Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


El Copano

I came across some images here, which I wanted to use for an article. I could not find any copyright information on the page, so I sent an e-mail to ask about the copyright and whether they were willing to release the image into the public domain or under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license. The response was: "You may use the photos as long as you credit the Bayside Historical Society for them." Would this be acceptable to use? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. You need to get them to specify a license (or release them into the public domain). Once you have an e-mail that says that, upload to Wikimedia Commons and tag the photos as {{OTRS pending}}. Forward the e-mail from the Society with the license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Make sure that when you forward the e-mail that you include the URLs for each photo being released. Then someone with OTRS access can verify the release and confirm the licensing. More details can be found at commons:Commons:OTRS Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried this over a week ago with another photo and got no response from OTRS. Is there a way to circumvent OTRS?--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you can't circumvent OTRS. Did the e-mails forwarded to OTRS confirm a specific license? If so, give it time. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so someone will work the e-mail queue and confirm the license in their due time. (OTRS is staffed with volunteers, not paid staff.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I received emails in which the author of File:Carancahua Bay Beach.jpg and File:Carancahua Bayfront.jpg agreed to release the images under a Creative Commons Share Alike license on June 22. I forwarded it to OTRS and never heard back.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Give it some time. I've had OTRS tickets take a month to get verified. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Depending what address you forwarded the e-mails to, it may take some time. Commons is backlogged 41 days, enwiki is 55 days. Now this doesn't mean it will take that long to reply, it only means that if you sent an e-mail today, there are 55 days worth of e-mail before yours, as we handle tickets in the order they were received. BTW. Any admins knowledge with permissions/copyright want to volunteer for OTRS? It really is a tedious, thankless task that is dire need of help! -Andrew c [talk] 02:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd volunteer with OTRS, but not an admin here. Maybe someday. Imzadi 1979 → 03:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Those particular images have since been approved by User:JMilburn. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eckhart Tolle

There is a fantastic picture of Eckhart Tolle, which appears appears in an article on suite101, but it the photo is credited as coming from "a fan site". (I can't post a link because suite101 is apparently blocked by the spam filter, annoyingly, but you can find it by searching for "Eckhart Tolle suite101" on Google Images) I believe the fan site in question, on which the photo originally appears, may have been at this location, but the site no longer exists.

It would be a pity if I can't even request permission to use the picture, because I can't find any public domain images of Tolle, not to mention one as good as this. Can anyone help me locate the copyright holder, or determine if there even is a copyright holder? Gregcaletta (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It appear that you have already been advised on this question at commons:COM:CQ#No copyright holder?, so there is little else to add. Sorry bou can't use this image until you find the copyright holder because he is alive but someone could take a photo of him even if it is not a good as the one you found. ww2censor (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Say a celebrity sends me a letter. Who owns the copyright to the letter? If I wanted to post a scan of the letter on Wikipedia (hypothetically), would it be OK? My gut is saying that the author of the letter owns the copyright, and the act of sending it does not transfer that copyright. But my gut is not The Law. -Andrew c [talk] 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your gut is correct, the author retains the copyright to the letter. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's just get to the heart of this. What is people's opinion of File:Ravi Shankar letter.jpeg? Do we need a permission from Ravi Shankar? Or is the text simple enough not to qualify for copyright? Any other considerations? -Andrew c [talk] 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that this is too complex, too much text, to be ineligible for copyright. As long as the OTRS email is coming from Shankar, of course, there can't be any problem. The image itself isn't original enough for copyright; whoever photographed it hasn't any rights, so Shankar is the only person whose permission is needed. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to delete it for the time being, and we can always restore it if further permission or clarification is sent in. Thanks for the input.-Andrew c [talk] 02:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to use either or both of the photos at the Alexandria Library's web page [1] in the article. The page says: "Photo images appear courtesy of the Alexandria Black History Resource Center" but correspondence with both the library and resource center/museum appears to indicate that neither one is the copyright holder. One photo, according to everyone I have talked to, is a 1939 newspaper photo from an undetermined newspaper. The other was apparently given to the Black History Museum by the family, for whom no one seems to have any contact information. The latter photo looks like a promotional shot but I do not know enough about these things to determine if it would be appropriate for non-free fair use (Mr. Tucker is deceased). I have similarly had no luck with tracking down the copyright holders of the photos at the Tucker School's website [2]. Any/all help would be appreciated. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Remember, even though a school closes or someone dies, someone still owns the copyrights on their images. They may not even know they do, but they do. Also I suggest running phrases from that newspaper article through Google ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Six Families of Berlin

All the images here were put up for deletion a few days ago, eg [3]. The editor added a template [4] but doesn't seem to have provided a detailed fair use rationale for any of them. File:Necati Arabaci.jpg is apparently from a YouTube video via a newspaper and says "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License." although I can't see why. File:Mahmud al-Zein.jpg is like the first four from the Six Families article, template but no detailed fair use rationale. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos of artworks

I'm currently conducting a GA review of Hard Candy which contains a photograph of a copy of the album's cover art made of jellybeans. The main editor thinks that, as the artwork is on public display (in Madame Tussauds), "the copyright does not remain with the artist anymore as he/she is the one allowing it in public domain." I don't agree but I can't find the relevant page about photos of 2D artworks on Wiki. Help! Cavie78 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! Cavie78 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File extension does not match MIME type.

I receive the above error when I try to upload. I'm out of my depth. The extension is .jpg. The source is [5]. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

wrong board, sorry. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Raa27.jpg

File:Raa27.jpg is lacking the source. EXIF data does not give camera data instead it gives: "Adobe Photoshop 7.0". Taking the low resolution and the uploaders talk page into account this is probably a copy vio. So please delete or follow your processes in enwiki (I am from dewiki).

I've been searching without result for a template to easily tag the image that it is lacking sources rather than having to write here. Do you have something like this? --Saibo (Δ) 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, hang on. Under what circumstances would the EXIF data say that? Would it if he had scanned a snapshot into photoshop? That might account for the low resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle, which you can setup in the "Gadgets" section of your "Preferences", allows you to nominate images with several different tags including the {{Di-no source|day month-in-words full-year (e.g. 1 July 2010)}} or you can do it manually but then you should notify the uploader manually which Twinkle automatically does for you. Twinkle does many other things for you. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Usually EXIF data says camera model and manufacturer, focal length, time and such things. Sure, if you edit a self shot photo in Photoshop and set up Photoshop in way that it removes EXIF information it would also look like this. You are also right: if you would use Photoshop to scan a paper photo it would also look like this. Nevertheless no source is given anyway.
{{Di-no source|day month-in-words full-year (e.g. 1 July 2010)}} is fine, thanks! Twinkle is also working now - fine! <br />In de.wiki I simply (without a gadget) had to add <nowiki>{{Dateiüberprüfung|Quelle}} to the image's page and everything else (uploader notification, re-check after two weeks by specialized people) would be done automatically. But it seems enwiki does not have a process like this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

