Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/February

Newbie question on image of 17th century artwork...

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out if I can upload a picture of a 17th century mezzotint drawing by Prince Rupert onto Wikipedia ("The Great Executioner" - a famous piece of artwork at the time). There is an image on the open internet here which appears to assert that it could be used under the Public Domain rules, but before doing so I wanted to check that I understood the rules properly... Any help gratefully received. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Also see Template:PD-art, and WP:PD. Generally speaking, faithful reproductions (i.e. scans and photographs) of 2D art (paintings, drawing, etc) that are older than 1923 are considered in the public domain in the US. The photographs/scans can be recent, the art is what has to be old. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks - will proceed to upload! Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are works by state Departments of Homeland Security in Public Domain

Are works by state Departments of Homeland Security in public domain, or does that only apply to the federal United States Department of Homeland Security...(are the state departments also federal)? An example would be the Alabama Department of Homeland SecuritySmallman12q (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think such departments are state government rather than federal, so the copyright status of the contents of their websites will depend on the law of the relevant state. – ukexpat (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought these were federal departments in each state...Smallman12q (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it was established by the state legislature; the Director works for Riley, the Governor of AL. See this link. Copana2002 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It states "Alabama is the first state in the Nation to create its own legislatively enacted Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security."...so I guess you are right that it is a state agency.Smallman12q (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So as a state agency, are its works in the public domain?Smallman12q (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of a specific copyright release or WIkipedia-appropriate license, we have to assume that the contents are copyright, unless there is a provision in AL law that makes it PD. Any AL lawyers in the house? – ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of this Section 43-13-1 of the Alabama Code is that all official products of state agencies are public records. — Walloon (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For Walloon: I don't think that just because they are public records, makes them public domain. I think the term public records just means anyone can look at them. I could be wrong though.--Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely wrong to say that all public records are public domain: the only way that all public records are public domain is if state law requires all public records to be public domain. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's not what I wrote, I wrote public records, not public domain. — Walloon (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I took your response to mean "because the law says they're public record, they're public domain", since nobody had been asking about whether these documents were public record. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My photos

Again, I see another of my photos are up for deletion. You people at Wikipedia make it so difficult, I wonder why I bothered to add any of my photos. Short of sending you the damn negative, WHAT MUST I DO TO PROVE I TOOK THE PHOTO !!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5b3TnY (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you took images from websites; while this is okay if you can get the owners' permission, you have to do so using the OTRS system. Please read Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit for details — once the owner agrees, you'll have to forward the agreement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the issue as the photo as attributed to Dennis Grey, yet we have no evidence that you are that individual. Sending an e-mail, as described above, with a permission declaration should be sufficient enough (especially if it comes from a publicly listed or official e-mail address). We can easily undelete the image once that has been verified. The message at the bottom of your talk page that the bot sent in the end of December also describes the permission verification procedure. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot from football game

I have taken some tv screenshots from a football game and I wonder If I could upload them. They mostly feature the players and I intend to use them under fair use in those players' articles. They're of web quality as stated. Can I upload them and use them in the player articles? Hobapotter (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, such images are replaceable if someone takes a photo at a football game, so they will fail the first basic non-free content criteria. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Details of British copyright law

While deleting old versions of rescaled fair-use images, I discovered File:Come Gentle Night song by Elgar cover 1901.jpg, which was published in 1901 and thus clearly PD in the USA. I'd like to transfer this to Commons, but is this image likely to be in the public domain in the UK, or not? There's no information given as to the creator of this page, except (possibly) Edward Elgar: if the notes in the top left and top right corners are from the music that this cover enclosed, he's the creator of part of this page. Other than that, the document is anonymous, but I would guess that it's a work made for hire; would that affect anything, since the copyright holder is a company if I'm correct? Elgar died in 1934, FYI. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The work in question (ie, the image of the front page) was published in 1901 as is attested by the image itself. There is no named author of the work in question, it is "Copyright 1901 by Boosey & Cº". As such, it is valid to treat it as an anonymous work, in which case UK copyright probably never existed in the section that is reproduced. Even if it did, it would have expired before 1972. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Under a similar situation, I just encountered an image of the cover of The Blue Equinox, published in 1919 (presumably in the UK) and written by British author Aleister Crowley, who died in 1947. I'm going to guess that this is still copyrighted in the UK; am I correct? Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends, but it's an anonymous work (unless there are details inside the book), so 70 after publication is the cutoff date for UK copyright law. The author of the book is irrelevant in this case, because he wasn't the person who designed the binding. It is possible that a UK court would classify this as "artistic craftsmanship", which would give a shorter UK copyright term, but internationally it seems OK if it is the 1919 edition. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot from a propaganda video

Is it acceptable to use a screenshot from a propaganda video of a designated terrorist organisation on an article about them? This is in relation to the Provisional IRA. I have noticed on other proscribed groups such as the ALF and CIRA that screenshots/or photos taken by the organisation themselves are used and the explanation PD-Because is used (ie: it is PD because it is unlikely anyone will claim copyright due to the legal nature of activities shown).

I had previously uploaded 3 images from the PIRA video but they were removed. Clarification would be appreciated and also the reason why the other images are permitted to stay up while mine were deleted.

Than You --Baldeadly (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Those other PD claims would appear to be specious (please link the images and I'll delete them). Stifle (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing articles

{{helpme}} In a book which I intend to publish for a profit, I have quoted from three wikipedia articles and cited them in bluebook style. The articles are basic principles of law, and I have quoted from them because of each article's well-written Spanish. Do I need wikipedia's permission? If I need permission, how do I apply for it?

1CAV11B VET (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Property Release

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do I still own the photograph's copyright after a property release ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.160.96 (talk • contribs)

This page is for questions about copyright issues relating to Wikipedia. Please consult a lawyer as we cannot offer legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Trademark logo affecting copyright?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just encountered File:Black-portmeirion-logo.png while looking at the Help Desk: this consists of a corporate name and a ® mark. Without the ®, this would clearly be PD-textlogo; does the ® affect anything for copyright purposes? Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still PD-textlogo. That symbol isn't (and can't be) copyrighted, and it certainly isn't owned by that trademark holder. postdlf^® (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the ® mark does't affect anything for copyright purposes. It is an additional restriction on use, over and above anything that copyright might grant, but is otherwise completely separate. WP:LOGO gives a more detailed discussion on this point. Physchim62 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark are two different things. — Walloon (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cf also File:DuPont.svg - it's a registered trademark and bears the ^®, but as a non-copyrightable text logo it has been uploaded to Commons, perfectly appropriately. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I was aware that trademarks and copyrights are different matters (and that trademarked material isn't prohibited on Commons because it's trademarked), and I know that whether a trademark is registered or not doesn't affect the way in which we'd use it; I simply wondered if the ® notice put the design past the threshhold of originality needed for copyright. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can a non-free image be used in the infobox?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A non-free historical photo has been removed from the info box under a pretext that the image is allegedly replaceable with some free equivalent [1]. The editor who did that referred to the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and, based on that, argued[2] that whereas this image can be used somewhere in the main article, its presence in the infobox is undesirable. However, I found nothing in the rules that prohibits a use of non-free images specifically in the infoboxes. Am I right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen plenty of nonfree images used in infoboxes, and I've never heard of opposition to it. Note that many infoboxes have lines specifically for logos, which are typically nonfree. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, a non-free image can be used in an infobox. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Now, can we actually discuss something that people disagree on? J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-free equivalent, or non-free substitute?

A non-free image has been removed from the article [3] under a pretext that the image can be replaced with a photo of a different event, or with the map. However, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria say about non-free equivalent, not about non-free substitute. In connection to that, my question is: if no free images are available for some unique historical event, can a non-free image be used if a free substitute (a picture of another event) is available"?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul, this is a misleading question, and you know it is. Basically, we have free images of the front (or, we could create a free map of the front) and we are looking for a free image to illustrate the front. We do not need that specific image, or an image from that specific event, and so yes, in this case, a free image of another event could easily and legitimately replace this one. J Milburn (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't an answer my question. I asked (i) what is considered a "free equivalent", (and if a "free substitute" is the same or not) and (ii) if the usage of non-free image of some historical event is legitimate if no free image of the same event is available.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul - It's pretty simple: where a free image exists that would adequately convey the necessary information to readers, it must be used in place of a non-free image. In this case, we're talking about a simple, illustrative image in the infobox of the article about the Eastern Front of WWII. The purpose of that image is to simply convey what the article is about, nothing more. We have tons of free images available that can convey that, therefore using a non-free image is not justifiable. That's it. Discussing the semantic difference between, "non-free equivalent", and, "non-free substitute", is a waste of time. The meaning of the criteria is clear enough. -- Hux (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well. Is it possible to propose a single free image that would better summarise the EF's outcome? --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Any relevant, free image is usable in that infobox - be bold! From a stylistic perspective, though, the main thing is to find the photo that best represents, in a single frame, "Eastern Front, World War II", which does not restrict us to depicting its outcome. A map is a great choice there (example), since photos from the front tend not to be immediately obvious that they're from that front, other than by reading the caption. Though I guess if you can find a great shot of German soldiers suffering in the cold, hard hell of a Russian Winter, that might work! -- Hux (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the question was rhetoric. I know no free images that could replace a Khaldei's photo. And I am afraid it is impossible to find them because the only photographers who were allowed to work in EF were Soviet photographers, so they works are copyrighted in Russia now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Then create a map, as has been suggested by myself and Hux. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Why is this such a problem? Many free images could replace Khalde's photo, and a map would be more informative for readers anyway. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur that a map would provide the same relevance to the article that the proposed non-free image provides. If your purpose is to show the outcome, that's already been replaced by text just below it; "Decisive Soviet victory". There's no justification for this image in the infobox, any more than File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg has justification for use in the infobox on Pacific War (which has a map instead). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with downloading file

I have downloaded a new version of the file File:UserDaanschrCaesar2.png, but the old version remains visible. I tried revert to get the new version, but that didn't work. You can see in the file history that i reverted to a version which looks different from what it should look like. How can i get the newest version visible?Daanschr (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem is solved.Daanschr (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

may i upload an image to article Tupac Skakur

i own an image of tupac shakur may i please upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San Andreas92 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(I assume you mean Tupac Shakur.) Ownership != copyright, which we are interested here. To determine whether it is free or not, we need to know how you acquired it (who took it, etc). On the other hand, you may be interested in our criteria for non-free images in a similar vein. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia images in my book that is about to be published

I have a manuscript that is about to be published (as a book). Having selected a number of images in Wikipedia that I wish to include in My book, how do I obtain copyright clearance to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.67.132 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends on which images exactly, because images on Wikipedia can have different free or fair use attributes. Some require you to credit the creator, some are in public domain and require no attribution, and some will be copyrighted works used only under special circumstances on Wikipedia. If you go to each image's page, it will have a copyright tag that should explain the license for that image.

If you post a list of the images here, I'm sure someone will be able to tell you what's what. TastyCakes (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tee Corinne

Hi guys!

