Greetings,
ESKog has deleted all of the football helmets I uploaded for use on the football pages. Permission to use these helmets was granted by the copyright holder. What is the problem? Msr iaidoka (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
ESKog may be the best person to answer this question. I see you posted on that user's talk page so you may get a better response from them soon. You say that "permission to use these helmets was granted by the copyright holder". Due to rampant copyright violations on Wikipedia, we cannot take your word on this. We have a process set up to verify such claims. Template:Di-no permission has some information on the process, and WP:COPYREQ is the more detailed page. Basically, we need the copyright holder to either put a licensing notice on the webpage, or e-mail OTRS a permission declaration (i.e. WP:CONSENT). That said, it appears these helmets contain non-free logos on them, so it seems entirely implausible that one individual would own the copyright to logos of hundreds of different universities. It seems you would need permission from each and every university for use of their logo, and a single source couldn't provide that permission. One last thing, you may want to review Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images. All images need to state source and copyright holder and have a licensing tag. It appears your images lacked a licensing tag, in addition to lacking OTRS permission. Hope this explains things. Hopefully ESKog can add specifics or correct anything about this particular case. If you have more questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to help you further. -Andrew c[talk]17:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your speed reply. I believe I had added the tag of "the copyright holder has granted me permission to use this image in Wikipedia articles." As for the other logos, they appear to be in constant use throughout Wikipedia already. Their use on a helmet should not change the permission. An example of this would be the page for the Oklahoma Sooners. I will contact the owner of MG Helmets and inform him that he will need to e-mail OTRS to get this mess cleared up. Msr iaidoka (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Two things. First, the text "the copyright holder has granted me permission to use this image in Wikipedia articles." is not a "tag". See WP:TAG. You need to use one of our default templates. Second, because Wikipedia is licensed freely, we don't allow "permission for Wikipedia". By default, almost all content on Wikipedia can be reused, modified, and commercially used, under the terms of the CC-SA-BY license. A user cannot say "for use on Wikipedia" because our license means it could be used outside of Wikipedia. Therefore, we require the copyright holder to specify a specific free license that they agree to in order to make sure that content is compatible with our free license. With that out of the way, the example you gave is an exception because that particular logo is ineligible for copyright because it is text-only (thus Public Domain). However, other helmets contain clearly copyrightable logos. For example Virginia Cavaliers football. -Andrew c[talk]17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with these images was that they were tagged as "for Wikipedia use only", which is incompatible with our licensing terms. I did leave a note to this effect on your talk page, but you removed the note, apparently without reading it. You might want to look through your page history for that message, as it gives a full explanation of what happened and why we did it. (ESkog)(Talk)18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I did read the note and thought I understood what the process was. Apparently I was mistaken. Why have the "for Wikipedia use" option if it is not an acceptable choice? If I understand everything correctly, I need to get the copyright owner to e-mail OTRS (which he has now done), then resubmit the images with a tag that does not state "for Wikipedia use only." Am I understanding the process correctly? Msr iaidoka (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding who the copyright holder of these helmet images is. Unless you're getting a release from the schools who own each logo, the images would still definitely be considered non-free. (ESkog)(Talk)20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the school logos are used all over Wikipedia which leads me to believe that the logos have already been released. Either that, or there is a lot of copyright infringement going on that has been unchecked. Msr iaidoka (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's a lot of issues with school and college logos being misused on Wikipedia. We try to keep the incorrect uses down, but it's a long and laborious process, unfortunately. Black Kite20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think noting our non-free content guidelines (WP:NFC) would be appropriate at this point in the discussion. We allow some non-free images (copyrighted images) under a claim of "fair use". However, because Wikipedia clearly emphasizes "free" content, we have strict rules regarding how we can use our "fair use" material. For example, we normally always allow one use of a corporate logo at the top of an article in an infobox, but we don't allow users to place that logo on their usepage, or we don't allow that logo to be repeated on dozens and dozens of subarticles. The reason why you see non-free university logos all over the place is either a) they are being used appropriately, say at the top of the main article in an infobox or b) there is rampant abuse of university logos. The confusing part is, a number of university logos are "public domain" and thus free due to their simplicity disqualifying them for copyright protection (though they may have a registered trade mark on the logo), while other universities are more complex and include copyrightable graphic elements (for example the UVA article I already linked to). So, we may be able to accept helmets from this source if the logos are already in the public domain or otherwise licensed freely, but we cannot accept helmets if they contain copyrighted logos. The best thing to do is to check each logo's image page to see how we have them licensed, and if you have questions about specific logos, this is a good place as any to ask. Yeah, it is a bit complex. It would be simpler if the English Wikipedia was entirely "free" and thus didn't allow any copyrighted content, or if we had laxer "fair use" rules... but as it stands, we are in this in-between area that favors free content, while strictly allowing some non-free. Hope this explains things a bit. -Andrew c[talk]21:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So as long as the original logo is licensed as either "public domain" or "fair use" then a helmet with that logo is acceptable, right? Msr iaidoka (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If the logo is public domain, then whoever created the helmet can release it to public domain, and you're good to use it anywhere. If the logo is "fair use", then any image derived from that logo - such as a helmet - must meet all of our non-free content criteria in order to be used anywhere in Wikipedia. (ESkog)(Talk)12:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through and deleted, under WP:F7 the helmets that were tagged as non-free logos. There were about 5 files that lacked any copyright information, and they have been tagged accordingly. The rest of the helmet files uploaded by Msr iiaidoka are still tagged as non-free, but I believe that they may qualify for PD-text logos + the license of the helmet illustration copyright holder (per the forthcoming OTRS). These images need to have the FUR removed, and a new license tag applied to them, per the OTRS e-mail. I do not know how they are being licensed, so I have not done this myself. Right now they are inappropriately tagged. I hope someone can go through and fix them. Thanks. -Andrew c[talk]15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The original image of the aircraft is attributed to NASA here and several other uses show up in tineye.com that are all NASA related, but there is no evidence that the NASA added the drawing elements to it, so, being a highly creatively different image it must be copyright of the people who modified it. Unless we know who that is, and it may well be the SOFIA Institut, they likely own the copyright and therefore we cannot use the image because it is not freely licenced. If you can verify that the whole image was created by NASA we would be good to use it. Dig around some more and see what you come up with. ww2censor (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the NASA image is a totally different photo: It has a different background than the DSI, and it has its nosegear down. —teb728tc22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the photos at the Dryden sites are probably by NASA, but the site could also have photos from other sources. Look for attribution; for example the first couple of photos say, “NASA Photo” —teb728tc22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If a photo is labeled " (NASA photo / Jim Ross)" such as at NASA, is it a work of NASA?(what does it mean when it says "courtesy of so and so")Smallman12q (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been shown this photograph, which is of my daughter. Wiki seems to show that I, myself shared this photo and granted copyright use. I did not. This photo is copyrighted as part of a book, and I do NOT grant free use of it to anyone. You may continue to use the photograph, but NOT with a free use permission. If you cannot assert my copyright, please remove the photo. Michelle Harmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mome23kjnc (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Radioshack-logo.svg has both "non-free logo" and "ineligible text logo" templates on it. The logo consists of the text "RadioShack" in a fairly generic sans-serif face and a large registered trademark (®) sign. Which template actually applies? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to see them try to defend copyright on the logo certainly, given that it's pretty much the definition of ineligible. I've therefore marked it as such, and you can mark it with {{Move to Commons}} if no-one objects. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. I'm trying to make a page for Kris Williams (actress) and put up a jpg of her. Now I don't know what the copyright is on the picture being she emailed me the photo directly. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdlr (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Since she is a living person, Wikipedia requires a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Since the photo came from her, she needs to arrange that permission with the photographer. See WP:COPYREQ for the permission required and how to handle it. —teb728tc09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov}} is clearly inappropriate. They're not even sourced from a U.S. government site, they're sourced from www.natochannel.tv. I see no mention of copyright at that site, but certainly NATO claims copyright on some of its other sites, e.g., http://www.e3a.nato.int/html/legal.htm . The fact that the U.S. is a member of NATO does not turn works of NATO into works of the U.S. government. TJRC (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Definitely not public domain; the license is wrong. I've tagged all three for deletion since I can find no evidence that they are available under a free license. -- Hux (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The newspaper is almost certainly still under copyright and unlicensed; so no—unless you can come up with some extraordinary reason for showing the newspaper instead of just referencing it. Do you want to show it for some reason other than just showing that the cover story exists? If not, just reference it. —teb728tc08:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This image is on the commons, so you need to deal with it over there. However, the image source claims copyright, so unless you can show that it is old enough to be in the public domain for that country, you will likely be out of luck because it is not freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been told I need copyrights for these 3 photos from our family album. I changed the descriptions adding this information:
The first 2 were taken by Bill Simon's cousin Arnold Simon.
The 3rd was taken by his wife who gave permission. I'm totally confused about how to proceed. Please help. File:Billinitaly.jpg, File:Youngbillsimon.jpg and File:Billsmallbw.jpg. 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Simonfamily (talk
The source information you added to the description field should really (mostly) be in the source field and the description should be the description of the what the image shows, but that's an easy fix. However, you did not provide any copyright status, which was indicated with useful links in the deletion notice you got, which is entirely different from the source. Are these people releasing the images into the public domain? If so we need to know that and you can choose an appropriate free licence, some of which you can be found at WP:ICTIC. As these are family I doubt you need to get them to have to officially provide their consent. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Kendra Jade Rossi has asked me to create and upload a Wikipedia page for her.
I have two images that she owns that I want to add to the article.
May I upload it as though it were her doing it? She does not have the time to do this task.
One is an image of a painting that she recently did. It is currently posted on her Facebook page: [2]
The other is a professional image of herself that she owns.
There is a third image that I will add in the future. Getting in touch with the copyright owner now.
How would you suggest that I handle the categorization of these three images?
First, be aware of the image use policy, because it has a lot of specifics that will be important.
Then make sure that the media files are appropriately authorized—they need to be in the public domain, or under an appropriate free licence (which explicitly permits reuse, even commercially), or used under fair use. You need to comply with U.S. law (because that's where Wikimedia is located) and the law of your own jurisdiction (for your own protection).
I can't see your Facebook link (probably the privacy settings), but if that's a straightforward photograph of the painting (i.e. there's no artistic value to the photography itself), the only copyright that exists is that of the underlying painting. (This is true in the U.S., but apparently not in many countries.)
For the professional image, depending on the terms of the contract with the photographer, she may not have received the copyright to the image. (Assuming that she's thisKendra Jade Rossi, it's likely that most of her professional work is owned by the photographers involved.)
The most reliable way to handle all of this is to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT to send the Wikimedia Foundation some licence notices. (The copyright holder must personally give consent for each work. It may take a few days to get verified.)
Otherwise, if the copyright holder has made a public statement (like maybe a notice on a website where the images are currently hosted) that the media are freely licenced (under an appropriate licence like CC-BY-SA) or in the public domain, you can rely on that, and upload them with the appropriate licencing rationale (linking to the notice and quoting it in case the link becomes unavailable in the future).
If you can satisfy those conditions (public domain or freely licenced), then you should consider uploading to Wikimedia Commons instead (you can link from there to Wikipedia). If you can't meet those terms, then fair use is possible, but it requires that each image meet all of the non-free content criteria. (This is not preferred, and fair use material cannot be placed on Commons, but it can be hosted directly on Wikipedia.) TheFeds01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Just five minutes before, I have uploaded one file named Datta.jpg for my user account Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar. Its my own photograph. I quoted the reason for its uploading and have selected the licensing option to 'own work, release into public domain'. But still the speedy deletion tag on the image is not removed. Please help.
--Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The notice left on your talk page tells you that you did not provide the copyright status of the image by attaching a copyright tag to the image. Just typing "for my own User:Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar account" is not enough information; all this tells us is that you uploaded the file for use on your user page. You did not tell us where it comes from, who it shows (in one upload you do say "it's Me") and under what copyright you are uploading it. If you actually own the copyright and want to release the image into the public domain, and you took the image yourself, you can attach the {{PD-self}} template, but until the image has that tag, or a similar free licence tag, the image is not in compliance. You could also follow the links in the deletion notices as they show you most of your copyright options. If you can't complete these details then tell us the details and someone will do it for you. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
File:P-roll.gif
Speedy deletion of File:P-roll.gif was suggested because of use of unsatisfactory tag. This promotional material is obviously more than 100 years old, because the product became obsolete commercially then. Accordingly, any copyright should have expired. Can you please suggest an appropriate template or tag? PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The idea that this is in PD due to age and the product being commercially obsolete is false. In fact, you can still buy QRS player piano rolls today. See this link. We can't assume this is free of copyright. You're going to have to prove just how old it in fact is. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Having meandered through the world of antique piano rolls, it turns out the answer is (possibly) quite simple. EBay item desc: "#4 QRS WORD ROLL # Q-184 TITLE: THE OLD PIANO ROLL BLUES. PLAYED BY J LAWRENCE COOK." Now, if this is the proof for the same roll, J Lawrence Cook only joined the company in 1923 (and died relatively recently), unfortunately. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
While commons:File:DrehorgelLochkarte.jpg is actually an organ music roll, it might do. A quick flickr search does not find any but an in depth search might find one there that is freely licenced. Based on the prose in the article it would seem that any piano roll will do and certainly you can take a photo of one yourself relatively easily, likely at a collectables show or request one. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are my photos being deleted?
Every time I upload an image, somebody comes along and deletes it.
I upload it and put it to the public domain all over the description. I follow the instructions EXACTLY, and I put them in the public domain exactly as described. Then somebody comes along and deletes my public domain image. I am reminded that 'Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously'. Seriously enough not to read the copyright apparently.
It seems that every time I try to contribute to a subject, I find that I have transgressed on somebody's private little fiefdom where they are trying to get some sort of reward. Or I've transgressed on somebody's public relations effort. Or something.
