Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is this photo of an historical Australian winemaker of the 19th century that I would like to use in an upcoming article about him. It is hosted on a government website of the State Library of South Australia. After reviewing the Library's copyright policy, I'm still not certain if this is appropriately "free" for Wikipedia and, if so, what license it would be under. Appreciate your time. AgneCheese/Wine 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was taken before 1955 it is out of copyright, but if you are going to 'publish' it on Wikipedia you need the permission of the State Library of South Australia. I don'y know what licence to choose from WP's drop down list for this, though. Marj (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

BL Manuscript facsimile

I have just posted an article about the medieval poem I syng of a mayden and would like to include a photograph of the poem as it is found in its original manuscript in the British Library for demonstative purposes. I have a slightly enlarged copy of this image from the BL's website, of which I have cropped just the poem (it's the one in the top left). However, as this is a copyrighted, watermarked photograph of a Public Domain (600 year old!) subject, and because there is little chance of taking a "free photograph", is it counted under the PD-Art tag as being insufficiently original, or would it have to come under a Fair Use In tag, or should it not be used at all? Thanks Rob (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Use PD-Art, I would say. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian image

I'd like to use the image found here. I'm concerned, because I don't understand why Libraries and Archives Canada is saying no restrictions on use. It is a government photo, and Crown copyright, as I understand it, would not expire until the end of 2017. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No restrictions from The Canadian Archives is not indicative of copyright status, unfortunately, and as you say the image is not in the public domain. You may be able to use the image under fair use if it meets the criteria. -Nard 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't justify it, with so many pix of Diefenbaker available. But thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Singles Collection cover violating WP:NFCC#1

I tagged File:TheSinglesCollectionCover.jpg for deletion about a week ago as it violated WP:NFCC#1 (the deluxe edition cover is public domain as it consists entirely of common propertly). A few hours ago, User:Explicit removed the tag and kept the file, with the rationale: "as the main cover, this is well within the fair use policy." I still believe it isn't as the other cover is a free image that could easily replace it in the infobox at The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album), thus making the kept cover a blatant violation of NFCC criterion 1. I came here to get other opinions on what should be done here. Chase wc91 06:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the argument that supports the "freeness" of the alternate cover image. It is well beyond the basic "fonts and simple shapes", and passes the threshold of originality. Thus, both covers are non-free, and the choice of which to use is up to consensus. --MASEM (t) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The heart in the alternate cover is made up of simple geometric shapes, and none of the text is original property. Chase wc91 07:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've a hard time accepting the heart as a simple geometric shape (that's a rather complex set of curves on it), but even more so, that appears to be Brittney's signature, which is not a typeface. That immediately disqualifies it from public domain. --MASEM (t) 07:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The heart just looks like two simple, blue curves to me. The most complex thing about them is that they slightly overlap. If Britney's team were to try and copyright this they couldn't because anyone could draw something like that. But signatures are public domain as cursive writing is common property. See File:Michael Jackson signature.svg which is on the Commons as a public domain image.
Just my opinion though. Maybe we should get some consensus from other editors. If it turns out to not be public domain by consensus, the obviously delete that and keep the original. But if consensus turns out to be that it is, then we should keep this and delete the standard edition cover per WP:NFCC#1. Chase wc91 19:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at the images in question, I tend to lean toward Masem's argument: My feeling is that all album artwork in general defaults to "copyrighted" not "Public Domain", and I'm not finding a good reason to except the case in question, I simply buy the notion that "simple art" is still art. However, in the article, I, as a very disinterested (actually I mean uninterested) reader who has, generally, "little or no knowledge of the subject", now find myself extremely confused by what is what here in the article. If I had my way about it, in the section Format there would be six small thumbnails of the covers (say about 50 or 100px) clarifying which "version" or "format" is which. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if we assumed that the alternate cover is public domain and free, it's a more nuanced question of editorial judgment as to whether it's an adequate replacement such that NCCC#1 would apply. Yet I see no discussion of that issue on the article's talk page (and incidentally, I couldn't find any edits by User:Chasewc91 in the history of the article that uses that image). Nor did User:Chasewc91 even explain in his tagging of the image why the alternate cover is adequate (i.e., the informational equivalent). So jumping to this page seems extremely premature. As was the image tagging itself, in my judgment. A discussion with an article's editors should always be the first step in determining whether an image is replaceable. That would ensure that those most familiar with the subject are invited to weigh in on the informational value of the image as compared to alternatives, and would prevent drive-by tagging by those with no history with the article that uses the image and possibly no understanding of its subject matter. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not fair to assume that just because I have little to no history at the article that I have no idea of what the article is about. I wouldn't call myself a Spears fan per se, but I'm definitely well-acquainted with her music. Even so, album art being free or non-free has nothing to do with being educated on the subject in this case. But I don't see how an image being non-free has much to do with the editors of the article in question, all it is really is a picture getting deleted from their (well, not to sound like they own the article but you all should know what I mean) article.
The image that I am tagging was the main cover. Even though it is the main image, I felt the alternate cover was public domain (consensus seems to be leaning against that, however) which would mean the standard cover had no place per WP:NFCC#1. At the end of the day though, one of these images will be (or should be) deleted, and consensus for the deluxe cover being non-free is looking like it'll be that one per WP:NFCC#8. Chase wc91 21:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether an image is free or non-free has nothing to do with the articles that use it. But whether it is replaceable has everything to do with the articles that use it and how they use it. Per NFCC#1, the issue is whether the "equivalent...would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That's an editorial judgment determined by consensus in each case. As is the question per NFCC#8, of whether an image "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In their application of policy, both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 raise content-related questions that are best put to an article's editors first, wouldn't you agree? And any deletion tagging of an image, should you get to that step, should also be noticed on any article that uses it, both in the image's caption, and on the article's talk page, wouldn't you agree?
Lastly, I don't assume anything about your understanding. It's a question of what procedures would best ensure that those experienced with and interested in an article weigh in on the informational value of its images, to determine whether its use satisfies NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. postdlf (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Not only that, but in all such cases where "stuff is proposed to be deleted" I think it would be extremely polite to post a note to the relevant WikiProjects' Talk pages. —Aladdin Sane (talk)
I personally think notifying just the uploader is fine. Notifying the article's contributors on the talk page isn't going to do much. Especially with an album cover where there only needs to be one, just tag it, notify the uploader, and move on. Notifying the talk page/Britney wikiproject isn't going to stop the cover from being deleted under WP:NFCC. Chase wc91 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"Tag[ging] it, notify[ing] the uploader, and mov[ing] on" is exactly what I was criticizing above, when the reason for tagging it is not a matter of objective fact (e.g., is it in use in an article). The point isn't to ensure that an image in use that you think should be deleted gets deleted with the least effort on your part.
Uploaders don't own images, and they regularly become inactive, or may just simply stop caring about the image as the years go by. Even if it was a recent upload, at any given time the people most likely to be interested in that image would be whoever has watchlisted any article that uses it. They would be the most able to discuss whether it is replaceable, and the most likely to get to work finding a replacement if that is ultimately what needs to happen.
If you're concerned that notifying and discussing with an article's editors are going to slow down your tagging, or that they may disagree with you, those simply aren't valid concerns here. postdlf (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) Last I checked, I came here to get opinions on what should be done with the covers, not criticism for my methods on tagging NFCC-failing images. Chase wc91 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

when dors ;ittle christmas end

when dors ;ittle christmas end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.103.234 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Christmas. Not sure what else to say. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Try Little Christmas. ww2censor (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I know what the copyright is, and how do I list it? or post it? or whatever it is I have to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skuzbucket (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? Without that information we cannot help you. ww2censor (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How can I add a copyright tag?--Tingo Chu (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

copyrighting

how do i fix the "no source information" message on a image page?

You add text to describe where the image came from. If you took the picture yourself, then your source should read "self made". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Promo Image

Does an image not qualify for non-free use if it has been used by countless publications without credit? An image released to the press as promotional and used countless times is surely okay for use on Wikipedia, right? TomBeasley (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

is it permissible to upload images that have been released by various media outlets or that have been released as part of a press kit for the media and public to use. If so what licensing should be attached?

Please answer on talk page. J1X1 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide the proof that the original release was done freely to allow any use and to allow derivatives. There should not be other restrictions placed on the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg A030596

I am writing a literary work that i am going to copyright in the U.S., May use this photo in it, and what guidlines do I need to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.97.19 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

read Terms of Use. File:Example.jpg is available under a creative commons attribution required sharealike license CC-BY-SA-3.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

uploading a jpg image

Dear Sir I want to upload an image of aurangabad city, which a mosque view of dr. salim ali lake shot at night. How can i do this so that it shows up in the aurangabad wiki page. Note that i have shot this image myself and own its copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujashakir (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you took the photo, and it doesn't show any copyrighted sculpture or architecture, then you can put it under a free content license, create an account on Wikimedia Commons, and then upload it. After you have uploaded it, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial to learn how to add it to an article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WWII era picture

I have a picture taken in 1944 of Maj Edward Cragg being awarded 9 medals, including the DSC. Since it was taken in the SW Pacific, I assume it was taken by a AAF photographer and is public.

1) is this a valid assumption?

2) When I upload it to place on the Edward "Porky" Cragg website, what licensing should I use?

ed

Ecragg (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't assume that the photo was taken by a U.S. government photographer. Many wire services, magazines, and newspapers had photographers in the field with the armed forces. — Walloon (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the image shown above is marked as fair use image, but the correct licence of this is a simple text and shape like this image in commons linked here: [1]. Thanks and greetings. --Vic201401 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Swapped out in favour of the SVG. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating Screenshots

If I take a screenshot of a DVD, then can I upload that image to Wikipedia and what licensing will it fall under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBeasley (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content governs screenshots from the vast majority of DVDs. In which section of which article were you planning to use it? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking I could use it for identification purposes of several stand-up comedians, such as Frankie Boyle and Andy Parsons. TomBeasley (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would fall into the same category as previous images: non-free and replaceable. Not a good combination. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks, but I suppose it's the way it is. My only issue is that they aren't replaceable. No free images exist of them. TomBeasley (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then see one of their shows and use your camera to make your own picture. That's what "replaceable" means. You might be able to argue irreplaceability if you can show that A. the comedian isn't willing to release a promo photo under a free content license and B. all of a comedian's upcoming shows ban photography. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound recordings

If I understand correctly, sound recordings before 1972 are not eligible for federal copyright in the US. Is any recording of a public domain composition recorded before 1972 free use? Wikipedia:Public domain is not clear about this, saying that four different copyrights need to be considered (those of the composer, lyricist, performer and producer). Does commons:Template:PD-US-record cover the copyrights of the performer and the producer of the record, making any pre-1972 recording of a PD composition fair use? Any thoughts? Jafeluv (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever a user in New York views the page containing the recording, the recording is reproduced in New York. Because the server running Wikipedia currently has no way to block IP addresses in New York from accessing the recording, it would probably be safer to upload it directly to English Wikipedia (not Commons) and then use both PD-US-record to cover use outside of New York and a non-free use rationale to cover use inside New York. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't sound right. What about the several featured sounds that are tagged with PD-US-record on Commons, such as this, this and this? Transferring them to Wikipedia and adding fair use rationales would make them ineligible for featured sound status, not to mention that there are a lot of sound recordings on Commons this would affect (the PD-US-record tag itself is used on about 120 files, but I'm pretty sure there are more). Surely there are some cases where the sound recording can be considered free use? I used to assume that recordings before 1923 were public domain by virtue of expired copyright like other US works, but I was told that the 1923 cutoff date does not apply to sound recordings. Now I'm just confused. (By the way, is there even a PD-US-record tag on Wikipedia?) Jafeluv (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For any sound recording, the copyrights of both the work recorded and the recording itself, must be considered individually. Even if the work is in the public domain, the recording probably is not. Very few sound recordings are in the public domain in the United States. Recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972 are covered by state copyrights, which typically have no duration limit. Sound recordings that are in the U.S. public domain fall into three categories: (1) Recordings made by the federal government; (2) Recordings whose owners have intentionally placed them into the public domain; and (3) Recordings published from Feb. 15, 1972 through 1977 without a proper copyright notice on the recording or its package. — Walloon (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
True, but do any states other than New York have a longer copyright term than federal? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
To repeat: State copyright laws typically have NO duration limit. This means that sound recordings going back to the 1870s are still under state copyright. Not until 2067 will federal copyright law for sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972 supersede state copyright laws. On Feb. 15, 2067, all sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972 will enter the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, in that case there's a fundamental error in the PD-US-record template, which assumes public domain status for the recordings. That also means that several of our featured sound files (such as the ones I pointed to above) aren't actually free use and should probably be delisted. I think that this should be brought up on Commons, which is where the template is used. Jafeluv (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Walloon: "...covered by state copyrights..." I've never heard of a state copyright law in the US. Could you point to me a resource that explains what I've been missing? The only relevant reference I could find is this statement: "The 1976 Act, through its terms, preempts all previous copyright law in the United States. The preempted law includes prior federal legislation, such as the Copyright Act of 1909, but also includes all relevant common law and state copyright laws insofar as they conflict with the Act." —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
From 17 USC 301(c): "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
...sound of editor's forehead smashing in to the desk... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
And just a reminder that the above discussion only applies to U.S. sound recordings; sound recordings from other countries usually come into the public domain 50 years after they were made (but beware of copyright on words or music). Physchim62 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
True, but U.S. copyright law does not apply the "rule of the shorter term" when its copyright laws differ from foreign copyright laws. So, within the U.S. almost all foreign sound recordings, going back to the earliest recordings in the 19th century, are still protected under state copyright laws (pre-1972) or federal copyright law (1972–present). — Walloon (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sound recording copyright statute (§ 653h) in California (where the Wikipedia Foundation is headquartered). Sound recording copyright statute (§ 540.11) in Florida (where Wikipedia servers are hosted). Yes, the commons:Template:PD-US-record template does need to be corrected. For more information, see pp. 115–121 of The Public Domain by Stephen Fishman (Nolo, 4th ed., 2008) — Walloon (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on Commons here. Jafeluv (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted image licenses