I've been working on the Tee Corinne article and would like to add an image of her into to the information box. But am not sure where to get the image from. Under fair usage could i take one from a website about her (since she has died)? cheers Orionsbelter (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi orion, firstly thanks for an interesting article, I added a lead, you may want to look at some other artists biographies to help improve the style and tone of the article. As to your question the relevant guideline is WP:NFCC If your image meets these requirements in your view then you should be bold and feel free to use it! Ajbpearce (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ajbpearce for the advice! Still quite new at this so willtake your advice hand have a bit of a read about! NOt so sure about being brave just yet! but If i find a good image, I'll let you know and maybe you could advise? Regards! Orionsbelter (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey again! Ok so I thought about it and was brave! I hop ethat it comes under Historically significan (deceased person), but then again I'm not so sure - any feedback would be great - If its wrong can someone undo the edit for me? Regards! Orionsbelter (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio links

Are versions of pages containing a copyvio link required to be deleted? If so, then this version and this version of the article Sidereus Nuncius may need to be deleted. The first of these versions resulted from my adding an external link which I later discovered to be an unattributed copy of a work still subject to copyright. The versions of the page I have listed above are the only two which contain a copy of the link.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, though i am not totally sure this is correct ( someone please correct me if i am wrong) i believe that this would constitute a suppression of specific revision, which is only available for specific copyright violations at the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel. As such advice would incur actual expense to the wikimedia foundation it relates normally only to extraordinary cases. I would guess that if we were to oversight every revision that potentially contained a link to a copyright work the repercussions would be devastating far beyond this specific instance. (if i have missed something then anyone is free to correct me!)Ajbpearce (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. When I posed the above question I was labouring under the misapprehension that the normal administrative process for deleting articles could also be applied selectively to individual versions of them, and that it was in fact so applied to all versions containing demonstrated copyright violations. On rereading WP:COPYVIO I am surprised to find that you're correct—there is apparently no policy requirement that copyright-violating past versions of an article be made inaccessible. This seems like an extremely dubious practice to me. Since the RevisionDelete process is (apparently) just as easily reversible as the normal administrative deletion of an article, I don't see why its use to make copyright violations inaccessible should be in any way problematical.

But at any rate, this does answer my question. Since a copyvio link is not itself a copyright violation, there's no reason why it should be treated more harshly than one.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasa videos

Are the nasa videos/animations at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/multimedia/index.html in public domain?Smallman12q (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, see http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html. Commons is the best place to upload them and there is a NASA-specific template for them commons:Template:PD-USGov-NASA. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well they have a lot of videos and other content, should a bot request be made?Smallman12q (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You could ask at Commons:Commons:Bots/Work requests. Asking might be the only way to find out whether you should ask. --Teratornis (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:AA-Logo.png

Hi. I have uploaded an image from the website which allows download of their logos. http://www.automationanywhere.com/company/logos.htm Hope this is OK. Does this image still require a copyright tag? if so, please help on which one would be added in this case. Metageeek (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

the rationale and tags added by User:Benstown are correct ;)Ajbpearce (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Images of Posters Depicted in Photo of Public Restaurant

What's the copyright status of photos of a public restaurant interior (of US restaurant) which has walls decorated with art works/posters? Is there an issue with freedom of panorama or other copyright issue under US law? Photos are in the article Busboys_and_Poets and include these: File:Busboys_and_Poets_-_interior_-_downstairs.jpg, File:Busboys_and_Poets_-_interior_-_downstairs2.jpg and File:Busboys_and_Poets_-_interior_stairs.jpg. The question has been raised here: Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_February_5#File:Busboys and Poets - interior - downstairs.jpg. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Freedom_of_panorama#United_States according to commons--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I've made corrections (uploaded two new crops and tagged one G7). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Commons seems to have looked into it well. These images might be considered fair use for commercial publication (that's where the U.S. hides its panorama freedom), but it's probably better for Wikipedia to crop them as much as possible as we cannot be sure. Physchim62 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CD cover copyright info

I recently uploaded File:Faberep.jpg for use in the Faber EP article. It is a scan of the front cover of the CD, and the only place I can find it online is here: [4]. I've been asked to provide copyright information, but I'm unsure about how to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerInHiFi (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess a bot tagged your image. It should have tagged it as lacking a fair use rationale. What really needs to happen is that you need to add template:album cover fur to the image page, and fill out as much information as you can. I believe if you leave the source section blank, it defaults to "The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label.", which is sufficient for these purposes. If you need help adding the fair use rationale template to the image, I'd be glad to help. Just keep in mind, for the future, Wikipedia has fairly strict rules on what sort of non-free content that we can use. All non-free images must pass WP:NFCC, and contain not only a copyright tag, but a fair use rationale (WP:FURG). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Question related to Images thtat someone claims that aren't copyright.

I've got some image that a friend gave me, and were claimed not to have a copyright to them, are they copyrighted anyway and what do I do about it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.62.188 (talk • contribs)

Is this question related to Wikipedia? To upload a file to Wikipedia, first you need to create an account (WP:ACCOUNT) and get autoconfirmed (WP:AUTOCONFIRM). When was this image created, and who created it? Wikipedia needs more proof than just your friend saying it has no copyright. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can a montage be created using an image that is in PD in the US but not in the country of origin?

Can a montage be created using an image that is in PD in the US but not in the country of origin?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That should be fine, but you can only upload it to en.wikipedia and not to commons. Commons requires PD in the country of origin as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

United States CoastGuard Visual Gallery

Are image in the United States CoastGuard Visual Gallery such as this one in public domain? Have they been imported to commons if they are?Smallman12q (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While photos taken by employees of the US federal government in the course of their official duties are in the public domain by default, not all photos on US government web sites fulfill those criteria. Many government sites feature copyrighted photos. In this particular case, the photo you linked shows, "IPTC: credit Northrup Grumman", which means that it's a copyrighted photo. Based on that, we can't use it. Further, if it's not clear from the Coast Guard site that a photo is not copyrighted, we have to assume that it is, unfortunately. -- Hux (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So if it doesn't have a "credit" section like this photo, then it is in public domain?Smallman12q (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or is it the credit section fine so long as it doesn't say "Photo courtesy of ..."?Smallman12q (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The one you link to says "U.S. Coast Guard photo/Petty Officer 3rd Class Michael Anderson", so that is {{PD-USGov}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Audio Fair Use

I have an audio sample from a film score that I believe satisfies the fair use criteria, but am not sure. Can I have confirmation as to whether I am correct?

• It is 12.5 seconds in length, taken from a four-minute track
• It has no free equivalent
• It will not affect the market of the original product
• It is of low bitrate (~64 Kbps) as compared to the original 320Kbps
• It has been previously published
• It will be used in at least two articles, the article about the score, and an article about a musical element within; it could potentially also be used in the composer's article
• It is contextually relevant and will be used in an encyclopedic manner

Specifically, it is an excerpt from track seven ("Bumblebee") of the score to the Transformers film, by Steve Jablonsky.

If this media does satisfy the criteria, how do I upload it? All of the licenses appear to apply to images. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider also NFCC#8: "... used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic ..." I can see the justification for inclusion in the article about the score, but not in Perpetuum mobile, where a public domain compositions would serve the same encyclopedic purpose (NFCC#1). decltype (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, assuming it would only go in the score's article, is it otherwise valid fair-use material? And if so, how would I upload it and with what license? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds fair use, any way you will ahve to convert the file to .ogg format. You upload in the same way as pictures with upload file on the en wikipedia, and add a generic fair use rationale template. Explain who actually owns the copyright and when, so that in the future, or in other countries others can determine the changes to the situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RadicalOne, choose "Other" in the upload files section. Audio uploads are "hidden" in there. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1856 US newspaper article

Hello;

I have a photocopy of an 1856 North Carolina newspaper advertisement for a steamboat. I originally got the photocopy from a university library, and I would like to include it in an article I'm creating. Is it permissible to scan it and upload it to Wikipedia?

Hollingsworth (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Tag it {{PD-US}}. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or better, put in on Commons, {{PD-1923}}. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hollingsworth (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Logic Factory logo

Hello,

I am wondering about uploading a logo for The Logic Factory. There is a decent image on MobyGames here, apparently contributed by one of the company founders. It is currently being used on French Wikipedia] (Logic Factory article). Would it be okay to upload that to english wikipedia as well for company identification purposes? --Culix (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is fine, it falls into the fair use criteria, so you will need to add a WP:fair use rationale and a logo template. The main point is that it has to be genuine. Secondary points are that it is not too big, but no so small as to detract from the appearance. You must say where you got it from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott Weiland

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Weilandsuit2008.jpg – This image is simply too good to be true. I am absolutely positive it's in violation of someone's copyright. Here's my problem: I've been scouring the web and putting Google through its paces looking for the original source of this image, and I can't find it. I can find similar images, so I'm thinking it's narrowed down to 2008 and with Velvet Revolver (I've seen other images of him in the UK performing with Aviators, the leather jacket, and the same hat, but not the same pose). The user has a nasty history (see User_talk:BWRBrett) of uploading infringing images. Without a bulletproof argument, though, without proof, is there much I can do? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Image is hosted on the Commons, so we can't do anything about that here. Though maybe someone should consider going through the user's uploads, and consider WP:PUI for ones that haven't been moved to Commons?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. Thanks Andrew! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Image upload

How in heaven's name do I upload a photo on your site? The instructions and layout of the pages referring to this are extremely difficult to navigate and decipher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddogmaza (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an "upload file" link on the left column of the page. In there, you should be able to figure out where to go next, just read each option carefully. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more specific with your issue. There are a lot of instructions, but they are relatively clear (to me). So if you tell me what step is causing you difficulties, I can help you further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood question

who played Clint Eastwood's (Rowdy Yates) father on Rawhide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.12.214 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I add the license to my picture?

I want to put a Super Bowl logo on one of the pages, but I have to put the license on it. How do I do this? When I first uploaded the picture, I saw the space for it, but I tried to upload it again and I didn't see it. User:Zsmalls629 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsmalls629 (talk • contribs)

You will need to add the {{Logo fur}} template to the image info page, filling in all the compulsory parameters. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Game Idea

Hi, I think this is the appropriate place for the following query: Friends and myself have developed an interactive game USING 'Wikipedia' as a database. The game would use streaming technology and be available on line world-wide. The development is at the 'concept' not the programming level. If you would be interested in the enormous potential of such a game please contact myself: Tommy Carroll @ <e-mail redacted>

Thank you for your time, with regards Tommy Carroll —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyfazz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about copyright issues on Wikipedia. Please read WP:REUSE if your game reuses Wikipedia content.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Conflicted-license

(note: this is cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags)

This template should not be used in any instance of Template:Non-free 3D art, or any other derivative photograph. I just came across this template incorrectly added to File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg, which is a derivative photograph of a (presumably) copyrighted sculpture. Clearly in such cases we need licensing information for both the photograph and the subject, and the licensing information will likely differ. Regarding this particular image, the photographer released his photograph under a CC license, while we need a non-free use rationale for the copyrighted sculpture. There's no "conflict" in noting the separate terms of each element in such a derivative image; that's instead mandatory. If we didn't have a license from the photographer, a NFUR for the sculpture alone wouldn't allow us to use the image. So it's necessary to document licensing/NFUR for both.

