of this photo is not in compliance with wikipedia policies (replaceable nonfree image) and I've nominated it for deletion. Changing the rationale can't save an image that is impermissible to begin with. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maps based on other maps

User:Passportguy and I have been having a lengthy disagreement at his and my talk pages. The discussion mostly concerns the images nominated for deletion here and at the entry directly below it. We both agree that the uploader, User:Neo_^, probably started with a map created by the UK or Cyprus governments, and recreated his own map using this data, changing line thicknesses, colors, typefaces, and other stylistic choices. I maintain that only the factual information from the original map is preserved, and therefore our map is not a copyright violation. He believes that our map is a derivative work. Could someone knowledgeable in U.S. copyright law comment, either here or at the image deletion nominations? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If indeed the maps were copied or traced from a copyrighted original then they will be copyright violations. Might be useful to read-up on how OpenStreetMap address this concern: [18] Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell that data and facts as such is not copyrightable. This means that any map on the same subject will have inherent similarities. However a quick comparisson of other online maps of Cyprus shows that despite of these similarities the actual design of maps varies significantly, ss the major recognizable feature of a map lies in its design and style, not in its factual representation. In this specific case the style and design of the maps were copied to an extent where it clearly breaches copyright. The map created has been edited to change some colours and some features like place names and altitude indications, however substantial amounts of the original map design have been copied 1:1. And that is not permissiable under copyright law. Passportguy (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the crux of the disagreement. Compare [19] and [20]. The maps are obviously similar and contain much of the same factual content. But I do not see any creative copyrightable content copied. Passportguy does. What do other people think? I'm especially interested to hear from those who have a solid understanding of the way U.S. copyright law is applied. – Quadell (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Articles/Jurimetrics1995.html /wangi (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, examples of copyrightable design would include : the yellow dots denoting settlements, the exact size and form of green areas, rivers, roads, and built up areas etc. Essentially everything that leads us to realize that the maps are so similar. All of these are not a a statement of fact - such as the pure location of a town would be - but of matter of design and style. Passportguy (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
What a great link, Wangi! Thanks! (From the link: "It would not help the creators of barebones maps very much to add 'creative' features of style or color to their maps, because even if the features are sufficiently creative to qualify the map for copyright, the scope of protection under Feist will cover only the unnecessary and perhaps unwanted features. The factual information concerning the relative locations of geographic features could be freely taken, even by tracing (as long as the protected features are avoided). The absence of meaningful copyright protection means no legal protection for these kinds of works at all".) – Quadell (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
XComment : Absolutely right . But the original map in this case it not as "barebone map. And btw : The quote you refer to prevents the editor (which in this case would be Neo) adding only insignificant features to an uncopyrighted map from claiming copyright - not the other way around ! Passportguy (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We still need some help with this. – Quadell (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Will usage of this image be acceptable on Wikipedia ?

I've asked this before, but I just wanted to seek some more opinion : I thought it'd be better to seek expert opinion here before uploading any image to illustrate the 2009 Lahore Police Academy Attack article which does not have an image attached to it. As this event is a past-event, wouldn't it qualify under the 'historically significant image' ?. The image which I propose should be uploaded can be found at this link copyright AFP and found on the BBC Website. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between a historically significant image, and an image of a historically significant event, which is what this image seems to be. I doubt this image would pass criterion 8 of WP:NFCC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This image is also impermissible because it violates WP:NFCC criterion 2. AFP makes money by licensing their image, so our using it for free is basically replacing its original market role. For this reason, most recent photos by news agencies are not usable on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid licensing?

File:K-metal cover.jpg is licensed using {{cc-by-2.0}}.

Essentially, this is either a fan created image from scratch or a recreation/restoration of a cover. The sourcing leads back to what bills itself as a "partial restoration of an unpublished twenty-six page Superman comic-book story" [21].

I'm not sure the CC route is appropriate here.