QR Code

Can I use a QR code that was generated by a website using my target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you can be safe in using the {{PD-ineligible}} template because any QR Code image is only composed of lines and squares in 2D. You should upload it to the commons so others could use it. ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Llogara.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Llogara.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

(Igiann (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

What is your question? ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This photo is own work. I have uploaded this file both at the english en:Dhërmi and the greek version of article el: Δρυμάδες_Χειμάρρας. I want to ask what changes I have to make.(Igiann (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC))
This image was moved to the commons when it was uploaded here so every language wiki can use it from there. However, the commons image still requests and requires a source, just like this one, so add the fact that you took the photo to the commons image commons:File:Llogara.JPG and just let this one be deleted because it is redundant. Actually the Greek article is using the commons image. ww2censor (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Where I have to add the source of this file and how? Igiann (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Add that information to the existing info in source field of the Commons image: commons:File:Llogara.JPG. ww2censor (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook image policy

I was going to upload some images of a Christian group, Phillips, Craig and Dean, whose article I am working to improve. However, I have no idea what liscence (if any), applies to images they pos on their facebook page. Also, what type of liscense would apply to images taken at the GMA Dove Awards? Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook photos almost always under copyright by someone. Other images found on the Internet should not be assumed to be free, particularly if they are not very old. Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah... So that is a no-go then? Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No go, unless you communicate with the person who took the photo and get them to go through some steps to release it. Jonathunder (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire Collection images

The Cambridgeshire Collection hold historic images. I have (copies of) three of them in my possession which I have paid for. I have not uploaded them into wikimedia as I am unsure of the copyright. I would like to use at least two if not three of the images within Little Thetford and perhaps one of them in William Sole. More details of the Little Thetford use at Talk:Little Thetford#A photographic history. I have sent an email to the Cambridgeshire Collection asking about copyright of the images. However, even if they say I can publish them on wikipedia, the wikipedia rules are so strict, I thought I had better check here too.

The rear of each photograph is stamped as follows:

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COLLECTION
PRINT print reference
NEG negative reference
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT
PERMISSION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CAMBRIDGESHIRE LIBRARIES

Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. --Senra (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the above. I will read and digest it. In the meantime, yes; these are historical important images that cannot be retaken.
These may be public domain because of their age, depending on when they were taken and published. Now, it is not unheard of for a library to say it "owns" a photograph when it really doesn't, it is unlikely to be challenged. I would review the Commons page on licensing, of which the key sentence for the UK seems to be "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or if during that period the work is made available to the public 70 years after that."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledging that I have seen your post, Wehalt. I will re-post here when I get a response back from library --Senra (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have heard back from the library as follows

Subject: Little Thetford images

Good Morning,
We have no information as to the photographer of the images you mention, unfortunately. They may be used as part of your website as long as they are of low resolution and that you acknowledge that they are from the Cambridgeshire Collection, Cambridge Central Library.
Many thanks
Sender blanked as this is a public website
Cambridgeshire Collection
Central Library
Cambridgeshire Libraries, Archives and Information.
I attempted to upload 72 dpi resolution copies of the images into wikimedia commons using the selection "Where is the work from? Somewhere else.". The upload failed as I do not have a date nor a photographer for the work. The images are all c. 1900 but no one, in the village; the local historian; nor the local library; have a date for any of these three images. So I am stuck. Any help would be appreciated. --Senra (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I would rather these were not pulled due to doubt. Can anyone age these photos then please?
  • Print: Y.THE.K6 10483 Neg: 73/7/35a
image of old manor house with a herd of cows in the foreground and the Three Horseshoes public house in the background
Image of the River Great Ouse at Little Thetford; chain ferry in the foreground and old wind pump in the background
  • Print: Y.THE.K 683(7?) Neg: 73/9/19a
Image of the Roundhouse at Little Thetford as it was when it was two three storey cottages
old manor house
old manor house c.  1910
b&w ferry with windmill
chain ferry c. 1905
Roundhouse
Roundhouse c. 1910
Can you identify the date these photos were taken?
The main street image has telegraph poles. If these are electricy, then the photo was taken post 1953. If they are telephone then at present, I do not know when telephony came to the village. Assuming electricity, this image can and should be deleted. I have removed it from the article --Senra (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The main street is definitely after 1953 as the electricity poles are still there to this day. Also, examining the three horse shoes in the background and comparing it with an image of the same building, 1957 dates this picture as after 1957. So it needs deleting. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
In the three Horseshoes (now the horseshoes) is an old picture on the wall - the same as the river great ouse & ferry above. Below the picture is a faded description which says "Tthe Thetford Ferry, 1905. The two Dewsbury children, Author and Alfred, died in the Great War.". So I am now certain this image is 1905. This image should stand as licensed. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
In the Roundhouse, we see a lady with child. My wife tells me that the clothing worn dates this image to the early 20th century - certainly before 1923. This image should stand as licensed. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I would welcome a 2nd opinion, particularly for the three horseshoes and roundhouse images. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding adding an image to an article

If I add a picture of a college building taken from the college's website and upload it to an existing article about the college on Wikipedia, is this image considered fair use in terms of your potential copyright restrictions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardo111 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In short, no, because someone could always go take a free picture of the college building. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it, then, that if I add a photo to my college Wiki, a photo that I have taken, this is ok? If ao, how do I tag it? Terence laoshi (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICTIC. If the photo is entirely yours (i.e. you took it), then you are free to choose any license that is compatible with our mission. -Andrew c [talk] 14:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Images from Iran?