The template's language needs to be changed to clearly state this. Does anyone have a good suggestion as to how this should be phrased? postdlf (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IVECO DAILY 2007 LWB

Can someone tell me where the fusebox is on this vehicle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.19.81 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Emergence.jpg

Found an File:Emergence.jpg that was published in 1966, but is labeled public domain. It is used in academic literature and is in my cognitive psychology textbook. I was unable to find the author using a quick Googling. Contacting the publishers of the book it was originally published in is likely to be problematic.

As this image is not of historical importance, but rather a reference for a type of optical illusion, someone with photoshop skills and time could hack together a similar image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indolering (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually this image is of historical importance as it has been used so many times. It could then be used if the article talked about the image, rather than just using it as an example, by way of a fair use. However this is not the case so far. With a bit more checking it may be possible to see if copyright has expired due to no copyright tagging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

comic strip edited

i've combined various 'boxes' from a certain newspaper comic strip (a single days' only) into an animated gif image. basically it is a work of someone else using which i have created something different and new. How will the image copyright be treated as? if its up to me, i'll give it for free... however that works... - Krishvanth (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a derivative work, and therefor, the underlying copyright would still lie with the original owner. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh i dont mind that - jus which option is it that I should set? setting file copyright is the only thing i dont get in wikipedia :) - Krishvanth (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, non-free content is governed by a strict policy, WP:NFC. Non-free content must first meet all 10 criteria, then the images must be tagged with not only a copyright tag (such as {{Non-free comic}}), but also have an individually tailored fair use rationale (WP:FURG). I believe if you follow the instructions on WP:UPLOAD, and choose the options for non-free content, you'll have drop down boxes and options to help fill this out for you (assuming it passes all NFCC in the first place). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thats cool... thanks a bundle! - 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishvanth (talk • contribs)

Question regarding File:PaulGascoigne.jpg

As far as i am concerned the pic in question is freely licensed from flickr, the link is on the page in question, perhaps i have uploaded it incorrectly, thanks(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Sorry, I'm afraid no: you need to look more closely in the bottom right corner on Flickr. It says "all rights reserved", so it's not free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Organization logo

I am using my subpage to draft an article about a notable organization. I uploaded the logo to wikicommons some time ago. I believe it got deleted because it was orphaned. I would like to upload the image to appear in my article so that once it is live it will be visible. The logo is non-free content. It is a registered trademark. I have been authorized to use the logo. Could you assist me with uploading the logo to my userpage to ensure it does NOT get deleted (or orphaned) again? Thanks! AA53202 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• If the logo is copyrighted, it was most likely deleted from Commons not for being orphaned but for being non-free of copyright. Commons only accepts PD or otherwise freely licensed content. Our policy here locally on non-free content prohibits the use of non-free content on userpages. See WP:NFCC #9. Such content may only appear on actual articles. Even articles not yet 'live', but in development, may not host such content. I'd recommend waiting until your article is ready to live before uploading the non-free content. Then ensure you have an appropriate fair use rationale (see WP:FURG) and then go live. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hi, can you take a picture of me?" copyright.

Urgh, I'm sure I had a page bookmarked discussing who held copyright (the camera owner or the pciture taker) in cases where the latter was merely acting on the exact instruction of the former. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost it. Can anyone help? US and Canada preferably, but I'll take either-or. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be thinking of a work made for hire. However, that's a scenario involving someone taking a photo in their official capacity as an employee of a company, which then becomes the owner of the copyright on that photo. The scenario you imply - where a camera owner asks someone else to take a photo, yet still retains copyright on the photo - does not exist anywhere, as far as I know. Aside from the aforementioned work made for hire situation and exceptions where a photo is automatically in the public domain, the photographer always owns the copyright. -- Hux (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In the US a copyright is granted for creative content, not a mechanical process. If you select the location, the general camera angle, the lighting (time of day), provide the wardrobe and model (yourself); you are creating the photograph. The passer-by pressing the shutter button is replacing a timer and tripod. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Image uploading and copyright question

Hello,

I am currently working on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weatherlands/European_Climate_Assessment_and_Dataset_%28ECA%26D%29

I received a message about one of the images I uploaded (Trend frost days dec.png), that it didn't have the right copyright information attached to it. The message says to add the appropriate tag or the image will be deleted, but I'm unclear as to how to do this (I'm relatively new to Wiki). So, can you please explain to me how to do this? And also, can you please check that all of my images are done properly as well? These maps are open to the public and are produced by the ECA&D website as their own work.

Thank you kindly, ~t

Weatherlands (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You have said that European Climate Assessment and Dataset owns the copyright, however we need to know under what license it is used. Is the picture released under public domain or a creative commons license? Are you yourself the author, in which case you can add the license. Otherwise you will need to prove that that org did release it via a link to the license page on their web, if that is where it came from. I cant find any information on the copyright from that website. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, thanks for getting back to me. I work for KNMI which now coordinates the ECA&D project so I'm certain that the images are open for public use, but how can I prove this? Should we add some copyright information on the website? Or is it enough to guarantee it as a researcher working on the project? I did not produce the images myself because I'm not doing the coding and calculating part of the project – that is done by two of my colleagues.

Thanks for your help, I hope I responded to this message correctly.

~t

Weatherlands (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you have control of the web site, you can add a copyright notice to the site. It can say the content is released to public domain (if this is legal where you are, in USA you can release to the public domain). Or you could use a CC-BY-SA-3.0 Creative Commons license, in which case you should say the attribution to give. Or if no attribution is required you can use a CC-zero license. Any other schemes to use to show permission are more complicated, (see WP:PERMIT) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of a ship

Can I upload a photo of a ship found on web, showing the docked ship and the name of the ship and the company written on the ship? I don't think this photo has any intrinsic creativity.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Without seeing the photo it's pretty much impossible for us to help - can you link to it? However, generally speaking (i.e. subject to a few specific exceptions), all photographs are copyrighted automatically by virtue of their creation; it doesn't matter how intrinsically creative they may be. What this means for Wikipedia is that unless the image is clearly marked as being in the public domain or having a compatible free license, or it can be used in a manner consistent with the non-free use guidelines, we can't use it. -- Hux (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know of any categorically uncopyrightable kinds of photographs or imagery, apart from accurate photographs of 2-D art, or images of pure text. Maybe mugshots? Security camera footage? Unless such an excluded category is distinct and unequivocally recognized in law, we should presume it is copyrighted, so as to avoid getting mired in ad hoc armchair lawyer discussions of whether we think a photograph is sufficiently creative or original. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, guys! Thanks for the opinion and recommendations. This is the link : http://www.cargolaw.com/images/disaster2009.Marco.Polo3.jpg and this is the web page taken from: http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cargolaw.com/images/disaster2009.Marco.Polo3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cargolaw.com/2009nightmare_marco-polo.html&usg=__Ez39B2dLyZLse1ycqLnp-Yzw4dw=&h=326&w=652&sz=49&hl=de&start=53&sig2=9FXgE77i9jftXLX32hzjXQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=1fyg-TOVrhbphM:&tbnh=69&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djadrolinija%2Bship%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Dde%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36%26um%3D1&ei=-wpyS-KCF5KsmwPB3q2kCw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely copyrightable; don't upload it unless you have evidence that it's in the public domain or that it's been released under a free license. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of stamp image

I am writing an article about Joel Iskowitz (still in sandbox form), an artist who has designed over 2000 stamps for 40 different countries (as well as about 20 designs for US Mint coinage). He is a significant artist in philatelic and numismatic circles.

His first stamps, a set of 4 illustrating chimpanzees for Sierra Leone, were issued in 1983. I uploaded a scanned image of one of the stamps that - the scanned image was obtained from the artist, who believes the image is in the public domain. I inadvertently uploaded the image and attributed an improper license (not sure which one now). Ron H Jones deleted it with the notation "F3: Improper Media License."

I then purchased the stamp and scanned it myself and uploaded it using the same file name and granted free public access. Mr. Jones is unclear if this is fair use.

I have seen images of this stamp all over the internet, and published in several books. I'm unclear about how this image is not in the public domain, or at least meet the requirements for fair use.

I spoke to the artist, who did the design, and he is not aware of any limitation on the use of the scanned image of the stamp.

Can you please help me understand this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxschlepp (talk • contribs) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Originally the artist would have owned copyright, however he may have sold rights to the postal authority, or granted them based on working for them. The artist should know if this is the case. If the artist still owns the rights, he can release it to public domain. Ask the artist to follow the instructions in WP:PERMIT to prove public domain (or all rights released). The stamp itself would be a derivative work of the original artwork, and could have new copyright owned by the post office that issued it. So you would have to investigate what Sierra Leone does with copyright on their stamps. A license on a picture can be corrected, and if the artist is going to send in the email, we can restore the image of the art work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking your upload, you said "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted" which is not free enough. Also it looks very much like a stamp scan to me! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Pictures used int his article has copyright issues, can some on hand hold me to resolve them..?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sap.prabhu (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• The chief problem is with all but File:Kavale Mutt Swamiji.jpg. You've said it's your own work, but you haven't indicated a license you are releasing the work under. Therefore, we have no idea as to its copyright status. One possible option is to add {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (details of license here) to each of the images other than the one I mentioned above. For the one mentioned above, where did you get the image from? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tillson Harrison image copyright double check

Hi! The article Tillson Harrison is currently at featured article candidates on en-wiki, and a concern has been raised regarding File:Tillson Harrison.gif. The image was created in 1907, but the first online publication that I could find was in 2007. The source from the online publication (Canadian Medical Association Journal) cited the Annandale National Historic Site, but had no copyright notice (all other images definitely in copyright on that page did indeed have a copyright notice attached to them). Could somebody please help me with the licensing here? I know that the image is in the public domain in Canada (created before 1949) but I am not sure about the US copyright status. Arctic Night 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Did some scouring and came up with the PD-1996 reasoning - copyright had expired in Canada as of 1996 (URAA date) and US copyright was not restored. However... work may not have been published until 2007. I can't prove this, as I do not have access to the Annandale National Historic Site, which may have published the work much earlier. Is fair use an option if public domain is not? I am working on assumptions here. Arctic Night 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your PD reasoning looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous Pictures Magazine as a source of PD images

Does anybody know anything about Famous Pictures Magazine [5]? Some photos presented there are claimed to be in PD; in connection to that, I am wondering if these claims can be trusted, and accordingly, if these photographs can be used in Wikipedia?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Hello all the photos that are placed on my site are taken by me of my daughter who is a professional wrestler in Mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policia Medianoche (talk • contribs) 02:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to say that on the description page of the image when you upload it, not here. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ReCell Autologous Spray-On Skin