- J Greb (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it looks very much as thought the copyright for the image belongs to the estate of Jerry Siegel. Unless they're the ones who released it under the Creative Commons license, it's not so-licensed. Have you contacted the uploader for clarification? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged it with {{bsr}} in hopes to bet a better link source.--Rockfang (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged it with missing evidence of permission.--Rockfang (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll just keep talking to myself. ;) The image shows evidence of permission, so I removed the speedy delete tag.--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged File:AlbertaHomesteadMap1918 t11-12 r1-3 map31.png for nonfree-without-rationale today, in response to which the uploader gave a rationale (albeit in nonstandard format) on the talk page. Two questions: (1) Is the rationale on the talk page adequate if moved to the description? (2) Is it truly out of copyright as claimed in the rationale? I've made a couple of stupid errors already tonight, due to sleepiness, so I'm not going to do anything about this myself. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Licensing#Canada and [22] for a brief explanation of Canada copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of its status in Canada, it's PD in the US. I tagged it as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert comic

I think that the claim about File:Dilbert_PHB.JPG being 'public domain' is quite dubious. See here: http://www.dilbert.com/terms/. Probably it should be removed? Jdpipe (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously not public domain. Probably a valid case of fair use though. Algebraist 09:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The present use is not valid under the non-free content criteria. To be valid, it needs to show the bare minimum necessary to provide information directly related to what the text is discussing, in a way that the text alone cannot adequately describe. It might be valid to have an image that solely consists of the pointy-haired boss, in order to illustrate to the reader who the character is, but since the image contains Dilbert as well it's currently on the wrong side of the line, imo, irrespective of whether it's accompanied by non-free rationale. -- Hux (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedied as a blatant copyvio. Anyone wanting to make a fair use claim can let me know and I'll restore it. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg

The image File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg gets periodically added to the image gallery at European passport, I keep removing it as not having an FUR or meeting NFCC. Today User:Passportguy pointed me to this, which in point 4 seems to say that use is applicable. However, in further reading I wanted to see if the Value Added Licence mentioned was relevant. Point 15 of this explains that the liscense does seem to be relevant and that it can be obtained for a cost of £50. I notified Passportguy of this and he selfreverted his edit, suggesting that I seek further input here. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the passport discussion a few post above this one? I believe that en:Crown copyright, which lasts for only 50 years, applies to the royal arms and that design is more that 50 years old, so crown copyright has run out, while the text is ineligible for copyright, in which case the non-free rationales are unnecessary. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ww2censor. However, if we did need to for some reason purchase the value-added licence it would not be valid for use here since there is a royalty, it doesn't appear to be sublicensable to others, and the making of derivative works is questionable. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing debate about whether it violates any copyright law to crop an image with the explicit intent to remove a logo from it for the purposes of WP:NPOV in the Video Games Wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Which box art to use as well as invisual game talk pages too numerous to mention.陣内Jinnai 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of no reason why a cropped version of the cover would violate copyright law or trademark law any more than a non-cropped one would. Our own WP:NFCC policy would accept either image equally well. – Quadell (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Quadell, beyond that WP:NFCC would, if anything, prefer the cropped version owing to criterion 3b. IANAL yet, but there is nothing in intellectual property law to prevent cropping a copyrighted work for any reason, provided that the doctrine making the use legitimate (in the U.S., that would be fair use) applies to the cropped work. Here, it would. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of Neda from the Iran protests

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg is a trimmed frame from a youtube video of the Iranian demonstrator Neda Soltani. It's impossible to determine who the owner of the work is at this point, but what kind of license should be applied to it? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to know the author in order to know the copyright status. Normally, that status would be "under copyright", since whoever the author was would have copyright unless he/she deliberately waived it. However, per Iran and copyright issues, "Published works originating in Iran...are not copyrighted in the United States." Let me do a little more digging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S., Jimbo apparently wants us to respect Iranian copyrights. That being the case, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Neda Soltani}} (and then include a fair use rationale), and maybe put the link I just posted somewhere on the description page to explain why we're not treating it as being in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's correct, SI. Well done. – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Template:Iran copyright to deal with such images. Let me know if you think it's helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Usage.