I thought my images were really cool and added substantially to the articles. I have concluded that despite the potential value of my contributions, I simply don't have time to try to 'learn' anything new. If somebody doesn't tell me what I'm doing wrong and do it really fast, I'm done.
Any responses should be put on my talk page as I am not sure I can remember how to get back to this page.
Given that the cover of the book in this image consists of simple geographical shapes, colours, and textual elements, would it (were it cropped to remove the spine and the copyrighted elements thereon) qualify as free content under {{PD-text}}? — pd_THOR|=/\= | 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, except the content in the white box is not trivial enough to be public domain. Those quotations would have to be blocked out. PowersT16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In #3 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images it states simply, "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." However, it seems that this rule is too restrictive in that it does not take into consideration the intent and purpose of commemorative stamps, U.S. and foreign, namely to commemorate some person or event. Therefore, in an article about Albert Einstein, for example, one would not be allowed to use a stamp image to support his notability or the obvious fact that a government has dedicated and commemorated his achievements by putting his image on a postage stamp, one of the greatest honors that a government bestows.
By extension of rule #3, it would likewise be unacceptable to show an image of a statue of Einstein, unless the article was about that statue. Same would apply for a fair use photo of a building, baseball field, airport, street sign, or photo of a Nobel Prize, unless the article was about those things, "not its subject." A fair use photo of Thomas Jefferson's image on Mt. Rushmore would be unacceptable unless the article was about Mt. Rushmore.
I'm aware that U.S. stamps since 1978 have copyrights, but those copyrights offer no more "rights" to the holder than any other copyright. The image on the stamp is meant to be displayed publicly whenever it's put on an envelope. Therefore, because of the commemorative nature of many stamps I propose that the rule be changed to allow the subject of the stamp to be considered relevant, and not denied value, when allowing for its fair use. See also Commemorative Stamps for more facts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Non-free use is not limited to the subject of an article. A non-free image can be shown if necessary for reader understanding of sourced critical commentary within an article (and if no free substitute exists or could be created and all the other conditions at WP:NFCC). Some of the things you mention are in the public domain (like a Nobel Prize (copyright expired) or most street signs (too simple to be copyrighted) or buildings and sculptures (depending on the country see COMMONS:COMMONS:FOP)). —teb728tc00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Portugese copyright (breach of contract?) law
I recently emailed, and got a reply from, the archives of the Portuguese BNP about their scans of images, which they seem to claim ownership over:
In a general way, the digitized works available on BND (on the internet) are public contents [domain], which means that are not protected by copyright and related rights.
However, digital images are owned by the BNP. Permission to use these images is usually granted, but must be requested for each publication. The publications should refer to the source of images (BNP).
Contract between what parties? (In other words, I don't see how it would be a contractual issue, unless you or Wikimedia have a contract with them.)
Usually, the test for an additional copyright (beyond that of the creator) involves finding artistic contribution—so in many instances, a straightforward and unartistic photograph/scan of an object is treated as having the same copyright as the original. This can get murky, depending on what the thing is, and the jurisdiction.
Do you have a statement from BNP/BND (that's the Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal/Biblioteca Nacional Digital, I assume) that the works are in the public domain? To clarify, I'm not sure if by "In a general way", they mean "usually but not always", or if they mean "in simple terms". If they mean "usually but not always", they may have a point—the creators' copyrights may be in effect. TheFeds19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not an answer but: There is better information here. Unlike your source it gives the artist as W.C. Forster, but I have not found any information about him. —teb728tc22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to be complaining, but it would really help to have SPECIFIC and less OBSCURE directions on meeting whatever "copyright" media requirements you want when telling someone that they haven't met said requirements. The instructions lead to lots of places, lots of templates, little explanation.
THe file mentioned above was created by me for a specific company and is used in an Infobox on a page I created for that company, as directed to do so that company (Juniper Advisory).
What else is needed? Please advise. It is a low resolution logo used to identify the company in an Infobox. An email address to me was also added so that use of the image can be verified if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayna Kirk (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You’ve got what you need: the source, an image copyright tag {{non-free logo}}, and a non-free use rationale identifying the article and saying among other things that it is used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. —teb728tc22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to upload an image of a character from a children's picture book. I assume that Template:Non-free 2D art is the right license to use, but it doesn't seem to appear on the list of licenses on the file upload form. Of course I could upload it license-less and then add it by hand, but I thought I'd check here if its absence from the list meant anything special. So: does it? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The file upload form is very simple and makes it hard to upload non-free stuff. I'm sure this is deliberate - we'd prefer it if all uploaded files were freely usable, after all. However, there's nothing wrong with doing what you suggest: upload it without a license and then add the details immediately afterward. If you're using a non-free template, though, be sure to also include a non-free use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends why the image was deleted. Sometimes users upload copyrighted material which they don't own in the first place. When we find such instances of this, we delete the files as copyright violations. If this is the case for this image, then there is nothing you or I can do because the original uploader wasn't the copyright holder. It may help if you state the file name of the image in question, or if you know the username of the uploader or what article the file appeared in. I'd be glad to view the deletion log for the file and explain in more detail why it was removed. With that out of the way, you should see WP:REUSE. It explains that you are free to use our content and images as long as you follow the terms of the license (which often entails simply attributing the author, and noting the free license). Hope this helps. -Andrew c[talk]15:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As you took the photo and have indicated that fact then everything looks fine now. I will remove the deletion notice for you. ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Is an image of a copyrighted coin a violation of copyright?
Hi there. I'm not that good with images, so I wanted to ask here. Take the example at File:Irish penny coin.png for example. A new editor tagged it for speedy deletion, claiming that the coin is copyrighted and as such, an image of it is a violation of copyright. I think the image of a coin is not a reproduction of the coin but by itself a new work of art and thus not violating the copyright as remanufacturing such a coin would. Could someone clear this up for me? Regards SoWhy20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As noted on the template, coinage of Ireland is copyrighted, and photographs of that would be derivative works. Thus, these are non-free images, and must be used within the bounds of our non-free content policy; that doesn't mean it can't be used but it must have a rationale to justify its use on the page that it is being used on. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
R1916VCABPH2.JPG Uploaded By BNCrew
Hi there, I took a picture of my own car without the reg or anything else on it, however it has been marked for deletion, It states a copyright issue but im not sure what copyright tag to put on it. Can anybody help me on this matter? In short what is the exact tag I put into the page to cover that it is my own photograph of my own object and i do give consent for anyone and everyone to use it?
Many thanks
-Larry Ceb (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page about File:Bianca_c_ship.jpg but after reading the information about providing a rationale, I'm more confused than before. It's the only picture available of this somewhat obscure ship before it was wrecked. I obtained permission from the copyright holder back in 2006 to use it in Wikipedia. How do I put that information into a rationale template? -Etoile (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you get permission to use it only on Wikipedia or elsewhere too? If the latter, you could change the license tag to an appropriate free license (probably {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} or {{attribution}}). If the former, just put in one or two sentences explaining what you just explained above, noting that it's important for the article, that it's not replaceable, and since you have permission at least for wikipedia there can be no concern you are causing the copyright holder commercial damage. That's the "rationale". Don't bother about templates, just put in a "rationale" header and a few sentences that make some sense and you're done. You may also add {{Non-free with permission}}. Fut.Perf.☼12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. If Etoile simply writes down what he wrote above, he will have written a better rationale than anybody ever did after reading WP:FURG and all that useless pseudo-boilerplate text there. Fut.Perf.☼07:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the key aspects of a rationale is the purpose of use. Etoile said nothing about purpose. WP:FURG is a content guideline, and it is in his interest and that of Wikipedia for him to read it if he wants to upload non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
... and I still maintain that we must finally start placing less emphasis on writing formally "correct" rationales, and more emphasis on writing rationales that have some meaningful content, so I'll always prefer a few simple common-sense statements by a user who is actually talking about their individual case, over the millionth template blindly parrotting "The photo is only being used for informational purposes" or "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because bla bla". Fut.Perf.☼14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. WP:FURG supports that. It also supports including a reason for the use, in fact requires it. I don't like the templated reasons anymore than you do. Some of those templated reasons have gone up in flames, and more of them will. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys work fast! I see Fut.Perf. added a rationale for me. It's great so I won't change it. While reading WP:FURG it occurred to me that the picture is also the only 'clear' picture of Bianca C - pictures of the wreck will not show the ship as a whole, and wreck site pictures are often blurry and such. So I'm even more confident that it's got a good rationale in addition to permission. Now I'll go add my gender on my profile, because seeing "he" is kind of weird. ;) -Etoile (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Copyright question...
I previously released all of my images to the public domain, but have since realized I would at least like recognition if they are ever used elsewhere... I began be researching which tag I should use, and decided upon {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}... Am I correct in assuming that this license allows anyone, anywhere, to use the image, just so long as they attribute it to me? Also, how would I go about changing the license on File:White Mitsubishi 3000GT front.jpg, which has since been moved to Commons? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you've released that image into the public domain. Such a release is not revocable unless it was invalid for some reason. PowersT14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I will add, however, that you can request attribution. What you cannot do is require attribution, because the image no longer belongs to you; it belongs to the entirety of humanity, per your release. But you can ask nicely and hope re-users accede to your request. =) PowersT14:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It is only acceptable to change the copyright from a restrictive one to a less restrictive one. Once you put it into the public domain it is out there for all to use for whatever purpose. It is quite clear on the upload pages what public domain is: Public domain – You give up all rights to the work and allow any person to use it for any purpose without restriction. I see that you have added a more restrictive copyright to several images you uploaded as far back as March 2009. You cannot retract a copyright you have already given but it seems acceptable that within a reasonable period of time of uploading files, you could change the licence on the recently uploaded image that you put up today, now that you have investigated copyright more and realise there are different licences that you may prefer. Sorry but you will have to leave the old images with the licence you gave them when they were upoloaded. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct about the 3.0 tagging though, that this will allow anyone, anywhere, to use it, so long as the attribute? I don't want to limit the use of the image any, I just want a little recognition... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but note that CC-BY-SA is a bit more restrictive than simply CC-BY (which also requires attribution). the "SA" part requires re-users to release their work under a "free" license as well. decltype (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to go against what people above have said, but you are (legally) free to relicense a work you had put into the public domain. The only thing that will come of it is that we'll come along and say "Hmm, we have two copies of an image, one in the public domain, one CC-BY-SA. Which one do we want to keep?" and quite probably just revert you. Legally though, you can release further copies under whatever licence you want but you're in a very weak position, because we have a copy - i.e. a snapshot of the image you released into the public domain that we can keep and distribute (hence the de-facto non-revokability of our various licences). Or that's what my google searches have told me, rightly or wrongly. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that's correct; my response was limited to the context of changing the license here or on Commons, which we generally wouldn't allow. PowersT16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries, when I first uploaded them, I wanted them released to the public for anyone to do anything with... but with 3.0, I realized I could do that same thing, but not worry about someone down the road claiming the image as their own... I have changed the old images back to {{PD-self}}, and will start using {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} for future uploads... thanks everyone for your help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to add an option, you can request deletion of the image that you uploaded with PD tagging, then upload again with the creative commons license. This will not revoke the earlier PD release license, just reduce the chance that it will be used. If some one uses it you will not be able to do anything about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Image question (File:Shenandoah1994.png)
Does this image have a sufficient fair-use rationale? I think that it's an acceptable fair-use, as it depicts one deceased person (out of five) and two members who are no longer with the band (particularly the lead singer). Literally all of the band's Top 40 hits were under the lineup in this picture. I would think that this would fall under "notability rest[ing] in large part on their earlier visual appearance," so I'm taking this here to make sure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The FUR looks OK. The image could have been reduced in size. The deceased person could have their image cropped if this was the only one available and there was an article on him - which there isn't ! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
photograph licensing
Hi, I am working with someone to be able to use a large number of photographs on wikipedia. However, the creator (whose photos are on flickr) is uncomfortable with the provisions in the license that allow users to alter the work. He has no problems with anyone cropping, resizing, adjusting, or modifying photographs in ways that don't change what's depicted, but he doesn't want any mal-use. Is there a flickr license that would allow this? Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr seems to suggest no. Michael miceli (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Depending on the jurisdiction you are in, the author may have extra rights outside copyright. In Australia there are moral rights. In practice there are very few maluses made, so the risk of something adverse happening is low. The ways of modification are the most common, you also get assembly into collage. The worst misuse I have seen is a mislabelling. For example I found one photo that I took of a dredging operation was being used by a newspaper as an example of pollution. It was not a copyright problem however. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Who says that in Germany aair-taken pic can not be copyrighted? That's absolutely wrong. They can and this one is! It was illegally downloaded from a website where All rights are reserved. Or my someone tell me the exact law in which is written that I am wrong --Münzberg (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
My guess is you are probably right – perhaps the uploader (who was referring to some page on the German Wikipedia as a source for this claim) misunderstood something in de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. That page is just saying that air photography is not (i.e. no longer) restricted by special laws requiring state clearance for taking a photograph, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the photographer can claim copyright. I know of no rule why they couldn't. The tag you saw on the image page is not a standard tag endorsed by the en-wiki community; it's just something the uploader claimed, and they may well have made a simple mistake in that. Fut.Perf.☼19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
There does not seem to anything to restrict, or allow, copyright of aerial images. Additionally part of what the German page says is that there are restrictions on photography of military areas cannot be undertaken without permission. Copyright is clearly a separate issue and this particular image is improperly tagged. ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
bum bright article copyvio redux (some non copyvio work deleted)
this is regardin a discussion here last week (maybe 2 weeks ago) about the Bum Bright article being 90% copy-paste copyright violation.... so someone deleted the entire article. but there were actually one or two paragraphs about his sports dealings that were not copyvio they were ordinary work by an editor, with citations. it could have simply been made a stub. i would fix it myself but again its conflict of interest due to me being a distant blood relation. Decora (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this page is for questions about copyright issues to do with media (usually images). For this issue, I advise that you post your question to the talk page of Mfield, who is the admin who deleted the "Bum Bright" article. Alternatively, you could recreate the article using only the non-copyvio text and post a note on its talk page to say that this is what you're doing, so that others realize that you're not just recreating the same deleted article. Good luck! -- Hux (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that copyright on music in the U.S. was - to use a technically precise term - all fucked up.