I have written and posted an article "ReCell Autologous Spray-On Skin". this is an origional work and I have all permissions to use images and text from the company holding the copywrite on "ReCell". I have noted this on the article. It seems that someone has a question about copywrite. The article was blocked and now appears to have been deleted by a 'Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs)'. I'm very frustrated. what do I do? How do I proceed? How do I get the article re-posted? This is my 1st article so maybe I made a fundamental error somewhere? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvalfisken (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to get the company to send in an email in the form at WP:CONSENT to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

file:lauradisc.jpg

Hello I'm trying to publish my lauradisc.jpg scan and understand there is an issue of copyright. The original disc is in my possession and I thought that I had released the scan copyright into the public domain when I filled in the upload details. I cannot now find the copyright page. Perhaps I should apologise for being stupid. contributor Kelvin Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Adams (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just owning or scanning the disc doesn't mean you own the copyright. The copyright belongs to the record label. Although there is a case here for {{PD-ineligible}}. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? The "Radio Recorders" logo looks copyrightable to me. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian photos before 1960

Hi, I was wondering if photos from 1955 to 1959 would be copyright free under the PD-Australia license ***Adam*** 05:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, unless the original holder of the copyright was the Commonwealth or a state. See [6]. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2005 legislation was changed to make that 70 years and later to life of photographer + those years. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:BBC owl.svg

As for my Commons admin work, I'd like to delete this file as it's copyrighted and meets the threshold of originality, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC owl.svg. However, it was argued that it would be fine to keep it here under fair use. Would someone be able to upload it here under the fair use rules? I'm not too familiar with them and would prefer a more experienced editor to upload the file. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the image as it was originally on en wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Image of Carnet de Passage (International Customs document)

I'm thinking of uploading a snapshot of the cover of my own Carnet de Passage to the relevant article on wikipedia, so that people get a visual of the actual document. I believe this falls under Fair Use, but don't know how to make sure. It's an standard international document, so it would be equivalent to uploading an image of the cover of my passport. Does this jeopardise wikipedia in any way?

Apapadop (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like this, you mean? That document probably has enough creativity to be copyrightable, but I think it should be OK under wikipedia's fair use provisions. I would tag it {{non-free fair use in}} and also fill out {{Non-free use rationale}}. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. Will do. Cheers. Apapadop (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Argh - this is confusing. In the license selector the nearest I can find is "Book cover", but it really isn't that... Advice? Apapadop (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The license selector doesn't include all possible licenses. Just put {{non-free fair use in}} somewhere in the upload text box, or (if the interface you're using doesn't have a text box) add it right after you do the upload. I think that one's not an option in the drop down box so we can avoid abuse of a really general template. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Using NASA image

Can I use an (enhanced) image from NASA's "The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth" to add to Harp Lake at some point, provided proper credit is used, etc. The original image is on this page. The conditions for use are here. My reading is that the image is not protected by copyright – Does that mean it's in the public domain? – but I'd appreciate some guidance. Modal Jig (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! It's public domain, and you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. There are a lot of great images taken directly from NASA; see for example File:NGC_7129.jpg. If you click through to the description page on commons, you can find an example of how to indicate the origin and public domain status of the image. --Amble (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I upload the original NASA image to the Commons or the image that I've "enhanced"? Modal Jig (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting discussion

There is a discussion going on here that some people on this page might find interesting.--Rockfang (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions about image copyright

I have some questions about uploading images mostly about copyright. -Can I upload an Picture I did not take? -If I upload a copyrighted image, what would happen? -How can I upload a picture of something if its virtually impossible for me to take a picture of it? Thanks BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS) 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What picture do you want to upload and why? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

en.wp user improperly moving images to commons

Hello I have uploaded numerous pictures to en.wp of the haiti earthquake, these have been public domain pics released by the US govt. Anyways while several different users have decided to move some to commons, only one user has sometimes neglected to preserve my upload info, in the file. I have discussed this with the user several times and the explanation has never been satisfactory.

At first I was told that my uploads were later doubles of stuff on commons, which meant a bot had deleted them without preserving my info. This made sense until I noticed some of my uploads were up to 24 hrs before the creation on commons. When I asked the user what that meant, I was told that commons still has precendent and the bots can delete my doubles even if they were uploaded first, and are in some sense "the originals"...

More to the point, I just noticed, that even after all this discussion, the user again did the same thing with my most recent haiti upload, not keeping my upload credit even after requesting that they do so several times. This occurs after this user has sometimes done so in the past, and all other user who have transferred these images to commons, have had zero problems keeping my credits.

All I have ever asked this user to do, was add my info into the commons files, because I don't know how (and don't have a commons acct), and they have refused. In the most recent case I posted a specific warning about this issue on the user's talk, 12 hrs before they uploaded an image to commons, and 10 hours (at least) after I had done the en.wp pic upload and posted it on the haiti page.

This the most recent occurance, with

which as you can see here, is most likely a copy of a pic I added to the haiti earthquake page [[7]]

I wish I could point you to the direct image upload histories, but whenever the user has done this, I have been unable to find the uploads in my wp edit history anymore... so the best I can show you is the actual page edits where I had the already uploaded pic onto a wp page... sometimes the file name and caption are different enough you can't prove I had the original upload, but in last case it is pretty obvious.

You can see 4 other examples here: User_talk:BrokenSphere#more_haiti_pic_ques, I haven't wanted to wade through the entire january haiti earthquake edit history to find every instance of proof for the four pics, but those four plus this new one, are the only ones with this problem... I would just like it fixed, I don't care about the disciplinary side of it (well I hope it doesn't keep happening also)... at some level as you can see by reading both of our talk pages, this started with this user's fairly aggressive push to have me join commons if I was uploading pics, and my refusal. Thanks for any ideas, or any help in just editing the commons pages... Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint exactly. You didn't create these images did you? If you're not the creator it's not required to give you credit on Commons. If you want to be noted as an uploader I recommend you upload things to commons directly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From reading your talk page, I get the impression that others have uploaded identical images to Commons from the same US government sources. The reason that Commons requires that the author be credited is for copyright reasons: since you didn't acquire any copyright by uploading it (that would be the sweat of the brow doctrine, which isn't applicable here), there's no requirement to mention you. In general, it's not good to have free images (including public domain US government works) here: if an image qualifies to be on Commons, it shouldn't be here. Consequently, there's an active effort to move free images to Commons: we encourage individuals to copy pictures to Commons and have them deleted here once they're moved, even though they've been on Wikipedia much longer. You can see our relevant speedy deletion criterion for the way this works. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To get a Commons account, just go to Special:MergeAccount. This will create you an account on all the main Wikimedai wikis, with the same username and password. Whenever you log in after that, you will automatically be also logged in to your Commons account Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am the user in question who is supposedly guilty of migrating ancy-cats-are-happy-cats' images to Commons and not appropriately crediting them. What I am saying here is not new and more detailed explanations can be found on Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats' talk page. In short, the key points from my side are:

1. I have uploaded several images from US government sources to Commons directly that happened to be duplicates of images that Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats uploaded to the English Wikipedia earlier in time.
2. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats' images that were uploaded to here were deleted because of the duplicates on Commons.
3. At no point at all during this time did I look to see if the same images were on here first before uploading them to Commons. I tend to assume that people upload free source images to Commons first and it still surprises me that people still upload them here first instead, but that's how it goes.
4. At no point at all during this time did I ever migrate a single image re. the Haiti earthquake to Commons. TBH I have stopped doing this because migrations show up in my Commons gallery history as image contributions and I prefer only images that I found myself or my own photos to show up in my history. This is why Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats is not showing up in the logs of certain of my uploads that they uploaded here, because they weren't migrated from here.
5. My experience is that this whole issue is a misunderstanding that with all respect to Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats' efforts, has largely come about because they doesn't understand how the process around migrating images from here to Commons works. I have tried to explain what is going on to them, but this has apparently fallen on still deaf ears.

--BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, if you aren't the author of the file, there's no reason to credit you (which would include upload history). Guy0307 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CrossFit

Could someone have a look at File:Greg Glassman.jpg?

There's a dispute at Talk:CrossFit about its inclusion. Those who want its inclusion say it's fair use. Those who don't (my view) say it's a copyvio from this copyrighted newsletter [8], as well as the inclusion being motivated by bad faith (see discussion at this off-wiki forum) to diss the CrossFit fitness regime by a selectively cropped image showing its founder appearing fat.

Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear to your points above, the PDF is an '''advertisement''' (not a newsletter) by Crossfit.com and the tags in the .PDF clearly state is freely avaliable to be copied. Also, you cite a non-wiki site which is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the image is 'fair-use'. As you and I have discussed, this image is a current one of the co-founder of Crossfit and whether or not the person in question appears to be fat is also not relevant. lee-tree (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia assumes that it is almost always posible to get a free image of a living person. As a result it does not accept fair use claims for such images.©Geni 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I get some clarification here please? Wikipedia allows fair-use as one of the options for uploaded photographs for cases like this, yet this particular image is being disallowed? Can you please explain further? For the person in question, Mr. Glassman lives several thousand miles away and so obtaining a free image is not feasable for this editor. lee-tree (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.212.65 (talk)

wikipedia only allows non free content where it would be imposible to create a free equiverlent. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria criteria 1.©Geni 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you personally can't take a photo of him, someone could make a free image of him and therefore it is not a valid fair use claim. Why is a photo of a company founder relevant to an article about a type of fitness training anyway? Smartse (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Andre Johnson Picture Ideas

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'd like to upload an image of Andre Johnson to Wikipedia. But I checked Flickr, and can't find an acceptable picture under the correct license. Anyone got ideas of where to look to find a good picture? It can be from anywhere. Thanks, DavidNorthwest (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think flickr would really be your best bet. I think you're best off asking someone to switch the license on a flickr photo. (Probably there's a 50% or higher success rate for this, in my experience.) Read User:Videmus_Omnia/Requesting_free_content#Making_requests_from_Flickr_users for tips on how to write the message. I think asking about this photo would be a good idea. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that page, now that I look at it, is kind of outdated and asks for a bad license. Here's my standard message:

Dear Ian,

I am a volunteer administrator of Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), the free open-content encyclopedia. Volunteers from around the world collaboratively edit Wikipedia, which is one of many projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org). We depend on photography to clearly illustrate our articles.

I have enjoyed browsing your excellent photographs, and noticed in particular a great shot of Stephen Jones (http://www.flickr.com/photos/billa/2112266763). Currently the Stephen Jones article at Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jones_(milliner)) lacks a photo. I am writing to see if you would consider freely licensing your image, so that it can be used to illustrate this article.

We can only use your material if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under the terms of a free license. If you are interested in doing this, I recommend using Flickr options to change the photo's licensing to Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike. (Note that Wikipedia cannot accept "No Derivatives" or "Non-Commercial" licenses.) This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely ("share-alike"). You can read this license in full at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. Please note that your contributions may not remain intact as submitted; this license, as well as the collaborative nature of our project, also entitles others to edit, alter, and update them at will, i.e., to keep up with new information, or suit the photo to a different purpose.

If you do agree to grant permission for use, we will credit you on the Wikipedia image page, state that the image is your work and is used with your permission, and provide a link back to your flickr page.