The image that I wish to upload is an image of an author. The author gave me permission to use the image but I found the image on a website. Is it acceptable to use the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamconor (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, I would suggest reading this. It shows how to request/document getting permission to use images. If you need help, let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's acceptable to use the image only if, in addition to permission to use the image on Wikipedia, the author gave anybody permission to use the image for any purpose, including commercial and derivative works, with only the requirement of attribution retained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as this is a photo of the author, the copyright would be assumed to be owned by the photographer and not the author. We need the copyright owner to give permission. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Er, quite correct. I was taking "author" to mean "author of the photograph", which probably wasn't very sensible of me. Alternatively, the image could be owned by the author if it was commissioned as work for hire, which would not be all together surprising. Anyway, DreamGuy is correct, and where his comments contradict my earlier ones, listen to him. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image found on several different sites and is at least 50 years old

This image [23] is said to be found at multiple internet sites (A search for 'Velimirovic' on Google images will reveal another dozen internet sites that use this image) and is at least 50 years old. Does this make the image acceptable for Wikipedia? Kpant (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not definitely. If it's more than 86 years old (i.e. it dates to before 1923), then it's in the public domain. If it's in the public domain in its country of origin and was by 1996, it should be in the public domain in the U.S. But based only on the information I have available, no, I can't say it can be used on Wikipedia (unless it's under fair use, but I'd have to know what article you wanted to use it in an why to evaluate that - see WP:NFCC). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! I assume it must be after 1923, but I don't know how to check if it is public domain? I want to use it for the main article on Nikolaj Velimirovic, who is on that photo. The same photo is used on the Serbian wikipedia [24]. Kpant (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to be in the public domain, unless (assuming it's a Serbian work) its creator died at least seventy years ago. It could be usable under a claim of fair use if you can make a case that no free alternatives can be found (this would require you to defend the proposition that no images published pre-1923 photographs of him are available and/or that older images would not serve the intended purpose). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hello. I uploaded this image: File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg for use in the Harold Pinter article. Pinter is a deceased playwright. Another editor disputes whether the image satisfies our non-free image policies, while I believe that it does satify the policy. Can anyone here help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the rationale should include a better justification of why a picture of him early in his career specifically is needed. Assuming that one is, and assuming it's true that no free images from that period are available (and recognizing that you can't prove a negative), I think this is probably okay. Some of User:NYScholar's arguments puzzle me somewhat; he/she does not seem to have a clear understanding of fair use or WP:NFCC, and almost all of her/his arguments seem to be devoted to establishing that the image is under copyright, which seems to have been conceded at the outset. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with a correct fair use rationale, as this is a length article, it would be good to use in the early life section. I agree that NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arguments are somewhat impenetrable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, WP:NFCC does require that non-free images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Frankly, I doubt that the use of non-free images solely to illustrate people really complies with the letter of that statement, though it's very well-established practice. But non-free images to illustrate people at different states of their careers? That might be pushing it. But that's also probably a question for WP:FFD, which is where NYScholar should probably take this if he/she wants it deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused about speedy deletion criteria

Hi, I came across the image File:Bercow.jpg yesterday which had no source or licensing information and found that it was a picture copyrighted by PA (Press Association) as can be seen from a a slightly differently cropped version which is used in this article: [25]. From reading the speedy deletion criteria, it looked like it fit F9 given that it was obviously copyrighted and no fair use claim had been made by the uploader (in any case, from my understanding of the rules it would not qualify for fair use as it could easily be replaced by a free version). So I marked it with the CSD template but I see that another user has changed it to the {{di-no license}} template. Was my reading of criteria F9 correct? -Paul1337 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think F9 would have been incorrect as that is for images tagged as free when they obviously shouldn't be. When you tagged it, it wasn't marked as being free, so I think lack of license was a better tagging. With regards to ...in any case, from my understanding of the rules it would not qualify for fair use as it could easily be replaced by a free version..., I think that would be Wikipedia:CSD#F7. But that would also be an unwise tagging as it wasn't marked as being free or non-free. Just my opinion though.--Rockfang (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comic vignette scan from magazine

Hi. I would like to use this image for the Migraine Boy article. What's the policy on this case? uKER (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be usable under fair use. Upload it at a total size of one megapixel or less, tag the image page with {{Non-free comic}}, and attach a fair use rationale. Let us know if you need help with any of that. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's done. You can see it here (don't know how to internally link to an image's page) or in the article, here. Thanks for your help. uKER (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You left out the fair use rationale, but I've gone ahead and added one. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. uKER (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Lev Rebet

Hello,

I have found a picture of Lev Rebet on many websites and would like to add it to his article. Lev Rebet was assassinated in 1957. This image is on many websites and appears to be common use.