In checking out the Bix recordings on the Internet Archives I see "Public Domain" all over the place. Can we trust this and use these recordings? Internet Archive seems to be a pretty trustworthy organization, but thought I'd better ask first. Smallbones (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the Internet Archive is pretty thorough in its research of the copyright status of the works it hosts, so I think we can trust it as reliable. Beiderbecke died nearly 80 years ago, so there's certainly a decent chance that some or all of his works are in the Public Domain. -- Hux (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
There are two sets of copyrights involved: the copyright of the songs, and the copyright of the sound recordings. Very few sound recordings are in the public domain in the United States. Sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972, are covered by state common law and state statutory copyright law, both of which typically have no duration. Federal copyright law on sound recordings will not preempt state laws until 2067. Two exceptions are sound recordings made by the federal government, and sound recordings whose rights holders have intentionally dedicated them to the public domain. See: Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain (4th ed.), Nolo, 2008, p. 115–119.
Here's the law in California, home of the Wikipedia Foundation:
§ 980(a)(2) The author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972, has an exclusive ownership therein until February 15, 2047, as against all persons…
Under California law, author's ownership rights in sound recording can be assigned. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, N.D.Cal.2002, 191 F.Supp.2d 1087, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1877.
So, there's a pretty decent chance that none of Bix Beiderbecke's recordings are in the public domain in the U.S.A. — Walloon (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone mind explaining to me how the copyright status of flags works, especially flags of non-governmental political groups? It seems like wikipedia considers all flags to be public domain, even flags of non-governmental groups or movements that were created recently (e.g., File:PFLP flag smoothed.svg), which doesn't make sense to me.Prezbo (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I see now that this was discussed here, although it's still hard for me to believe that every flag in the world is ineligible for copyright.Prezbo (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing seems really dodgy to me, I'll probably put some of these flags up for deletion at commons at some point.Prezbo (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue is far from certain; even if a flag does have a copyright (like the Aboriginal flag from Australia), there are folks that will call the image PD-Simple and still keep the image on the Commons. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright tag for the aircraft TC-KOP
I've recently created the article 1962 Turkish Airlines Taurus Mountains crash, which is about the aircraft with tail number TC-KOP. I discovered an image of this aircraft at [4] and asked the website's owner for permission to use the picture at en:wikipedia. A copy of our conversation is posted below, where my real name and mail address are replaced by my username:
[Emails removed]
Question: May I upload an image of the TC-KOP from that website? If yes, what copyright tag must I add and how must I credit the picture's owner? I appreciate your advise.CeeGee (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed the emails assuming Eddie will not appreciate spam mail from spammers who index this page. Private email conversation shouldn't be posted on Wikipedia anyway and is subject to deletion.
As for the images, you shouldn't directly upload the images from a website unless it explicitly declares the images as free on the webpage. The correct way to get the permissions is to ask the copyright holder to send a consent letter clearly stating the license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. —SpaceFlight8919:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Copyright status of self-made photos of living people.
Hello, I have been having trouble finding a clear answer in regard to this question, so I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask. If not, then I apologize.
I would like to upload photos of the members of the band Scale the Summit that I took while watching them on the Progressive Nation Tour about two months ago. I feel that they would add greatly to the article concerning the band. I would like to publish them into the public domain, however, I do not know if they would qualify. I would like to know this before I upload them so that if they can be published into the public domain I can upload them directly into the Commons. Thank you in advance for your help. Cs.Ps. (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
If theres any reason people would question the license or your ownership you can always use OTRS to strengthen the copyright status of the photos, and hes Wikimedia Commons would be the place to upload them. They don't have to be Public Domain, the Creative Commons licenses are just fine as well along with some others. — raeky(talk | edits)08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Free licenses required by Wikimedia allow commercial use, ergo yes someone can make money from your photograph by only giving you credit. GFDL isn't meant for images, it's for text based work and sometimes software. The Creative Commons licenses are the ones that are meant for photographs. — raeky(talk | edits)08:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
picture copyright
1. What copyright tags should I give for a picture that is taken by a friend of mine who has given permission to me? Is it correct to put {{cc-by-sa}} tag?
2. If I upload a picture that I just take/download from a website, what should I do to clear it from copyright problems/so that it doesn't become object of speedy deletion?
Thank You
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoko santoso (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Last week I received the email reply below from 'permissions'....and I received confirmation on a 'talk' page that the 'deletion notice' for this image would be removed.....
However, when I checked the page today the image had gone.
I have uploaded it again, so could you please check that I have supplied enough information for it to remain...
Thanks
Sue
Original Message -----
From: "Permissions"
To: [redacted]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2009093010046424] re. image copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronk69 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear SUE WALLACE,
Thank you for your email.
09/30/2009 17:59 - [redacted] wrote:
> I have been told to email that I am the copyright owner of the following image
> Rich_wiki.jpg
> on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren_(musician)
>
> I have amended the licensing details accordingly.
> Thanks
I have looked at the ticket, and you did not copy the entire e-mail. Below the text you copied, there is a message from the OTRS agent. You need to specify, in your e-mail, what license you are agreeing to. In fact, it may be easiest if you filled out a consent form and mailed it in (see WP:CONSENT). Make sure you are replying to that e-mail, or that the ticket number 2009093010046424 is included in the subject line. Once we have a clear statement of permission and copyright ownership, we can easily undelete the file. If you have questions about this process, or anything else, feel free to ask. Thanks. -Andrew c[talk]15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
new query
I made a short video yesterday, It is a 360 degree panorama of the views visible from Win hill pike,
I'd uploaded the image and emailed 'permissions' telling them I owned copyright. I received a reply from them and a message on a talk page saying that it was all ok and that the picture would not be deleted.
I found today that it had been deleted so I have uploaded it again (commons:File:Rich wiki.jpg) and put it into the article Richard Warren (musician) with a different license. Could you please check that this is now correct.
Thanks very much
(I have now emailed the following to 'permissions'):
> I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive
> copyright of Rich_wiki.jpeg (ticket 2009093010046424)
>
> I agree to publish that work under the free license .Creative Commons
> Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
>
> I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial
> product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided
> that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
>
> I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right
> to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others
> make to the work will not be attributed to me.
>
> I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content
> may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
>
> SUE WALLACE
>
> CRONK69
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER
> 12/10/2009
Sometimes images get deleted before an OTRS ticket is applied to the image file but in this case the image was deleted, as a blatant copyright violation of Richard Warren's MySpace page, quite quickly as often happens with such images. You have now uploaded it to the commons under the same name but no OTRS ticket has been applied; you put in a different licence. The image source now says that it is your own work which is not confirmed by the MySpace image. Because the image now has the same name, the ticket should be applied to the commons file when it gets processed, which can take up to a week. I will tag the image as pending an OTRS request. ww2censor (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So do I have to do anything else? And I don't understand the 'myspace' violation??!! It is not on a myspace page as far as I know (and I know Richard Warren does not have one!) Sue Cronk69 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Stifle deleted this image with the summary that it was the same as a MySpace page image per this deletion summary and the notice he placed on your talk page was because there was no copyright status. There is now nothing else you need to do but wait until the OTRS permission is processed. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a postcard from France in the 1930s, with a photograph of a monument that was later unfortunately destroyed during World War II. I am unaware of any other available images of the structure, but would like to include an image of the postcard in the Wikipedia article that talks about the monument (The White Bird). I'm fuzzy on French copyright in this case though. Would anyone know if the image is public domain at this point, or whether there's a good case for Fair Use as it's a historical image with no free equivalent? --Elonka22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In France, the copyrights of the author last for 70 years after their death. This isn't probably a huge amount of use to you, as doubt if you know who the author is. Having said that, I'd say that it would probably count as a historical non-free image if there's little chance of sourcing a free equivalent (which it sounds like there isn't). And the existing infobox image is non-free anyway, so you'd hardly be increasing the amount of non-free usage in the article. Black Kite22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually that image (and many other stamp images) were recently nominated for deletion, which confuses me because I'd thought it was a clear case for fair use. But I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert on the subtleties of image licensing... What are your own thoughts in regards to that image? --Elonka02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that a good case for fair use could be made. Photo may be out of copyright under the 70 year rule if the publisher is unknown. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A lot of stamp images have been deleted recently because they were only being used to illustrate their subjects - however there are always exceptions to this, and I think this is one. Black Kite06:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
simple way to find if images can be used in print?
I've written a book. It's 95pp right now but could sure use a bunch of images to amplify points. I've looked at umpteen statements and notices and just can't get a handle on this. I surmise not all images on W.commons can be used in print, and if they can the attributions need to be in 47 formats according to the eleventeen license texts. Is there a short way I can (1) determine if I can use a particular image in print, and (2) use a common format for credits? I am the copyright holder of my book (so far). Many thanks in advance for your sage and succinct counsel on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCMeredith (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You can expect that any pictures from the Wikipedia commons could be used in print. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use for some of what is required. You can probably have a picture credits page where you can give the URL you got it from or the attribution that is specified. If the image is marked as public domain, cc0, or all rights released you can use it without attribution, but do not claim the copyright on it yourself. For the pictures on en.wikipedia if they have a fair use rationale, that means they are not free and you will have to consider yourself whether you can use it or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
reasoning behind a fair use rational
What is the reasoning behind this fair use rational?
2) It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)
Couldn't nearly anything be created in the future as a free image? Is this the best rule for inclusion? Wikipedia does everything possible to insure that free images are used, and I understand, I also understand that there are certain rules for using non free images, however, this is unrealistic in my opinion. Waiting for an image that may or may not come along is irresponsible. We have a responsibility not only to the copyright holders, but to our users as well.
Specifically this is in regards to this image: File:Sarita impact.jpg. While it is true that at some point the image could be replaced by a free image, what are the chances of a image that truly meets our requirements could be found? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse, but it does prove a point, how many images are on wikipedia from press events? How many of them could not be replaced by a picture taken by a wikipedia user? How many wikipedia users are walking around hollywood or anywhere else with stars.
There are actually a lot of free images of wrestlers on Wikipedia - people do get some good photos. However, even if there weren't, the fact is that this is a living public figure who it is therefore possible to take a free image of, and the image thus fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). Black Kite06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I just took a quick look at some famous peoples articles. Majority are from press pictures, that you'll see on CNN or Access Hollywood. How many of our editors get perfect pictures on the red carpet? I understand it fails, my argument is that that rule should be changed. The criteria should be based on is there currently a free alternative available. We don't make assumptions in articles, we should do the same for pictures, dont assume a free replacement is available. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Im no copyright expert, but it seems that we are allowing people to bypass this rule anyway by allowing Flickr images on many articles, based just on looking at a few well known people, I can see promotional photos that someone has posted on Flickr, released it, and some user has uploaded here, so it can be freely used. Im not a lawyer, but if I had to guess, this wouldn't hold up in court, Thats not a legal threat, just my opinion. I dont see how this rule is helping the encyclopedia, merely hindering it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Flickr is a problem. Some of those images you mention are probably OK, but many aren't, and they don't get picked up enough. The other problem is that some of the Flickr images are on Commons, who don't do nearly enough to pick up copyvios. Oh, and this "rule"? Have a look in the top left-hand corner of the page, between "The" and "Encyclopedia" :) Black Kite06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[...] Commons, who don't do nearly enough to pick up copyvios?? Mind yours own business, the problems on Wikipedia are much much larger from my experience ;) Regarding the Flickr problems: See commons:COM:QFI, if you have problems to trust in an image from Flickr that was transfered to a Wikimedia project you might adress the problem there. --Martin H. (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats not true, I dont know how often it happens that an image on the mainpage of one of the various Wikipedia was replaced or removed and deleted. So it is the opposite, the more notable an article is the merrier someone will take a closer look at the images. In case of copyright violation it is absolutely unimportant how important the article is. Regarding the named images: The images are ok, I cant see any problems. Especially File:Oprah Winfrey (2004).jpg. You may have a look at commons:Category:Alan Light or the photostream on Flickr to see how many wounderful images Alan Light contributed to the world. I cant say something to your fair use problem, that problems not exist on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sephiroth, the policy isn't going to change. If a person is living, we do not use a fair use image of the person for depiction purposes on their biographical articles here. If there's a copyright violation, it can be brought to the attention of WP:PUI, and there are instructions for how to nominate a file for deletion via that vehicle. The three images you note, I have to agree with Martin; I see no problems. All of the images are licensed under free licenses, and there's no reason to suspect any of them are thefts/re-licensing of non-free images. We only accept non-free images when a free image could not be created to serve the same purpose. We don't hold onto non-free imagery waiting for free imagery that could be created. We only hold onto non-free imagery when there's no chance of free imagery serving the same purpose (such as is the case in most cases where a person is dead). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree that the problems on en.wiki are worse, but there are a lot of copyvios on Commons - the problem being that they're often not picked up until they're used here, and someone says "hang on a minute...". I'm not criticising Commons editors as such, but, for example, I've speedy tagged four copyvios by the same author on Commons recently, which have been deleted - but no-one seems to want to block them [5]. Black Kite17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I get it. It won't be allowed. The issue with the winfrey article is that Mr. Light TMK, is not a wikipedia editor, I have no way of knowing if he is a photographer, or that he took the picture. It appears to be something you would see from a horde of paparatzi outside her house, or wherever it was taken. Nothing against Mr. Light. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he's a Wikipedia editor or not. He could be a disaffected Martian living in a hovel on the dark side of Mercury. If he releases his works under a free license, then we can use them here, placing them on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Extremely old ad
I'm trying to figure out exactly what I need to do to include this old Gibson advertisement. I can't precisely date the photograph, but the instrument advertised was manufactured only between 1930 and 1933, so there's only a narrow range of possible dates. I'm sure copyright has lapsed, but how do I demonstrate that?—Kww(talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming this was an American publication, if the advertisement carried no copyright notice, it entered the U.S. public domain instantly upon publication. Advertisements were not covered by the copyright of the publication in which they appeared (unless they were the publisher's own advertisements). 17 U.S.C. § 404(a) specifically excludes "advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copyright in the collective work" from coverage under the collective work's copyright. Federal case law:
Canfield v. Ponchatoula Times, 759 F.2d 4930
C.A.5, La., 1985
Where advertisement was inserted on behalf of automobile dealership and its new employee, and no specific copyright notice appeared directly on advertisement itself, newspaper could not protect its asserted copyright in advertisement by relying on general collective work notice of copyright printed on front page of its newspaper under masthead.