You are obviously an great photographer. I hope you will consider accepting our request.

Cheers,
<my real name>
<my email address>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calliopejen1

Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

[Disclaimer], you shouldn't present yourself as a "volunteer administrator" if you are not a sysop. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot to change that when copy-pasting... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Photos

A photo of an individual who died in 1861 should be Public Domain by now--right?--Orygun (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was taken while they were still alive, there are few photos that old! Has the picture been published? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Am interested in photo of John Work, a Hudson's Bay Company trapper and explorer. Work died in 1861, so photo was obviously taken before that time. Not sure if photo was published; probably not--it looks like family photo to me.--Orygun (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of photographs that old. If the picture was first published by its owner before 1978, it had a maximum U.S. copyright duration of 95 years from first publication. If the picture was first published by its owner between 1978 and 2002, it will be under U.S. copyright through 2047. If the picture was first published by its owner after 2002, or is unpublished, the U.S. copyright lasted for the life of the photographer plus 70 years (it is out of copyright if the photographer died before 1940); or, if the photographer is unknown, the U.S. copyright lasted for 120 years after creation (through 1981). — Walloon (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

you would have to check into HP075560 in the British Colombia archives to see if the photographer is known. If it was not published before it is published on the web site you linked. Canadian law may be relevant here rather than US. It is extremely likely that the copyright has expired in some way based on what Walloon has said. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Archives of British Columbia. The online catalog says the photographer is "unknown". Just an educated guess, but to me the image looks like it was reproduced from a photographic plate in an old book. It shows signs of heavy retouching, where the face looks halfway between photo and painting. — Walloon (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Since individual is dead photo could clearly be used under Fair Use rule for article on John Work himself. Sound like photo is now in Public Domain based on 120 year rule for unknown photographer. Any reason why this photo can't be uploaded as Public Domian image?--Orygun (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to. Go for it. — Walloon (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PD in the UK but not in the USA?

File:Whitehorse.jpg is marked as PD because it was created in the UK in 1923 by an anonymous author, and (according to the {{PD-UK}} tag on the image) UK law says that anonymous pictures become PD after 70 years. All very nice; but is this PD in the USA? I don't know what to think. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be, assuming it was pre-1926, under {{PD-US-1996}}. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

politicians

Can photos of current elected politicians from the Wikipedia page on any particular Sen or Rep be used for any purpose? Are they considered public domain? For instance if I download a page from public a domain page from "profile" can the picture of that particular politician be used? I see no copyright info on these photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.151.37 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Typically, only "official" photos of people in the US Congress are in the public domain by default. For people in specific State Congresses, it vary from state to state. If you could provide an example link, it would help.--Rockfang (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Any image used in wikipedia when you click on it it takes you to the details page for it, part of that page lists the license that image is licensed under. If you have specific questions about the license feel free to ask, but knowing what license the image your wanting to use is under is the first step. And a general answer to your question is, no, not all images of an elected politician is free for any use. And most importantly you need to understand personality rights. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg

Please upload File:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg on en.wikipedia.org! --88.76.18.70 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do it yourself! Stifle (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not registered! --88.76.18.70 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PD, FU, or DW? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still up for discussion on Commons. I recommend waiting to see what happens. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Please upload images of the Burj Khalifa tower on en.wikipedia.org! --88.76.18.70 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please register and do it yourself. — Walloon (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lazarus Long image

On Lazarus_Long is an image that I already asked about in the discussion page, with no response. The image is a derivative of a copyrighted work (a story about Lazarus Long) and falls into the timeframe when copyright had to be renewed. The original story has had its copyright renewed, but the derivative work (the image) has not.

Wikipedia claims that this image is public domain.

It seems that given the precedent set by It's a Wonderful Life and Stewart v. Abend this image is not public domain. It's a Wonderful Life is still copyrighted because "Although the film's images had entered the public domain, the film's story was still protected by virtue of it being a derivative work of the published story "The Greatest Gift", whose copyright was properly renewed by Philip Van Doren Stern in 1971.".

In this case the image of Lazarus Long is analogous to the entire It's a Wonderful Life film (not analogous to a single image from the film): the image is derived from the story, just like the film was derived from a story, and the image/film has had its copyright expire while the story it was derived from is still under copyright.

So I think this image is copyrighted, and we have to use it as fair use, which also means that it can be used in the Lazarus Long article, but not in most of the other articles it's in. About the only way out I see is to deny that the image is derived from the story; but it was obviously drawn based on physical descriptions in the story.

Am I right?

Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A perhaps simpler point is that Astounding's publishers did renew their copyrights. I have nominated it for deletion from Commons based on that. --dave pape (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tall ship images

Found: Palinuro images, according the tekst "Free to use", but with copyright. Is it allowed to upload these images and if Yes, witch tool can I use? (I haven't any experience with oploading other images than my own. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Potentially, but perhaps you could contact Bruno the owner to ensure that he's okay with commercial usage and derivative works. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Asked, waiting for an answer. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

I'm interesting in uploading this image of the above college which was taken in London in 1903, but whose author is unknown. The copyright appears to belong to Harvard Art Museum, but as the image was taken before 1923 I'm unsure as to whether or not it is in the public domain. Can anybody help? Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If the picture was first published by its owner before 1978, it had a maximum U.S. copyright duration of 95 years from first publication. If the picture was first published by its owner between 1978 and 2002, it will be under U.S. copyright through 2047. If the picture was first published by its owner after 2002, or is unpublished, the U.S. copyright lasted for the life of the photographer plus 70 years (it is out of copyright if the photographer died before 1940); or, if the photographer is unknown, the U.S. copyright lasts for 120 years after creation (through 2023). To get it on Wikipedia before 2024, you would need to establish who the photographer was, or when the photo was first published. — Walloon (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Looks like I'll probably have to leave it for now. Paul Largo (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Croatian government website

Hi, I would like to use images taken from the Croatian government's website and I'm unsure of the copyright status of their material. At the bottom of the English version of the website it says "Copyright © 2007 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be used without a prior consent by the author under the condition that the source of information is quoted." Now I understand that this means that derivative works are not permitted, which would mean that stuff taken from there cannot be uploaded to Commons, but I was wondering whether some pictures could still be used as non-free content on English Wikipedia. I mainly want to use the site for pictures of government ministers and perhaps some publicity photos, which are all freely distibuted to the Croatian media. Is this ok for English Wikipedia, and if so, which tag should I use? Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Any non-free photographs of living people are by default not permitted. Others can be used if irreplaceable. However, have you tried writing to the website and asking for a release under, say, {{cc-by-3.0}}? Stifle (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll write to them and use of the permission request templates, although I think chances are slim. I have another unrelated question regarding the use of non-free images of dead people. What are the restrictions on those? I've uploaded a few pictures that are widely available on many websites, for which there is no information on the original source or the date and publication if and when they were originally published (I've included the Internet source where i got them from in the image tag). Is this alright? Also, what does "low resolution" exactly mean? What are the dimensions in pixels that an image needs to be for it to be considered low resolution? Also, I understand that photos made by news agencies are not allowed. Does this mean "images taken directly from news agencies' websites" or is it also applied to pictures re-used in secondary news sources, which are credited as works of agencies such as AP or Reuters? And is it possible to use images of dead people which were published on websites of internet-based media organisations where there is nothing to indicate the original source or author (for example from obituaries or articles which offer an overview of their career after they deceased). Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Upload images from website sources.

May I please upload images from websites with fair use. Thank you!

Brandon J. Marcellus (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Do they meet WP:NFCC? Stifle (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled by pic at Beth Haim of Ouderkerk aan de Amstel

Resolved

 – on user's talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking at the Beth Haim of Ouderkerk aan de Amstel article. Seems its original author is now blocked. There are three pics on that page. Two are ok, but the first one (with the caption "Beth Haim in Ouderkerk aan de Amstel") is problematic, see File:BH3.JPG [9], and enlarged, when one clicks on "create this page" (it's already created in any case) up comes a warning about the page being "Unauthorized". But it's already taken from WP Commons. What needs to be fixed and by whom? I can't do it. It's a nice photo all the same. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page on FAO - GIPB Initiative: copyright problems

Crossposted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Copyrights Problems: A Wikipedia page on FAO - GIPB Initiative, please continue discussion there. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Wikipedia Staff,

The GIPB (Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building) is a multi-party initiative of knowledge and research institutions around the world that have a track record in supporting agricultural research and development, working in partnership with country programmes committed to developing stronger and more effective plant breeding capacity. The official website of the Initiative can be accessed through http://km.fao.org/gipb/.

The GIPB team is trying to create a Wikipedia page describing its objectives and activities under the Wikipedia account “LauraPa”. To this purpose, we would like to inform you that the GIPB Initiative is facilitated by FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and that FAO holds the copyright of all material and pictures produced within this Initiative; therefore the images are used in conjunction with FAO, so please note that there is no copyright infringement for the following images:

Knowldge_and_information_sharing2.JPG Gipb logo.png

What kind of copyright licence do we have to select when we upload these images? Kindly illustrate us the procedure to follow in this case.

Best regards,

the GIPB Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraPa (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to include my Cover Art in a page.

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a first time user. I just made a page where I need to include the Discography. The Cover Art is going to be in the page as well. I am the photographer and the Graphic Designer. Apparently I need to prove that the design is mine. How do I prove that these designs are mine? Do I submit a license somewhere? Do I have to go to a lawyer? Are there any templates to fill out? How to I include this in the File description?

My first attempt got deleted: File:Strathcona String Quartet Andrix String Quartet Works Album Art.jpg Thanks Erik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikvisser.art (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please contact permissions using the process described at WP:IOWN.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but..
I would like to repost the file under WP:NFC. "Cover Art". It is so unclear what I have to submit to contact permissions. Is there a template that I can send with my submission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.58.56 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case upload it via this link: Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover. Click on the appropriate "use" link, then complete all the compulsory fields on the upload page that follows. – ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I uploaded the file and I did not get any error messages. It looks it worked. Take care. Erik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikvisser.art (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Retouched retouch

I'm trying to get the licensing squared away for File:Boof.png which derives from File:Wikipedia_scale_of_justice3.jpg which in turn derives from File:Wikipedia_scale_of_justice.png but can't get the WM copyright to show up. Any help?JPatterson (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Propaganda Posters

Russia recently changed it's copywrite laws and as a result a number of works that had previously been in the public domain were restricted again. Many Soviet propaganda posters would seem to be affected by this development. In fact, after having looked at a few of these posters on Wikipedia, it seems that most of them are using incorrect copyright tags. I'm curious though: Ukranian copyright laws seem to be less restrictive than Russian ones in this respect. Since the Ukranian tag implies that "A Ukrainian or Soviet work" may be subject to the tag, can I use the Ukranian tag for agitprop posters that formerly bore a Russian tag? Eugene (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Image Use from a Reprinted Book

I have a copy of "Royal Mummies" reprinted in 2000 from an earlier edition first published in 1912 (see the Amazon reference for more info on the book in question). Given that the original publication is almost 100 years old, and that it has been over 70 years since the original author died, is it permitted to scan the photos from the reprinted version of the book for inclusion in relevant articles for the pharaohs in Wikipedia? My guess is "yes", but I do not know if the fact that they come from a reprint affects the copyright status of the images. (There is no claim I can find in the book that the images have been altered over the originals that I can determine, which might constitute a newly-derived work). Captmondo (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's all American, and you just take the images, which are exactly as they were in 1912, you're fine, yes. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Best I can figure out, it was originally published in Egypt by the "Imperial de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale". Not certain what laws would apply in that case, though I see from a listing of this book at the Internet Archive [10] that it is considered out of copyright there. Any dissenting opinions on this? Captmondo (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The work is public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming! Captmondo (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

About Images in Public Domain Found in Wikipedia

To those who may concern,

I have some questions about some images that I would like to use

for my web site.