Here are three websites that use the image: [[26]], [[27]], and [[28]].

It appears to be commonly used, and an image whose photograper is unknown.

Please advise.

Thank you, Horlo (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the image is in the public domain, but it might also still be under copyright. An images first published in the Ukraine is in the public domain if it was published before 1951, and if the creator (photographer) died before that date. But we don't know when this photo was first published or who the photographer was. So unless we find out more, we have to assume this is a non-free image.
Luckily, we can still use the photo as a non-free image. Just upload it here, list the source, and provide a detailed non-free use rationale. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Horlo (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image I uploaded

I uploaded File:Draculafaces-small.jpg a while back but I think some if not all of the images in the collage were taken from websites. Should it be deleted? I have tried marking it for deletion two ways (see the edit history; I subsequently removed one of the deletion tags, or whatever they are called, I had put on it), but I am confused.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I actually made the collage.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying a speedy delete with the rationale that the original uploader wants it deleted. Sometimes things can be streamlined. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted it. -Andrew c [talk] 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860).ogg

Tried to listen to the song, hearing a lot of noice, nothing to do with the song, seems like busy bees or wasps are flying around instead. Maybe some expert should look into this. Galoubet (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The song is there. Unsurprizingly, being from 1860, the quality is extremely poor. Algebraist 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The noise you hear is because it's the oldest known recording and not high quality. I do distinctly hear a song through the noise, so looked into and no problems here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting to know. I guess someday, someone will come up with a better version, cause the song is really nice t listen to. Galoubet (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Recording technology has already advanced since 1860. Many better versions exist. Algebraist 14:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe someone is watching this and will come up with a better version very soon. Galoubet (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Smaller image needed for non-free 3d art?

I uploaded File:Jackie_robinson_memorial_pasadena.jpeg last year. It's a photograph of a 3d sculpture, so two copyrights are involved: the copyright on the sculpture, and the photographer's copyright to the image itself. For the sculpture we make a fair use claim, and I added Template:Non-free 3D art to the image page. The photograph is my own. Some time later, another editor added the Template:Non-free reduce, indicating that the image should be uploaded at lower resolution to comply with fair use guidelines. I found this a bit puzzling, as reducing the resolution would appear to be intended to respect the photographer's (my own) copyright. I suppose an argument could be made that the resolution should be lower to show less detail in the sculpture, but I haven't found any guidance on this. Is there some consensus? --Amble (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced in image size. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am looking for guidance on how "minimal detail" applies to own photos of non-free 3d art, and in particular whether the image resolution is relevant - not for technical assistance. --Amble (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
All fair use images here have to be low resolution. Since we can't retroactively reduce the details of the sculpture at the time you snapped the photo, we needed to reduce the resolution of the photo. DreamGuy (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Delta logo.svg, File:Otis.png, File:KONE.svg

It appears that these three logos consist only of simple geometric shapes and text. So, shouldn't they be moved to Wikimedia Commons? ANDROS1337 03:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Otis, certainly. Kone, probably. Delta, I'm not quite sure; there could be a creative component there. I'll wait until others weigh in. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe all three are ineligible for copyright, but you may want to leave the images here (as well as copying to Commons) in case Commons disagrees and deletes them there. – Quadell (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought exactly what Steve Smith said, but didn't bother replying :P -Andrew c [talk] 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

File:AWMN logo.gif

We are the legal owners and creators of AWMN logo (File:AWMN logo.gif) as a non-profit association, and we would like to contribute it to the article of AWMN. How we can grant the licence (Copyrighted non-free / fair use) for the image to be considered OK for the Wikipedia standards?