How are we supposed to treat recent images originating in Iran or other countries that don't have copyright ties with the USA? Obviously they're not permitted on Commons, since they aren't PD or freely-licensed in their countries of origin; however, since images here are generally required to be free only in the USA, do we permit recent Irani etc. images? Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally Iran copyright lasts for 30 years after the author's death or date of publication, whichever is later per commons:COM:L#Iran so, because US licencing is longer, so the 1963 or 1978 dates mentioned in commons:COM:L#United States might apply. You will find many other countries' licencing there too. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the USA doesn't have copyright relations with Iran; as Copyright in Iran says, "Published works originating in Iran thus are not copyrighted in the United States". I'm asking whether we care about Irani copyright law for Irani images on en:wp, since they're all PD in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct that Iran has no copyright relations with the USA but Jimbo has stated here that we should respect Iran's copyright as also mentioned at WP:C#Governing copyright law. ww2censor (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
So we can't simply tag it as PD-US and add a {{Do not move to Commons}}? Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the case. There are instances in which WP goes beyond what the law requires in copyright matters, for example this, and also in fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have a copy of Images of Reading and Surrounding Villages, published in 1971 1995 by the Reading Evening Post. It's chock full of old photographs. One particular image has a caption that says "Here is Friar Street looking towards the Town Hall in 1882". How will I know whether these photos are WP:PD? The opening pages give the standard "no reproduction without prior permission". Cheers, matt (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence those photos were published before? Or is their presentation in your book the first time they were published? That is an important part. Also, is there a copyright notice at the beginning of the book for the book in general? Finally, does the image say anything about a source or "courtesy of.." or anything like that? -Andrew c [talk] 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why I wrote 1971, it was published in 1995. The copyright notice at the beginning of the book is "© Reading Evening Post; Harold Hill, 1995". Below this is an "acknowledgements" section which implies there are four parties who have "loaned [the author] pictures or allowed the use of them" – Reading Library, Francis Frith, the Reading Evening Post, and an individual. There is nothing next to the photographs to be able to identify who took which. matt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess there is a possibility that it was an unpublished photo, so the best thing to do would be to contact either the author or the publishing company and ask for clarification. It probably is a PD image, but without further evidence, it may not be safe to assume that.-Andrew c [talk] 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Right. And when you find out that it is PD, then upload it OTRS pending and forward the email to permissions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect credit on a picture of São Paulo

There is a file on Wikipedia, more specifically a picture that I took, that is being used without the correct credit and license. The file is:

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

"Linneker" is not the author of the photo, but submitted it as "own work". However I (Rafael Rigues) am the author. It was taken on April 22, 2008 and is available on Flickr on a CC-BY-SA License. It is part of a tree-picture series. Here is the relevant Flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rigues/2435945512/in/photostream/

Keep in mind that I DO NOT object to the use of the picture on Wikipedia (having submitted various pictures myself), and I only wish to see the credit corrected. What is the most appropriate place/way to make a formal complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigues (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that your photo has been misattributed. I'd love to just make the change, but the file on Flickr is released under a non-commercial use license. Unfortunately, we can't use images under that kind of license. If you would still like us to be able to use it, you'll need to release it under a similar license that allows for commercial use, like the CC-BY-SA license. If you do not wish to change the license, we will delete the file. The choice is yours, as you retain copyright. Please indicate here what you'd like to do, and I will act accordingly. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 04:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The best way to get this corrected is to have it deleted and re-uploaded, since there won't be any copyvio in the history. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, since it's claimed as an own work by the wrong person. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently the PEFC logo is used on international and local wikipedia pages without proper permission from PEFC council. I am about to request permission from them to use the logo on a one-time basis for illustrative and educational purposes on Wikipedia from the international PEFC council. How do i detonate in the image meta data that the logo cant be used anywhere else? What else should i take in consideration that you can think of?

PEFC website says following about the logo: PEFC Trademark The PEFC logo and the initials “PEFC” are the exclusive property of the PEFC Council and are internationally registered trademarks.

PEFC ST 2001:2008 - PEFC Logo Usage Rules - Requirements

--Ssavilam (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not accept permissions such as that. See WP:PERMISSION. All permissions must release content under a free license compatible with our mission. That said, the image in question File:PEFClogo.JPG is currently being used without permission under a claim of "fair use", in conjunction with our strict non-free content guidelines WP:NFC. This means that we acknowledge the work is copyrighted, but believe our use is legal under a "fair use" claim. More details can be found on the copyright template on the image description page, and in our non-free content policy. The use of logos in this manner is quite routine on the English language Wikipedia, and there appears to be nothing wrong or mistagged on the image page, so I don't believe any further action is required. -Andrew c [talk] 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Elephant Celebes

According to its article, this painting was produced and sold in 1921, but the image is currently tagged as nonfree with a fair use rationale. Is there any good reason not to treat this like File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg? Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I've reverted to a larger resolution version. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

question

i have a permission of the photographer to use a (c) image. what license is that? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokmer (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


See WP:PERMISSION. You need to first make sure the copyright holder agrees to license the content under the terms of a free license compatible with Wikipedia. Then you need to have them forward a filled out WP:CONSENT form to us (or you can forward the e-mails you receive on to us, but it needs to be clear who the copyright holder is, and what license they are choosing, and that they understand that third parties will be able to reuse, modify, and even commercially use their content). To answer your question, the license you will pick when you upload the file is the license the copyright holder has agreed to. You should not upload the file just yet because they have not specified a license. We cannot tell you what license, only the copyright holder (though we recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license).-Andrew c [talk] 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Free state government agency materials

I'm a little confused about this situation. A state government agency makes posters as part of a public service announcement campaign. Anyone can order these posters online, for free. Since they're giving these posters away freely, does this mean you can take a picture of the poster from their website and use it on Wikipedia? Since they want people to have them and see them freely, my first impression would be yes, you can, but I'd like to be sure. SwarmTalk 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is never a safe assumption. Just because something may be given away, does not mean it is licensed in a manner which is compatible with Wikipedia. Remember, we must allow third parties to reuse, modify, and possibly commercially profit from the content. A freely given away poster may have no modification (or no derivative) or noncommercial stipulations. Unless you have clear evidence that the content is released into the public domain or licensed freely, we cannot simply assume it is safe to use here (unless it is a work of the federal government, or some local jurisdiction). I'd say, just contact the state agency, and ask. -Andrew c [talk] 19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Which state do you mean? There are some governments that release their work into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. We don't really have an inclusive list. I believe a good number of Florida State works are public domain. There may be one other state, and who knows about the thousands of local jurisdictions. It seems plausible that some may release stuff into the PD, but I don't know for sure. -Andrew c [talk] 02:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Minnesota also does, and California apparently too; see Commons:Template:PD-MNGov and Commons:PD-CAGov. Judging by the wording on the California template, no other US states do. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has copyright norms for uploading photographs.

1. What about photographs of celebrities or other individuals whose photographs appear in numerous websites with no specific copyright info on the photo? The person obviously has no objection to such photos being published all over (as long as they are decent ones and not morphed).