1. I can use the images in public domain in anywhere as long as I don't say this picture is taken by me or anything like that, right?

I have found great images in public domain in Wikipedia,

and I know I have to verify if the photos are really in public domain or not.

So I tried to contact the author whose user name is "Jan Derk" or "janderk".

Well, firstly, I need to check something.

2. Even though Wikipedia says as below, "This image has been released into the public domain by its author, janderk. This applies worldwide.

In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: janderk grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. ",I have to verify if the image is in public domain or not, right?

Then, I tried to contact Jan Derk or janderk,

but both of the user names can't let me contact the author, as the pages displayed by my clicking the user names wouldn't give me any contact information.

3. In this kind of case, how should I contact the author to verify?

4. Another question is if or not I should always assume that the same spelling user names are the same user.

5. If not, then "Jan Derk" is totally different person from "janderk", so the person who releases the images to the public domain is not Jan Derk, right? Then the statement is meaningless, isn't it?

6. Could you please verify if the author releases the images to the public domain? Or can you give me any idea to verify?

Sorry if you state some of the answers to these questions already, but too much information I found, so I would rather want to ask you the questions.

Regards,

Travelseeker.

P.S.

I don't even know I can ask above questions to you, so if I am wrong, very sorry about that, and I would like you to tell me where to ask these questions.

In case you could verify that the pictures are in public domain, pictures that I am not sure if they are really in the public domain are in the following URLs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitsunday_islands.jpg http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Perth_Skyline.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saltlake_rottnest.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelseeker (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Images that are in the public domain on Wikipedia are available for you to use on your website, though it is polite to give credit to Wiki and to the author. To contact the author, you might want to go to the user page and click on "discussion" at the top of the page. That takes you to the talk page. You can leave questions there. Some people have "Email this user" enabled on the left hand column. It is not necessary to ask for permission, though I imagine that it would be polite to inform.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To Wehwalt

I know I can use the images in public domain freely... but I should make it sure that it is in public domain, as wiki can make mistakes.But thanks for your reply, I left my message to their discussion pages. wonder how long it's gonna take for them to reply, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelseeker (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You may not be any surer by asking the uploader, and if you have suspicions you can check yourself. But be aware that if it is released under public domain, many others may also be using it, even claiming a false credit in error. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reupload from flickr by same user

Hi,

I want to know know the Wikipedia policy regarding the following : A user uploads a photograph as copyrighted on flickr. Later he uploads the same photograph with a higher resolution under a free license on Wikipedia. Is this allowed? Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So the same person, assumed to be the creator of the image, has uploaded the same image to Flickr as copyrighted, and to Wikipedia under a free license? I think strictly speaking, the user is supposed to contact permissions releasing the previous copyright, per WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would count that if a higher resolution is uploaded on Wikipedia, they have proved they own the picture and have the right to do so. People are allowed to release their own image under different licenses if they so wish. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia pic has a resolution of 4000x3000 compared to 1024x768 on Flickr -- 202.3.77.144 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (Oops I did not know I wasn't logged in -- Raziman T V (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

Good point. – ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Old Car 100 years old in a museum?

What is the copyright status of an image taken of a car(90 years old) in a overseas(Netherlands) paid entry museum? I found this on the site where the pictures were posted: "Except for the backgrounds and rulers all pictures and graphics used on this site are original and owned by me or submitted to me. You may use these pictures and graphics freely in a non-commercial way. The rights of scanned documentation and advertising are by their respective owners." WHRM3 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If the license is for "non-commercial" use only, it's not free enough for us, unfortunately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of Images

the image file:magazinepic.jpg has been pulled from the site. Our foundation has purchased the rights to these pictures from the photographer. please let me know if we can get these back on the site.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms4862 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your foundation, as copyright owner, will have to release the copyright via the process described at WP:IOWN. You should also consider uploading it with a more descriptive file name. – ukexpat (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, image now renamed to File:Patricia Driscoll (Armed Forces Foundation).jpg. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I release exclusive rights for an image to Wikipedia or would that be against policy as “For Wikipedia Use only”?

If I had an image that has a “Non-commercial” or “Non-Derivative” license outside of Wikipedia, can I release my copyright exclusively for Wikipedia?
>I would only want to allow Wikipedia to make changes to my work.
1.Is it pointless to have different licenses for the same media? I think "Non-Commerical/Derivative" may be too restrictive to even bother uploading here.
2.Would this be against Wikipedia as “For Wikipedia use only”?
(I may not completely understand NC & ND licenses (My other question is one reason I asked this.))
71.177.196.196 (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (I request notification on my talk page.)

Wikipedia is the "free" encyclopedia. This relates to our licensing of our content. We allow third parties to re-use, modify, and commercially use our content. This explains why there are a number of Wikipedia mirrors around the internet (i.e. answer.com, about.com, and amazon.com just to name 3 that begin with A). It would be too complex (and against our mission) for us to accept an image that you only want to publish on Wikipedia, but not on any of the mirrors (or anyone else that may want to use and/or modify out content). We could only use your images if they fell under our stricter WP:NFCC non-free content criteria, as we treat copyrighted material, and CC-ND-NC content basically the same. Sorry if this is an inconvenience. We would wish for you to consider donating your images under a free license anyway. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. If I do make images like this, I may end up using a version of WP:NFCC or release them as public domain. 71.177.196.196 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Waymarking.com claims copyright of image at Commons

The image in File:Shiawassee Heritage Water Trail.jpg was, according to declarations on that page and at User talk:Willi H2O, taken by that user. However, the web site waymarking.com displays the same image and claims copyright with all rights reserved. It appears to be the case that Willi H20 took the pictures and uploaded them to waymarking.com (see this discussion). Does waymarking.com have a legal right to assert copyright? There are several other images also taken by Willi H20; I don't know if they might have similar issues. Cnilep (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like copyfraud by waymarking.com to me, but this is really up to Commons (or the office) to sort out. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Their Terms Of Use

"All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, "Submissions") remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You." --Gold Man60 Talk 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The critical bit here is non-exclusive, which means that it can also be released under different licenses elsewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which Copyright Policy Trumps? U.S. Publication Prior to 1923 or 70 Years After Author's Death?

I am interested in posting some pictures from an article that was published in the U.S. prior to 1923 which are available from [11]. The article was published in 1915 in the U.S., but the author died in 1942, so the 70-year rule would suggest that the images couldn't be used until 2012. My question is, which copyright rule trumps the other in this case? Captmondo (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1923 trumps 70-years-pma for the U.S. See Hirtle's chart. When the copyright duration rules changed, they did not restore copyright in works that had already fallen into the public domain (except for some foreign works published after 1922). --dave pape (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a textbook-simple case. The images were first published in the United States, as the link provided by Captmondo (talk · contribs) makes clear. Hence, it is U.S. copyright law which applies, and the images are public domain. To head off an alternative argument, the minimum period of copyright protection for foreign authors established by the Berne Convention is 50 years pma, and that has already expired. The "rule of the shorter term" is pretty much universal outside the U.S.: combined with the expiration of the 50-year pma term and the fact that these are published images with a known publication date gives great strength to the argument that they are PD worldwide, and so should be uploaded to commons rather than enwiki. Physchim62 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's clear to me. Given that, I can post the images to Wikimedia Commons then (as opposed to just en.Wikipedia) as the worldwide copyright has expired.

What Physchim62 says would also seem to apply to a case of speedy deletion to an image I posted to the Commons a few days ago, namely TheYoungerLady-InSituWithinKV35-1899.gif (which has already been removed). The image was originally published in a French publication in 1899, but was removed because the author died in 1946, and so the 70-rule was applied. Given what you are saying, shouldn't the 50-year rule be applied instead? Captmondo (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing the take-down of the previous image (published 1899 in France, author died in 1946) on my Common's User page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Captmondo#File:TheYoungerLady-InSituWithinKV35-1899.gif. The info I uploaded along with that image was it was originally published in 1899 in "Le tombeau de Thoutmès III à Biban el-Molouk", p.91-97, "Bulletin de l'Institut Égyptien" which was published in Cairo, Egypt (not in France as I had originally thought). It was taken down with the 70-year rule cited, but was that incorrectly applied in this case? Captmondo (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While the U.S. hasn't restored copyright to its own PD works, some other countries have, the UK and Russia being examples. There doesn't appear to be any information either way on this regarding France in our own reference pages; you can ask at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing for input from folks who spend a lot of time working out such questions. One complication to be aware of with France, however, is the "wartime extensions" which probably would have extended the copyright on that image until the newer 70-years-pma law came into effect. --dave pape (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting license information

• File:ShakespeareQuestion.jpg
• File:Nautilus-2.24.1-ubuntu.png
• File:Wikipedia screenshot.png
• File:1972olympiadCOIN.jpg
• File:California Gamay.jpg

Fixed the Wikipedia Screenshot --Gold Man60 Talk 08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't it is still a free image with a nonfree rational.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images From my PC

Hello, I've uploaded my photo to my talk page. Then, I got a message saying that I've not mentioned the source and so it might be subject to deletion. Actually I have uploaded the image from my PC and is not related with any website. It was taken from my camera. So, I assume that it does not have any copyright. If such uploads are not supported by wikipedia, then please tell me how can I upload images taken from a camera to wikipedia.Ganeshsashank (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are from your camera, under source on the upload page put "own work" or something similar to that. I also recommend you upload the pictures to the wikimedia commons [12] as that is where it will be moved eventually if you release the picture under a creative commons license or into the public domain --Gold Man60 Talk 08:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GeneTests and GeneReviews

I've just uploaded File:Oligodactyly.jpg

Its license seems very similar to Creative Commons with attribution: [13]. As for the author's copyright: I e-mailed Dr. Sutton and he replied "The image copyright was transferred to GeneReviews with the online publication. You would need to contact them for permission.". This is also the most free image I could find of this extremely rare condition. Is this fair use and what would be a suitable copyright status? Thanks. Smocking (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of artwork

Hi. Does anybody know what the status of photographs of artwork is? For example, File:JNatlanta.JPG is a photo of a 2006 piece by Joseph Nechvatal. To further complicate things, it looks like the photograph was uploaded by someone other than the photographer - so my real question is if the photographer of a piece of art has a claim of copyright over the photo. If not, presumably all photographs of in-copyright creative works need FURs? – Toon 22:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Taking a photograph of a creative work (especially a 2D piece, as is this case) does not transfer copyright from the original creator to the photographer. I would tag the image with {{npd}}, and paste the default message to the uploader (or maybe write a personalized note explaining about copyright). -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. The user has uploaded a plethora of images scanned from journals etc., tagged as "own work". I've deleted the pics of people as F9, but I don't want to just blast them all, if they can be useful tagged as FU. There are a lot of images, mind, and my area is text-copyright issues. – Toon 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture question

I am trying to get my picture on my page to be certified so it shows when you search my name however, I can't figure out the correct way to make this happen; this picture of me was taken by me.