Please join the discussion of the new 'conflicted license' template at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#.7B.7BConflicted-license.7D.7D -SCEhardT 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of 2009 Karachi bombing CCTV footage released by Government

I have recently uploaded the following file: File:2009 Karachi bombing.jpg. I need help trying to identify the copyright of the following image. Before that is done, I must clearly state that this image is a screenshot of a video that was released by the City Government of Karachi using its CCTV footages for use by media all over the world. Shouldn't this be regarded as something in the public domain if that is the case?

Unless they released copyright in writing, then public domain or even a free use does not legally apply. However it could be used under fair use as it is a unique event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The government has not released any copyright statement or notice of any such kind. The complete CCTV video footage is freely available on the internet to be used for analysis. News and media agencies have used the footage without pertaining to any copyright legalities and have not paid any royalty towards the usage either. My guess is, the footage is free available for fair-use. - Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A free image with non-free components

I took the photograph at File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg. One unavoidable element of the image is a presumably copyrighted moving sculpture. The photo, thus, can only be used here under our non-free content criteria, but I wanted to make explicit the licensing of my photograph. That is causing problems as the image appears to be both free and non-free in categorization and tagging. How can I explain the non-free elements while still asserting my own copyright over the other elements of the image? Powers T 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that it is, but this seems like the exact same misunderstanding found in the section#Photos of toys and sculptures above (quick, it's nearing archive). Apparently, the file File:Tintin's dog.jpg contains an "underlying non-free work" from which a "free" image was made. I think these cases need to be clarified somehow on the File: description page, just not sure how. Maybe it is up to the reader of the File: description page to just "get it". Shrug; not sure. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any other precedents? Powers T 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know we have outdoor panorama shots (with or without public statues/artwork per Freedom of Panorama) but include billboards or other adverts ( see File:Shibuya tokyo.jpg for example); because these photos are not aimed at capturing the copyrighted billboards and any image pulled from them would lack commercial value due to quality or the like, we're usually ok with that.
But in the above image, while in a public place (I would think a public mall qualifies), the photo clearly can be used to show just the artwork if it's trimmed down. It is, as noted above, a 2D representation of a 3D sculpture , and thus not qualified as free, despite all the other elements of it. You may want to review Commons:Freedom of panorama to see if there's anything else to consider (if the sculpture is old enough, it may qualify as PD itself). --MASEM (t) 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree the image as a whole is not free; that's why I tagged it for fair use and included a rationale. But I still want to include the CC-by-sa licensing so that someone can't just grab the photo and use it, or modify it to remove the Clock of Nations sculpture, without attributing it to me. Powers T 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC

The couple times this has come up in my work I have generally ended up subst-ing the tags, modifying them, and including a detailed explanation in the licensing section (and I still end up confusing the hell out of people sometimes). I don't think there is a really good solution. Non-free composite work (used under NFCC) but also containing free content elements just doesn't come up often enough to have a systematic solution. Dragons flight (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo of sculpture in Cultural References section

Is the image of the Haida jade orca fair use in this context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Whale#Conservation ? Given how new the sculpture looks, it was probably created within the past few years. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To my untrained eye, it looks like it's in a museum, and the tags on Flickr would suggest a Canadian museum. If so, then it will fit with Canadian Freedom of Panorama, and thus be free. [Arguably, this contradicts the tagging as CC-BY since I believe this does not generate a new copyright of any sort.] - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd never heard of the term "Canadian Freedom of Panorama" before. This is useful to know. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

How do I add the "This file is a Ukrainian or Soviet work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine" tag that most Soviet WW2 photographs are tagged with? I cannot find it. D2306 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Try {{PD-Ukraine}}. The wording you quoted is from the Commons version. Jafeluv (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

I would like to add a picture to Patrick French's page. The copyright for the picture is held by a Mr. Jerry Bauer, and I e-mailed him requesting to be allowed to use the picture. This is what he said, "Yes, of course Wikipedia may use the picture with no charge, They should put a copyright sign by it, so anyone who wishes to download may contact me to let me know how it may be used." Could you please advice me whether that complies with Wikipedia's laws, and if yes, what license should I select while uploading the picture? Mandakinigahlot1984 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that the terms of that release are too restrictive for Wikipedia purposes. The release must be for any purpose. Please take a look at the sample releases at WP:CONSENT. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dover Publications images

Are the images in this publication public domain? Woogee (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have some specific evidence to the contrary, it seems unlikely. Certainly, you would have to look at the images on a case-by-case basis. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Dover Publications images were free use. Woogee (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the book text, via Google Books, the images were originally taken by staff photographers at the movie studios, and circulated as publicity shots. They were collected (not taken) by John Kobal, and presented as an exhibition at the V&A museum in London in 1974. This is essentially the book of that exhibition. It would be interesting to know what rights-clearance Dover did. Dover do publish out-of-copyright material; and they also do publish some design sourcebooks that are specifically sold as "royalty free" (eg their Dover Design Library). But they also re-publish older but still in-copyright material too. There are all sorts of traps that could lead to material of this vintage to have fallen out of copyright -- eg failure to comply with the then formalities of U.S. copyright law; and/or failure to subsequently apply for renewal of copyright. As far as I can see from the limited preview, the book credits the relevant original photographer for each pic, but not a current copyright holder -- so Dover aren't going out of their way to help us, one way or the other.
For the reasons I've given above, it is entirely possible that much or all of this material may now be Public Domain. We do have users who have good experience in tracking down the copyright status of old U.S. material. Myself, I don't know much about the practicalities of doing such a search. But there are people here who could probably give you tips on how to go forward, and my gut feeling is that it is not entirely hopeless. Jheald (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the commonly accepted premises about publicity photos is stated by film production expert Eve Light Honthaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.): "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary." A publicity photo could be assumed to be one that either helps publicize an actor or actress, or any film they're in. They were not taken and distributed to be artistic and sold as art, but to help promote people and movies. Therefore, protecting the photo with a copyright would have prevented their widest exposure and gone against its intended purpose.
As for being printed in a Dover book, there is the added assumption that it's probably public domain. Dover is, from my own experience, the leading publisher of public domain images. They started off with mostly old illustrations and their earlier books typically stated they were copyright free and all images reusable by graphic artists—it was their key selling point. Unless the book that you're questioning includes a source for any of their photos in question, it seems reasonable to assume it's public domain simply because Dover published it. Keep in mind that even though the Dover books themselves are copyrighted, that primarily protects their "compilation" of images, not the images themselves. The phone book (white pages), for instance, is copyrighted as a "compilation." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Legality? (Reposted from Editor assistance/Requests)

I was just browsing some images and stumbled over some whose content surprised me. I am presently employed in developing an image library and one of the issues we face is determining whether we may use the images we possess. Almost any image that contains members of the public is problematic as we need permission statements/forms before we may use them despite the fact that we are not publishing to the internet, at least not at present. In contrast, the imagery I noted earlier on your site has been released live to the world with identifiable/near identifiable individuals and provides their location at a specific point in time. While no names are mentioned I very much doubt the original photographer asked the subjects permission before taking the image. I accept the likelihood of your being sued for invasion of privacy etc is remote (I'm not a lawyer so cannot give you the implications, details and lawyerspeak) but it seems an unwise risk. Is the image I encountered a rarity or have you no problem with these types of images? If you want a precise image try http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Queens-Plaza.jpg and look at the faces with zoom set to 160% or greater. The quality is low but sufficient to be identifiable. Thanks. I look forward to hearing your response. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Appropriation Of Name Or Likeness", Restatement (Second) of Torts:
"The value of the plaintiff's name is not appropriated by mere mention of it, or by reference to it in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities; nor is the value of his likeness appropriated when it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity. No one has the right to object merely because his name or his appearance is brought before the public, since neither is in any way a private matter and both are open to public observation. It is only when the publicity is given for the purpose of appropriating to the defendant's benefit the commercial or other values associated with the name or the likeness that the right of privacy is invaded. The fact that the defendant is engaged in the business of publication, for example of a newspaper, out of which he makes or seeks to make a profit, is not enough to make the incidental publication a commercial use of the name or likeness. Thus a newspaper, although it is not a philanthropic institution, does not become liable under the rule stated in this Section to every person whose name or likeness it publishes." (REST 2d TORTS § 652C)
— Walloon (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Second query then. In which country does that law apply? This is an Australian image published worldwide. My understanding, and I'd need to double check with our legal department, is that free access to our images is enough to make us liable if we fail to get public permissions. Where individuals are deceased it's safer, they are unlikely to sue, however we then have the issue of their ehtnicity. If indigenous we need some sort of warning statement. Cultural sensitivity is of course irrelevant to this question and may not be something Wikipedia needs to worry about. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My reply concerned tort law in the United States. Sorry, I am not familiar with Australian tort law in the area of appropriation of likeness. — Walloon (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough but the question is if the image is taken in Australia and viewed in Australia would American law have any significance?
Okay done a little research http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/UnauthorisedUseImage.asp and http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp suggest it should be fine. I'm rather surprised by the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't do legal advice here. Try a lawyer. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also an issue in the UK (for images of minors) and in France (which has extremely restrictive privacy laws). From previous discussions, en.wikipedia tends to assume that if an image is legal in the state of Florida (where the servers are), it's legal regardless, but Wikimedia Commons tends to prefer that the image is legal in the place where it was taken as well as legal in florida. This is also an issue for countries (again like France) which does not have Freedom of Panorama, as technically those holiday snaps of the Eiffel Tower at night are copyright in France (I know, go figure!)Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen. That clarifies Wikipedia's position, and the other info is likewise interesting.
Stifle. I don't personally care whether Wikipedia is sued or not but I was curious about the legality/Wikipedia's position on this matter.203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Very, very confused

Regarding File:JerryGumbert.jpg, I don't understand the problem. He owns all rights to the photograph and happily gave it to me with free permission to use it on Wikipedia or anywhere else I wanted, understanding it would go into the public domain forever. I looked at the list of copyright tags, and I don't understand which one it's supposed to have. Perhaps I'm stupid, but I didn't see "Releasing all rights" or "Public Domain" or some such?? This wasn't a problem the last time I got a photo from someone I admired and wrote a page for them?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollygirl78 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

With the amount of improperly copyrighted images uploaded these days we are perhaps being more diligent that heretofore. The image you uploaded was not created by you and being a professional photo may not even be copyright to Jerry Gumbert as such images are often copyright of the photographer and not the subject of the photo, who merely gets a hard copy of the photo. Either way it is best if you following the instructions found at WP:PERMISSION so that Jerry verifies the release of the image under a free licence. You should not have been confused as the link to WP:TAGS provides pretty good details about copyright tags. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I double checked on Jerry's photograph. He does in fact own all rights.