Moore Pub., Inc. v. Big Sky Marketing, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 1371
D.Idaho, 1990
Copyright notice applicable to real estate advertising magazine, which was a collective work, was not sufficient to protect whatever copyright protection publisher of magazine might enjoy in logos of real estate firms advertising in the magazine, where publisher never placed copyright notices on the separate advertisements.
Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. BPI Communications, Inc., 378 F.Supp.2d 1189
C.D. Cal. S.Div., 2005
Copyright protection under the 1909 Copyright Act required copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder, not merely in the name of the publishing newspaper, magazine, or campaign book.
I have taken a picture from inside the Colesseum which I think it might look good on your page, what is the procedure? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.155.116 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2009
The "Permission" section of File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg bares the claim that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain..."
I have no quarrel with the second claim – according to historians, the portrait was indeed painted in the later half of the sixteenth century. I do have a serious concern about permission to use this particular image, as it is not in fact "a faithful photographic reproduction" of the painting in question, since it has been cropped. More importantly, I have seen this cropping – and color balance – before. After a trip to the bookshelf, I compared the image on File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg with the photograph of this painting that appears on the cover of Florescu and McNally's Dracula: Prince of Many Faces(copyright 1989 by the authors, published by Little, Brown and Company, ISBN0-316-28655-9 (hc), ISBN0-316-28656-7 (pb)).
Although the two are mirror images of one another, they are indeed identical in all other respects. It seems that someone made a high resolution scan of the image from the book's cover, and then the image was digitally reversed back to the orientation of the original painting.
Shouldn't be a problem – if the original painting is PD, and according to US rules photographs of it also remain PD, then merely cropping such a photograph and printing it on a book cover doesn't create a new copyright for the cropped version. Fut.Perf.☼07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! :) Actually, this is a relief to me, since I prefer this cropped and color-corrected version. Also, as it happens, it is the image used on the main article about the subject of that painting.BlueCerinthe (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I bought a few very fine B&W photos taken in Ladakh (a couple of them hand-tinted) in 1981 from an elderly Kashmiri photographer living at that time in Leh, Ladakh. I gather he has since passed away - but I have no idea exactly when. When I bought them from him I was thinking of writing an article and using the photos in it - I mentioned this to him and he seemed very happy with the idea (of course, I said I would give him proper credit for the photos as I always do). However, I never got this in writing - nor did I write the article. I myself am now not that young (and not that well physically) and I would like to make them available in the public domain while I still can. I would like to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and use them in appropriate articles, if possible, so others can enjoy them too (and make it a requirement that they remain properly attributed). However, I have no idea what the laws are that might apply to them. Can you please tell me if this is possible - or, if not, what I might do to make sure they will be available in public when any copyright restrictions might run out? Many thanks in advance, John Hill (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, these images are effectively in a copyrighted state for many decades into the future at least. We don't have access to a specific release from the photographer or his estate that releases the images under a free license. Permission to use, with credit given, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We accept images either as non-free or free, not permission to use here. What appears in the images? Sorry about your failing health :( --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
When you "bought" the photographs, were you just buying the copies, or additionally the right to reproduce them, or additionally the copyright itself? This depends on how your conversation went...if he sold the right to reprint only in those articles, then any use beyond that would be up to his heirs. But if he sold you all rights to use the photographs as you desire (and you only suggested as an aside that you would publish an article and credit him), then you would seem to own the copyright outright.
Also, in India, there is a procedure for licencing certain works by petition to the Copyright Office: "Where, in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 2 [i.e. the author was an Indian citizen when the work was created], the author is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to publish such work or a translation thereof in any language." (See Section 31A of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the Copyright Office website.) You'd have to clarify with the Copyright Office if they would allow it to be published as (for example) CC-BY-SA-3.0, or if they require that their own licence terms be used. Maybe there's an Indian Wikipedia user who might be able to assist with the administrative details? (This could involve publishing a notice in an English-language Indian newspaper, and paying a fee.) TheFeds19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for the detailed and very helpful information. I am in the process of composing a letter to the Registrar of Copyrights in New Delhi to ask him if there is any way the photos can be released and how I might go about getting written permission from the appropriate authority. Many thanks again for your generous help, John Hill (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
photo i took of an art exhibition
Hi I took a photo of an art exhibition in the United States. I'd like to upload the photo for the article in wikipedia about the this artist. Do I need permission from the artist or the art gallery (The Met museum, New York)? Thanks. Teine Savaii (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Generally, yes. If the art is in the public domain, then it's possible it may not, but if it's not in the PD then you'd need permission from the copyright holder, which may or may not be the art gallery. — raeky(talk | edits)13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys. The artist is Shigeyuki Kihara, I created the page on them. I took the photo of the exhibition at The Met (no people in shot) - later the artist asked me if they could borrow it for a website about their work at the Smithsonian institute, which I said yes to, so I guess they should be ok with me using it for wiki. Its just the question of The Met venue & photos of artist's work that I'm unclear about. Thanks heaps for the feedback too. Mmmm...what do you guys reckon?Teine Savaii (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This question could actually be more interesting that that. After looking at the page, there is a findlaw article on the copyright status of the work itself. PDBailey (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Image of poster
I found File:District-9_advertising_Canterbury_Tail_25_June_2009.jpg in the District 9 article, and noticed that it had been released under CC-BY-SA. I had some niggling doubts about its copyright status, since it is basically just an image of a poster, but deferred to the judgement of the uploader, and the fact that it is somewhat widely used here. However, when I uploaded a slightly modified version to commons, File:District-9_advertising.jpg, it was drive-by tagged for speedy deletion. Naturally, if that image is deemed to be a copyright violation, then so is the other. I was hoping someone here could provide an explanation why this is not a copyright violation. Thanks, decltype (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Good questions. As the original author of the D9 image I'd like to know the answer. I took the photo of something freely visible in the streets, however that's where it gets murky. Obviously I at that pointed owned the copyright of the photo as an entity, however the content of the photo is it in such a state of copyright that I can't take a photo of it? Is it any different to people taking photos of products and posting them? If it came to that then a lot of photos need to be removed. Canterbury Tailtalk11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. It is a derivative work and thus non-free, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used - it can, if it passes all the criteria in WP:NFCC. Photos of products are slightly different, it depends on the product. Black Kite12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed File:Starsuckers.jpg to a non-free license, and asked the uploader to send in OTRS or link to the license information on the official website. Hopefully this addresses the concerns on that image. -Andrew c[talk]21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Which of course rules out it being displayed on userpages and in userboxes, which it currently is. Hopefully its use to illustrate the viral marketing of the film can be NFCC-justified. decltype (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with this except delete it from the public page where it appeared and bring it here. It was taken from a book, uploaded to this link, and the rights given away. Skywriter (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm just wondering whether I can use the image File:NSW Rural Fire Service.png as a part of a userbox, providing the resolution is extremely low (30px)?
Currently looking at the article for John Mayer's new album Battle Studies and it currently has no album cover. He recently debuted it on his Twitter photo account (which is verified as being him) here: http://twitpic.com/lqtok
Now I know that album covers are permitted at a lower resolution so that they can't be used to replicate the album cover illegally, and I can fill in a good summary on the file page about how it's legal to post it, but the one doubt in my mind is with regards to the source I obtained it from. It's not the official label, it's from, essentially, Twitter (a verified account). Should I just wait until the label releases the image officially before uploading the file, or is it okay for me to do so now? I had a preliminary look and it doesn't appear to be on many sites yet.
One of the criteria under fair use is prior publication by the rights holder. I don't think it's clear this cover has been published yet. So, I'd venture to say that it's not acceptable just yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"Thank you for uploading File:NeutraliseIT.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. Istcol (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1) If I created the image myself, why is copyright needed?
2) If I am meant to state something, how do I edit the copyright status of the image, I tried but couldn't find how to anywhere.
They call it an “Image copyright tag” but that’s really a misnomer. In this case it would be better called a image license tag. You got a copyright on it simply by creating it; which means that nobody can use it without your permission. What is needed is for you to say what right Wikipedia and everyone else have to use it. Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia, insisting on permission for reuse by anyone for anything. You have several choices; the most popular are:
{{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}} to let anyone use it provided that they credit you for it. You replace "Attribution details" with what you want the credit to say.
{{cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution details}} to let anyone use it provided that they credit you for it and that they license any modified version under the same license.
Ok I think I want it to say {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}}, with the credit of anyone who uses it going to "Royal-T, a YAA company". However I cannot find anywhere how to edit it. I've read your instructions and gone to the page File:NeutraliseIT.jpg yet the only thing I can find that says edit is "Edit this file using an external application" which doesn't help. I've searched wikipedia and really tried to find this answer out on myself, but I just can't seem to find it, and how to edit the copyright tag once an image has already been uploaded. Please help? Spillon (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There should be a tab at the the top of the page (and every page) that says "Edit this page". The tab is between "discussion" and "history". Try that "edit" tab. -Andrew c[talk]12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
need attribution for photo in article about stevie ray vaughn
in wiki's article about stevie ray vaughn, the pic on the top right was made by John T. Commerford, and should be attributed to him. John is a noted rock-and-roll photographer,with a valuable portfolio of images. Unhappilly his images have been used many times without credit. Please fix this.
Good find. US college football team logos have been discussed quite a bit in the past. There has been some disputes, but I think we can all agree that the use of this non-free logo is excessive. I think it's pretty uncontroversial at this point for each individual season article to NOT use the non-free logo. I'd recommend replacing most of these instances with the free "Gators" text logo File:Script ``Gators``.png, or a similar PD-ineligable text-logo. This way, the article is still illustrated, but we are more inline with our non-free content policy. -Andrew c[talk]21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that it is non-controversial. There were massive, massive debates over this back last December, extending to February. Everything that was tried failed to reach any cooperative conclusion, with only arbitration left as an option. To Andrwsc, according to WP:NFCC #10c, we need a rationale for each use of the item. Thus, if it's used 170,000 times, we need 170,000 rationales. I don't think the writers of that policy anticipated people attempting to use a fair use item so many times. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm getting at. I think we need to be clearer in NFCC about the number of allowable FURs per image. Ideally, "1" would be the best answer for the project, but I've seen instances where 2 or 3 can be justified. But not dozens! (or 170,000 ;) — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the number of times an image is used is less important than strictly and clearly defining how they are to be used. As Hammer mentioned, there are still unresolved issues and WP:NFCC isn't entirely clear. If those can be cleared up, then we can stop future problems like these. — BQZip01 —talk16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFC#3aused to say that an image use should be minimal across both articles and Wikipedia-wide, but the language was removed in belief that it was clear that "minimal use" applied to both articles and Wikipedia-wide space. However, people have taken the lack of a clear statement in that as it now exists to presume that only image use in article space needs to be minimal, not across all WP. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the arguments will NEVER end unless we either (a) get rid of non-free images entirely (a la the German wikipedia) or (b) allow fair use images as much as possible under law. Though, in the latter cases the arguments will then end up in court. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The arguments will never end because there will always be someone who has questions, is ignorant on the subject, makes a mistake, doesn't understand Wikipedia, doesn't understand the law, etc. It is human nature.
Even Wikipedia's attorneys state that there is no chance of us getting sued even if we use non-free images all over the place. We have NFCC to keep us away from the edge though. — BQZip01 —talk20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Case in point to my statements in the WV logo discussion above. You've already been shown how this argument about "Wikipedia's attorneys state" is an empty argument that has little relevance, yet continue to bring it up as some shining gem proving how you are right and everyone else is wrong. You know damn well why whether or not we'll be sued over something has virtually no relevance. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It isn't an empty argument. It's a statement that we aren't going to get sued over image usage, ergo, your scenarios are exaggerated. There are laws that require a notice to be given to an entity such as Wikipedia that a logo is improper and that we should not be using it. At that point, Wikipedia lawyers could decide whether the lawsuit is worth the hassle and address any issues then. There are not just two extremes (no non-free images or lawsuits), but a middle ground is possible. — BQZip01 —talk04:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I do have a question though that I'm curious if it was discussed previously. How would you balanced a goal of minimal used across the entirety of the Wikipedia project with the idea that each Wikipedia article is to have sufficient notability and is to be, ideally, self-contained and stand on its own? Can one assume that the reader of any particular article is on-line and has access to wikipedia.org? For example, an article can be printed out, be part of a Wikibook, and/or may have been included as a limited selection of articles on a CD/DVD-Rom. It would seem that printed and off-line versions must be assumed to exist based on the many provisions in various guidelines and the manual of style that are set up specifically to allow readibility when printed. How does the idea of "article independence" impact a desire by some to limit non-free images across the entire Wikipedia project? CrazyPaco (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the question of whether this usage is excessive, the logo seems to be of no contextual significance in most of those articles (per NFCC 8). There's no need for the logo in an article about the composition of some school's sports team in a particular year—that's just using the logo as decoration. In other words, it is relevant, but it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" for those articles. It would seem, however, to be legitimate in the main articles about the University and the University's athletic department. TheFeds20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily want to veer off topic, but this also gets into the question of what the purpose is of logos in an infobox. It was my understanding they are present for the purposes of identifying the topic of the articles. If this is the case, the do serve an informative purpose in helping to identify the institution and/or team. I am also assuming there will be readers who may not be completely familiar with college athletics in the United States. For example, how many people do you know choose NCAA tournament picks based on the mascot or logo of the team? I know quite a few, and unfortunately, they sometime do better than me in these tournament pools. Such individuals may better recognize the topic of an article if say, it was about Michigan State as opposed to Michigan, based on the logo of the institution. I therefore believe they do serve important identifying, and thus informational, purposes. In addition, it seems that the goal of Wikipedia is that each article is to stand on its own and have its own notability (see my post above), which would appear to be somewhat in conflict with the idea of restricting logo use in one article because it appears in another. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The image that started this latest round (File:FloridaGators.png) is the official athletic logo of the University of Florida, and as such was used in articles about University of Florida athletic teams, with a valid rationale listed for each usage. Unless non-free logos are banned from wikipedia, there was no problem here.