2. What about historic personality whose photos might have appeared elsewhere?

3. What tags to put in such cases?

SP 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We have Template:Non-free historic image for historic photos that meet all 10 WP:NFCC (meaning they don't hinder the copyright holder's commercial use, there is no free equivalent, the image is cropped and/or a reduced resolution, the image significantly contributes to the reader's understanding of the article topic, etc). As for your first question, we cannot use photos simply on the basis that they are ubiquitous. Wikipedia's free content license ensures that third parties may reuse, modify, and even commercially use our content. Photos you find on the internet may not allow modification (also called derivative work), and they may not allow commercial reuse. There are no circumstances where we would allow a photo on Wikipedia because the photo is simply found on multiple websites. We need clear evidence of free licensing. You can always contact the copyright holder, and ask them to release the image under a free license. If the photo is already all over the internet, they may be more likely to release the image. Then you can e-mail the permission to us, per WP:PERMISSION. Make sure you check out our sample e-mails, because we require specific information in a WP:CONSENT form/release. -Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I should add that just because a copyright doesn't appear doesn't mean there isn't permission as part of a commercial arrangement.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PC David Rathband

Hi, I'd like to upload these images of PC David Rathband to illustrate the 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt article. They were reportedly issued by Northumbria Police "At his request we are releasing a photograph of his injuries before he received treatment. He has agreed to the release of this photos on the basis the media respect the express wishes of his family not to be approached or identified." Is there a reasonable justification for either fair use or PD? I'd hope, if it's available for all other media outlets to use commerically, it should be ok for us.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that PD is applicable (the police have not formally relinquished all their rights), and WP:NFC#UULP would preclude the files' inclusion as fair-use. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but if we said the image was descriptive of PC Rathband's injuries and treatment rather than a 'portrait' - it wouldn't be possible to take another non-free image. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There's definitely no reason to assume that was a PD release. I don't think UULP applies here, though, because the intent is to show the untreated injuries in the hopes that people will be more willing to turn the perp in, and a later photo wouldn't serve that purpose. That said, I'm still not convinced that there's a valid fair-use rationale for the picture.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My question is, why do we need these images? What do they possibly add to the article? Is a photo a a bloody face really encyclopaedic here? Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We need these images (and an image of Moat) to illustrate the victim of his attack. I'm going to call Northumbria's media centre tomorrow and try and get some clarity on the licensing situation. Personally I believe the images bring a sensitivity to the reader that these are very real events with very real consequences. One assumes the police released them for similar reasons as they are soliciting help from the public. But the debate about whether to include it is going on at the talk page of the article - my question here is about licensing them in the current form without further clarification from the copyright holders. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It could be justifiable. The photo is not meant to illustrate PC Rathband, but rather his injuries. The extent of the injuries is well illustrated by the photo (moreso than can be conveyed in words), and fair use is helped by the release of the photo to the media by the police being deliberate and there being no commercial rights that could be impinged upon. I think use of a single image could be supported. Fences&Windows 15:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I know the answer to this one, but I'm looking for some other opinions. I'm wanting to use a photo, specifically the one here, but there's no indication of the original source or photographer. The photo is old as the subject died in 1926. Can this photo be presumed PD in the US and/or in France (where it was presumably taken)? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I note that the site claims copyright of all images. Secondly, it depends on when the image was published. If the site found it in the effects of the artist's estate and published it for the first time in 2009 (the copyright date on the site) you are looking at 120 years from the date of creation. If it was published in France prior to 1923, it will be PD. If it was published in France post 1923 it cannot be presumed PD in 1996, therefore it cannot be PD in the united states. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm looking for more information to see if I can confirm when/where/by whom it was published first which would've answered my question, but its existence is all I have so far. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with explaining copyrights

File:Arles portrait bust.jpg is a very recent picture of an ancient Roman object. This photo was uploaded locally as fair use, but I contested it because anyone could take a picture of it; the uploader then claimed that it was PD-old (the entire image, not just the bust) and had it uploaded to Commons. I've deleted the original image, since it's a clear copyvio, and I've nominated it for speedy at Commons. Can anyone help me to explain to the uploader that the image itself is copyrightable, and that we consider a photo of such an object replaceable? Although s/he has been an active editor for more than three years, the uploader appears to think that the photo itself is PD-old, and because s/he's on the other side of the ocean from the bust, s/he says that the image isn't replaceable because s/he can't photograph it personally. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am not the uploader, however the uploader who is also a veteran editor for more than 4 years like me initially altered the copyrighted photograph and uploaded a cropped version of the image under Fair use. I think it should be reinstated as Fair use with the proviso that a new photo can preferably be supplied per WP:UCS at the very least, I did not upload it to commons by the way, although I strongly object to its being speedied. Why not just ask User talk:Ceoil to supply a new image?...Modernist (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A photograph taken of any object can potentially have encumbered rights from the object being photographed, and the photography itself. In this case, the subject is old and no copyright sustains on the bust. However, there most emphatically is the possibility of copyright on the photography. If those rights have not been specifically released by the photographer, then there's no question it has to be treated as fair use. Given that this bust exists, a free replacement of it can be made. The image must go, and sorry 'common sense' here doesn't mean we maintain non-free content until someone manages to make a free version. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The uploader may have been thinking of recent events relating to the National Portrait Gallery (have I got the right one?) attempting to claim copyright on slides of Old Masters. The thing with a photo of a statue is that there is inevitably more than just a straight reproduction of the statue in the image - there's lighting and angle and suchlike, which give it sufficient creative content to be copyrightable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have the right people; see National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, the fact is this image is copyrighted, and cropping the source from which it is derived doesn't remove copyrights. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the image from the Commons, as the source page clearly says photo © : C.Chary/DRASSM. When it comes to reproductions of PD art, 2D vs. 3D makes a big difference. This image is 3D, so Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. doesn't apply. Is there any reason why a user couldn't photograph this bust? Is there a valid fair use rationale? I'd be glad to restore the file here as a non-free image, but we don't allow non-free images because our users haven't gotten around to creating the free equivalent yet. Either it's not possible to create a free image and thus we allow the non-free, or it is possible, and we don't allow non-free. Which one is it? (use common sense here... ;) -Andrew c [talk] 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Common sense tells me the image can be used as fair use with its original Fair use rationale and never should have gone to Commons...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Policy prevails over whatever people think common sense is. WP:NFCC is very clear on this subject. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created," This bust exists. A new image could be created and licensed under a free license. We can not and will not accept non-free imagery of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I'd gladly undelete the file here, and tag it as fair use... if it can be demonstrated such a use is in line with NFCC. Hammersoft clearly objects, but I'm willing to hear the other side. How does this image not fail WP:NFCC #1? How is it not easily replaceable? Has the bust been destroyed? Is it not on public display or is it part of a private collection? What's the rationale? -Andrew c [talk] 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That is precisely my point. I am on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and I cannot take a photograph of the piece, however I also am not aware of it being on public display anywhere in France where it was found, although it was given to the Arles Museum of Antiquity. While it does exist and theoretically it can be re-photographed; however in my opinion common sense says to use the image with its initial fair use rationale...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because one individual cannot personally create a photographic replacement doesn't mean we have to resort to non-free content. We have tons of French users (and some even own cameras!) I think we should research this a bit, figure out whether it is indeed possible to photograph this item, and then, if we can demonstrate in the rationale that no replacement is possible, I'll gladly restore the photo. -Andrew c [talk] 03:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Appreciated Andrew, perhaps you might enter a notice on the French Wikipedia, the issue is further complicated by its being a 3d object, that needs a quality picture. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Seiler instrument home office.jpg