OK, I'm stupid. Please tell me which license means "All rights are hereby released forever; nobody gives a damn, they just want their nice picture, which they own, on their wikipedia page." I don't understand the acronyms, etc. Not being someone who spends their whole life on Wikipedia, I don't have the lingo memorized, and unlike, apparently, all the editors, I have to have a job and can't spend all my time here getting a PhD in Wikipedia-speak. This is astonishingly difficult, and is more reminiscent of dealing with a government bureaucracy than a project that is supposed to be about the free spreading of knowledge.  :-(

If I take a photograph and don't care how it's used on Wikipedia, which one do I pick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollygirl78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the problem is that Jerry has to be the one to release the photo not you. You didn't create it/the rights do not belong to you. Have him fill in this form and send it to Wikipedia at permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org. If he doesn't care how it will be used he could release it into the Public Domain with {{PD-self}} or he could release with a Creative Commmons license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} where he has to be credited every time someone uses it. Hope this has helped; copyrights can be super confusing. Copana2002 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you have a an e-mail from the photographer in which he releases the copyright appropriately, you can forward that to permissions as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Belknap DD 251

Hello; I'm looking to add a photo of the Belknap to its wiki article. I found a photo at the NavSource Naval History website (http://www.navsource.org/). Under their copyright link they state:

Feel free to download as many photos as you want, (*)

We do ask that if you are using these photos for your own web page, Please show some respect and credit those who have contributed photos to this archive(*). Their names are listed next to the photo lInk. Copyrighted images will appear as © Name.

All other photos should be credited to NavSource (the location they were obtained from) and a link back to this site is requested.

I thought the PD-US template would be the one to use for this, but I am unsure. I would like some advice on how to proceed. Thanks,Hollingsworth (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Their policy seems to be pretty liberal. However, there's no explicit release under a free license. Without it, we have to presume they retain some rights (perhaps, for example, commercially exclusive rights). Now, that said, any images marked as "USN" on their site they are asserting are originally property of the United States Navy (for example this image from this list). Such images as that can be uploaded here and tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Looking at the list again, if you see the image tagged as coming from "Robert Hirst" we have no idea who he is or what rights he retains. So, that image is useless to us, and since free alternatives exist we'd never accept that image for upload here. Also, if the image is free (such as the first example I noted), you should consider uploading it to Commons, which is a repository for free license images, and makes them available for everyone on all language wikis, but just English (which would be the case if you uploaded it here). Also, if the images come from the USN, you are under no requirement to credit NavSource; they are not the owners of the image.

Oops you meant DD 251 not CG 26. Argh! I wish the USN wouldn't reuse names! :) Ok, if you look at Navsource's page on her, the second image is guaranteed to be in the public domain by way of age (dated to 1919, and anything prior to 1923 in this case would be in the public domain by way of age). You can use that image. Same recommendations for uploading to Commons apply. The first image we don't know the source or date, and it could still be under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Help

Need help with this Promo Image of Klapa Fa Lindjo /Negative0-26-12A(1). Have I used the wrong tag? Also I do have permission from them to use the image. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You claimed this image to be non-free image by adding the {{Non-free promotional}} template but you have failed to provide a fair-use rationale, however this group still exists, so if will fail WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable with a freely licenced image. You also state that you have permission from the group in which case you need to follow the instructions in WP:PERMISSION. Getting evidence of permission is the only scenario under which this image will be acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ww2censor. I'm learning. First I'll tackle the WP:PERMISSION. Sir Floyd (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've prepared a letter for Klapa Fa Lindjo. Can someone please check to see if I'm on the right track Copyright letter to Klapa Fa Lindjo Sir Floyd (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ww2censor! Sir Floyd (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No response so far. Might have to start from scratch, but their's still tomorrow. Sir Floyd (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This logo is taken from the eff Web site and includes a fair use rationale as a non free image. But [2] states that unless explicitly stated all material on that site is licensed under the creative commons attribution license, is it okay therefore to change the copyright status of our image? Ajbpearce (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

While strictly speaking a fair-use rationale is not necessary for the creative commons licence from the source, this image is so simple it could well use the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag because it only "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case which license is preferred? I have stuck the creative commons license on because creative commons licenses are more-or-less globally applicable wheras i guess the PD justification is more US copyright law?Ajbpearce (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

file:PerianPrefPane.png

Does this file really need a rational? Isn't {{Information}} more appropriate?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC) or this file.

File:Webmin1420.png--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct, Those files don't need a fair use rationale, because they are free, and not used under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Opensuse111beta4.png

I think the correct license is GPL being linux.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Comer

Please help me putting the copyright info with a picture I have uploaded. The picture was taken by IAMX, the copyright is free, anyone can use the picture. You find the pic I am talking about on the article about Chris Corner.

You can also see the Photo credit on the website of Chros Corner's press agent: http://www.reybee.com/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=58

Let me know if you need more information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMXofficial (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for uploading a picture. Firstly, don't panic. Secondly, read the instructions at WP:IOWN, which you will to follow since the image has previously been published elsewhere. LEt us know if you have any problems. Thirdly, consider changing you username in line with our policies on usernames and conflicts of interest. Thanks. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Using a picture from an official website

Hi. I used this picture in this website http://saffar.org/?act=gal&action=view&sid=26 after contacting the webmaster of the website. He sent me an email saying that I can use any image I see appropriate for using. But I keep receiving messages from the users saying that there is a problem with the copyrights of my picture. Here is the file: File:Sheikh_Hassan_Alsaffar.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliss2007 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You claim this image is public domain but have not provided any evidence for this statement. Follow the instructions in WP:PERMISSION and get the copyright holder email us their consent directly. When the OTRS volunteers receive the permission an OTRS ticket will be added to the image and it will not be tagged for deletion again. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the copyright laws in the USA and how do I find out if an item is copyrighted?

L Planer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lplaner (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't provide legal information but you could read United States copyright law and commons:COM:L#United States and links found on those pages. Generally all images are copyright to someone unless they are specifically noted to be in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly right. Until the revised copyright law in 1976, everything, text and images, had to have a printed copyright notice to be protected by copyright. But the originator also had to file for an official copyright. After 28 years, they had to file a renewal. Otherwise, the item automatically became public domain. (A revised U.S. law for "renewals" excludes certain years, however.) Rarely is it ever "specifically noted" that anything is in the public domain. A good place to start a search is with the online search for things going back to 1978. Otherwise, you may need to use one of the numerous copyright depositories at large city libraries, if they carry it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
But the originator also had to file for an official copyright. That's not quite correct. Under the pre-1978 law (i.e., the 1909 Copyright Act), copyright was obtained in one of two ways, under either section 10 or section 12. Under section 10, one obtained a copyright in a work by publishing the work with a copyright notice. No registration was necessary. Under section 12, applicable to works that were not made available for sale (i.e., unpublished works in which the rightsholder still wished to obtain federal copyright), by making a registration. In either case, the initial term was for 28 years, with renewal being possible for another 28 years at the end of the initial term. In the case of a section 10 copyright, however, that renewal was the first filing that was actually required to effect copyright (although there were benefits to registration). TJRC (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Lemire photo for use in Jeff Lemire article

I was wondering if I could use this photo [3] which is licensed BY-NC-ND. I know that it's not completely free, but it appears to be the next closest thing. Could I upload a lower resolution version (with attribution) and use it in the Jeff Lemire article? My thought is that since there appear to be no free images, and has no real commercial value (especially at lower res) and its use is to demonstrate the subject of the article, it might fit under the non-free usage policy. Thanks for the advice. - Chromatikoma (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, since it is replaceable (a free image could exist, just not at the moment). You'd have a better bet trying to convince the flickrer to re-release it under a compatible licence. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not accept images under a non-commercial use license. If this person were dead (he's not of course) we might accept the image, but given that he is alive, we would only accept free licensed imagery of him. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! - Chromatikoma (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a peek...

And see if the fair-use rationale i gave for File:Biereco verherbouwingen.jpg (used in Gerrit de Jager, the artist in question) is up to standards? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The image isn't mentioned in the prose at all. That almost always means it fails WP:NFCC #8 (significance). --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Silly. It's a characteristic image of an artist's work, used to show what the work characteristically looks like. Of course that "adds significantly to readers' understanding of the topic". More discussion of his artistic style in the article wouldn't go amiss, however. Jheald (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I'll put some effort into it. But not today (it's late over here). Kleuske (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, am very silly Jheald. I just get all giggly and wipply thinking it appropriate that an image should have some meaningful connection to the prose other than just being displayed, in a case like this. Silly me. I thought WP:NFCC was policy. Thanks for setting me straight! I'll encourage people to liberally sprinkle fair use images of all a creator's works all over their biographical articles. I'm sure it'll be a welcome addition! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Ummmm... I'm not sure where that came from. FYI, the biereco's (the characters displayed) are mentioned in the text of the article the image appears in quite explicitly. They are two of the best known characters of the particular artist. Kleuske (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Furthermore i'm quite busy fightingvandals on the dutch wiki. Sorry if my response-time is not to your liking. Kleuske (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical picture

Could i ask what the copyright of this is? Can it be used under fair use? Or is it public? Simply south (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Author: John Hill (1770 - 1850). So you use {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not in the US, it's from the British Library. Simply south (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, PD-art holds for UK works as well, per the foundation's position, despite recent controversy (the second sentence of en.wp's PD-art tag; commons' is more obviously international). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. So it should be okay if I upload it? Simply south (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine, even better to Commons if you weren't going to already. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Is it okay? File:View of the Highgate Archway.jpg Simply south (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking good. I put the dates in, just so everyone knows when he died. And bumped to 100 years, for the benefit of those living in 80 or 100 year countries. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Images from eBay?

Hello
What is the policy about uploading images from someone else's eBay auction? I am asking specifically about stuff that would be considered someone's "own work" for example a picture of an engine that was for sale. This must have come up before. From their user agreement it appears that eBay owns the rights but elsewhere I found vague comments that the user owns their work. Is there a Wikipedia policy that specifically addresses this? I couldn't immediately find one - perhaps it is under a more general category? Thanks in advance. Toneron2 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Either that user or eBay owns the rights - you don't, so it wouldn't be acceptable either way. –xenotalk 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a book, actually, for photoartists from a few years ago that suggests the photographs are in the public domain. But obviously, that wasn't the focus of the book. So maybe not as clear as it looks. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that seems logical, but like I have heard also that they are in the public domain - that eBay didn't want the responsibility for them. Toneron2 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone can find a specific line in a user agreement or licensing contract that if you upload images on eBay, you relinquish all rights, we HAVE to assume that the images are still copyrighted (by eBay, by the uploader, it doesn't matter who for our purposes, unless we are trying to contact the copyright holder to request a release...) So what we may have heard, or read in a book, or what may seem logical doesn't matter unless we have specific evidence of a free license. -Andrew c [talk] 02:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just hoping there was a known solution.Toneron2 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here we go:

When you give us content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any and all copyright, publicity, trade marks, database rights and intellectual property rights you have in the content, in any media known now or in the future

— eBay User Agreement

Now, to my mind, that means public domain, or de facto the same (i.e. we can create a custom licence if desired). What does everyone else think? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's an accurate read of that at all. It gives eBay a right to exercise the rights that the copyright holder has. It doesn't release the media into the public domain.And non-exclusive =/= all-inclusive. –xenotalk 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, dear me. The ability to read has somehow deserted me. Mind while I edit my previous comment slightly so I can and come to a more balanced conclusion. Hmm, you're right, it doesn't look as good as I thought it did. Back to the drawing board. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up, it took me a few read-throughs to understand what they were getting at. –xenotalk 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

{{mtc}}

Will somebody please help me merging these 3 images to Wikimedia Commons? I can not do it myself.

At Commons there is a category named Steinway & Sons. The 3 images can be added to this category.