I also find it intersting that the user who started this conversation linked to it on my talk page as justification for removing the logo in question and replacing it with a secondary UF logo. This renewed argument only illustrates the lack of consensus on the issue. Zeng8r (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#8 is a two way street: images need to be relevant to the text that accompanies then (the image is dependent on the text), but at the same time, the text needs to have the image to be appropriately clear to the reader (the text is dependent on the image). Combined, this assures that all non-free content on a printed page should be germane to the content, and at the same time complete that content thus allowing the article to stand alone. So if an article has 10 non-free images but each one fully satisfies #8 (and presumably all others beyond #3a), in particular being necessary for understanding the article, then that's "minimal use" per #3a. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Media copyright question
Would it be possible to use an image of a non-free album cover on my user page? TechnicolorNightmare 17:22, 18 October 2009 (Australia/Hobart)
It seems the three year old image still represents an item for sale at the commercial web site. The web site explicitly reserves its copyright in the page footer (see above Talk page for link). I found no evidence of use permission being asked or granted.
My concern is two-fold:
Is a commercial image of a government representation of a logo, badge or patch insignia automatically owned by the Federal Government and not the entity who took the picture of it? (I believe the answer is: No, the entity who took the photo owns the copyright to the image of the representation. See, for example, File:Washington Monument Dusk Jan 2006.jpg. The representation presented in the picture is owned by the Federal Government, but the picture is owned by author David Iliff. Since Iliff licensed his work under a Free license, there's no problem.)
Can Wikipedia assign to the Federal Government the copyright of a commercial image (as it seems to on the image page) and fiat it in to the public domain? (I believe the answer is: No, the commercial entity owns the copyright and the Federal Government ownership tag is misleading at best.)
I also proposed nominating the image for a WP:FUR at the above-referenced Talk page, but I'm unclear how to proceed, so I'm asking questions here instead. :-) Thanks for your input. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The design of the badge is in the public domain as a work of the US government. According to US legal precedent, a simple photograph of a work in the public domain cannot be copyrighted; it, too, is in the public domain. This is a case of either the website asserting copyright where they have no right to do so, or, more likely, their copyright message is only meant to refer to things over which they can legally assert copyright (such as the design of the site). Either way, there's nothing wrong with this image's copyright status. (I'll post this on the talk page as well.) -- Hux (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Hux, for your opinion. I was hoping one or two others would chime in with an opinion, but, oh well, either way. I totally buy both your arguments (particularly the second one to which my only response is, "Yup, that's true.") But on your first argument, "a simple photograph of a work in the public domain cannot be copyrighted", I'm wondering if you have any references I can read up on to understand the difference between 'a simple photograph' and a photograph like Iliff's cited above (which, as I understand it, is copyrightable). I'm obviously missing the fine distinction here, and I'd like to know more. Thanks. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is if the image is ONLY the public domain work, for example scan of an image, or faithful accurate photograph of a painting, then copyright precedent states that the photograph can't be copyrighted (IN US LAW, not the case in other countries!). In your example of a photograph of a work of art/structure like the Washington Monument, the image isn't JUST of the structure, there is some artistic licence there, angle, position, camera lenses, filters, other objects in the background, etc.. Basically photos of 3D public domain works (like a sculpture or a monument) copyright law does recognize copyright on those since they're not simple mechanical reproductions, but scans/reproductions of 2D public domain works, copyright law (again ONLY in the US) states they are not unique enough to hold separate copyright. Now the question of this patch. It is likely this is a reproduction of the patch, therefore it may not be an ACCURATE representation of the actual WWI patch, and it MAY be unique enough to hold it's own copyright. — raeky(talk | edits)23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Aladdin Sane: regarding the monument photo, raeky's 2D/3D distinction is correct and explains why that photo is treated differently under US copyright law than a photo of a two dimensional work. If you're interested in some background reading, Bridgeman v. Corel is the key precedent here. It ruled that exact copies of images lack sufficient originality in order to gain copyright protection themselves. The case was regarding reproductions of paintings that were in the public domain, but the precedent has been extended over the years in other cases such that it tends to apply to images in general. In the case of this badge, the only part of it that could be copyrighted is the logo, which as already mentioned is in the public domain by default, so a simple photograph of it would not meet the standard of originality demanded by Bridgeman. At a huge stretch, the entire badge itself could in theory be considered a three dimensional, copyrighted work - i.e. a form of sculpture - but since that has never happened before, to my knowledge, I think its safe to say that we don't need to worry about that! -- Hux (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you. That was exactly the cite I needed. As I feared, the arguments are about "original elements" and establishing a threshold. But the term "slavish copying" and how it is looked at (appended by "mere") brought a lot of clarity to my mind on the issue. I'm glad the article scoped out the precedential value of the case, I was scrolling down at first looking for an Appeals Court ruling. I'll be sure to argue it your way next time. The article was also an interesting read to see Nimmer beat Patry, I thought Patry was invincible... Must just be me... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Every single image you've uploaded seems to be blatant copyright violations. You can not just find any image of the web and upload it to wikipedia! You have to verify it's source, link to it's source, verify it's copyright the copyright holder released it under, and if you can justify fair use then you are REQUIRED to put in the fair use justification criteria. You must follow the guidelines in our Image use policy to the letter. All the images you've uploaded have been tagged for deletion. In the future I HIGHLY recommend you don't violate copyright or you might get banned. — raeky(talk | edits)00:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What i guess you didn't understand is that iam trying to ask as to how i can verify it's source, link to it's source, verify it's copyright the copyright holder released it under, and how I can justify fair use. So if you can help me that would be great, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Copyright holders that released their images under a compatible free license for wikipedia/commons that license is clearly visible for the image. For example this image at mushroomobserver.org is clearly licensed as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, and this image at flickr.com is clearly licensed as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Images found on websites that do not EXPLICITLY list the license for the image with the image or as an overall license for all content on the website you assume is NOT released under a free license. — raeky(talk | edits)18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) No all flickr images are not good; only those that are clearly licenced as free can be uploaded to this wiki. Also, in general, fair use is not permitted for images of living people, because they fail one of the the most basis requirement of fair-use; they are replaceable with a free image. So, the images you uploaded cannot be claimed under a fair-use justification. Please refer to non-free content criteria. Just go out and take photos yourself and release then with a free licence, don't steal other people's images. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay i think i got the hang of it i have posted 2 images i think that they are good, but one more question if an image says "all rights reserved" does that means i can't upload it to wikipedia common then to add to a bio. By that i mean if i upload a image of vince carter from flickr.com that says "all rights reserved", can i add that to his wikipedia bio page or would that be delete.68.151.8.97 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)the911venom68.151.8.97 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"all rights reserved" means you can't use it on Wikipedia, Commons or any other Wikimedia project. If your failing to grasp the concepts of licenses at this point either your not reading the links provided or something more fundamental must be wrong. I suggest you NOT upload any media at this point until you understand licenses better. Re-read everything linked here and explained. — raeky(talk | edits)21:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the images you uploaded to Commons, they're all correctly licensed, although one you didn't put a source or any proper author information. I've corrected that, and left comments on your talk page there. Be sure to keep following the guidelines and uploading only freely licensed images and you'll be good. More people uploading freely licensed images and improving articles makes this resource even better, so your help is definitely welcome! Don't let these deletions of your images and other words here scare you off. — raeky(talk | edits)22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Vince Carter image was deleted at Commons as a copyvio as well - regardless of the CC-by-3.0 tag, the image had been copied from Getty Images. You've got to be careful with websites like that. Black Kite22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
the911venom: As a general rule, when someone takes a photograph they own the copyright to that photograph immediately and automatically. The photographer does not have to state this to anyone; the law is already on their side by default. Some copyright holders make overt statements - such as "all rights reserved" - that illustrate their ownership of the copyright, while others don't bother. In both cases, however, the images are still copyrighted, which is why you have to assume that, unless explicitly released under a free license, any image you find on Google, Flickr, or anywhere else online is a copyrighted work and, thus, unsuitable for upload to Wikipedia. After a couple of false starts, you seem to be getting on the right track, so carry on and you'll pick this stuff up eventually. Copyrights are tricky things to navigate! -- Hux (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Clock Question
To whom it may concern:
Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is AROUND: 2" wide (all around), with a clear glass front.
I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.
Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.
I just want to say thank you for your help either way.
Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Malin Akerman photo appears to violate copyright of Cafe.se online magazine
The file File:Malin Akerman portrait.jpg appears to violate copyright of Cafe.se online magazine. The media description says it was uploaded from Flickr, but the description on Flickr said "... more at Cafe.se... " (paraphrase).
Doesn't this mean the image was lifted from the copyright holder and then posted at Flickr? That would make any claim of rights by the Flickr poster irrelevant as they do not own the image.
Definitely looks like copyright violation to me. But since the name of the photo stream is "Magazine Café" it's POSSIBLE that that flickr account is the official account for Cafe.se and they are releasing those images under those licences. Hard to say for sure, but it's suspicious. — raeky(talk | edits)11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"This is a commons image, so you would need to ask over there. The original uploaded image had the watermark which was removed. This image might well be OK. ww2censor (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. On various coat of arm images of Canadian provinces, many of them were granted more than 50 years ago, but augmented in the 1990/1980s. Would this put them into the {{PD-Old)), because they were granted more than 50 years ago, or is copyright status renewed when augmented? Connormah (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a similar discussion that might be relevant here regarding the Canadian coat of arms shield. It's been unresolved for quite a while. TheFeds15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Coats of arms protection is usually 1) not misattributing it, or using to suggest something other than was intended (unlimited) and 2) copyright on the image itself. If the image has been changed since 1950, then the image is under copyright, I think, depending on the Canadian interpretation of originality. Subject to condition 1) which is specific to registered coats of arms (before 1950 would by registered at the College of Arms), then it's just a normal image, I believe. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not just simple text, so it should be eligible for copyright. Their marketing department probably has a policy on the use of the logo, and it is possible that it is released under PD (but unlikely). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Graeme Bartlett. This is eligible for copyright (and is also used in far too many articles at the moment). Stifle (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I apprecaite the link, but trademarks by nature do not need licenses. No matter what the site intimates, a non-copyrightable mark has no restrictions on use other than proper attribution of source. That's the whole point.
If the consensus is that this is not {{PD-textlogo}}, then I'll leave the image tags alone (although I disagree, and honestly, I don't think this one should even been a close call). But more fundamentally, the latent confuson of about the need for trademark licensing needs to be addressed in the policy pages, IMO. I have a proposed section on the WP:Image use policy talk page. BillTunell (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection. See User:Elcobbola/Copyright. The "flying WV" does not meet the criteria of originality to be copyrighted and should be considered {{PD-textlogo}}, IMO. It is a trademarked logo, and should be afforded the protection of such. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
And it is partially in that stylization that it departs from being simple text. Also, BillTunell; simply because something is trademarked does not mean it is not copyrightable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be copyrighted, and not enjoy trademark protections, and something can be trademarked and not enjoy copyright protections. Items can also enjoy protections of both, or neither. Trademark and copyright rights are independent of each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand what you're saying, but there are no "pictorial" elements in the "WV" logo as required for copyrightability under U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. It's a mere letter/color combination. "Stylization" is not a copyrightable element under any legal standard. Likewise, "departing from a simple text" does not mean something is copyrightable -- even assuming that's true in this case. There needs to be a picture incorporated in the logo somehow. BillTunell (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Umm, no. Regardless, I recommend contacting WVU if you want to get this image declared as free of copyright. Enough people here disagree with it being pd-textlogo eligible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"Um, no." is just contradiction void of any logic.
We do not need to contact every institution's legal department every time you personally don't like that an image has been declared PD.
Bill, Paco, and Wordbuilder all have it right. This image simply isn't copyrightable. Under Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, the courts ruled: "[a] typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)" and a "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text."
In this image, the letters "W" and "V" are letters and intended to be used as such. Contrast this with ASCII art or the Washington State University logo in which letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed.
There is this apparent opinion amongst some editors that something has to be "simple text" to be PD and everything else isn't. There is nothing in the law, legal rulings, Congressional clarifications, or our policies/guidelines which states this. As such it is an opinion, not policy.