My photo "Seiler instrument home office" was flagged. I had included the fact that Craig Sullentrup, photographer and poster of the photo, had given me permission to post it via email. However, I see that this is not sufficient for the situation. I can forward his address to anyone interested and he will confirm. What is the best/quickest way to make my correspondence with him official as it is slated to be deleted on the 15th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharrves (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

link File:Seiler instrument home office.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharrves (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-uploading pictures of ODXQ.jog or DinhXuanQuang.jgp

I hereby affirm that [I, Quan X DINH am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work including the 2 pictures of DinhXuanQuang.jpg and TheCabinetBuuLoc.jpg into the public domain. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Quan X Dinh the creator of the work -redacted- 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana, CA 92706 – Tel: 714-972-1126] (to allow future verification of authenticity) [Santa Ana, CA 92707 June 27, 2010]

File:ODXQ.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc ly (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to send an email stating this as in WP:PERMIT. With your posting we cannot see where the email came from. I also removed your email. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I

How do I post a new article on Wikipedia ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.247.187 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Create a new account and type the name of your article in the search box, or go to WP:AFC to get started without logging on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use?

I believe, but am not sure, that my fair use rationale for using File:1595147.jpg, from http://registerguard.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=650776&CategoryID=36198&ListSubAlbums=0&thisPage=2, is acceptable: I plan to use it in my article, which is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jsayre64/Oregon_Community_Credit_Union, to represent the credit union and not to mention anything about the logo in the background nor the woman in front. Is my fair use rationale acceptable and can I and how can I use this image in my article without it having to be deleted in a week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsayre64 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the image selection isn't what you want. I presume you're referring to this image. You'd be much better off using this image, and adding {{non-free logo}} to the image description page, along with a fair use rationale for Oregon Community Credit Union. However, I would suggest you make this one of the last things you do before pushing the development article into the main namespace. Non-free images are deleted seven days after they are orphaned (not used in any articles). Also, are you an employee of this credit union? If so, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

non-free media File:Hitler_and_Franco.JPG

Someone with a strong familiarity with non-free media fair use needs to look at the usage of File:Hitler_and_Franco.JPG, it's currently in violation of the rules I believe since there isn't fair use justification for all the page's it's used on... — raeky (talk | edits) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case for strong familiarity. WP:NFCC #10c is straight forward. You are free to either remove the image from all articles that are not named on the file description page in the fair use rationale, or add custom fair use rationales for each use that you feel is appropriate. -Andrew c [talk] 04:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Taken care of. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually in looking at the two uses of this image, it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of either article and is there only as decoration and to confirm the meeting of Hitler and France but that fact is clearly stated in the prose and therefore the use of a non-free image is unnnecessary so in my opinion fails WP:NFCC#8. Personally I suggest you take it to Non-free content review. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • sigh* I don't really have much divested interest in this image, a user nominated it for a FPC and it sorta took charge and dealt with it. I's a really poor image and I don't really have any desire to preserve it, it could be deleted for all I care. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking to myself last night it was rather useless and could likely be deleted. The resolution is too low to really see anything of value, and it doesn't seem to fit with any of the article content. -Andrew c [talk] 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion here. ww2censor (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free videos

What is Wikipedia stand on non-free videos? Can a 30 second sample of a non-free video be included onto an article? Gezzza talk 07:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, as long as it helps readers understand the topic and can't be replaced by one or a few still images. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_45#fair_use_with_video_clips.3F, especially User:Masem's comment at the end. Theleftorium (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, the reason why I asked because I like to add the video to The Harbingers (Atmosfear series)#Video, although the video will help the readers understand the subject a bit more, a image is already used and is currently doing alright job. So in this case a video may not be allowable. Gezzza talk 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Old photograph in old book

This image on Flickr was uploaded with a CC attribution 2.0 generic license. According to the uploader it is from the book Im Fluge durch die Welt from around 1900. The photo is by John L. Stoddard (d. 1931). Is it acceptable to crop the image so as to remove the text and keep only the photo, and upload that to Commons? Scolaire (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it is now public domain, as author dies over 70 years ago, so you can be free to do that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Normally, the CC-BY license would allow for derivative works, which is what you have suggested. But the flickr uploader is not the original copyright holder, making that licensing claim rather useless. However, if the photographer really died in 1931, the work is most likely ineligible for copyright (in the Public Domain), since he died more than 70 years ago. You should be able to upload the image to Commons using their PD-old-75 template (1931+75=2006). Since it's in the Public Domain, you can make any modifications you would like before uploading. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that template. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

drug dealing in south hedland 2005 2006

has there been much documentation on the enormous amount of illegal drugs sold in that period of time in south hedland wa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpadd211 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk. MECU≈talk 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Licensing Issue regarding File:Vassula.jpg

I am currently in the process of editing / creating a network of entries related to True Life in God books whose author is Vassula Ryden. Recently I encountered issues when I tried to upload the Vassula.jpg profile picture as it got marked for speedy deletion with the claim that it did not adhere to the licensing policies.

I have since acquired permission from Vassula Ryden to make uses of any images or published material pertaining to Vassula Ryden / True Life in God material on wikipedia. This permission is in the form of a word document that specifies my wikipedia username and has been signed and scanned by Vassula Ryden. I would be happy to email any moderators / administrators this document as proof. Here are the things I need to do:

1) I need to have the Vassula.jpg image removed as I will be replacing it with a slightly modified version of that picture. How do I go about it doing this?

2) As I have been given permission to make uses of any images or published material pertaining to Vassula Ryden / True Life in God material on wikipedia, when I upload images, please kindly indicate exactly in a step by step procedure what licensing option I should use AND, specifically what tags I need to insert whenever I upload files related to this project, such that they are no longer marked for deletion.

I appreciate any feedback that you may extend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you been granted a CC-BY-SA-3.0 like license? Or granted full rights including permission to grant further rights? Permission to use on Wikipedia or by you is not enough as every one at all must be given permission to use, and to make derivatives. This is how free is has to be. Follow the procedure at WP:PERMIT. You can add {{db-author}} to the picture you uploaded and someone will delete it. You can also upload over the top using the same name but the previous picture would still be accessible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have read the page CC-BY-SA-3.0, and the closest I could find is "Attribution by" which states "Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these." This seems to be the closest "license description" to what I have. I fully intend to credit the Author for her works. The intention is to upload a new profile picture of her, a picture of her book and a 3rd picture of her receiving an award. Again please advise what tags I should to upload these pictures such that they avoid being tagged with speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.244 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

YOu will have to describe the source of the picture, who owns the copyright, and describe the license, CC-BY-3.0 is acceptable too, as you describe above. Also put in the {{OTRS pending}} and follow up with the email proving that permission has been given by the copyright holder. Include the name of your upload in the email. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a file:

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

and following your instructions added the {{OTRS pending}} markup. Please advise who or which email address I should use to send the document that grants me the license to use these images. I could not find an email address in the upload section.