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though all image are missing source and author details, which they should have. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not the uploader of the images, so I am not able to add source and author details. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

a historically important picture of the concentration camp at Dachau, Germany

In the biographical article "Alfred de Grazia" I want to reinsert a section on Alfred de Grazia's activity in WWII and add a staggering picture of high historical value showing Capt. Alfred de Grazia in front of a pile of dead bodies after the liberation of the camp. The picture was taken about May 1st, 1945. Alfred de Grazia, a political scientist and writer, has published this picture in his autobiographical book about WWII: "The Taste of War," published by Metron Publications. Metron Publications is wholly owned by Alfred de Grazia. I have scanned the picture from the book "The Taste of War." The original is not accessible to me. Alfred de Grazia agrees to have this picture published in the wikipedia article and considers that it should be made available for general use to the general public. Please, tell me how to list this picture when uploading it so as to make sure that it will appear at the intended place in the article and that it will not be not be removed. Amideg Amideg (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • If you're in contact with him, please strongly consider asking him to release it under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for specific instructions on how to do that. Beyond that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is worthless to us. We'd have to use it under terms of fair use, which makes its inclusion more dicey (but not impossible). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots

Am I allowed to use [4] on the article Disney Renaissance. The page is in need of much needed improvement and could use a picture or two? (talk) 4:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You would need to talk about the actual image in the article to make a fair use case.©Geni 14:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Want A Profile On WikiPedia

Sadat Want To Profile With Pic On Wikipedia ( sadatpedia ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadatpedia (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social networking site. One doesn't need a "profile"; heck, one does not usually need to sign in to edit! —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 06:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Free images of non-free objects

Previous threads here suggested such images be tagged with dual licenses: [5][6]. However, one such image I uploaded (File:Unoabjd.jpg) was tagged {{conflicted-license}} and User:J Milburn left me a message which, if I am reading it correctly, says the the free license should only be mentioned but not tagged: [7]. So is this more appropriate than what the previous threads suggested? I'm just trying to tag this image in the appropriate way. Siawase (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is non-free. That should be what is made clear from a quick glance at the page. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
After hunting around, I found this thread [8] where J Milburn linked to this image File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg as an appropriate example on how to handle this. Following that example, I crammed the cc license tag info and everything in the flickr template into the source field of the Non-free use rationale template of the image. That appeared to be a satisfactory solution to the editor who tagged the image and he removed the {{conflicted-license}} tag. So I guess that is one appropriate way to handle the issue (for now?) Siawase (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday (9th Jan) I attempted, for the first time, to upload a series of images with a view to using them to illustrate my articles. I obtained all these images from [9] where it clearly states that all the images have been freely provided by (a list of names is supplied), for any use on this 'hobby' website. I immediately found myself in trouble.

Having read all of your available 'help' files, on the subject of adding copyright information I still have no idea how to begin. Where it says 'on the image descriptor page, click edit, for instance, just where is this image descriptor page? How do I access it? And what do I do with it when I get there? I have tried to contact the webmaster of this particular site, for permissions, but fear that there is little chance of a reply.

Now, I'm no numpty, I've been around I.T. for over 40 years, but neither am I a lawyer or an accountant. And it seems to me that I'd have to be, to get my head around the basket of worms which exists, even were I to attempt to download my own photographic content, let alone that from other sources.

Please, is there any kind of idiot proof, follow the bouncing ball, lead by the nose, tick the box procedure, for those like me who are techie rich but legalistics poor? Sadly, if there is not, then I'm just going to have to allow you to delete those images which I've already uploaded and never, ever try to do it again. UKmender (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The situation is that if we cannot verify the copyright status of an image we cannot accept it. The site you took the images from makes not claim that the images are freely licenced so we have to assume they are copyright and therefore not free unless you can show that permission to use them has been given. That site also accepts images from other contributors and in turn they may not have given permission for further use of their images under a free licence either. Perhaps you should ask the website for permission by following the instructions found at WP:CONSENT but as you indicate you may not get a reply and in that case you are out of luck. If you are uploading your own work you can use the {{PD-self}} tag and yes there is a nearly idiot proof way of uploading images by filling in all the requested information when you are in the upload window and not ticking the "ignore warnings" checkbox. BTW, I seem to recall that most of these telephone images were rather small and of low resolution and poor quality, so I doubt they would be really useful anyway. We are very happy to accept freely licenced images from editors. If you can get access to some phones, make some good quality photos, then you can release under a free licence? Good luck and please don't give up just because you had a problem with these particular images. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfree images on Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia

I'm sure this is not the correct place for this, but maybe someone can help.

Recently, I've been tagging for deletion a lot of unfree images of Malaysian politicians on the English Wikipedia. The images have been generally been uploaded with erroneous claims of irreplaceability. The images have been deleted.

The problem is that on the Malay language wikipieda - [ms.wikipedia.org] - the use of unfree images for Malaysian politicians is more flagrant. Pictures are being directly lifted from the website of the Malaysian Parliament (which holds copyright in the images) with what appear to be erroenous claims of replaceability or sometimes no licensing information at all. See this and this for two examples among hundreds.

My problem is I'm not proficient enough in Bahasa Melayu to confidently report the problem on ms.wikipedia.org. I imagine that copyright violations are just as problematic for wikipedia whatever the language-wikipeda the problems are on. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) PS:I'm posting this on WP:Wikiproject Malaysia as well but that's fairly inactive so I'm not hopeful. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much that can be done about this from outside ms-wiki, I'm afraid. Certainly not from here. I guess your best bet is to get hold of an English-speaking administrator over there and hope they are willing to listen. Unfortunately, my own experience is that some of the smaller wikis tend to be quite openly unwilling or claim to be structurally unable to enforce foundation-conformant image policies, and there is nothing that could force them from outside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Apparently there are only about four active admins over there but I'll give it a try. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical map

May I use this historical map on the History section of Benet Academy? My fair use rationale would be that the map illustrates land acquisitions made by the St. Procopius monks. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale does not apply. When was the map first published? Did the publication include a proper copyright notice? — Walloon (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'll email the Benedictine University library for information. Why doesn't fair use apply? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So would I be able to use the map in question under fair use? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be justified under fair use? Fair-use require the image fulfills all 10 non-free content criteria and because it is relatively easy to draw a similar map that essentially shows the same facts, it would fail WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't even think about that! Thanks for your help. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
                               MUNEER MALIK
                                       PATHANAPURAM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.66.250 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PDFs of letters, official documents & like images

I wish to upload PDF's of some official documents, they are to be uploaded to substanstiate claims made regarding a WWII honour. One is an extract of an Australian government gazette page and the other is from the original copy of an official letter from the Australian Department of the Army from 1948. I am unsure what copyright tags I need, can you please advise.Donaz01 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of these cases are Australian crown copyright, expiring 50 years after publication, which would have been in 1998. So they are now free if the PDF is a faithful reproduction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
But note that it is not necessary to upload these PDFs if you intend to use these documents as sources. Using the appropriate citation template with the details filled to refer to the documents in question will be sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your feedback, I will most likely use the citation template for the reference source. Donaz01 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Line drawing from pre 1970s science journal

Is this image old enough to be out of academic copyright, or if the journal is defunct, does the university maintain copyright?

File:Salviadivinorumlinedrawing.gif

Also, would it be fair use as an illustration for an article? I believe it is based on criteria I've researched. The info I could find is on the image. Apothecia (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the date of first publication from the image description page, the copyright expires on January 1, 2058. In which article were you planning to use the image? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If the copyright on that 1962 issue of Botanical Museum Leaflets was not renewed in 1989–1990, and the issue contains no separate copyright notice for the article or the illustration, then the work is in the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
And there is no sign of copyright renewal in the LOC records for this work in 1989 or 1990. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that the copyright has not been renewed. I was planning on using the image for the salvia divinorum page, it's woefully under-mediated, but free-use images aren't exactly easy to find.Apothecia (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright I'm going to go ahead and add the photo to the botany section, if anyone wants to check it out.Apothecia (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Effect Israel Study Image

Re File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png

I uploaded this image on the basis of permission of the author, but was advised that this would not be sufficient. So I obtained the following permission from the copyright holder (Sage publishing) which I emailed to permissions-enwikimedia.org. However, I have not gotten any response to my email. Thank you for looking into this. (It really would be helpful to have this image, because it will help clarify what the issues are relating to the Maharishi Effect research.) Here are the relevant parts of my email:

Dear Wikipedia Permissions Deptartment,
I requested permission to use the graphic file Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png from the copyright holder (Sage publishing). I am forwarding the email they sent back to me. Is this sufficient?
If not, there are a couple of public domain versions of “Maharishi Effect charts” on Google Images. Perhaps we should use one of those? What do you advise?
Best regards,
Editor hickorybark
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: permissions (US) <permissions@sagepub.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:12 PM


Thank you for your request. Please consider this written permission to use the figure detailed below on the Wikipedia page regarding the Maharishi Effect. The material can only be used on this page and the permission does not cover any further use. SAGE holds the copyright to the material and permission must be requested for any further use. Please include proper attribution to the original source. Please note that this permission does not include any 3rd party material found within the work.
Best,
Adele
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 1:11 PM
To: permissions (US)
Subject: Request permission to upload figure to Wikipedia
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
Attn: Permissions
Telephone: 805.499.0721 x7713
Fax: 805.376.9562
Email: permissions@sagepub.com
Dear Sage Publications:
I am writing to request permission to upload a figure to Wikipedia. There is a great deal of discussion (pro and con) on Wikipedia of the Maharishi Effect research, and especially the article: Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E. (1988). International peace project in the Middle East: The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32.
It would help our readers enormously to see the Figure 2 graph of the correlation between the quality of life index and the number of assembled meditators in Jerusalem. Author David Orme-Johnson gave his permission, but explained that you hold the copyright so we would need to have your permission as well. Wikipedia supplies the following template for the needed permission.
I hereby affirm that I am [COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S NAME] the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK, [ Figure 2 of Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E. (1988). International peace project in the Middle East: The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32]. I agree to publish that work under the free license (SPECIFY THE TYPE OF LICENSE HERE) [ SEE BELOW ].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of this work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity) SENDER'S AUTHORITY (copyright-holder, director, appointed representative, etc) [ On behalf of COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S NAME AND DETAILS ]
DATE
Thank you very much,

Hickorybark (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS is manned by volunteers and it can take a while for them to process permissions, so I am afraid that you will have to be patient. – ukexpat (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the permission they have given is sadly not sufficient, as the goal of wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopaedia any permission must comply with the definition of free content, which means that it does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So you will need to get free content permission of find another imageAjbpearce (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Copyright" and antiquities

Is there any guideline or are discussions (articles?) here concerning laws making heritage pictures in some way "unfree"? See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Mexico_vs._Starbucks --Historiograf (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We follow commons policy and ignore such non copyright issues.©Geni 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my question --Historiograf (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds as if we need to write a guideline, that says that such claims are ignored in the English Wikipedia. But already the policy (Wikipedia:Copyright)says which laws apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands (region)

May I use this map in as a guide to my work in the West Midlands region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.250 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this image in my work? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region) Where will I see the answer to this question. Where do I look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.250 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this commons image Commons:File:EnglandWestMidlands.png? If you want to reuse commons material you should follow the details found at: Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Scouting logos

Previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Congressional charter; relisting here for better feedback.

The US Congress has issued congressional charters to several organizations under Title 36 of the United States Code. Some of these charters extend protection to the organization's marks. From the charter for the Boy Scouts of America:

Sec. 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.[10]

Similar rights to emblems and marks are also granted to the Girl Scouts of the USA, Campfire USA, the FFA, the Civil Air Patrol, Little League Baseball, and others. The NCOA was granted the same protections as recently as 1998.[11]

The BSA has invoked the charter in trademark disputes through the USPTO,[12] and in legal cases involving trademarks.[13] A partial list of BSA trademarks is available.[14]

So— how is the copyright or trademark status of these logos affected by the charter?

Specific cases
  • File:Eagle Scout medal 1911.png was published in the 1911 Handbook for Boys. It represents the design of a medal that was never used. It is currently tagged as public domain; in the context of the charter is it copyrighted, trademarked or both?

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Trademarks aren't an issue -- we're not trying to run a business in competition with the scouts, nor are we claiming (nor giving any impression) that the scouts are endorsing us. All we therefore do is note the claim that the image is a trademark, using the registered trademark template as seen on the page for your second image.
Regarding copyright, material first published before 1923 is now public domain in the USA -- even if it is still used. So, yes, both of these are public domain, and both are considered free content with respect to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.