Lastly, I agree with Hammersoft that something can be trademarked, copyrighted, both copyrighted and trademarked, or neither. It is important to make such a distinction. — BQZip01 —talk15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
BQZ, I grow tired of this. Contacting the potential copyright holder isn't something that causes one to catch a mortal affliction. You say you have it right. Several of us say we have it right. You keep throwing coypright law at us, yet aren't a lawyer and we disagree with your interpretation of that law, and we're not lawyers. So, we're still at square 0. When you pass the bar in some state, and especially when you become a practicing IP attorney, let us know. Until then, your opinion is that of a lay person, just like the rest of us here. Since there's no consensus this image is free of copyright, it has to remain tagged as non-free until we prove it is free. Step 1: Contact WVU's Trademark Licensing Services. Their contact info: Trademark Licensing Services, Stewart Hall Room 302, P.O. Box 6686, Morgantown, WV 26506 304.293.8028. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I want this to remain civil. However, I am a practing IP lawyer, and I would agree with BQZ. Contacting WVU wouldn't be a bad idea necessarily, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone there would have the authority or incliniation to "declare" a particular image uncopyrighted. WVU has neither noticed the image as copyrighted, nor applied for a copyright on the image (I've done a loc.gov search). And, in any event, if contacting the mark's owner were the required procedure, there would effectively be no fair-use or public-domain images on wikipedia, whcih is obviously not the case. BillTunell (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Then submit your credentials to m:OTRS along with your analysis of why this is free. If in fact you are an IP lawyer, you should well know that copyright does not have to be declared to exist, and that has been the case for a long time now. Further, contacting WVU isn't out of line, and doing so wouldn't mean we wouldn't host non-free content here. Fair use exists whether WVU wants it to or not. We contact copyright holders frequently. That's why we have instructions here for doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to cut this conversation off here since it is getting ugly. My arguments were presented here since this is the wikipedia encyclopedia forum, as opposed to some other wikiproject. I have no problem submitting my credentials but I do not see how the procedure at m:OTRS could possibly affect this determination. The published copyright standards are what they are. BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
And subject to interpretation, which is why we have court rooms and an entire third branch of government to interpret the law. We don't operate solely on what the law says. You should know that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll add my layperson opinion to the mix, since that's all we have here. The West Virginia logo reminds me of the old Van Halen logo, and also the Weezer logo which is a take on that, and both of those are copyrighted. I believe the "wings" are a pictorial element beyond a typeface element. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer either. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Andrew: The "VH" logo is an example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo. Van Halen has other copyrighted marks relating to guitar design, and their album covers are a different story. But the "VH" itself is not copyrighted. See Van Halen trademrak site for an explanation. BillTunell (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
[Edit conflict x3] I appreciate your opinion Andrwsc. Do you have something that shows those logos to be non-free? File:Weezer logo.png appears to be a trademarked, free image. As for File:Van Halen logo.jpg, the flame alone makes this image copyrightable, but the basic logo appears to be just trademarked (see above post).
Nothing in policy/guidelines states that we default to non-free if there is disagreement. It certainly doesn't "[have] to remain tagged as non-free until we prove it is free." Moreover, even if you had such a policy/guideline, you have no standards by which to provide "proof", so we can never satisfy your personal requirements.
"[W]e disagree with your interpretation of that law" You disagree, but you fail to provide any rationale.
My opinion is backed up by law, caselaw, Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines, and Wikipedia disclaimers. Hammer, your opinion is backed by what? — BQZip01 —talk16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
For the Van Halen logo, I just mean the "core" design as seen on http://www.van-halen.com/samples.html (Thanks for the link, Bill!) The two versions are pre/post the David Lee Roth/Sammy Hagar switch. The image we have on en.wiki includes more than just the plain (new) logo. For Weezer, I don't mean that Commons image (used on recent album artwork) but the "flying W" seen in the background of File:Weezer.jpg for instance. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, point taken. I see what you mean, but as was stated above, mere variations of fonts are not eligible for copyright. These "wings" are no more than a double serif, a common typeface addition. — BQZip01 —talk16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
BQZ, once again I'm going to ignore your comments. They're lather-rinse-repeats of prior arguments. If you truly want answers to these arguments, go to those prior arguments where myself and many others have explained how you are wrong. What your arguments keep boiling down to is step 1: through copyright law quotations at the problem, insist your interpretation is right. Step 2: read comments from others showing disagreement with your interpretation. Step 3: go to step 1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well explain it to me again, because I clearly don't get it (or just provide a link). All you are saying is "You're wrong." (even in your steps above), but you don't explain why. — BQZip01 —talk16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been explained to you many times, by more than just me. I'm not interested in repeating the arguments all over again just so the next time this comes up you can say "All you are saying is I'm wrong, with nothing to back it up". I'm sick to death of these lather-rinse-repeat arguments from you. I will not be baited into it. As I said, if you truly want answers (and I'm well beyond AGF here at this point, given the huge body of arguments you've ignored) you know where to look. But you don't want answers. You just want to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I believe I am right. I am willing to admit when I am wrong or may be wrong, but you've provided no evidence to the contrary other than your own opinion. Again, all I am asking is for clarification as to where I am wrong in anything I've said above. — BQZip01 —talk18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I know you believe you're right. Honest, I get it. I really do. I'm just sick to death of contributing to and seeing many others contributing to efforts to show you how you are wrong, and when a similar debate comes up you throw the same arguments at it all over again, then say we're empty of support for our positions and insist we repeat all of it over again. It's tiresome, counter productive, and useless as to the point of trying to show you how you're wrong. You say you'll admit when you're wrong, but you don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That statement is falls under the fallacy of a loaded question. I can either disagree and thereby give you more "evidence" that I continue this "behavior" (thereby proving your assertion) or I can agree with you that I don't admit when I'm wrong (thereby proving your assertion). It is a self-fulfilling statement, but it ignores reality and all I have to do is show that I do admit when I am wrong or make a mistake: try doing a word search for "oops" in my edit summaries. — BQZip01 —talk19:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Will my saying "You're right, I'm wrong. On everything." make you happy? Is there ANYthing that I can say that you won't disagree with? For the love of God I sure as hell have no clue what it might be. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
To BillTunell, the page you reference on the VH designs does not state the VH designs are free of coypright. It states they are trademarked. That doesn't mean they are ineligible for copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but why would the band actually copyright other things and not the "VH" logo, if it indeed was coopyrightable? While not determinitive, this strong evidence supporting the published standard. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not evidence at all. Without a specific release of copyright from the rights holder, there is no release. Without that release, we must consider it copyrighted. This is why we have things like {{npd}} and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you want to get release of those VH logos from the copyright holder, contact licensing_administrator@van-halen.com. and get it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, this makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to use the VH logo for anything, so there's no reason for me to contact them. And it's just not true for wikipedia purposes that "without [a] release, we must consider it copyrighted." That would categorically eliminate all public-domain images on wikipedia. As much as that might be your agenda, it simply is not wikipedia policy.
I would like you to comment specifically about how you'd like to shorten the proposed policy on the image use policy board, if you have the time. BillTunell (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Without a release, we have no proof the work is free. Why do you think we have {{npd}}????? If we follow your model, where everything is free until proven not free, why bother with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission???? Obviously someone here (and many someones) think it is important to prove release. I'm not stating something unilaterally here. As for the VH logo itself, you used the VH logo as evidence. I contradicted that evidence. Does that make sense? As to the proposal; it's your own proposal. Figure out how to shorten it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, this has turned ugly, which I have tried to avoid. I'm not claiming that "everything is free until proven not free." But if you're going to fight against that straw man, I see no use in continuing. As I stated before, I will abide by any adminstrative determination on the "WV" logo, if and when it comes. Until then, I do not consider a lack of consensus to be determinitive one way or the other. BillTunell (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You're saying that non-free until proven free doesn't make sense. I'm not making this up. You said it. If that's the case, it's a logical conclusion that you believe free until proven non-free. If that's not the case, just what DO you believe? Something between free and non-free until proven something between free and non-free? <confused look> The only straw man here is the one you're making. Forgive me for the windmill made from your own words. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hammer, this is a combination of logical fallacies, Bare_assertion_fallacy and False dilemma specifically. You are making the assumption that there is a default position from which all images start. This simply isn't the case. From that, you've derived that there are two possible default positions from which to start, free or non-free, leaving one to prove that an image isn't in such a category. In reality we take all kinds of images (copyrighted, trademarked, patent images, free images with some restrictions, free images with no restrictions) and use them appropriately (or at least try to). It is up to the uploader to show that the image is under the license which they claim it is and for the Wikipedia community to accept/reject that claim. There is no default position within Wikipedia regarding images. — BQZip01 —talk18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hammer's right. Our image policy requires not only attribution but proper licensing for an image, even if it is free. You have to have a clear statement that an image does fall into a free license to assert that it is free, otherwise, as per US Copyright law, we assume its copyrighted. An image failing to include a statement as to being free or not is removed under the assumption it is non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Masem, what you said isn't true (caveat: see below). There are LOTS of images that were published prior to 1923. These have no accompanying information that states "This image is in the public domain", but they clearly are public domain images. Additionally, Copyright law makes no such claim that you have to have a clear statement that it is free or it is copyrighted; that simply isn't true. For things published in the present, if they are copyrightable (which is the key phrase here), I concede that what you say is true and that an automatic copyright applies, but they must be copyrightable in the first place. Many of us contend that this isn't the case for this image and many others. — BQZip01 —talk19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that this discussion is about the copyright-able nature of the image, and not so much about the copyright, but the logic of our default position of assuming non-free unless proven other still applies in that we need to consider taking the position that the boundary for the threshold of originality for whether an image is copyrightable is very fuzzy and typically only defined for specific cases in the court of law; because of that and our image policies, we need to take the position that unless the image clearly fails originality, it should be considered non-free. A logo that is plain block text is clearly unoriginal, but anything beyond this is always going to be in question due to the fuzziness of the threshold law unless asserted by another source. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you missed the point. One license we use is images that have fallen into PD due to their age. We accept that this is a default for images before 1923, but we still need assurance the image is dated before 1923. Without clear proof, we can't assume its PD, and thus assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Then you missed my point entirely. Copyright law doesn't say that, Wikipedia says it about copyrightable images and how they are treated, not those ineligible for copyright (which are, by definition, PD). Another license we use is for images that are PD due to the fact that they are not eligible for copyright in the first place. — BQZip01 —talk19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
We here can agree that something is PD by way of age, for example. It's when we disagree, such as with this logo, that we have to have proof. Even in cases of age, we need to be able to prove how old it is beyond reasonable doubt. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
We agree to it because Wikipedia has a concrete line (1923) that we've established because of Copyright law which states images prior to that are PD. By the same token, we have guidance on what trademarked images are ineligible for copyright and which ones are copyrighted. You have provided no rationale against any of the above arguments other than "no, that's not right." This isn't a logical argument, it's just contradiction. Your desire to insert additional requirements in this process is not part of this guidance and is disruptive. — BQZip01 —talk20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. As I said before, I will not be baited into this bullshit argument of "You have provided no rationale.." You've been shown multiple times why you are wrong. You disagree. Every time we have a similar debate, you trot out your old arguments again, insisting they are right until proven wrong, but never believe for a second that you could possibly be wrong and insist that everyone play your little game of refuting your argument again, only to have you do this all over again. You want to talk about disruptive? Look at yourself. This behavior of yours is utterly despicable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of which arguments you two have had before, you need to articulate it again. Many of us were not party to those previous conversations. It may be frustrating that you have to repeat yourself, but it is necessary to reach consensus. We are trying to determine if this image is subject to copyright protection. You need to articulate why this image is copyrightable. I have yet to see an argument from you as to what the "artistic elements at play" in this image are, that arise to more than text and color. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I refuse to be continually baited into these bullshit arguments. Over and over and over again, BQZ uses the tactic of throwing just as much shit at the wall as he can in the hopes that in a new similar argument, something sticks this time. Whether it sticks or not, it still stinks. He knows damn well what the rejections of his stances are, yet demands over and over and over again that people refute him. It's a stupid, silly game, and I won't be party to it anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with BillTunell. As he has demonstrated, this image is not a copyrighted image. Nor is it eligible for copyright protection as is a mere variations of typographic lettering and coloring. It is a trademarked image and {{PD-textlogo}} is the correct tag. —Ute in DC (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this thread is really out of hand. Lots of talk, not a lot of authoritative knowledge. We have entered into a discussion on the topic "can a trademark also receive copyright protection" and "is the WV trademark copyrightable", and we're quibbling about slab serifs and frigging wings? You've got to be kidding.
A few observations...
Bill Tunell says "trademarks by nature do not need licenses." This is patently false (pun intended), witness "official" NFL and MLB logo'd wear, etc. This really throws Mr. Tunell's credibility as "a practicing IP lawyer" under the bus so to speak.
What I have said is correct. Trademarks by nature do not need licenses. The NFL and MLB logos are copyrights. Unauthorized atheltic apparrel that does not incorporate copyrighted logos is legal – and, in fact, you see it all the time. BillTunell (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
some have referred to User:Elcobbola/Copyright as some kind of authoritative source on this issue. I find the presentation very unconvincing for various reasons. Going from saying a typeface can't be copyright to saying the IBM logo is the same as a typeface seems really absurd to me, so I don't think User:Elcobbola/Copyright adds any clarity to the discussion.
Can I use a trademark in my blog's name or in the title of a blog post?
Yes, if it is relevant to the subject of your discussion and does not confuse people into thinking the trademark holder endorses your content. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in URLs and domain names of critical websites is fair. (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, URL http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks; Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, domain name www.bosleymedical.com). Companies can get particularly annoyed about these uses because they may make your post appear in search results relating to the company, but that doesn't give them a right to stop you.
Sometimes, you might use a trademark without even knowing someone claims it as a trademark. That is permitted as long as you're not making commercial use in the same category of goods or services for which the trademark applies. Anyone can sell diesel fuel even though one company has trademarked DIESEL for jeans. Only holders of "famous" trademarks, like CocaCola, can stop use in all categories, but even they can't block non-commercial uses of their marks.
Since the logo in question is a trademark, it seems reasonable that the above applies, and therefore it should be OK to use the logo in a non-commercial context which does not claim endorsement by the mark owner. NOT being an IP attorney, I wonder whether a logo can have both copyright and trademark protection. If the mark can indeed also be protected by copyright, then we have a issue.
Since 1976, copyrights do not have to be registered. And kindly cut the crap with <parrot>"There's no policy or guideline..." blah blah blah. Enough of the wikilawyering bullshit. You asked a question. I answered it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine, but I'm answering the question "what policy requires proof of ineligibility for copyright"? As every image needs a license, you needed to add that licenese to show your assertion it fails originality and thus uncopyrightable. You couldn't just post that image without the license and say it's uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And to address the question directly: anything in the public domain (as long as you're sure it is and that it hasn't been mislabeled as such) can be moved to the commons without concern about copyright issues. -- Hux (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There's an unverifiable text note and no OTRS on the image page:
Hi Chagai,
Please note that all the images that we took at the Bareket observatory and appear on the web site are free for use.