  • You were told above, WP:PERMIT. However, it appears from the file you uploaded that you have permission to use this image on Wikipedia. That's not a free license, certainly not CC-BY-SA or anything else CC. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"However, it appears from the file you uploaded that you have permission to use this image on Wikipedia. That's not a free license, certainly not CC-BY-SA or anything else CC."

Then at this point, what licensing option would you suggest? If I choose the "I have been given permission" license, the image will get tagged for speedy deletion. Then at this point I would have to add the {{OTRS pending}} tag and send an empail to WP:PERMIT showing them the authentication letter from the copyright holder, correct?

File:USRA-Logo.png

This image is tagged as non-free, but is it really complex enough for copyright? It consists solely of the letters "USRA" superimposed on a circle, and everything is the same color. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

LeBron James copyrighted getty image

File:LBJ_MIA.jpg

This image should be removed immediately for violation of copyright. From getty images: http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/102771090/Getty-Images-Sport -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense; link says "USER IS NOT PERMITTED TO DOWNLOAD OR USE IMAGE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL.", and no evidence of permission was given. Since it's unlikely that user obtained commercial release for this use, speedy deletion criterion F9 applies, and I've tagged it. The uploader has been informed on his talk page. TheFeds 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Frances Hodgson Burnett image question

I'm expanding Frances Hodgson Burnett and as I was looking for additional images I found the image that was in the infobox when I first started editing the article is cropped from this at Getty images. I don't know the policy regarding Getty images. Are we allowed to use them? If so, I'd prefer to use the uncropped image. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually from Getty images. The image is so old, that copyright is expired. If you look at the file page File:Frances_Burnett.jpg, it explains that it's old so there is no copyright. MECU≈talk 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I saw that it's PD because of the age of the image, but was confused when I saw the Getty image from which it's cropped. If it's an old image and PD, is it possible to use the uncropped Getty image? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

File O. DXQ.jpg

I have sent a question on July 8. Thought there was a visit by admin with an answer but I could not locate the answer. Please let me know how to proceed to ensure the article is completed with Judge Dinh Xuân Quang's picture, and to place the article into public domain.

Below is the permission from Dr. Dinh Xuân Quan, the only son of Judge Dinh Xuân Quang:

I hereby affirm that [I, Quan X DINH am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work into the public domain. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Quan X Dinh the creator of the work qdinh2@yahoo.com 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana, CA 92706 – Tel: 714-972-1126] (to allow future verification of authenticity) [Santa Ana, CA 92707 June 27, 2010]

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc ly (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • This is quite unclear. What is it you are trying to do? What work is it you are referring to? What do you want to do with it? Regardless, posting this 'permission' here isn't helpful. You need to be explicitly clear about what you want to do, and with what, and send it via the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Permit. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Loren.JPG

Is there something akin to the OTRS process on Wiki? If this were on Commons I'd strongly suggest that this image needs OTRS permission but not sure what to do with it here. This seems to be in line with some WP:COI editing at Loren Galler-Rabinowitz which suggests to me the image release may be valid but I'd like to get some confirmation of this prior to transferring it to the commons. Cheers, PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTRS (it's basically the same as Commons). E-mails with permission go to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as described at WP:CONSENT. TheFeds 02:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(Of course, if it's really being released into the public domain, then it really ought to end up on Commons anyway.) TheFeds 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is I'm querying the copyright status of the image. What process should I be following? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Enquiry

Greetings!

Hello, can i share info / pages from wikipedia to my facebook?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senyorita7 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Images from the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes

The Isaac Newton Group maintains a gallery of images at http://www.ing.iac.es/PR/archive/ with the statement 'For publication or display (electronic or otherwise), all images must be credited: "Photo Courtesy of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, La Palma" unless otherwise noted. We appreciate you send a message to Javier Méndez (ING PR Officer) with all the details.' Most images have additional credit lines, but there is no other copyright information. Does this mean we can use them, and if so under which tag? Modest Genius talk 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Commons' Template:Attribution should suffice for that sort of release. I recommend asking at the email address that is linked to on that page, just to be safe. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Do they grant permission for derivatives? That too is required for use here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol smiley face public domain?

Could someone please comment on whether or not this file: File:Lol smiley face cover art.jpg (an album cover) is in the public domain per {{PD-textlogo}}? Thanks, --BelovedFreak 20:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an album cover being used in an article about the album. Do you want to use it in more articles? Why do you want it tagged as PD in the first place? I'd say, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. It's a bit of a borderline case. All the elements appear to be simple text elements taken from a font, so I'm pretty sure that it would not qualify for copyright in the US, however I'm not positive. -Andrew c [talk] 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to use it elsewhere, I don't know if other editors do. It just came up in a GA review, that's all. I don't suppose it really matters if it's only going to be in that one article. Thanks anyway.--BelovedFreak 21:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I made the comment about the public domain, because if the cover is in it, not need a reduction per non-free rules. And maybe it could be used in other pages, someday. TbhotchTalk C. 21:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ember.png

But I was unable to find the correct copyright status for the picture. Not sure what to do now.

Water78 (talk), 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct licese is {{Non-free character}}. TbhotchTalk C. 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It does not appear the image has a fair use rationale either (see WP:FURG and more generally WP:NFC). But more importantly, on "List of character..." type articles, we have historically not allowed non-free images of each character, instead preferring a single "group shot" of the main characters at the top of the article (often in an infobox) a la List of characters in The Simpsons. I would think all the individual character image in that article, including Ember, do not meet WP:NFCC and need to be deleted (and perhaps a group shot uploaded in their place). -Andrew c [talk] 01:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Trafficcontrol.JPG

how do i copyright my photo so Wikipedia accepts it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saferoadway (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I presume the image you are referring to is the one in the section heading I've made here for you, as that is the only photo you've uploaded. How do you want to license the image? I recommend CC-BY-SA-3.0. If so, then you should apply the following text to the image description page: {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

LeBron James copyrighted getty image again

File:MiamiHeatWadeBoshJamesParty.jpg

This same user User:Fredler_Brave keeps claiming copyright and putting the images under public domain to images he clearly doesn't own. I suggest taking away his uploading privileges altogether. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 07:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images from this website

I want to upload some of the photographs from this website but I am not sure what licensing they would fall under. I contacted the operator of the site, and he said that he had no copyright on the images. Ga Be 19 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

owner of photo grants free use

Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kavipadma&diff=cur The photo under question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Troy_Untitled2007.jpg The owner of the photo gives permission for anyone to use this photo for any purpose; see here http://bauddhamata.blogspot.com/2010/07/untitled-2007-palakunnu-walk-to-beach.html

How to make this apparent?

with thanks, kavipadma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavipadma (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow the steps at WP:CONSENT

Scott O Kelly

http://www.facebook.com%2Fphoto.php%3Fpid%3D31433200%26l%3D06ac349e73%26id%3D1343738659&subject=Profile+Pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottokelly (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your question? Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg

Moved to Talk:Colton Harris-Moore § Photo
 – Consolidating discussion at one talk page; please direct your comments there. (Further comments moved to that page; summary of issue below.) TheFeds 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Please go to the consolidated discussion at the above link instead.