Uploading images from Goal.com

Hello everyone, I just have a question that uploading images of football (soccer) players from Goal.com, for example [15] is accepted in here? and if so which rationale template and licensing tag is preferred an suitable? Thank you. JuventiniFan (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that images which are clearly marked as from Getty Images, and other sources, would be acceptable and freely licenced images? Even those images that have no attribution are most likely copyright and unless you can verify there them to be free, you are out of luck. It might be acceptable to use an occasional image under a fair-use claim for a player who is dead and for whom no other image is known to available. ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently, on Bat-eared Fox, User:Androstachys attempted to insert this external link, which is a hard-link to a copyrighted picture. I reverted the edit, saying that pictures should not be linked to in that manner, but rather uploaded to the commons. Given that the picture in question is very likely copyrighted, I suggested that might not be likely to happen. Androstachys pursued the issue on my talk page, asking me to clarify which policy disallowed inclusion. After looking over WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER, there did not appear to be any particular policy disallowing addition. Still, I feel somewhat confident that it is not allowed. The conversation between Andro and myself can be read here. I would appreciate the community's input into the matter. Thank you. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deep-linking like that is probably not a copyright violation, but it is considered exceptionally bad manners. --Carnildo (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, I specifically went to your talk page to ask you the question, saw your banner and came here. Oh well. Is this a yay or a nay then in terms of putting it in the article? Andro has, quite rightly, asked what policy precludes him from doing so, and I'd like to give him a satisfactory answer. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Better to link to a page that uses the image, so people get a clear idea of (i) what they're seeing, (ii) what the site has to say about it, (iii) who the site has been created by, and what its overall nature is.
Of course, the site would need to be an appropriate link destination, per WP:EL. Jheald (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Floor plan image of the church

I want to start improving St. Nicholas' Church, Tallinn (I hope to get it to GA-status). One of the images I would like to use is a floor plan from 1970s book - it is an excellent illustration of the layout of the building. Obviously the book is still under copyright, but can I claim small image of the floor plan under fair use? I think it does meet all ten criteria of non-free content policy, but I'd like to be sure in this case. --Sander Säde 10:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since anybody could draw their own floor-plan, we would not accept this as a fair-use image: it would be considered replaceable under WP:NFCC #1.
Copyright depends on original expression however. If the plan merely sets out the facts of the building's design in a wholly conventional way, with no original expressive input, then to that extent it would not attract copyright. (Note though that "original expression" can include design decisions as to what to put in and/or label, and what to simplify or leave out; so the case may not be completely open-and-shut).
Your best way forward might be to scan the plan, and then trace it using a program like Inkscape to turn it into an SVG vector graphic. That way you can control exactly what is in the drawing, and confirm that it is no more than a straightforward representation of facts.
On uploading the graphic, you should of course include a statement of how you sourced it, and why you feel that what you have taken only represents factual content not original expression, and therefore is no barrier to the new graphic being licensed as free content. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From searching, I can see the issue of what to do with images with the Wikipedia logo has been brought up, but I haven't found a clear answer. Today, IngerAlHaosului has tagged a lot of images (File:Edit.JPG for example) for criteria for speedy deletion F5 which is for unused unfree images. None of the images tagged are used in articles, although many are used in other namespaces. Since the Wikipedia logo is technically copyrighted, but the foundation and user community doesn't seem to mind its use in Wikimedia projects, I'm unsure as to what to do, so I'm looking for input here. Also, if it's determined these images are a problem, would uploading a new version of the image with the logo cropped out resolve that? I'm sending a message to the user pointing to this thread to ask for his or her thoughts here too. --Mysdaao talk 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I was writing my question, David Levy has been reverting the tags. But this issue will likely come up again at some point if it's not resolved clearly. --Mysdaao talk 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It was explained to IngerAlHaosului that these images need not be used in articles when he/she nominated many of them for deletion at FFD (where they were kept). His/her attempt to now have them speedily deleted on the same basis (with the false statement that fair-use claims are being made) is highly disruptive and borders on bad faith. —David Levy 18:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Just from memory here, but wasn't the outcome "Wikimedia is okay with use such as this" ? –xenotalk 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's my recollection. We even have special templates/parameters for this purpose. Note that IngerAlHaosului was simultaneously adding the "logo=yes" parameter (a solution cited during the aforementioned IFD discussions) along with the {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag. I find this utterly inexplicable.
Incidentally, I'm manually restoring the "logo=yes" parameter to the image descriptions in question. —David Levy 18:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I found mention of the fact that Wikimedia allowed this, but I couldn't find a page that clearly states this to be sure. Does anyone know if this is clearly documented somewhere? Thanks. --Mysdaao talk 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've found the statement by Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia foundation, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#WMF_Logos: Followup. It's clear that there's still confusion because it keeps getting brought up in different places, but I'm not sure of the solution to this. --Mysdaao talk 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago I created a wikipedia article about an artist while working for that artist. The artist herself gave me her own images that she wanted me to post on the article. I was unsure of which copyright tag to use when uploading the images to wikimedia commons, and obviously picked the wrong one because the images were then deleted. Could someone please tell me which copyright tag to use when uploading images created and given to me by a living artist, with permission granted directly from that artist. they are not copyrighted images and the artist does not wish to have them copyrighted in any way, so that other people may do with them whatever they want. I would really appreciate the help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthomas21 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I would suggest for simplicity that you license them under a creative commons attribution license. Ajbpearce (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture for Biographical Entry

Can I use a photograph from the subjects web page if I have been given permission to include the photograph in the article.

If so, can you tell me what copyright tag to use?

Thank you

Jabailey1 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The copyright tag for the image depends entirely on the permission given by the copyright holder which must be freely licenced, ie, that anyone can use the image for anything. Wikipedia only permission is not enough. Follow the procedure on WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding image use of a specific image

Hello, I have a question. The image File:I&rmap.JPG in Initiatives_and_referenda_in_the_United_States#Types_of_initiatives_and_referendums is a good one, but there is a more detailed one at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/File:IR_map1.png. The Ballotpedia image mentions which states allow constitutional amendments through their initiative systems. For example, WA/ID/WY/UT don't allow constitutional amendments through their initiative systems, but the image that is currently used in this article doesn't reflect that.

I would like to use the image from Ballotpedia here at the English Wikipedia, but I'm confused about the licensing info. I sent an email to the address on the page (info@citizensincharge.org) and they said to feel free to use the image as long as it's attributed to the Citizens in Charge Foundation. It looks like the image is non-free. What does this mean? I was looking at the upload page Wikipedia:Upload and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You should e-mail the Citizen in Charge Foundation again for clarification, and ask them to release the image under an acceptable free license. There are easy instructions on what is the best way to do that at commons:OTRS. You should make sure that the person who is giving you permission is the copyright holder of the image and is capable of giving that consent. Hopefully if you follow those steps you will be able to use the improved image in your article soon! Ajbpearce (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of images in File:2000s montage5.PNG

I've added documentation and copyright status for most of the images in the montage. All but three are public domain, one is copyrighted but can still be used per EU law, and I couldn't find documentation for the other two. There is a high probability the image montage will be perfectly okay with regards to copyright, provided you add source information for those last two undocumented images (the ISS drawing and the social networking logos montage). Thanks. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 13:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question:
The ISS image came from the NASA website - Should I show it as: (PD-USGov-NASA)
All of the Social Media images have usage on their individual Wikipedia pages - Are individual links required for every one of the items in the montage? Artx (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


any help in this regard would be appreciated. Artx (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need to find where this image was sourced from for us to be able to say - I had a look but i could not find that image, given that there are many almost identical images that are clearly PD and available if you cannot find the source of that image i would suggest substituting in one of those instead from the nasa site.

Trademarked Logos Identifying Source vs. Copyrighted Interests on Wikipedia

Rabhyanker (talk) placed a long passage of text here at 09:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC) that appears to have been copied from his talkpage in reference to an ongoing dispute - there was no question asked or reason for that material to be here, and i am guessing it was a mistake that it was copied here so I have removed it, but there is a possibility that others may wish to comment on the apparent dispute on his talkpage. Ajbpearce (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. File:Bert Combs.jpg is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. I am wondering how we might go about determining its copyright status. The Kentucky Historical Society page on gubernatorial portraits is here, and is decidedly unhelpful, although I think we can be sure that the portrait was "published" in the era when an explicit copyright notice was required, and perhaps also renewal. But how can we prove this? The Sixth Circuit own a portrait of Combs, "published" on or before 8 Feb 1989, so again a question as to its status. How would we go about showing that this was, or wasn't, published "with no copyright notice"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not that familiar with US copyright law, but it seems that per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks its absolutely necessary to find proof of that publication. If the Kentucky historical society cannot provide a date then I am at a loss as to how you could prove it. I think there is a strong argument to be made that this reproduction is public domain but without some form of proof I don't think that is good enough for wikipedia, sorry :( , perhaps others can be more help Ajbpearce (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas stories question

Hi my name is Miguel R,Fleitas I had writen a children Christmas story which, I let a few friends read it and the people that read it my Christmas story had love my story. The only thing that missing on the story is photos of Christmas like trees, other Christmas photos. If I can have photos with this story will great. Because you know that chrildrens will not read a children book if it don't have pictures it that right? So if you me can find some pictures to make this children book a good book for all kids to read,I belive it will be a selling best Christmas children of all time, if you help with photos, I can have this story publis. Sign Miguel R,Fleitas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.7.21 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions as they relate to wikipedia and wikimedia projects, not for general copyright questions. There are lots of christmas images available at commons:Category:Christmas but you should check that you are happy to comply with the terms of the free licenses that form the core of the wikimedia philosophy.Ajbpearce (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Creative commons noncommercial and fair use

I compiled File:Olde english.png and uploaded it to Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license, but I just noticed now that the videos were all released under the Noncommercial Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 license, so I guess that means that the file should not be hosted on Commons. The picture is of the members of the Olde English comedy troupe, and I think it might still be applicable for fair use on that article, since there are no free pictures of them anywhere online. Am I right in thinking that I should move the file to Wikipedia, change the license to noncommercial, and then supply fair use rationale? Thanks —Akrabbimtalk 23:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. They're still alive, so free images could be created, so the non-free image is replacable, so it can't be used. Algebraist 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I would add that as they are creative commons literate it would be certainly worth contacting them and asking if they will allow you to upload a free image per commons:OTRS Ajbpearce (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have nominated the image for deletion and am now going through the OTRS steps. —Akrabbimtalk 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

cristiano ronaldo image upload/unsure of license to use

I want to upload a few picture from Cristiano Ronaldo's latest Armani ads that I found on the internet. I am not sure of which license to use so I'm hoping someone can help me out. The link to the images is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1243088/Anything-Becks--Now-Cristiano-Ronaldo-turn-strip-Armani-underwear-ad.html

Mikysilva94 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All of those images have copyrights owned by Armani, so they are unfit for Wikipedia. —Akrabbimtalk 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Even if I gave some sort of credit to Armani? I still wouldn't be able to post it? I'd really like to be able to use these images. Do you think there is any way that can happen? Mikysilva94 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, the images that are uploaded must either be released under a free license or qualify for fair use under US copyright law. Fair use would not be acceptable, though I don't know enough about it to explain why off the top of my head (see fair use and WP:NONFREE). So your only option would be to contact Armani and ask that they release an image under a free license. See commons:OTRS for more information about that. —Akrabbimtalk 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, claiming fair use like you did for File:C.ronaldo for armani.jpg wouldn't work. The fair use principle is an incredibly complex concept (not to mention abused and overused on Wikipedia), and I urge you to avoid it if you are unfamiliar with copyright laws. Basically, you have to show that you absolutely positively need the image or the reader would have no understanding of what you are talking about, because there's something in the image itself that is the subject of controversy or discussion. If you removed the pic from the article, the reader wouldn't have trouble understanding that Cristiano Ronaldo is an Armani model. That tells me it's not a fair uses image. --Mosmof (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Image copyrights

I have some publicity photos that I have the permission of the copyright holder to use on Wikipedia. How and what copyright tag do I include to prevent them from being deleted. There is not "freely licensed media" of a similar nature that "could reasonably" replace them on the Internet. Thoughts?Basstom82 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Baston - when you say "permission" I am assuming that what you mean is that the copyright holder wants to let you use the images only on wikipedia and has not licensed them to you under a free license. If that is the case then you have two options - first you can contact the copyright holder again and ask if you can use the images under a free content license, there are instructions on how to do that at commons:OTRS. Secondly, if the copyright holder is not willing to license those images under a free license you may be able to upload the images as non-free content under fair use restrictions. However, the fair use exception is limited to a very narrowly defined class of objects and in general non-free promotional images do not fall within those categories. Details about what is acceptable are available at Wikipedia:Fair_use - if after reviewing those guidelines you still felt that you were eligible for the fair use exception then if you should reply with more details about these images so that we can check whether fair use provisions might apply.Ajbpearce (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Assistance in Obtaining Permission to Use Images

Hello,

I recently created an article entitled "Jim McCormick (speaker)". I uploaded two photographs under "fair use" and a third headshot of the subject.