Best regards, Ido.
The problem is that it has then been tagged with {{PD-user-w|en|wikipedia|Chagai}} and thus the text "This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator, Chagai."
I can see a few problems with this: "free for use" doesn't imply "public domain", secondly the author is mis-credited, thirdly we might have an issue that there's no traceability for this. I for one wouldn't want to have to deal with a future claim of infringement and be reliant on just this as an author's release. Isn't this what OTRS is for? Although I'm sure this example is genuine, imagine the potential for non-GF abuse if this way of working became de facto acceptable.
Chagai needs to have someone explain to him Wikimedia Commons and OTRS process and require that he go through that process for these images, then these images need deleted off of wikipedia so he can put them on Commons under the correct license (CC-BY-3.0 probably), with OTRS permissions. — raeky(talk | edits)16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Steve Fairbairn is without a decent image. It uses a free image of a relief sculpture of his face instead. I propose adding the photo at the top of this page http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/the-boat-race/index.php as the main image. It is low resolution, irreplaceable by free content, >50 years old, and only a portion of the whole is used (it is clearly a part of a larger team photograph). Does this qualify as fair-use?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please can you tell me which licence is appropriate for File:MoReq2Paper.JPG given that it is the cover of a (free) publication of the European Commission, and given that the publication bears the following notices:
"Copyright European Communities, 2008
Reproduction authorised for non-commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged."
I have tried (really, really, tried )to work it out myself, without success.
We require the authorization to reproduce images for commercial as well as non-commercial purposes. Since the copyright notice specifically says that reproduction is only authorized for non-commercial purposes, we cannot use the image. PowersT15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
i cant upload any files from wiki.is uploading files possible in wiki?
can i upload files from wiki?
i have logged in as wiki commons but still not working
whats the problem?
please find me a solution
i have to present a presentation in my college.so,please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramoohot (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I just uploaded an image and was told it was not properly tagged
sorry, this is the first time I have done this and do not understand the instructions on wikipedia.
please help me!
and please don't delete the image yet - I'm travelling over this weekend back across continents and will not get to my mails again till early next week!
The image I loaded was: Eknath Easwaran courtesy of the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation.jpg
I downloaded this off a website www.easwaran.org/media
which gave permission to download the image provide a credit line was added
I can't see which category of copyright this is
cleary the image is copyright the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, but it is neither "free" nor "non-free"
The site generally (and presumably also the photo) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. The Noncommercial and No Derivative Works restrictions are not acceptable to Wikipedia; so Wikipedia considers it to be non-free. But since Eknath Easwaran is dead, there is a possibility that a much lower resolution version of the photo might be used under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to identify his article. The most important conditions are that no free image of him exists, and the image is low resolution. (300 px on the longer dimension would be acceptable low resolution.) —teb728tc10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add our tournament logo to my page
Philippine Integrated National Police logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatles eric (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 October 2009
Why are you responding with another account than what you originally posted on, Vancouverrob12 and Beatles eric, both scream bot created user names to me. As for a logo, even the wikipedia page doesn't have a logo for them, see Integrated National Police. Not sure of the legal copyright on a logo of that organization though. — raeky(talk | edits)16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
raeky: Note that a user registering multiple accounts is not, in and of itself, a problem. It's only problematic when used to deceive, mislead, etc., which is clearly not the case here. Note also that, by default, we must assume good faith and take take the position - as teb728 has done - that these are two different users. -- Hux (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Non replaceable images from a website
Hi. I was wondering if I could upload images from a website under these [9] terms and conditions as non free images. The photos cannot be replaced as the sight is now buried making it impossible for me to take my own photos of it. There are schematics of the site and some historical artwork that I would like to us as well. The images come from this [10] page in the website and are located towards the bottom of it. If the sight is ever excavated I would simply take my own and use those. Cheers. ***Adam*** (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the images are usable for non-commercial use only, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's free license requirements. Therefore, the only way you can use these is in accordance with the non-free content criteria, which are fairly strict. Without knowing how you're intending to use them, I can't offer more advice than that. However, the info at that link will point you on the right direction. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Are miniature portraits (example) considered two-dimensional art (not three dimensional) in the Bridgeman-Corel sense? I mean just the pictures, without its framing and all the trinkets. Some are flat, but others are prominently convex. NVO (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The Bridgeman ruling was, fundamentally, about the lack of originality in exact, photographic copies of public domain images, not specifically about two-dimensional art. Therefore, imo, the images at your link minus, as you said, the framing, etc., would very likely be considered public domain under US law. -- Hux (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
My experience is not with the [{WP:NFCC|]], but I would think probably not (unfortunately; I do like the show). On the other hand, the use of the DVD covers also seems decidedly controversial to me, and they remain, so what do I know. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Non-Flickr, CC-licensed images
I have located some CC-licensed images I would like to upload to illustrate an article. They are clearly marked as being under the Creative Commons Attributions Share-Alike 2.0 license. They're on the public web; anyone can verify their state. My plan is to upload the images to Wikipedia linking to both the original page and WebCited version of the page as clear evidence of the grant in perpetutity. Will that be enough? (The images in question are here, in the event that it matters.) — Alan De Smet | Talk22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The copyright status seems clear enough at that link. Go for it! Just make sure you use the same license when you upload and be sure to credit the author on each photo. -- Hux (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither would be acceptable in Kowloon Walled City. Use there would fail WP:NFCC#1 (because the image could be replaced by text saying that it the inspired images, and that text would serve the same encyclopedic purpose), WP:NFCC#3a (because its resolution is way too high for a non-free image), and WP:NFCC#8 (because showing it would not be needed for reader understanding). Sorry. —teb728tc06:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It is the age of this particular image that is the question, and the website does not make it clear. If the image was created then, then it would be Public Domain in the US. There are restrictions outside copyright, though. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
For download, in most browsers you can right click an image and choose an option such as "Save image as.." You can also consult your web browser software's help for more information. See also: Web browser. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering what would be the copyright of the letter at the top of this page (Letter from Wheeler Dryden to Edna Purviance): [11] It was sent to the US from India in 1917 and is currently held at the British Film Institute (London). Since it was sent before 1923, it seems it could be public domain, is that right? Laurent (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not as such, no. You'd have to show that it was published before 1923, which can be very tricky indeed to do conclusively. Otherwise, your trail for copyright owner would turn towards the Roy Export Company Establishment who handle many Chaplin-related bits and pieces (apparently including this letter); understandably they have been keen in the past to pursue copyright infringements with some vigour, and also tend to renew copyrights where at all possible. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The copyright would have been held by the author of the letter, not the recipient, and certainly not Roy Export Company, which was neither. Wheeler Dryden died in Los Angeles in 1957. Dryden's copyright would last for 70 years beyond his death, through 2027. It is possible that Dryden bequeathed the copyright to Charles Chaplin upon Dryden's death, but unlikely because Dryden had a living son. But is it necessary to reproduce the letter in the Dryden article? It would be much simpler to include the link to letter you gave above in an "External links" section of the article. — Walloon (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I was misreading the copyright status at the bottom. Obviously, they control the film images. Which makes exactly whom the BPI have got the images off a mystery. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]
Well, I've actually already added a link to this letter so it's not essential to actually reproduce it in the article. I just thought it could be an opportunity to import some interesting historical documents in Wikimedia Commons, but if there are any doubt on the copyright, I agree we shouldn't do it then. Laurent (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a mystery at all: the letter was addressed to Edna Purviance, and the the BFI has her scrapbooks, which are reproduced on the same Web page as the letter. — Walloon (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If we find the whole image copyright thing to confusing, may we use a simple program to create a crude but general sketch and upload that?
I think a good amount of users, including myself, know that while it IS possible to upload images you didn't create, the copyright issue and process is too confusing/intimidating/complex. The result? A good portion of articles have no image at all.
What I want to know is if I can create a rough drawing of the object and upload that. I am a poor artist, but I think that a crude, microsoft paint made image of the object is better than no image at all. Fusion7 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are creating diagrams, by all means use MSpaint (note that Gimp and Inkscape are free and can do much more than Paint). I doubt a cartoon-esque paint image could ever have enough visual value to depict an object photographically, and will probably be removed from the article. Of course, you could give us a specific example to help us in giving a specific answer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking of the various articles on military robots. A lot of them do not have any image of any kind. I feel that we c ould do a lot more if we were allowed to create basic renditions. Keep in mind that a lot of these articles are stubs, too.Fusion7 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking to add a photo of a generic product to an article.
example of image (though mine won't have a white background, it'll be a photograph of one of those bottles). Would this qualify as fair use on the article for the product in question (Colloidal silver)? The bottles are made by several different companies that all use the same label design, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You should be able to use a photo as long as it complies with the policy points, and is not an advertisement, and there really is an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
US Government page says others works are public domain
This page says, "These images are in the public domain and are available for download and reproduction." The first three images are obviously fine, but all the rest are credited to state employees. Can I trust that the original owners have given up their copyrights in cases like this, and if so, which tag should I use? --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The assurance of the U.S. government that the images were in the public domain is a very good defense against the charge of copyright infringement. — Walloon (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
To choose the right tag
The question is about picture File:Gatlings2.jpg - I am confused which licence tag to use for this picture. The author is Evija Sidraba (my friend) and she allows to use this picture for free as far as her name is mentioned.--Ingii (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This should be tagged the same as the original with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} which is what the upload on the Latvian wiki shows, on the basis that the original licence there is proper. Though it should really be moved to the commons, from where everyone can use the one image, and the local versions deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Sound file attribution
Having just discovered this page (it's amazing how many years you can be on WP and still discover new places) I'll ask a question that has come up from time to time. Namely: when placing an audio link on a page, is it necessary (for attribution purposes) to have a link to that file's information page alongside the Media: link to play the sound file? What laws/licensing terms are applicable here? If it's required, what is the minimum form the link label should take (for example, is "info" OK? how about just "i"?) And does it have to be right next to the Media: link? If so, how close? (I know any answers to this will be personal interpretation, but still I'd like to hear some views.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well some do and some don't, and the question is whether those that don't ought to, or those that do needn't do. (Basically the link is an annoyance, and it would be good to eliminate it or minimize its footprint, as far as the law allows.)--Kotniski (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
OK let me clarify: there are several templates like {{Audlisten}} which produce something like this: ⓘ. For giving links to recorded pronunciation within text, this is ideal - compact and to the point. However some people claim there's a legal necessity to design the template so as to include a link to the description as well. My question is whether they are right (and why), and if so, how unobtrusive is that link allowed to be.--Kotniski (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Powers, I'm missing understanding the truth in the assertion that the icon links to the file's description. The file in the subject is the OGG file, not the PNG file. Kotniski's example, Audlisten, links to the sound, so that plays, and a rather annoyingly meaningless file description of the PNG icon used (I'm missing the point there; someone is going to think the icon is a copyright violation or something?). I can't find where the example links to the description for the OGG file. Now that I'm starting to understand it, I'm starting to like Kotniski's point. I, as a reader, would have expected the PNG image to link to the description for the OGG file, not the uninteresting description of the PNG file. If both are needed, I suggest adding another "simple but obvious" icon for the actual (OGG) file description, such as maybe a copyright icon. Kotniski's example has always annoyed me. I do sometimes want to find out more about a file, and Audlisten totally fails to provide me the info I wanted, but instead misleads me to a wholly uninteresting description of a common icon. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies too, since I wasn't taking into account that the icon links somewhere else entirely. So are we saying that we're covered legally if the icon links to the audio file description page? (The question of whether we might want to link to that page because readers might actually be interested is another matter - I would have thought the answer was no in most cases, but that's not really what I'm asking here.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Are images from DOCUMERICA public domain? Our article says that they were produced by photographers under contract with the EPA, a US government agency, so it sounds as if its photos are similar to HABS images that are sometimes taken by contractors. Conversely, I just discovered this DOCUMERA image on Flickr, and it's tagged with a free CC license, but not shown as PD. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
By default, the copyright for works created for the U.S. government by independent contractors belongs to the contractors. But the National Archives' catalog info for the collections says, "EPA has specified that images are not to be used for advertising purposes. Rights purchased by EPA from photographers." If the EPA purchased all rights from the photographers, I don't know that it can restrict use of the photographs in any way, including commercial use. In my opinion, the photos are in the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That's wrong, I'm afraid. The US Government can hold copyrights where it has purchased or been assigned them; it just can't assert copyright on material it created for itself. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Posting images of paintings to page "Houben R.T."
I would like to know on what grounds I am asked for copyright information for three images of paintings that I have posted to the page "Houben R.T." I own the rights to these images; I have posted them more than once and more than once they have been proposed for deletion. I work for Houben's studio and all of the paintings are shot with his camera.
I am not an expert but I will give some ideas and links. I assume that the artist still maintains copyright on the paintings (I can't print one of the photos and sell it at a local market for example). If that is the case then the only way to have the photos of copyrighted paintings on Wikipedia is under a "fair use" claim, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Picasso's File:Dora Maar Au Chat.jpg is an example with a licence and fair use rationale. You go to an image description page and click "edit this page" and add the licence, eg {{Non-free fair use in|Houben R.T.}}. Keep in mind Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (if that applies) and that Wikipedia's policy is to minimise non-free content so one rather than three fair use image would be better.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The text indicates an Erfle eyepiece has 5 elements.
In Chris Lord's "Evolution of the Astronomical Eyepiece" page 36, the generally accepted variant of the Erfle are:
ERFLÉ I - A 1-2-2 design having a 60°
field but eye relief only 0.3Fe. The
glasses used were SF2, PSK3, FK5 and
SF10.