I have read the copyright guidlines and some other pages but I could not figure out how I can do that properly and now the image is tagged as a: This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Thursday, 2 July 2009. --Socrates.awmn (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the image page did not have a fair use rationale, explaining why the image could be legitimately used on Wikipedia under fair use (Wikipedia does not recognize any license that does not allow unlimited reuse by any one for any purpose, so even though you'd given permission for us on Wikipedia, as far as we're concerned it's still non-free and needs to be justified under fair use). It should be fine now. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr, Smith.
We would like to clarify further regarding the usage of the AWMN logo
As we can understand from your reply, we have now provided adequite information for why the image can be legitimately used on Wikipedia under the fair use rational. Therefore, could you kindly remove it's tag for speedy deletion? If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Your understanding is correct. As for the speedy deletion tag, you actually deleted it yourself here. (You're not really supposed to do that, but I assume it was inadvertent, since you didn't seem to realize that you'd done it, and all's well now, anyway). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Show GFDL violation?

On The Daily Show June 24 they showed this image: Capybara Hattiesburg Zoo (70909b-42) 2560x1600.jpg, with no credit or attribution. Wasn't this a violation of GFDL or the other two licenses it was published under? Siawase (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say probably, though they might be using it under fair use. (This is doubtful though--it's not as though they're parodying the photo itself, even if it is a parody show.) Wikipedia isn't the copyright holder so Wikipedia can't formally do anything about the use. (Though a Wikipedia user might want to write them to explain that "free" doesn't mean "do whatever you like without crediting anyone.") In the past, some Wikipedia photographers whose work has been used (esp commercially) without attribution have contacted the relevant companies and obtained compensation. User: VigilancePrime might want to write, at least so he can see if he can get some Daily Show swag (assuming he doesn't want to pursue formal legal remedies). Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Added a fair use rationale years ago, why bot-bug me now?

Could someone please let me know on the Talk:Fangoria page what I can add to the existing fair use rationale for the Fangoria cover image? I provided this rationale years ago: Non-free image rationale for Fangoria (magazine) Article Fangoria (magazine) Purpose of use: Cover is used for illustration. Replaceable? Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.

Has there been some tweak to the bot that renders this inadequate? Bustter (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Which image exactly are you talking about, here? And which bot? Looking at your talk page, you seem to have gotten a message from User:Betacommandbot in February 2008, but that seems to have been long since resolved (and indeed, Betacommandbot has been offline, and its operator banned, for months). Could you clarify? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But what if the image is of me while doing a specific activity? Is that far enough from merely depicting me?

Regarding using a scan of a newspaper image, "Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." I want to use a picture of me dressed in a Transformers costume that I have scanned in from the newspaper -- I want to use it as an example of how and when I've dressed in costume for various events. Let's not sidestreet this with discussions of notoriety -- I'm merely seeking guidance on how a particular picture should be classified if I were to upload it to Wikipedia at a later date. Banaticus (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite what you're asking, but you could probably get a freely-licensed picture of yourself in costume, and then fair use wouldn't be an issue. --Amble (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Amble is correct. Also, what article are we talking about, here? That might help me provide more clarification. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The only answer that would seem possible for the specific scenario you provide is that you shouldn't upload it to Wikipedia, as it would be under copyright of the newspaper photographer and there doesn't seem to be any possible fair use criteria with as little info as you've given. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Chevalier St. Georges

This picture of Le Chevalier St. Georges is a common use picture (public domain) and I believe that it can be yours as conform to Wikipedia rules. Delete it if you want but this picture was mine since 2004 and on my homepages in the Internet and many peoples have downloaded it from my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formose (talk • contribs)

I presume you're talking about File:ChevalierStGeorges 1.gif, which was deleted some time ago because it lacked any information on its copyright status. Can you clarify where the image came from originally (i.e. who created it and when)? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

UK sound recordings

I have asked this question before, and was told that I was probably thinking of crown copyright and that it didn't apply to other sounds, and I went away quite happily.

However, I was recently looking up copyright law for a school assignment, and found the following passage:

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), copyright expires—

(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b) if during that period the recording is published, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published, or
(c)if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

but in determining whether a sound recording has been published, played in public or communicated to the public, no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

(see [29])

Therefore, does the copyright in British sound not expire after just over 50 years? I may have read it wrong, but that ios what it implies to me.