The question of the current copyright status if the image File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg is being raised by editors at Talk:Colton Harris-Moore#Photo. The image originated from a stolen digital camera taken by the subject himself, and was recovered by Island County (Washington) Sheriffs, based on information provided in this article. The image is also currently being used by numerous reputable media agencies on the Internet and a derivative image of his face from the photo is also being used by someone selling t-shirts ("Momma Tried") as well as in the FBI's wanted poster. WTF? (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC) (Excerpted from full comment. TheFeds 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Please go to the consolidated discussion at the above link instead.

Further assitance would be helpful as We are deadlocked there Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, if you look at the discussion on the talk page, it's predominantly one user that is opposing any fair use arguments others come up with, mostly using what appears to be WP:Wikilawyering tactics. I don't think anyone's willing to add the photo in question to the article, since they believe it's simply going to get reverted by this over-eager editor anyways. So perhaps administrator intervention is required? WTF? (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't appreciate the ongoing attacks you are making against me. I might be the most vociferous person opposing the inclusion of the image, but I'm not the only person doing so. Further, citing policy as a basis of my opposition doesn't make me a "wikilawyer". It means I'm basing my opinion on policy, and nothing more. Cut the crap! If you can't discuss the issue at hand without reverting to personal attacks, then kindly don't comment at all. THANK YOU. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dylan photograph

I have just uploaded this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_Dylan_w-his_electric_guitar.JPG, but I am not sure of the copyright license, and whether or not I need a claim of fair use. I would really like to have this picture on Wikipedia, as the one before this was deleted. BootleggerWill (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you copied this off a web site that gave no information, you can assume nothing, and you certainly can't claim a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, as you did not own the rights to grant this license. Fair use may be possible, but unless you can explain why this photo should be used, then it is not justified under fair use. There are several conditions for fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
What Graeme said, but to expand on that, you need to sort this out first rather than after uploading. In most cases, you shouldn't ever be uploading an image that you don't know all of the details for except in rare cases where it meets the criteria for non-free content - still, you need a lot of details for that as well. Unless you're able to provide details and an appropriate non-free rationale in short order, this image will be deleted again. If you have any questions about copyright or uploading images to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer them before you give uploading any more images a try to avoid problems next time around. Shell babelfish 04:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if somebody who is reading this is an administrator, could you please just delete that file now. I'd rather have that image off of Wikipedia now that I know all of what was said above. BootleggerWill (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is a photo of a photo OK?

If I take a picture of a photo or illustration in a book and then crop and edit it on my computer, can I then publish it on Wiki as a self photographed, public domain item?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If you take a picture in a public place (with some copyrighted material visible), you could argue that the photo is ok under Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. But never crop a photo and argue it is yours, no. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If you take a photo of a painting that is itself pd, you can upload that as pd. But a photograph of something that is copyrighted is regarded as a derivative work no matter how you edit it, so is not pd. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, then this photo [6] which I submitted, needs to be removed. What is the procedure?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Add {{db-author}} to the image description page. I want to say I appreciate your cooperation. Without you being forthright about the source of this image, it's unlikely anyone would have ever discovered this copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The honesty is appreciated, but the violation was noticed.[7]   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free 3D art

I can't find the option for non-free 3d art to upload an image of a statue or trophy such as the licenses for Oscar statuette or FIFA world cup trophy. -- Yandri (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Verschuuren.jpg was downloaded but not accepted because the copyright status was unclear. I mentioned the copyright was mine (Author), but somehow that didn't work. What to do?

Thank you!

Gerry Verschuuren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesispc (talk • contribs) 10:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you own the copyright to the image, please upload it to Commons so that it is available to all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Printed copies of map images

Dear Wikipedia I wish to make copies of two english county maps (50 copies in total) for non-commercial use and distribute to educational and local authority colleagues as part of a non-profit making consultation exercise. What do I need to do, please, to avoid infringing any copyright. Many thanks Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Chester (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not hold copyrights to any of the images typically available on its site. There may be copyrights on a particular image from an external source. What maps did you have in mind? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

LINKVIO policy and citations to external websites

Hello! Myself and another user, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, have been cordially trying to figure out a copyright question involving the WP:LINKVIO policy. Please shed some clarification on this when you have a moment...

The question involves whether or not it is permissible for a Wikipedia article to contain a reference citation for a quotation, that links to an external website, which is hosting copyrighted material from a third party but asserts copyright exemption under fair use (17 USC 107). The LINKVIO policy states that you should not link to copyrighted material if you know that there is a copyright violation, stating "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)".

In the Wikipedia article at issue, the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, there is some quoted material from Carol Leonnig, a Washington Times Reporter, who appeared on the copyrighted Fox News television program On the Record. Media Matters for America has a web page which contains an excerpted clip, 3 minutes 47 seconds in length, taken directly from the Fox News television program. The video can be seen at this link. We want to know if the quoted material on the Wikipedia article can include a properly attributed reference citation containing a weblink that points to the URL of the excerpted Fox News program on the Media Matters website, given the concerns of the LINKVIO policy.

Here is where we get to the crux of the matter. While the copyright holder of the video is Fox News, Media Matters for America asserts a fair use exemption under 17 USC 107 for non-commercial commentary and criticism. However, my colleague questions whether or not Media Matters copyright exemption assertion is valid, and has pointed out to me that even though Media Matters claims that they are using the copyrighted material in a valid fashion, it can't be known by us (as Wikipedia editors) for sure if this is true.