ERFLÉ II - A 2-1-2 design using the
same glass types having a 70° field and
0.6Fe eye clearance. Patented after
Erflé’s death in 1923.
ERFLÉ III - A 1-2-2 design using the
same glass types having a 55° field and
eye clearance of 0.32Fe. Patented after
Erflé’s death in 1923.
The image shown is a 6 element eyepiece which is a Modified Erfle which is much closer to the
KASPEREIT - A modification of Erflé’s
designs by Kaspereit having a 2-2-2
for m, giving fields in excess of 68° and
eye r elief 0.3Fe+. The glasses used in
modern variants are SF2, BK7, SK20
and SF10. Some W.W.II (World War II)
variants using Thorium or Uranium
glass have fields wider than 70°.
I would suggest using an image which more correctly depicts one of the generally accepted Erfle designs such as the Erfle I or Erfle II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.96.96 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You should make that suggestion at the article talk page Talk:Eyepiece. This page is frequented by people who know more about media copyright questions than eyepieces. —teb728tc08:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You add {{copyvio|url}} to the image description page on Commons, replacing url with the URL from which you think it was copied. I've already done this for the two images you mentioned. Physchim62(talk)13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Tags of public domain images in Kerry slug article
I'm the Wikipedia administrator in question. For reasons that elude me, Snek is insisting on attaching the "life plus 70" tag to images that are in the public domain because of the pre-1923 publication rule. We have explained it to him clearly, over and over again, and have now given up. If anybody else wants to take a crack at it, be my guest. Steve Smith (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody check out the OTRS tag on File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg. It says, “Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under Fair Use.” I can’t figure out what that could possibly mean: I thought fair use was use without permission. —teb728tc00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the OTRS ticket. Basically, the copyright holder is giving its blessing for its use, but not licensing it under a CC-BY-SA compatible license, so it should still be judged against the WP:NFCC. Steve Smith (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm lost about the distinction between "Free License" and "Public Domain". I thought in the case of "Free License" (CC, GFDL, etc.) the author retains ownership of copyright under law. I was also led to believe that in the case of "PD" the author lost all rights under the scope of "copyright law". NeilN's question seems to me to relate to "PD", not "Free License". I'm not attempting to answer NeilN's question; in the case of "PD" I certainly haven't a clue what the answer is. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Raeky, a work available under a "free license" is not the same thing as a work in the public domain. The man difference between the two is that the rights holder can withdraw a free license, but cannot withdraw a work from the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually you can't, a free license is irrevocable. Once you issue something as free and someone else uses it you can't take it back then try to force them to stop using it or pay you royalties. Thats the reason free licenses that Wikimedia uses are irrevocable. — raeky(talk | edits)06:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That may be true in some instances, but note that submissions of your own work would fall under the message under the edit box - You irrevocably agree to release your contributions. I'd say the editor hasn't a leg to stand on. Unless s/he didn't have the rights to begin with, a work once released is forever so. (ESkog)(Talk)19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Once a work is released under a free license, it can't be taken back. (WP:CC-BY-SA says that it's a perpetual license, unless abused by the grantee). In the case of Fiskeharrison's photographs, I don't think there is any reason to contest his action. We should just let them be deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Right - Wikipedia still has the right to use these photos, but we can still choose to honor the photographer's request. I believe this has been done on occasion for other users, as a courtesy. In this case there are only a few images and they're closely connected to the user's real life identity, so it seems reasonable to extend this courtesy to him. --Amble (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I would oppose them being deleted if they're actually used in an article and no other equal or better image can be substituted. — raeky(talk | edits)06:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
NB As I have said elsewhere, I did not have the right to release these images into the public domain in the first place. I erroneously rushed through the upload process to get them up there without properly reading the small print and did so in contravention to the wishes of the copyright owners. Therefore I am not 'withdrawing permission' so much as trying to prevent Wikipedia, and myself, from continuing this breach of copyright law. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a rather curious statement by the editor in question because 5 of his 7 remaining uploads are clearly claimed to be his own work so we have to assume he had the right to release those as he did at upload time. I oppose deleting the any images that are being used, or were used before the editor removed them from articles.
File:Cayetano-portrait.jpg and File:Best cape April'09.jpg These two images are claimed to be by someone else and we could respect the improper licence for these two image by tagging them as having no permission.
File:Pendulum-E-flier.jpg; This poster may be a problem. Did the uploader actually create this image himself and did he have the right to licence it as he did? If so we keep it, but if not, it should be nominated for deletion as having no permission. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how these permission things work and merely tried to tick the correct boxes as quickly as I could, for which I apologise. My headshot, by Marco Windham, has permission - purchased when I purchased the headshot. The photograph 'Before The Duel' from the play, by Matt Jamie, has permission recently negotiated in my capacity as producer of that production of the play - the others from that play do not. This isalso true of the Pendulum flier, designed by Andy Cooke with photograph by Matt Jamie. I have no permission for this form of reproduction (I thought I did as I had the right to print it for the play as producer - I did not realise they had retained electronic rights). Best Cape is a detail of a photo by Nicolas Haro for which I have negotiated permission (he works with me on my book 'The Last Arena'.) However, I had forgotten his image of Cayetano, for which I do not have permission to license in this way (although I do to place it on my blog). Please delete that one. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Is CC-BY-SA-1.0 actually compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0?
Browsing through recent changes I came across a large chunk of text taken from WikiTravel. This site is licensed CC-BY-SA-1.0. At first I thought this was okay, but after thinking I began to wonder if it was actually compatible or not.
According to CreativeCommons themselves an "or any later version" clause did not appear until 2.0. (Share Alike Across Borders section). Furthermore it says The version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only.
Since 1.0 does not equal 3.0, you cannot add this text to wikipedia as contributions cannot be re-licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL.
The relevant clause of the license is 4b, which begins by saying "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License" (emphasis mine), but then later says "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement." My best reading (IANAL, etc.) is that you're correct, but the wording "in a manner inconsistent with" rather than something like "under any terms other than those contained" might provide some wriggle room; it would probably depend to some extent on the differences between 1.0 and 3.0, on which I'm not well-versed. Steve Smith (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Endorsement of our attorney" is pretty much the long and short of it. As I explained at the archive MLauba linked, I wrote Mike to ask about this when the question was raised with respect to text, because I was concerned about the same omission. However, Mike said that the various numbers are subsets of the first. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
←Just thought I'd add a bit of context here, because the question and the way they're asked can make a big difference. :) I presume you all know that I can't post Mike's e-mails here, but I can post mine (I hereby authorize me to do so :D). These are the two e-mails I sent him (well, the two that matter. In the third, I just said thanks.)
Extended content
Hi, Mike.
An article has been tagged on Wikipedia for copyright investigation that was copied from a source licensed under CC-By-SA 1.0.
I have tentatively cleared this as okay, but indicated I would double check with you because technically I'm not sure it really is. The problem is that the legal text of 1.0 does not seem (that I can see) to have anticipated a need for upwards compatibility (<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode>), even
though beginning with 2.0 they essentially did. (2.0 allows derivatives under "a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains
the same License Elements as this License"; 3.0 foes further in allowing reuse under "a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License")
This is not likely to be a one-off question, since the source here is a wiki, if not one of ours.
Can you please advise whether for Wikipedia's purposes 1.0 is compatible with 3.0? That way I'll know not only what we can do with this one but we'll know what to do in the future, and we can add
The only iffy thing there, I think, is the requirement of CC-By-SA v.1.0 that "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform."
2.0 specifically says that "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this
License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan)."
3.0 is fairly similar.
So, as it seems that subsequent versions are a bit more liberal, but
they don't seem to have imposed any new restrictions. I gather that the folks at CC did not anticipate updates to 1.0, or they probably would have incorporated that. :)
I gather, then, that we're okay?
I have resisted the urge to clean up my glaring typo. Rereading his (brief) e-mails, I see I have misattributed the word "subset" to him; the word he used was "superset." --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Should I upload this image for the Roblox article?
You should only upload the image if you have evidence it is licensed freely, with a compatible license with Wikipedia's, or if you believe it meets all 10 WP:NFCC (and note, this is a very strict, exclusive policy, as Wikipedia clearly favors free content). Alternatively, to request permission, find a contact address, and ask who is the copyright holder of the image, and would they be willing to release the image under the terms of a free license (such as the CC-BY-SA license), which allows third parties to reuse, modify, and possibly commercially profit from the image in question. See WP:COPYREQ for more details and templates (sample e-mails) you can use. Your question was a little vague (or it confused me ;P) so hopefully my general answer is helpful. Feel free to reply with more specific concerns. Thanks. -Andrew c[talk]22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What licence for a government media release?
Please help me to determine an appropriate licence. I have made multiple attempts to upload an image for Jane Aagaard but have had them all rejected and deleted. The image is of the Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA, who is the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in Australia. The image is owned by the Northern Territory Government and is a publicity photo provided as part of a media release from the Department of Legislative Assembly, NT Government. It's location was brought to my attention by the office of Jane Aagaard. It would seem to me to be a no-brainer that the NT Government intends this to be used and everybody bar WP is using it freely but after expending an enormous amount of time searching through WP I can see no appropriate licence. What should I do? As far as I can see, which may not be very far right now, Jane Aagarde herself would be unable to make this stick. I note that the US Government pictures are all available for use once they have placed them in the public domain and there is a USG Licence template just for this. I am sure that Australia and most of the western world are exactly the same. Help. Ex nihil (talk)05:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You probably cannot use that image on Wikipedia. Generally, all images used on Wikipedia must be freely reusable by any person for any purpose (including commercial uses and derivative works), which that image almost certainly is not. The exceptions are listed in the non-free content criteria, but it doesn't sound like that image meets any of those, either. Sorry. Steve Smith (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean you can't use it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia applies much stricter standards to its own content than what exists in general copyright law. Steve Smith (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing, Jmdma. If you took the photograph then it is automatically copyrighted by you. You need to tell us that you no longer want to exercise control over the image (in which case, add {{PD-Self}} to the image) or only partial control (probably {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}).If you add either of those tot he image it won't be deleted. More possibilities are also listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, but those two are the most common. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]12:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you really take this photo File:Diogo Laval 2.jpg yourself? There is no metadata and the original upload that you have now cropped to just show his head, shows a watermark which gives the impression it was copied from a website. Where did the image come from? Did you copy the image from a website. If so, you cannot give the image a copyright that you do not have the right to. If you actually took the photo you can give it any copyright you like but we only accept freely licenced images. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm missing the part that says WP only accepts freely licensed media. I was of the impression that the free licenses acceptable to WP included the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. I had detected that WP also accepts PD, which by my understanding is not possible to give a copyright license for, either "free" or "non-free", since no copyright is owned by anyone in the first place who may give a copyright license for it. I had also detected that Fair Use media was permissible, given that all ten of WP:NFCC criteria were met. If I was incorrect in detecting the three categories (PD, "free license" as defined by WP, Fair Use), could you please point me to the correct article so I may be enlightened? Sorry I got off topic from the original question. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Public domain media are freely licenced as are CC-BY-SA and GFDL and PD and we accept then though some media may be acceptable under the fair-use claim as you realise by WP:NFCC. File:Diogo Laval 2.jpg is alive so a fair-use claim is most likely out. The uploader really needs to tell us where the image came from and who owns the copyright. I don't think he owns it or even took the actual photo, but I could be mistaken, which is why we need some confirmation. Perhaps a read of WP:C and also my image copyright info page will help you get a better understanding of the topic in one place. ww2censor (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Schoolhouse Image
The Little Outfit Schoolhouse was added to the National Register of Historic Places (Santa Cruz County, Arizona) early in 2009. I want to add an image of the schoolhouse to the Wikipedia page. I have characterized the image as being in the public domain with no constraint on its usage but one of the monitors has removed the image saying no proof has been shown that the image is, in fact, in the public domain. I have two questions:
1) Is my proof (see below) sufficient?
2)If my proof is sufficient, how and where do I post the proof (or the conclusion that the proof is sufficient) so that other monitors can will see it and not remove the image again?
My case that the image is in the public domain is that it has been copied from a school brochure which was published in 1943 (or close thereto)by a private school advertising the benefits of the school. I led the effort to have this school (schoolhouse) put on the U.S. Government's National Register of Historic Places so I have made a thorough study of the school's history and what is available as photographs or documents to make the case for inclusion on the register. The school closed as a school in 1950, the owners sold the ranch, school records and files were discarded, and the last of the owners died in 1980. I have talked to the two surviving children of the owners and there are no claims to rights on any of the schools properties.
The photograph in question was probably taken by Charles Herbert, an uncle of one of the students when I was there myself in the mid-40s. Herbert was a well known photographer and left a large collection of his work. When he died in 1976 his company, Western Ways, closed its doors. When Herbert's wive died the company's records were donated to the Arizona Historical Society. The Society has given me a complete set of its photographs of the Little Outfit taken by Herbert and the image I have chosen to include is not among them. In several years of hunting for Little Outfit memorabilia I have never encountered anyone other than the Arizona Historical Society who has claimed rights to such objects related to the Little Outfit.
My conclusion is that there is no "ownership" of any kind associated with this image and that anyone is free to use it as they will.
Thank you for your help in resolving this matter -- I look forward to your directions on how I (we?) should make the above proof more generally available.
(ec) If it was published in the U.S. in 1943 (or any other time between 1923 and 1950) then the photograph probably is in the public domain, unless somebody renewed its copyright in the year preceding the 28th anniversary of the publication, which does not sound likely. I'd suggest that you re-upload it and affix the appropriate tag: either {{PD-Pre1978}} if there was no copyright notice on the pamphlet or {{PD-US-not renewed}} if there was one. If you get any trouble after that, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll help you out with it. Steve Smith (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
To add to that, I see you currently have it tagged with a tag saying that you're the copyright holder and that you release it into the public domain, which obviously isn't true. That's possibly where the trouble came from. Steve Smith (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austin_Knight_Comedian.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png&oldid=268123291){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