Also I am trying to correct the following issues as well: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2009. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since April 2009. It needs to be expanded. Tagged since April 2009. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2009.

Can someone help me with these issues? Thanks a million...wrholder! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrholder (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

YOu seem to want to use an image from http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2008/12/army_record_120408w/120408_record_800.JPG. Since you claim to have taken it but it has appeared elsewhere the simplest way is to prove that you own it is to link to a picture credit on the site, otherwise what I see is "All content © 2010, Army Times Publishing Company". How did you manage to take this photo of yourself, are you sure it was not someone else? Secondly you have to decide which license you wish to donote your picture with, is it CC-BY-SA-3.0 or public domain? If so it should be uploaded to commons:upload. To prove that you own this image otherwise you could upload a higher original resolution. To address the AFD you will have to find more than one independant source that writes on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Company Logo Image

--Eurocarpartswiki (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I am working for a company who wants me to make a Wikipedia page for them. I have uploaded a logo for the page but I have been told that I need to provide copyright information with it, what information do I need to provide and where do put it?

An administrator has blocked this as a spamusername, so the question is moot. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wharncliffe Woodmoor map.JPG

Hi Please help! The image I am wanting to add to the article is a copy of a map that was printed in the early 1930's. I acquired the image from the local council archive department who stated the map was no under longer under any copyright law. I even advised the archivist what I was planning to do with the image and she said it would be OK to use. Please advise what I can use as a copyright code in the UK? Thanks Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photofanny (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-UK}} maybe? If it really is public domain, you should consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons so that it is available for use on all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-UK}} with its 70 years stipulation would mean they weren't out of copyright in the US - for photos from the 30s you'd need to find a 50 year clause. 50-year copyright on maps occurs where the map is either the work of the Ordnance Survey, someone reprinting the OS is some disguised form, or some other official government work. Otherwise you may be out of luck. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ukexpat - even with a Bartholomew's map, isn't it 70 years from date of publication, because the map wouldn't be the work of an identified individual? That would put it into PD in the US as well (it's already 70 years from the 1930s). However, for Photofanny's benefit, most maps held by local councils will be Ordnance Survey, as we all have licenses from the OS to freely reproduce their maps for use by ourselves, whereas other companies that produced maps (such as Bartholomew) continued to restrict copying --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that explicitly wouldn't put it into the public domain in the US; under the Mickey Mouse extension act it would be copyright well into the 2020s. But OS maps, which is what you're probably looking at, should be fine. Incidentally, corporate ownership in the UK is rather complicated, and, most of the time, would not result in a publication+70 ruling. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have struck misleading comment, just in case.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unknown author date of death?

Do we have a guideline/policy/SOP for what to do when we cannot find the date of death for an author in instances where copyright lapsing occurs on an anniversary thereof? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean known author but unknown date of death? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Name the author; I might be able to find the date of death if the author is American, Canadian, or British. — Walloon (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, under U.S. copyright law, when the author is unknown (and for practical purposes, that is the same as an author whose death is unknown), the copyright duration of the work defaults to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. — Walloon (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Having recently been involved in this deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 10#File:Lina Medina.jpg), I was wondering when the Peruvian image would fall into the public domain. User:Rockfang explained that "page 14, Chapter 2 on this link, it mentions the rights belong to the author for 70 years after his or her death." But I can't find ANY information as to when Dr. Edmundo Escomel passed away, or if he even has. Ergo, I don't know when this would fall into PD status. Any thoughts? Do we have this issue codified anywhere on Wikipedia? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Edmundo Escomel was born in 1880 and died in 1959. See this biographical article from Acta Médica Peruana. So, his works would be under copyright in Peru and in most other countries through 2029; in the U.S., that photo will be under copyright through 2034 (95 years from publication). — Walloon (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an awesome find, how did you find it? Thank you very much!

My follow-up question then is: since everything about this image is Peruvian (the location, the author, the subject, etc.), do US copyright laws and PD stipulations apply? In the country of origin, if the PD-date is DOD+70, wouldn't that be the defining stipulation for its worldwide PD release? If Peru, the nation of origin, says this is PD in 2029, are you saying that the US (and ergo, Wikipedia) won't recognize that PD status until five years later? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, U.S. copyright law does not follow the "rule of the shorter term" for foreign works unless the work was in the public domain in its home country as of January 1, 1996. Instead, U.S. copyright law treats foreign works like domestic works.

How I found that article: Searched "Edmundo Escomel died", plowed through several pages of results about the year Lina's son died (1980); eventually found a different year, 1959; searched "Edmundo Escomel 1959" for a confirming source of that year of death; found an online bibliography that included that medical journal article, which fortunately has both "Edmundo Escomel" and "1959" in the title of the article; and went to the website of that medical journal. — Walloon (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, on both counts! As to the latter, you're just more hopeful and tenacious than I. Thanks again. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Tarotcards.jpg

It's tagged as FDL and CC which would be very nice if true, but in the summary there is a brand mentioned. So maybe the license is wrong. What do you think? 217.235.0.207 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious. The Ace of Spades usually carries information about the printer, but I can't see anything on these. This is a tarocci deck, rather than a tarot deck. The design is about 200 years old - there's no question that it's PD. Most decks of tarot cards, however, would be copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What about pictures of product containers?

  I have a few pictures on the Wikipedia of commercial product containers.  One of them just got tagged for a copyright issue.  Turns out I somehow neglected to include a licensing tag on it when I uploaded it, and that was the issue.  I've fixed that, but I wonder if there might be a deeper issue with the use of such images.

  I don't think I'm being clear.  Let's imagine, for example, a picture of a can of soup.  What if I take a picture of this can of soup and publish it here on the Wikipedia, or elsewhere?  Would this violate the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer of this can of soup?  It seems that there are two potential intellectual property issues.  I think I know of useful arguments against these issues, but I have to admit to being rather hazy on the fine legal points.

• The label is copyrighted by the company that made the soup.  As my purpose is not to reproduce the label, but to illustrate the product, would “fair use” cover the appearance in my image of the copyrighted label?
• The label includes the brand name and logo of the company that made the soup; these would surely be registered trademarks.  I think I understand trademarks to only be infringed when they are used to falsely imply some endorsement by, or association with, the trademark holder.

  I suppose a good question to ask would be whether Andy Warhol needed any kind of permission or consent from the Campbell Soup Company to produce and display his famous works that featured Campbell's Soup products.  The article Campbell's Soup Cans seems to suggest not, that he didn't have any actual communications with the company until after these works became famous. Bob Blaylock (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

An image on a product cover is treated just like any other image for purposes of copyright. Generally, these images are nonfree. See {{Non-free product cover}}. It might be free if the packaging is so old that the copyright has expired (maybe the Morton's salt girl? I don't know), or if the packaging is so simple (just geometric shapes or words) that it does not qualify for copyright. You are correct that trademarks aren't generally a concern here on wikipedia. The Campbell's soup cans probably qualified as fair use, but at wikipedia we're much more restrictive about the use of nonfree content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've retagged your image. It will probably have to be deleted soon, because our policies don't allow the use of non-free images on talk pages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  So let's see if I am understanding things correctly.  The template to which you provided a link says that fair use includes “to illustrate the product or brand in question”.  But you say “our policies don't allow the use of non-free images on talk pages.”  so if I use such images, in actual Wikipedia articles, to illustrate products relevant to that article, I am OK, but I can't use such images at all in discussions; is this right?  Have a look at the Franco-American (Campbell's) article.  There, I've put up a few images of Franco-American products.  Is this a legitimate use of these images?  I think, as I presently understand things, this use is legitimate, but perhaps I need to change the licensing tags on the images themselves, since I didn't really create them entirely myself without using someone else's work (viz., the copyrighted labels on the product containers).

  On the other hand, my usage of a different image on Talk:Franco-American_(Campbell's), you seem to be saying is not OK.  In every case, my use of these images is “to illustrate the product or brand in question”, which seems to constitute fair use according to {{Non-free product cover}}.  In the article, it's to illustrate some products sold under the brand; on the Talk page, it's to answer someone else's question about an old Franco-American product, by showing an image of the extant product that I believe to be the likely descendant of the product about which the other person was asking.

  To be less verbose, images such as this are fair use as used in the article, but still not OK to use in discussions.  Is this correct?

Bob Blaylock (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Nonfree images are sometimes permissible in articles (see WP:NFCC), but never permissible in discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm not sure what copyright to use if i got a free downloaded wallpaper form Nintendo that I changed up a bit.--Ice Mario!!! 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That image would still be copyrighted by Nintendo, and probably not permissible here. What does it show, how do you want to use it, and why? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

Hi,

I'd like an image of a Scottish pub session for a wikiepdia article I'm working on. I've found the following file:

http://www.visitscotland.com/repository/images/slideshow-images/galleries/1066326/aoife-12

At this link:

http://www.visitscotland.com/guide/inspirational/galleries/inspiring-scotland/aoife-stephen

How do I now if I can add it to wikipedia? And if not, how can I go about finding an image I can?

Thanks,

Zimmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  The answer here would seem to be quite clear that no, you may not use this image in Wikipedia.  See http://www.visitscotland.com/about-us/terms-and-conditions/.  The owners of that web site claim ownership of all the intellectual property thereon, including the image you'd like to use.  At the very least, you'd need their explicit permission to use that image here. Bob Blaylock (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for the reply. How about this image?:

   http://www.mally.com/gallery/Ship%20Session/ship9.jpg

   I see no mention of copyright on the website: http://www.mally.com/index.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Just because you don't see a copyright notice doesn't mean that a work isn't copyrighted.  You should definitely not use material from other web sites unless you have some form of clear permission to do so.  Bob Blaylock (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

flag

dose the sioux tribe have a flag to identify them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.110.27 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

probably better asking the WP:RD, reference desk. This page is for asking questions concerning media copyright related to Wikipedia's image use policy, non-free content criteria, and related. Or maybe check out Oglala Lakota. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed link above to WP:RD... – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbatim copying of small amounts of text

Is it permissible to insert a verbatim snippet of text (e.g., two sentences) from a copyrighted source such as an IEEE standard into a WP article? I have seen this in various articles and I'm concerned because these snippets could easily be interpreted by editors in their own words, yet WP:NONFREE implies that such material may be used in articles only if they are "used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)". Lambtron (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is legitimate to use a quote under fair use, where the quote is of appropriate level of value and is properly accredited. If there is a greater value to the quote, if it does the job and a paraphrase doesn't do the job as effectively, then it can be used and should be properly accredited. So it would be a judgement call - is it necessary to have the actual wording of the standard, rather than a paraphrase. This might be the case where there is more than one interpretation, or the interpretation is disputed, or the quote uses a standard phrasing which is how something is referred to in the industry, or where it cannot be said more succinctly than the standard itself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations of text (when properly attributed) are a different case from fair use images. Both are fair use under U.S. copyright law, but the right "to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose" is also protected by the Berne Convention [Art. 10(a)] "Quotations", in the Berne Convention sense, is usually taken to mean textual quotations, not graphical ones: therein is the difference with U.S. copyright law.