Apparently I did not understand "fair use" properly since those two photographs have been deleted and I've been informed that the headshot also will be deleted unless I clear up the copyright issues. So, I've been doing some research.......

From what I gather, it seems like the best thing to do would be obtain permission to use the photographs under the free license CC-By-SA version 3.0. I found the "declaration of consent for all enquiries" template to use to obtain this.

So, I see that I attach this in an email to the copyright holder along with copies of the specific photographs. He grants permission and returns the completed declaration to me with his email.

if i'm reading the instructions correctly, I then email the declarations to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org with a copy to the copyright holder.

Now the part that confuses me. The text at this point says

The email you send must come from an email address that we can recognize. For instance, if you are releasing a website or images from a website, your email address must be associated with the website or listed on the contact page of the website. If you are releasing a work that is not available online, you may be required to provide proof of your identity. If you are releasing a work where you are acting on the copyright holder's behalf, you may be required to provide proof of authorization to work on the copyright holder's behalf.

What am I missing here? As I read it, the email would be coming from my email address, not that of copyright holder unless what you are really asking is for him to email the permission directly to Wikipedia.

Any clarification you can provide would be appreciate.

Thank you.

Jabailey1 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is fine for the copyright holder to communicate with you and for you to forward his permission, its not necessary for the copyright holder to e-mail wikimedia directly (although they certainly can). What this requirement means is that for example if you were wanted "ACME corp" to release the copyright on an image, then wikimedia would expect that the authorisation you forward would come from an "@Acme.com" email address or similar equivalent, it would not be acceptable for acme@gmail.com to release the permisson because anyone could have that e-mail address. It acts as an extra check to help ensure that the person certifying that they have the authority to release that copyright does so. If there are any problems with the permission then additional steps might be taken (like asking for the copyright holder to e-mail directly or provide additional ID), but usually a properly forwarded (i.e with header information intact ) e-mail will be fine for commons:OTRS Ajbpearce (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Magazine Cover for article on person featured

I have this image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polo-Players-Edition-web.jpg

I am helping someone publish an article on the American polo player Memo Gracida. The editor and publisher of the magazine, Polo Player, has granted us permission to use the image in the article on Gracida. I have a copy of the email, but it's a non-commercial license. Can I use the non-free magazine tag on the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantGannon (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No,I am afraid under the non-free magazine tag there is a clear policy (that you can see on the tag) that: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed. I would suggest that you try e-mailing back the publisher of the magazine asking to use a low-resolution image of the cover under a free license: you can find instructions about how to do that here: commons:OTRSAjbpearce (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg

Is the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg legal under Australian copyright law? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This question refers an ongoing deletion debat - and should be debated there not here (see WP:FORUMSHOP)Ajbpearce (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Elvin santos.jpg is sourced to a webpage for the government of Honduras. Does Honduras reserve all rights to its government works, or is this available under a free license or in the public domain? The uploader said that it was available under the GPL, but as I seriously doubt that the government uses this license for its works, I've removed that template and tagged it for lack of license. I don't speak Spanish, so I can't look through the website to find if it discusses copyrights. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Honduran copyright law is not available online on http://www.wipo.int, like those of many other countries. But from my experience with other copyright laws I checked, there seem to be few or perhaps no other countries that have anything analogous to the extremely far-reaching PD-USGov. Most laws I've seen only exempt certain types of "official" documents, such as laws, decrees, court documents and the like, not simply all products of the government. Default assumption should be it's likely copyrighted just like everything else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Very good question, actually! Does anyone know anything about Honduran copyright law? Can anyone, for example, send me a copy or a scan of Decreto-Ley (Decree-Law) Nº 4-99-E de 13 de deciembre de 1999? Even WIPO doesn't have a copy on it's public files. The website quoted as the source of the image doesn't discuss copyrights, but Honduras is a Berne Convention signatory, so we should assume that the basic rules of copyright apply unless there is a clear exception in the relevant law. Physchim62 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Monica Edwards signature

I want to upload the signature of Monica Edwards which I have scanned from a letter which she wrote to me in 1992. Her signature is very characteristic. I wish to use this in the Monica Edwards infobox.

Under which category do I upload this file?

BTP51 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there BTP, under american law signatures are in the public domain, however the level of originality capable of attracting copyright protection in English law is very low and evidence suggests that a signature may be protected as an artistic work see also Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Therefore this signature cannot be uploaded to wikicommons. however, you CAN upload the image to wikipedia, which is happy to accept images that are public domain only in the United States. You should use the {{PD-ineligible}} tag to do this on wikipedia only (not on wikicommons) I should say well done for doing this because a large number of signatures of English origin are incorrectly tagged as it is not an easy issueAjbpearce (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ajbpearce Still not sure which category to choose from the Wikipedia upload page. Does it come under logo-> other item? And if so where do I put the {{PD-ineligible}} tag? BTP51 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the category — we don't too often place images into categories here. At Special:Upload, copy the following text into the "summary" window —
{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

For the date, give the date of the letter; for the author, put in Monica Edwards; for the source, say "scanned from letter written to uploader" or something to that effect; for the permission, use {{PD-ineligible}}; for the description, explain whose signature it is; and you can leave the other versions line blank. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Road file

I am unsure about how to add a copyright tag to the file Mike Road. I need some help with that, please.-VarietyPerson (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The source link (www.classicjonnyquest.com) for File:MikeRoad.jpg does not lead to the image, so it is not possible to see what copyright is claimed by the source. Under those circumstances we cannot advise you on the copyright tag to use because we don't know the author, date of photo and whether it was previously published or not. Mike Road is still alive, though in his 90s, so it is possible to make a free photo of him. ww2censor (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Status of an Illustration Used in a Press Release

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am curious to know what the status of a non-free image derived from a press release is. The specific case is File:Illustration on WinFax PRO 2.0 Functionality from Launch Press Release.jpg, where it has been listed for deletion here. While it is definitely a non-free image and subject to copyright, I wonder if allowances are made for images used in press releases, such as this one. It seems reasonable (to me) that if you can quote from a press release and use it as a citation within Wikipedia, then why not a image from one? Clearly its original purpose was to provide information (in this case) on a product, and the press often uses such illustrations directly in their own articles in the same way that they might use a quote. So I am wondering whether images/illustrations from press releases constitute a special case? Thanks for your consideration. Captmondo (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikipedia policies on copyright are designed to ensure first that wikipedia does not infringe copyright and secondly to keep the amount of non-free content in the Encyclopedia to an absolute minimum. There is no policy that treats quotations form press releases any differently form other forms of quotation and equally images from press releases are not treated any differently than images from any other source. We treat images in a very different way from a quotation in terms of providing rationale, but the latter still has a rationale (its just the general policies and guidelines on wikipedia articles) They are each justified by the wikipedia policy on that area. Whether or not this specific image fulfils the rationale of the Non free content criterion is a discussion for here Ajbpearce (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for the response. Captmondo (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Timing of license placement?

File:Porthudson.jpg carries an interesting restriction — "Anyone is free to use this image strictly for the promotion or positive portrayal of Port Hudson National Cemetery, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and surrounding areas, the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs - or any other Veteran's Associations that see fit to use it for promotional purposes." When uploaded, it had this statement, but no permissions template; an IP added {{Image template notice|GFDL-self}} to the description, and the uploader later edited the page. Surely this restriction, by itself, is insufficiently free: a free license would permit me to use the image to portray the cemetery negatively. However, some questions — (1) Is {{Image template notice}} to be seen as {{GFDL}}? If the answer is yes, then (2) Since the uploader later edited the page and was thus aware of its placement, should we consider this license to be valid? If the answer is yes, (3) does the fact that it was added after the restriction was added remove the restriction, since at the time of upload there was no permission given except this interesting statement? Nyttend (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The original restriction was clearly an invalid license and a reason for speedy delete. In it self "Image template notice" does not mean that the uploaded item is GFDL. It is the text accompanying the upload that is GFDL (or CC-by-sa-3.0) If the uploader changes the license themselves we can take that as their intention, and that the revised license applies. However it may raise the falg that the uploader was not if fact authorised to actually release the image in this way. And in this case it is not clear that the IP is the logged in user. It now seems to be the consensus that GFDL only material is no longer welcome on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Supplying pictures for article about me

Hi all. I hope this finds you well. I'd like to put my head-shot(s) on my wiki page - [16]. The problem I feel is Wiki's copyright policy. These photos have already been on a few sites - my website [17], facebook, etc - always credited to Lili Forberg / Maura C. Lanahan (depending on shot). So, with the same crediting system, do you feel I could put one or both photos on my page, and how do I go about doing so. Thanks for your time. Joe McKinney

- by Lili Forberg - [18]

- by Maura C. Lanahan - [19]

None of those websites contain a copyright release so we must assume that the images are copyright. The easiest way is for the copyright owner to release an image as per the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Family Heirloom Photo

What would a family heirloom (photograph, photograph of object, etc.) be considered? I didn't physically take the photograph (obviously), but reserve the right to post it as a representative of that deceased family member. I have photographs from like the 1800s. What would that be considered under fair use?

Assuming the photograph was taken by an American, and that it has never been published or registered for copyright: If the photographer has been dead at least 70 years (before 1940), the photo is out of copyright. — Walloon (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! So what category should I upload my picture as? Fair use by the 100+ year copyright expiration? Not sure which category to click on before I upload my image. --Note: Found it! Thank you so much again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundhere44 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Public domain. Fair use is a narrow use of still in-copyright material. But say why it is public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Using a cover song in a podcast

I do a podcast and I need to create a 30-50 second intro. I would like to use a piece of a copyrighted song but it will actually be my own cover of it. Is this legal?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.199.161 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, this page is for copyright questions relating to media on Wikipedia, not copyright questions generally. You will have to see a lawyer as we cannot give legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a File

Hello,

I uploaded a file called James_Maxwell_McCormick.jpg to Wikipedia. It turn out that I did this incorrectly. The picture should have been uploaded to the Commons and should have contained copyright information that was missing.

I have now taken care of the problem. I uploaded the file to the Commons, along with the copyright information. I've forwarded the permissions to permissions_commons@wikimedia.org.

What I'd like to do now is mark the file on Wikipedia for deletion. I've found the correct tag to use {{speedy:reason for deletion}} but I'm not sure where to put it. Do I just add it to the edit page for the image?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Jabailey1 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I use these logo images in two Wikipedia pages

Hi, I want to know if I can use two Microsoft logos on the pages where the brand and product family are described. The pages and images are: 1.Microsoft Dynamics (Wikipedia page name)/dyn-brand_rgb_wiki.png (uploaded logo filename) and 2.Microsoft Dynamics ERP (page name) / dyn-ERP_rgb_wiki.png (uploaded logo filename). The logos for both pages were taken down because they are copyrighted. However, the image does apply to each page and there is no free-use version. I have also seen that another software vendor--EPICOR--has a logo on their Wikipedia page. Is there something I did wrong when I uploaded? If it is possible to add these logo files, how should I do it? Do I need to upload them again and use different image copyright tags? What copyright tags should I use? Thanks! MSven (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears you uploaded the files to Commons, which requires that the logos be in the public domain (or released under a free license, which is very rare). We consider some logos (like Epicor's and Microsoft's) to be in the public domain because they are simply text and do not contain graphical elements. The Microsoft Dynamics logo (assuming you mean the one found on http://www.microsoft.com/dynamics/en/us/default.aspx) contains graphical elements, however, and so would not be considered public domain. That does not mean that the logo cannot be displayed on the English Wikipedia, however. The English Wikipedia allows fair use images in limited cases; one of those cases is to identify companies and products with their logos. If you upload the image again, please a) do so only here, on the English Wikipedia, and not on Commons, b) be sure to tag it with {{Non-free logo}}, and c) you must provide a non-free use rationale that clearly explains how the logo satisfies our non-free content criteria. Powers T 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get permission to use the wikipedia.com home page for upcoming book on Social Networking

I am preparing a manuscript to be published by ASTD Press: Author/tentative title: ……………………………………………10 Steps to Successful Social Networking for Business by Darin Hartley Estimated publication date: ………………………………….…April 2010 Approximate number of pages: ………………………………...200

I respectfully request your permission to include the following material in this and all subsequent editions of the book/article/chapter, including all foreign language translations and other derivative works in any media published or prepared by ASTD Press, or its licensees, for distribution throughout the world.