Therefore, since the US implements the rule of the shorter term, would it not be possible to upload—for example—"Move It" (first released in the UK in 1958) to Commons (or at least Wikipedia)?

As I say, I am probably entirely wrong, but I would be interested in knowing exactly what points I am wrong about.

Thank you, Dendodge T\C 15:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive myself, since I am out of my element, but I suspect that, while the sound itself may pass into the public domain after fifty years, the underlying writing does not, so if the song was not written by somebody who died more than seventy years ago, all recordings of it will remain under copyright. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The US actually doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right! I suppose, even if they are PD in the UK, I'll still have to wait before I can upload them here. Shame. I was really looking forward to uploading "Love Me Do" in 4 years' time... Oh, well. Dendodge T\C 16:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the anomalies of the URAA is that many works are protected under U.S. copyright law longer than they are in their countries of origin. British sound recordings that were under British copyright as of 1 January 1996 will be under U.S. copyright for 95 years from publication; even beyond that, they will be under state statutory or state common law copyright until 2067. — Walloon (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I Do Right?

Hai,

I need help. Please check on this site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Estherfc. Am i do right?? can anybody help me to do something more creative on this my site. And one more thing..how to change my title from user:Estherfc to Esther Applunius?

Thanks & regards, Admin of Estherfc@OIAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estherfc (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I think what you've wanted to happen has happened. Please let me know if that is not the case. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Section of a previous image - is this right?

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but I don't upload many images. I created File:A mari usque ad mare.png by pulling off File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and basically cropping it to show only the motto. Did I do the fair-use and licensing thing correctly on the file page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Essentially correct; I've made a couple of additions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I get an explanation in English?

I hae uploaded the file "File:PaintingChix.JPG". It's a picture I took myself with my own camera on my own free time and I have had two different people tell me they are going to delete the file because I have violated my own copyright. One of them also keeps vandalizing the page I added the image to.

I have no idea why they would think that I am violating my own copyright. Can someone please explain, in English, how I can stop being pestered by these busybodies? They have had me in tears for days by accusing me of stealing my own property. I'm sick and tired of it. Fryede (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they were not aware that you created the photograph. I added this to the image description page: "The uploader is the photographer and copyright holder." That should fix it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep; I had just been concerned about the sourcing. It looks good now. My apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Martyn Jones

I have now uploaded jpeg image to Wikimedia Commons 'Martyn Jones in his studio'. I can verify that this jpeg is entirely my own work and wouls like it to appear at top of my article page Martyn Jones (painter} Would you like me to recommend an external source for verification of the article? Martyn Jones78.149.46.203 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) How do I upload jpeg onto article page from Wikimedia Commons please? 194.82.216.249 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martyn_Jones_(painter)"

I also note there is a problem with my current IP address as its an address I use when I am teaching at college. I have another E-MAIL address <redacted> that could be used. Please advise?Martynjones27 (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the image to the article. If you need anything else, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Design Methods.svg

can anybody offer an info about the origin(bibliographical resouce)or authorship of the "Design Methods.svg" scheme at the page of the same name ?

l_kubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by L kubo designer (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:Design modes.svg? That image was created and uploaded by User:Design methods, Adam Kallish, in December of 2005. It was converted to SVG by User:Jafet in July 2007. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:SupremeCourtJustices by Presidents.png

This looks like it's copyrighted to me, but I wanted to make sure before marking it. Thanks. 129.236.254.115 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that it looks copyrighted? It seems quite plausibly user-created, and User:Saqib has been around for a while. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
According to [30] it looks valid to me. MBisanz talk 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images on appropriate and inappropriate articles