In the case in question, you mention an IEEE standard. We would be fine in saying that "The IEEE defines X as...."^[Ref]; indeed, we already do in many similar cases. We would not be fine with "IEEE standard xxxx:xxxx requires that X be measured in the following way:" followed by a verbatim copy of the test procedure. Physchim62 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "Quoting from the standard:" followed by a verbatim copy of several sentences from the standard? Lambtron (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

3 or 4 sentences/a paragraph is fine. If the standard runs to five paragraphs, that's too much. Do you have an actual example. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem isn't so much any particular instance but rather my lack of understanding of the principles that apply. For example, why is 4 sentences or a paragraph permissible, but not 5 paragraphs? Where is the dividing line? And if one contiguous paragraph is the maximum, why not circumvent the limit by divulging paragraphs one at a time, prefacing each with "The next paragraph of the standard, which sheds light on blah (yet another aspect of this WP article), states ..."? To justify this, wouldn't it suffice to simply claim that (a) none of the quotations could be said more succinctly, and (b) the extent of each quotation does not exceed that justified by its purpose, which is to impart knowledge to the WP reader? Lambtron (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a hard line because we can't. The US copyright law that applies here is complex; whether or not the amount of content used exceeds fair use depends in part on its importance to both works - which is a factor that may involve both length and centrality of concept. For instance, quoting five lines from a six line poems is less likely to meet fair use than quoting five sentences from a five hundred page book. On the other hand, if those five lines from that poem are part of a massive critical analysis of the works of the poet who wrote it, you may actually pass fair use, while if those five sentences from that book are part of a six sentence editorial, you probably won't. Judging scale is a good bit easier than judging centrality. If those five sentences are core (in the eyes of the court), they may not pass fair use even if they are fitted into a larger piece. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Movie posters and covers

I am a mass uploader of movie posters and videotape covers and I want to make sure that I do everything right so I have a bunch of questions. My typical upload looks like this. I only put a movie name and source in the template. Is that OK? It seems pointless to add distributor and publisher information, because it can be found in the article (or at least in imdb) and it would be time consuming. I also understand that some old posters are in public domain but I still upload everything under fair use license because I don't know how to find out whether poster is in public domain or not. It also sometimes happens that I don't know whether the picture depicts poster or cover of a videotape, so in those cases i guess. Is that ok? Also, do you guys think that it's important to find a respectable source in the internet? I assume torrents sites are unacceptable but what about website like this? And what resolution is low enough for fair use posters? So if someone could answer at least some of my questions or say your opinion about them I'd be very grateful, because I am going to upload a lot (thousands) of those posters.--Tired time (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to find out whether the posters you want to upload are in the public domain, before you upload them. First, look at the poster itself. If it is an American poster published before 1978 without a copyright notice, it is in the U.S. public domain. Any poster published before 1923 is in the U.S. public domain. If it is an American poster published 1923–1963 with a copyright notice, look in the U.S. Copyright Catalog for a renewal of the copyright 28 years after first publication. Renewals made in the years 1978 to the present (for works first published 1950–1977) are available in an online database. American posters first published 1964–1977 received an automatic copyright renewal. American posters first published 1978 to the present receive one 95-year copyright term.

To put it briefly, don't even consider uploading a poster or video cover first published from 1978 to the present. — Walloon (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Posters published from 1978 to the present are all over the Wikipedia uploaded under fair use license. Just go to the article of any popular movie (for example The Matrix, Amélie and so on). Are you saying that they all should be deleted? Should the copyright notice be on the poster itself? Because I don't remember seeing © symbol or something like that on posters.--Tired time (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use can ignore the copyright, but you do need a fair use rationale. Also in recent years copyright automatically applies and does not need to be indicated with a © symbol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GFDL-->PD?

Can someone take my GFDL image File:Circle progression in major.png and make it PD File:Progresión quintas.png? Hyacinth (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course that can not be done. You can nominate File:Progresión quintas.png for speedy deletion by placing something like {{copyvio|illegal duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circle_progression_in_major.png}} in the image's page in commons --Tired time (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that looks legit to me. That's a standard notation of a standard chord progression. I don't think that is eligible for copyright. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Seems like just typographical and standard notation elements, and wouldn't be subject to copyright. But I don't know for sure (and I'm not sure if the underlying music would need to also be free of copyright as well). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about the content. We're talking about the exact file. Hyacinth (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming authorship in? The chord progression is not original to you. The notation is not original to you. There's nothing in this image that amounts to an "original work of authorship." TJRC (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it's not original to me? Do you have to prove that? Or do I have to prove a negative? That no one ever thought of this before/written it down before/written it down this way? Though you phrase it in the negative (unoriginal), it is much easier to prove the opposite.

How does Wikipedia deal with originality or unoriginality, since in copyright those are legally defined terms? Hyacinth (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your questions don't make any sense to me. TJRC is saying that you didn't invent the chord progression and that you didn't use any creative way of displaying it, just the standard notation for musical notes. An analogy would be me typing up a paragraph of public-domain Shakespeare and saving it as an image file. That wouldn't be copyright Calliopejen1 just because I happened to make a file out of it. You may be interested in the article Threshold of originality vs. Sweat of the brow. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy to show that paragraph already printed in numerous editions of Shakespeare. You're asking me to prove the opposite: To go through every paragraph of every book in the world and show you a paragraph I typed up appears in none of them. Hyacinth (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So your claim to copyright is not the depiction of the image, but the underlying chord progression (the content)? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a place for questions and help? Not a place to set people up and then knock them down? I might make a claim once I get some answers, or I might not. Hyacinth (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not setting you up. You seem to be asserting that you invented a common chord progression. It's not about "claim" vs. not "claim". Are you saying/asserting/averring/whatever that you invented it? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the article circle progression calls the chord progression "undoubtedly the most common and the strongest of all harmonic progressions". This image depicts the chord progression in the key of C major, which is undoubtedly the most common key. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So if someone writes a poem about love, that's too common a subject to copyright? Hyacinth (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but if someone precisely transcribes an extremely common chord progression it is. This is akin to depicting the a molecular structure using Lewis structures. The author of that sort of file didn't invent the molecular structure, and he didn't invent the way of writing it down. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First, Hyacinth, no one is trying to either set you up nor knock you down. I guess where I'm coming from is this. You've uploaded a file that you've characterized as copyrighted, and licensed under GFDL. Another editor has taken the position that it's not actually copyrighted (i.e, is PD), made a copy from it in another format, and uploaded that as PD. The core question here is whether it is copyrighted, and the legal issue is whether it amounts to an original work of authorship.

The music depicted in the file is the well-known circle of fifths. That is not original to you. Do you disagree with that, i.e., do you believe that the circle of fifths is original to you?

The notation used is standard musical notation, which has been around for years. That notation is not original to you. Do you disagree with that, i.e., do you believe the notation itself is original to you?

What we're trying to get to is this: what is it that you are asserting is copyrighted in this file, that would not make it PD? If there is no original work of authorship, it's PD and copying it is unobjectionable, and labeling the copy as PD is appropriate.

That's not the case if the file is not PD, but that gets us back to the question: what is it in the file you uploaded that you believe is an original work of authorship? TJRC (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Image referencing query

Hi,

I have uploaded an image - Colin Gregson footballer.jpg, it is to be attached to a page I am setting up called Colin Gregson footballer. The image is taken from a newspaper, i have the photographer, dates etc.

I want to know how I add the copyright information to the image and then how to add it to the colin gregson football page in the side bar?

Any help would be greatly appreciated? (I'm new at this, go easy...)

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.61.173.254 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the question about how to add an image to a side bar (infobox). You correctly added the image yourself (see this revision [14]) but then one of our bots came along and edited the code so that the image wouldn't show. Why? Because we have very strict rules concerning how we use non-free content (as Wikipedia IS the free encyclopedia). See WP:NFC for more details on that. Because of WP:NFCC #9, we only allow non-free images in the main article space, not the user space. So when your article goes live, and you move it to the main article space, all you need to do is remove the colon between the word "image" and the bracket (the one that was added by the bot, see this [15]), and your image will show again.

Next, if you are trying to use a non-free or copyrighted image, you need to follow the guidelines I linked to before (WP:NFC). The key points are that you need a) a copyright tag. and b) a fair use rationale. Concerning the copyright tag, right now you are using using {{Non-free newspaper image}} as the copyright tag. This isn't entirely accurate for the image in question. That tag is for scans of newspaper pages used to illustrate the publication. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free has a list of some tags. The closest fit seems to be {{Non-free historic image}}, but I'm not sure if the image is appropriate in the first place for two reasons. The first, we rarely allow non-free content for living people, as it's plausible to still take a photograph of the person. I understand that perhaps this fellows football career (which is tied to his notability) took place many years ago, so images illustrating that aspect of his life may be few and far between. So that gives a little more credence to a non-free use. The second issue is the source. We do not allow non-free images that interfere with the original commercial opportunities. Therefore stock photos (Getty, Corbis) are off the table, and since this came from a newspaper, we may have problems in that regard. I suggest you read the text of {{Non-free historic image}}, and see if you believe the use is still appropriate.

Finally, in addition to having a copyright tag, non-free images must have an accompanying fair use rationale. This is just an explanation justifying the fair use of the image. See the fair use rationale guidelines at WP:FURG. There is some generic text you can copy for part of the rationale, but you also need a unique, individually tailored explanation as well to explain the specific purpose of the use. Anyway, I know this is a fairly complex area of Wikipedia, so if you have more questions, I'd be glad to try and help. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi ....

I've been given permission to use the photo Paul (PJ) Christopher Johnson by the owners of the photo, the Reed MIDEM organization and their top press person, Jane Garten. She asked that I credit MIPCOM. That's it.

The photo originally appeared in Le Figaro but I suspected it was one of the Reed MIDEM photos from the outset and Jane Garten confirmed that.

I will send a copy of that e-mail to you.

The question of what kind of licence this might be is another matter. I frankly have spent many hours trying to figure this out so please don't refer me to something else. Can you please tell me how this license would be classified. I thought it would go to public domain but perhaps not.

thanks panther777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther777 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You can assume that an image defaults to full copyright unless stated otherwise. Seeking permission isn't what's really needed with Wikipedia's license structure. Either the image qualifies for a nonfree use rationale (in which case a small and low resolution version can be used with no permission needed) or else what you'd seek is relicensing. Durova⁴¹² 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)