Graphic I want to feature is www.wikipedia.com front page.

Thanks,

Darin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.89.206 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Powers T 14:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Geoff Beckett images

Hi guys,

I recently created an entry for a local and much-loved aviation arist with his full permission for the content and the use of the images. Although I use Wikipedia a lot I'm afraid I'm not very good with computers and I'm completely new to creating an entry and may be doing things I shouldn't. Can you tell me if the Geoff Beckett entry is now ok or if there's anything I still need to do.

Very bests,

Neil (Buchan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyon24 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you a not the copyright holder of the images you uploaded and there is no verification of permission to use the images with a free licence, you should follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT to verify the permission directly from the artist. ww2censor (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing a Tag from Images

Hello,

I recently uploaded three files onto the Commons. They were:

Jim_McCormick_at_North_Pole_April_18,_1995.jpg‎ Jim_McCorimick_at_AT&T_Park_2000.jpg‎ James_Maxwell_McCormick.jpg‎

Irritatingly, my email chose that moment to go down and it took me awhile to be able to forward the permissions to permissions_commons@ wikimedia.org. In the interim, there was a tag placed on these files that states there is no evidence of permission.

This issue is resolved - at least I am now sure that the email was sent and it does contain permission from the copyright holder, the declaration of consent and links to both the files themselves and the article in which they appear.

So, I would like to know if I can get the tags removed.

There's also one more small problem. There was a typo in one of the filed I uploaded. In Jim McCormick's last name is misspelled in the second file. I know that you can put a tag on the image's page, requesting a rename, but I've been cautious about doing this before I get the other issue cleared up, thinking that this might just confuse things more.

Can you assist? I would appreciate it.

Thanks Jabailey1 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First, if you uploaded to the Commons, then you need to ask your question at the commons (perhaps commons:COM:HD). Next, it should be fine to replace the speedy tag with commons:Template:OTRS pending. Hope this helps. If you have further questions, please direct them to the Commons ;) -Andrew c [talk] 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:SeleucusVICoin.jpg

Shouldn't this picture be in public domain? -- Bojan  Talk  19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, but you could (before I changed it) be forgiven for thinking that, because the wrong the wrong non-free tags was being used. In this case, it's the photograph itself which is copyright, not the currency. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How to add copyright information to an image that was uploaded without such information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chermike (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You can edit an image page just like you can an article page (and just as you did this one). If you did not previously, you should add a "Summary" to that image page. See Wikipedia:Uploading images#Mini How-To, which includes a summary you can just copy onto the page. Once you've done so, just fill it in. (Replace "What can you see/hear?" with a description of the image, for instance.) You should fill out all elements of the summary except, possibly, "other versions", which may not apply. Particularly important is noting where the image was previously published, if it was; the year the image was created and published, if it was; the photographer who made the image, if known. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Query about CC-BY-SA

The photographer is OK about his image appearing on the Hippocampus page. It has already appeared in a couple of textbooks, and I imagine he'd like it to appear in more. If he licenses it under CC-BY-SA, would others wanting to include it in a more strictly copyrighted creation like a text book have to get his permission before they used it? I understand they would have to attribute it, but, if it's going to be used in a copyright text, I think he'd like to be asked first. Is this the right license for that? Anthony (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Essentially there is no difference, so they wouldn't need to get his permission first. However, if he politely requested that they do, I imagine that most major publishers would honour his request. The only other option is to exploit the fact that print resolutions must be better than web resolutions ("Need a better version? Ask me") - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 12:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jarry1250. So, would it be possible for us to use the image if he insisted on by-nc-sa (Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike)? Anthony (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, no. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Actually, your point about us using a low resolution image is a good one. I think I can sell that to him. Cheers. Anthony (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A.J. Healy

I have a good image to add to a page I created about a author: A.J. Healy. It's on a website for a newspaper, The Irish World. [20]. I want to get the picture of A.J. Healy onto his page. How do I do this correctly? Darren Mulligan (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless that image is specifically noted to be freely licenced, which it is not, you have to assume it is copyright, so no we can't use it unless you can find the copyright holder and have them release it under an appropriate licence. Fair-use won't be an option because the subject is living and therefore we assume a replaceable image is possible. Sorry, but sometimes we have to do without. ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Global Country of World Peace

The Global Country of World Peace (GCWP) is an entity founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 2000. It has a king, ministers, palaces, a currency, and a flag. According to one description, it has "sovereignty in the domain of consciousness, authority in the invincible power of Natural Law, and a parental role in the family of nations."[21] It is not sovereign in the conventional sense of the word, and has not been recognized by other countries, so far as I'm aware. Their flag is a bit complex compared to many, so I wouldn't be able to reproduce it accurately, if that matters.[22] Would it be an acceptable fair use for the Wikipedia article on the GCWP?   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you created a section discussing the flag and its design, I would think a single image of the flag in question would be appropriate (other NFCC notwithstanding). Thankfully, we can just ignore the whole sovereignty issue. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TV image

Hi! I recently shot an image of Alev Alatlı from the TV screen. Question: Am I allowed to upload the image to put in the relevant article, and when yes what copyright tag must I add? Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the image would not be allowed, breaking the first of our non-free content criteria. Because she is still alive, it is assumed that a free image can still be found. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If this is an image of this Alev Alatlı, you could request the Flickr uploader to release the image under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi ww2censor! Yes, she is that person. Appreciate your hint. However, the conversation at the Flickr is 33 months old and I don't know how to reach the person, who shot that image. Sorry. CeeGee (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

More input requested regarding {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}

I would like to request more input here. I do understand that the discussion there is relatively new, but it can't hurt to have more input.--Rockfang (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Seized hoffmann images hosted by the NARA are pd in the US, other hoffmann images are not pd. Template:PD-HHOFFMANN applies for images with a propper sourcing to NARA only. Period. Regarding the copyright status in germany a comment is written in commons:Category:Heinrich Hoffmann, that comment is the filtrate of many deletion discussions on commons. --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Old ships log

I have uploaded the image of a ships log as a pdf file, dated 1953. A shipmate sent it to me, but I believe it comes from a Canadian document storage facility, possibly a University.

Is there a problem using it, is it copyrightable, and what tag should I use? JohnClarknew (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a creative work (e.g., a description of the voyage)? Or just a list of something (e.g., coordinates, passengers)? Was it from a privately owned ship or is it a government work? Has the log ever been published? — Walloon (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have tracked down the fact that the British Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, unwilling to archive ships' logs, transferred most of the records to the Maritime History archive maintained by Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland. Logs, lists of voyage facts, were by law maintained by ships' masters, and were sent to the above government agency. Merchant Navy, not Royal Navy. The ship owners were public or private companies. This log was for a shipping company that no longer exists. I listed it at Silver Line (shipping company). So my question remains, and isn't this a public document? JohnClarknew (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvin Heemeyer

Pilot of bulldozer rampage: dead: no free image available. Is is fair use, if so waht tag would be used. http://www.nndb.com/people/527/000064335/heemeyer-sm.jpg NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It's acceptable non-free use because the subject is dead. Of course, if someone happened to come up with a free alternative, it would trump the non-free. But in this case because he's dead and no free imagery is currently available, the non-free is acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found an image of Fernando de Rosa in The Guardian of October 26, 1929. There is no copyright notice next to the image itself, so can it be considered to have now entered the public domain, or does the general copyright of the Guardian apply? There is also an image in The Times, which depicts de Rosa's arrest. Is this possibly now PD as well? So far as I can tell, these are the only two images of de Rosa in existence. So, if they're not PD, would there be a reasonable fair use claim for either? If so, which would be better for a fair use claim? Thanks. Cool three (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(Based on the names, I'm assuming that you're referring to UK newspapers.) The copyright term is the photographer's life+70 years. But, if they are not identified and "if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry" then the UK copyright expires 70 years after publication. So, if you have made reasonable inquiries and have not been able to identify the photographer, and if the photos were published in or before 1939, then {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be appropriate. (I think.) -- AJR | Talk 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Commons has
which is slightly more preferable. However, we still need to establish that the images are out of copyright in the US, which is not my area of expertise. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If the newspaper or image was under copyright in its home country of the UK as of January 1, 1996, it is under copyright in the U.S. as well. That also applies if the image was native to any other European Union country. The U.S. copyright would last thru 2024. However, if you can ascertain that the photographer died before 1940, the U.S. copyright has expired. — Walloon (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No photographer is named for the photo (yes these are UK newspapers). I'm not quite sure what "reasonable inquiry" means. Do I have to call the Guardian and ask? Or is the fact that no photographer is named within the paper sufficient? Cool three (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The second definetly isn't. The former. The line is hard to define and generaly not worthwhile trying to find.©Geni 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Air Lines Flight 663

Hi, can I claim fair use for the image of this plane? It crashed 45 years ago, therefore irreplaceable. And the article in its current state entirely lacks an image, so I think it's neccessary to illustrate the subject. the photo is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgsmith/3617055099/ . (We do have free images of DC-7s, but not this particular plane N849D, nor an Eastern Air Lines one.) Regards, Blodance the Seeker 09:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Learning to drive

I am learning to drive and have a lot of willing lithuanian friends to take me out in my own car they all have an eu license is this allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.93.184 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo of art I own

I would like to link an image to an article on an artist Orlando Benedict Johnson. I own the art and I took the picture, so am I the author and, therfore, I own the copyright? Or do I need the artist's permission? The image is File:Polarbears1.png Autumn Island (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Autumn Island

  • Purchase of an artwork does not involve transfer of copyrights of that artwork unless specifically agreed to by the artist (or copyright holder). Two dimensional photography of an artwork constitutes derivative work for our purposes here on Wikipedia. Therefore, any images you take of the artwork are derivative, and are encumbered with copyrights from the original artwork. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Older vehicle promotional images

I was going through the Chevrolet Corvette article and noticed a fair amount of images that appeared to be older promotional photos. Digging a little further, all of these images were uploaded by User:Vegavairbob. After looking at his upload log, the vast majority of images he has uploaded appeared to be these older promotional photos. He is claiming these are public domain images. Here's a small list of examples:

How are these public domain images and how can this be verified? roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If these pictures were published in advertisements in the United States, without a copyright notice, or even with one, and the renewal was not registered, then they can now be copyright expired and now public domain. However this should be proved by evidence how and when they were originally published. For adverts it is quite likely no copyright notice was included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Last year There was an ongoing problems with many of Vegavairbob's uploads and he was blocked but with help especially from Quadell he now seems to understand the licencing for his uploads, many of which are pre-1978 advertising or company promotional material without copyright notices, so I think these recent uploads are ok. ww2censor (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was seeing that there was some sort of disagreement. So the copyright rationale makes sense to me now, but I still have the question of how is this verifiable? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an ambiguous "source" given for the photos. Some of these simply state "Chevrolet photo" for source, which implies that the uploader has an "original" photograph. But if the photos were from photo originals, sales brochures, books, or magazines, then the question is easier to answer. It will depend on the copyright of the source. The last one on the list stated that it was a "press photo" (i.e. news photo) but it looks like it came from an ad. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup. So with the sources being so ambiguous, how do we know they can be trusted? How can any of this be verifiable? roguegeek (talk·cont) 07:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? I almost feel like marking these with speedy delete because of the ambiguous and unverifiable claimed source on most. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be better to WP:AGF in this case rather than assume there is a problem. Tagging the images for deletion, as has been done, is inappropriate because the images' status is stated and there is a copyright tag so they don't qualify for a relatively speedy deletion. If you dispute the information you should start an IfD so others can weigh in. Did you get in contact with the uploader? ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think tagging images as speedy delete is assuming bad faith. Those templates are meant to draw attention to something that needs to be investigated. Still, I see your point in starting a case on WP:IfD. If it's the proper, better, and more thorough way of investigating this situation, then I'm all for it. Thanks for the feedback. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Public domain query

I had two photos of Alton White deleted. Alton1 is probably in the public domain, but I am not sure so I'll accept it, but the other one, tagged Alton2, is clearly and beyond any doubt, in the public domain. The photo is a scan of an original I own, and it is a press release, or a press/fan photo from a defunct league. As of today, no one owns or has a copyright on the WHA or the Los Angeles Sharks. Only those teams that joined the NHL are covered by copyright, and the Sharks and their player's images are not part of it. Can I re-upload it with out fear that some Wikipedia Mr.Peebles will delete it in the future?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garagehero (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A copyright does not expire because the original claimant no longer exists. Under state corporation laws, a dissolved organization's assets, including its intellectual property assets, always default to some party or parties in the absence of a directed assignment. If the photo of Alton White was published in the U.S. in 1964–Feb. 1989 with a proper copyright notice, it is still under copyright in the U.S. If published from March 1989 to the present, no copyright notice is required. — Walloon (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hospitality Interational, Inc.