Is there a way to prevent a non-free image that is appropriate on one article from being used on other articles where it is not appropriate? Take for example File:Pinterdvd.jpg, the DVD cover of Harold Pinter’s Nobel lecture. It cannot be FFD’d because it is used appropriately for identification on Art, Truth & Politics, the article on the DVD. But the uploader insists on using it also on Harold Pinter, where its use is decorative IMHO. Non-free content review seems to be no help, for it is not a forum where enforceable decisions are made. (Indeed this problem was discussed generally here on that forum’s talk page.) An editor once told me to challenge the non-free content review on the image description page, but I am not aware of any tags for that purpose. Any ideas? —teb728 t c 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, one approach is to try to get the uploader community banned. Besides that, I think that's what WP:NFCR is intended for, though I have no experience with that myself. Besides that, I guess it can be dealt with in the same way as any other persistent inappropriate addition to articles. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If an image is being abused, then its use can be technically restricted through MediaWiki:Bad image list. I suspect you are going to have to get some consensus on the use before going there. I highly suggest using dispute resolution first. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I add a copyright licence tag to my uploaded images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrkneyViking (talk • contribs) 09:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What images? How did you obtain them, and who holds copyright over them? Algebraist 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
They are my images used on the page about the European Marine Energy Centre and I own the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.102.172 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
They all appear to be copyright of EMEC. You will have to provide some kind of evidence that you own the copyright (See WP:IOWN)). For example this image, File:Guideline for Health & Safety Standard.JPG appears to be a photo of a copyright work. – ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Screendump of an email

I have an email that is relevant to Paolo Martin page. There are some references that state things which I realised are not true, and so I emailed Paolo and he replied with clarification. There is a screenshot of this email here http://www.christiantena.net/images/paolomartin.jpg From my perspective I'm quite happy to give this information/image away, but I'm not sure of the implications of it because the words are not mine. Also, what is the correct way to cite this email on the Paolo Martin page? Dieselnutjob (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You could get him to release copyright on the text, but don't bother. This sounds like original research which isn't appropriate. You should look for published reliable third-party sources, which can be cited. A nice benefit of a previously published source, is you don't need to copy to Wikipedia, but can just cite it, so people can go elsewhere to read it. --Rob (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Rob is mostly correct, except that it is not necessary for copyright to be released for text to be cited. Note also that if some of this information is available on Paolo's personal web site, it can be used under the conditions of WP:SELFPUB. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood Rob; he wasn't saying that the text would need to be released to be cited (which it clearly wouldn't, as he acknowledges), but that it would need to be released to be uploaded to Wikipedia, which is correct. But yes, uploading this to Wikipedia would serve no real purpose, so the copyright issues need not really be addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays's Photo.

Please check out Billy Mays's Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mays


I do not like the photo they have uploaded for Billy Mays.

I recommend this one:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090628/capt.856cd44b928c42aa8ad30bdbcbe2b5aa.obit_billy_mays_ny113.jpg?x=359&y=345&q=85&sig=xZlZtY7QgxkcNb5EgY6.uw--

How do I upload that one and replace it with the one they have up right now?

Someone please let me know.

-Hightek669 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

The image currently in the article is free (meaning legally free to re-use by any person for any purpose), while the one to which you linked presumably isn't. Wikipedia always gives preference to free images, even in cases in which the doctrine of fair use would allow the use of non-free images. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How will recover my copyright?

I am in a permanent block in ruwiki. On the personal pages in enwiki write the rough copies of articles about mountain-skiers and about the hero of Russia. When will find a help for translation of these articles into English language, then will carry them in basic space of enwiki.

An anonymous user published some of my rough copies in the ruwiki. In description to the first corrections such pointers were done to the my rough copies: «Author and license here: User:Udacha/Кедрин, Максим Николаевич, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Анастасия Николаевна, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Людмила Владимировна, User:Udacha/Artsybycheva, User:Udacha/Макеев, Владимир Иванович, User:Udacha/Перец». Such requirement of license GFDL.

Discovered today, that all these first corrections are remote: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. My authorship is hidden from readers.

I suppose, that users which in a block, must not be deprived their copyrights.

I ask for a help from authoritative users.

Thank you. Участница Udacha (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

I would suggest e-mailing info-ru@wikimedia.org, and explaining the problem to them (in Russian). They should be able to make sure that the requirements of the GFDL/CC-by-SA are met. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
An appeal resulted in the delete of all this articles in ruwiki. Despite Constitution. I went to cry. Участница Udacha (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2009/June&oldid=1136088434"