I uploaded a series of images for insertion in my article. Some of the images display and some do not. Is there somewhere I can go to determine why they have not? B'Nita1942 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that your article is Hospitality Interational, Inc.. You seem to use File:MHI.png, File:Hi-server\marketing\Property_Images\Complete_Web_Images\Complete\RVACU-EXT4.jpg and File:PassportInnColorLogo.png. All these are red linked and do not exist. They do not appear to be deleted. The middle one has a weird name and it seems unlikely that you would use that. The files that you uploaded are at: [23]. It seems you have not uploaded those files yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File:U-47s.jpg

The copyright info on this image File:U-47s.jpg says the image may be POSSIBLE to be back on the public domain in late 2009. It is now 2010. can anyone englighten me on how to check on this? --Kvasir (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

anyone? --Kvasir (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't sound reasonable to me. It looks like the person making that comment did a simplistic life+70 calculation: maybe the photographer died in 1939, and 1939+70 - 2009. But that's not the approach. Either section 304 or 303 (and via 303, 302) controls here.
If the work was published or copyrighted prior to 1978, § 304 controls. For simplicity, I'll hypothesize that it was published as opposed to otherwise being copyrighted (i.e. by registration without publication; a not very common occurrence under the 1909 Copyright Act). Under § 304, it would have gotten an initial 28-year term. How long this would be would depend on when it was published. If it was hypothetically published in 1939, that term would expire on the anniversary of its publication in 1966. Under the law then in effect, unless it were renewed, it would have gone PD at that time. However, as a non-US work, it would have been subject to copyright restoration, as though it had been renewed; so, it would have gotten (eventually) a 67-year second term, i.e., until the end of 2033.
It it had not been published prior to 1978, § 303 controls, and § 303 basically says § 302 controls, subject to certain minimum terms that won't come into play here. Under § 302, anonymous works get a term of the shorter of publication+95 or creation+120 years. Since we only get to § 302 in this analysis if it was not published pre-1978, this simplified to creation+120; i.e., 1939+120, or until the end of 2059.
But basically, we need to know some facts that are not known:
  • Was it published prior to 1978?
  • If so, when?
The one thing we can be pretty sure of, given that this is apparently an anonymous pre-1978 work, is that the life+70 approach is wrong, and that the prediction based on it, that it is likely to be public domain at the end of 2009, is also wrong. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • To further muddle the picture, this source says "Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval Historical Center." If it's property of the USN, it's in the public domain. Though, above that it says "copied from a contemporary publication." Hmm. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that's not correct. If the U.S. Navy were the author (not merely the owner of the copyright), it would be public domain. The photo was taken from a German submarine, however; presumably either a German individual or the German navy is the author; not the U.S. Navy. Also, the fact that a copy of the photo is part of the USN collection, indicates only that the USN owns the copy; not the copyright. TJRC (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I ran across File:Ussrgymn.ogg. Then i talked to zscout370 (talk · contribs) who is a contributor over at http://www.hymn.ru and had a high quality recording of two versions of the anthem. Both are featured quality over on commons, and one could probably be featured over here. However, we are not sure how the licence tag Template:PD-RU-exempt fits in. It excludes the anthem from copyright, but it is a recording on a CD. We don't want to upload to commons if it in fact does not meet these criteria. What is your take on the copyright status? Best Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's in the public domain then a recording of it can't be copyrighted. Mind you, I'm not so sure that the anthem is in the public domain. At least, that template does not appear to apply to it, since it defines only a specific range of visual works of state authorship as not being objects of copyright. There's not really any room in a legal text to be able to make broader assumptions; the words are chosen very specifically and read very narrowly and precisely. -- Hux (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use question from someone still figuring this all out

I recently uploaded an image file to Wikimedia of a living author that appeared on the jacket of his new book, The file is: File:Greg Epstein.jpg This image was just designated for review and deletion, and I am confused. I was under the impression that it fell under "Fair Use" to use a living author's image taken from his book as a means to identify him as an author in the context of critique or promotion of his work. Is this correct, or have I been completely off-base? Thanks for the help - if I did make a mistake, I did so in good faith. --Saukkomies talk 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to use free - free as in thought, not free as in cost - media whenever possible and consider if there are replacements for non-free works. In your case, the photo of the living author taken from his book is very much likely copyright the author or book's publisher. We considere it non-free. Because the author is still alive, it is possible to take a free image of the author (with your own camera, for example) and thus this non-free image is replaceable. Thus, that image was deleted. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were using the image to illustrate something about the book cover itself, then it would probably be OK. If however you just want to use the image in an article about the author to show what he looks like, then I am afraid it is not a valid non-free use as he is a living person and therefore a free-use image of him could be taken and uploaded (presumably to Commons) under an acceptable license. – ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining this better. --Saukkomies talk 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note - I just received permission from the publisher who owns the copyright to that photo in question to use it. See File talk:Greg Epstein.jpg for details about this. --Saukkomies talk 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File: Mussolini_e_Petacci_a_Piazzale_Loreto,_1945.jpg

I have a question about a photograph (File: Mussolini_e_Petacci_a_Piazzale_Loreto,_1945.jpg) I found on the Italian Wikipedia. It is public domain in Italy. Is it also public domain in the USA? How would I find out about re-using it in the USA? Thank you. In case you need, my email address is dorines@gmail.com Dorine Starace Staraced (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is definitely public domain in Italy, and was taken it Italy (as it appears to have been) it will also be public domain in the USA.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
How so? Only if it was in the public domain in Italy on January 1, 1996, surely. Was it? I'm unfamiliar with Italian law. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, but I'm working on the basis of the 50 year rule, which would put it out of copyright in 1995. However, what the questioner really needs to ask is has it ever been published in the US. If it has, it will still be in copyright in the US.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for such a quick response. I want to make sure that I dont violate anything, so let me tell you what the intended use of the photo is. My father is publishing a small book of his memoirs (in the US). It will have a small circulation (<1000) since it is mainly of interest to his family and friends. He is an old navy man and a history buff. He would like to use the picture in one of the chapters of his book. It would appear inside the book. I want to check if it is OK that he use the photo. Thank you very much for your consideration and time. Dorine Starace Staraced (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Rumsfeld donald.jpg

File:Rumsfeld donald.jpg is immediately pulled from a blog, which cites it as a class photo of Donald Rumsfeld from 1954. I did a bit of research, and the only listing for a yearbook from 1954 is [24] on Amazon. Searching the relevant library of congress copyright catalog, I got no renewals [25] for anything fitting that description. Since material published in 1954 is now public domain absent a renewal, can we conclude this image is public domain? RayTalk 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • THat's a pretty weak stance, honestly. We're presuming the picture is from that yearbook and presuming the rights were transferred to the publisher. We don't really know the source, or the copyright status thereof since we can't confirm the source. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. Still, I'm unfamiliar with the standards here, so I thought it was worth a shot (the other copyright issues I've been involved with have been open-and-shut). I'll try to hunt down the yearbook then. Turns this from a 15-minutes on the internet project into quite possibly an extended one, as I have the time. RayTalk 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • First, kudos for taking the time to research stuff like this! Second, Hammersoft is right: we really can't make assumptions here. In order for us to treat a work published in 1954 as being in the Public Domain, we have to be able to prove that either a) it was published without a copyright notice, or b) it was published with a copyright notice but the copyright was not renewed. Absent that proof, we have to assume that it's covered by the "95 years after publication" copyright term. It sucks, I know, but we have to be strict on this kind of thing, otherwise Wikipedia opens itself up to serious liability. -- Hux (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about a synthesised map image

I recently created this image File:StKittsNevis-Finland.png, showing southern Finland around the capital region, and the entire country of Saint Kitts and Nevis, to show how small the country really is. This image is a synthesis of a screenshot of Google Maps and the existing image file:Sc-map.png. I have learned that while the latter is freely usable on Wikipedia, the former cannot be used anywhere under any circumstances. Is there some place where I can get an image of southern Finland under a similar licence as the image of Saint Kitts and Nevis? I might be unbelievably stupid here, but the entire issue with licences of map images confuses me, because the actual content the images portray is undisputable fact, and therefore cannot be copyrighted. It's just the medium that conveys the content that depends on the work of some person or other party, and therefore can be copyrighted. Can anyone explain this to me in simple layman's terms? JIP | Talk 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What about looking for an appropriate, or moidifiable, map on the common category Commons:Category:Maps of Helsinki or drawing one yourself? ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
And if you don;t find anything suitable these, you could try OpenStreetMap, which is CC-BY-SA and appears to cover the area around Helsinki quite well. -- AJR | Talk 13:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
OpenStreetMap is otherwise the perfect solution, but there's just one thing. It has no on-screen scale meter. I would have to manually compare the map image to a Google Maps screenshot to get to know its scale, so I can make sure both the Finland image and the Saint Kitts and Nevis image are exactly to scale. JIP | Talk 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth photo

I cannot find any photos of the Cape Cod Coliseum. I found a google earth image on http://www.panoramio.com/map/#lt=41.689707&ln=-70.196725&z=0&k=1&a=1&tab=1, and want to know if it is acceptable. --Screwball23 talk 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The image you linked to is non-free. Non-free images that are replaceable by a free one are not allowed.--Rockfang (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I upladed the logo File:LogoFreeMobile.jpg for (and only for) the Free Mobile article. On my talk page, Nancy invited me to to include a fair use rationale in the file description page; and to ask any question here.

The image page already contains items listed in fair use rationale guideline : a copyright tag, a detailed rationale, the source of the logo, the single article this logo applies to, image portion, resolution, purpose, not replaceable, etc...

I can easily repeat them, as requested, in the file description page, but is it really useful ? Did I miss something ? I looked for some examples of logos containing additional fair use rationale in their discussion page but was not able to find any.

Has someone an exemple of a logo with a well defined rationale ?

Thanks for your help!

Patcus (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just understand that the fair use rationale for the logo has already been completed by Eastmain, this is why I didn't found any issue with the rationale. You can forget my question. Thank you Eastmain ! -- Patcus (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Images at Category:TrainWeb images

Can someone who has a better handle than I on our free use criteria have a look at the images at Category:TrainWeb images and ensure that we are within the fair use guidelines for WP. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they aren't good enough for the commons, because they don't clearly allow for commercial or derivative work, then they aren't good here. Changing them to copyrighted/non-free images isn't helpful because a) they still don't have fair use rationales (and thus speediable under F6), and would b) failr WP:NFCC because of #1. It seems entirely plausible that any user could go create free equivalent of these images. Take a camera to a train station, and press click, right? Therefore, there is no reason for us to be using non-free images. Perhaps the best course of action, though, would be to contact the owners of trainweb, and see if they'd change their license, or agree to a CC-BA-SA license (perhaps involving OTRS). If they already say they are open to reuse, and we contact them regarding wikipedia, they may be open to an explicitly free license, thus not requiring us to go out and replace all of the images with free equivalents. -Andrew c [talk] 16:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2010/January&oldid=997875775"