Given the concern that we don't know with knowledgeable certainty that Media Matters copyright exemption claim is valid, but the LINKVIO policy does not specifically address this, would you please post your opinion here on whether or not such a citation link is permissible or impermissible in a Wikipedia article? Thank you for your assistance. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a bit off topic, but I saw an editor remove a citation from an article on my watchlist because it was from Media Matters diff, claiming the source wasn't reliable. Perhaps you should not consider using the link because some editors think it doesn't meet RS in general (or maybe this is some random, mistaken editor and the reference should be restored in that article). I haven't looked into it much further. As for copyright, this forum is mostly about our image use policy, specifically WP:NFC and WP:REUSE. You may get answers here, but maybe not. I would say that this is a delicate legal issue, and short of bugging Mike Godwin about it, we should just decide based on community consensus. I don't think there is really a right answer. Do we know if Fox has sent C&D orders out on content such as this? I know we wouldn't accept a link to a user posted Viacom clip hosted on YouTube, even if the uploader claimed fair use, based on past history of C&D orders from Viacom on YouTube (and thus we can clearly say the company feels those instances are copyright violations, and pursued prosecution). Now that I think about it, can we not simply cite the TV program directly in the footnote, without linking to a 3rd party webpage who is hosting the file without permission?-Andrew c [talk] 01:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andrew, thank you for posting a reply! With regard to citing the TV program directly in the footnote, without linking to a 3rd party webpage who is hosting the file, that is what we did yesterday when we thought it was a copyright violation. You can see it as Footnote #91 here. Afterwards, however, it became apparent that the 3rd party website (MediaMatters.com) asserts a fair use exemption under 17 USC 107 in that it's a short excerpted video clip of a Fox News program used for commentary and criticism. The value of the citation is simply that it allows readers of the Wikipedia article to quickly follow a link and confirm for themselves the cited quotations from the Washington Times reporter in question, rather than a cite which is still valid but makes it much harder to verify. Also, there is no evidence of Fox News sending a cease and desist notice (on the contrary, Media Matters appears to be hosting and critiquing many different Fox News shows and broadcasts for years now). Still, it is not a critical issue and could be resolved by just leaving it as is... but if there is someone on staff who does know how to clarify the LINKVIO policy in this regard, we'd love to have an answer and it would make it much easier to handle an issue like this in the future. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let me comment.
  1. In all my years editing here, my conversation with AzureCitizen has been about the nicest, and the conversation seesaws back and forth as it should. Frankly, it's fun. Contentious editing is not fun, by comparison.
  2. Regarding the partial birth diff, that edit was done by me. The text said, "'Partial-birth abortion' was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill." Then a MMfA ref was used for the source of that. There's no reliable source available? Not only is MMfA not a reliable source for that kind of usage, but the real RS here, the Washington Times, was not cited. I have to say I see again and again MMfA refs being used in a manner that clearly evidences people are simply using Wikipedia to promote MMfA, to get people to go there to prove a simple thing, but they also get an eyeful of MMfA venom. Often, MMfA gets into the articles themselves, as text, not just as refs, as if it was actually encyclopedic, which it is about itself and a few other areas in which it is directly involved, but not on dozens and dozens, perhaps hundreds of pages of the very people MMfA was explicitly formed to target. Look on today's (yesterday's?) RS Noticeboard here, for example, to see another editor pushing MMfA, without informing me he was doing so by the way, then multiple editors saying MMfA is not a reliable source. As used in the partial birth article, MMfA was not a reliable source. That's why I did it. Thank goodness for Wikipedia policy; if it wasn't for that, the MMfA spin would likely be on every page MMfA desired it to be on.
  3. My third comment is that I do not believe the sum and substance of my concerns have been effectively related, though I hold AzureCitizen completely harmless for that as I might not have summarized it well either. Rather, thanks to our conversation being so succinct, polite, and meaty, I strongly urge everyone to consider the conversation on the Talk page there as if it fully appeared here. So, for example, while I could address the substantive concerns raised above, I feel I have already done so and I incorporate my responses here by reference.
Let me add this, however. It seems a lot of weight is being given to whether Fox is acting this way or that in response to the MMfA postings. I do not think that is the right thing to do. Fox may have every legal right to stop MMfA but it may choose not to do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the validity of MMfA's fair use claim. For example, I know of public libraries that are stealing millions of dollars from the public, but specialized lawyers are needed to take the case and none will because, despite affirming the validity of the potential for fraud, the lawyers say the libraries do not have deep pockets and a few million here and there is not worth their effort anyway. So, a lack of legal action does not make stealing millions okay. Similarly, a lack of an expected response from Fox may have nothing to do with the merits of MMfA's claim. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to appear every time I upload a picture.

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

  • Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
  • You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail.
  • Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
  • If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

What does this mean? WikiUni (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It means the page "matches an entry on the local or global blacklists". In order to help you further, could you "Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit". The blacklist (WP:BLACKLIST) is a set of banned phrases that the software will deny creation of pages based on. It is most often used to fight spam and vandalism. So more likely than not, a word or phrase in your filename is being caught by the blacklist. Again, can you tell me what filename specifically you are trying to upload to? -Andrew c [talk] 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Listal

Is listal an appropriate site to use images? I'm working on the Marina Inoue article, and I found this image, but I'm not sure how to interpret the ToS that they have:

We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be shared publicly, you agree to allow anyone to view and share your Content.

I found alternatives to the image (here, here, here, and here) but they seem rather dubious. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TOS doesn't allow derivative works so not useable.©Geni 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Image Use

Can images that are not public domain be used if their photographers are credited, and their sources are linked to?

It is acceptable to use information that is not public domain if the source is credited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.114.218 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two possible ways that a non-public-domain image can be used on Wikipedia: either 1) the image is under a free-content license, or 2) it meets Wikipedia's requirements for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

1903 map

I have a scan of a map Cambridgeshire [Cambridge Isle of Ely] (Map) (2nd ed.). Ordnance Survey. 1903. § Sheet XXX. N. W. {{cite map}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) that would, I feel, benefit the article Little Thetford. The map has not been uploaded into any wiki project; it is cited three times in the article. Would I violate copyright by uploading it? --Senra (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The map is old enough to be in the public domain; the best tag is {{OldOS}}. --Carnildo (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncopyrightable image?

File:ChenOne Logo.jpg currently has a false claim of the uploader being the copyright holder. I believe logos such as this which only use a standard typeface are not copyrightable, is that correct? If so, what is the template for it? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem with uploading to en:Wiki as it's not capable of being copyrighted in the US. However, the logo was created in Pakistan, and I have no idea about copyright law in Pakistan (unlike India, they don't routinely publish all their legislation in English, and my Urdu is definitely not up to legal documents!!). I have removed the mtC tag on those grounds - if someone is familiar with Pakistani copyright law, I'm happy to have this clarified.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crude_stuff/ETX_Capital article

I uploaded an image I obtained from ETX Capital, the company that I wrote the article on with full permission from their Management. However this image was deleted. Please advise me on how to re-include this image as I am not sure how to proceed with it getting deleted again.

--Crude stuff (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The copyright owner must give evidence of permission per the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use files with simple source info

File:UamqGetInvolved.jpg is an example. Many files are like this: source fields are filled with some text, but no URL is given, which is required according to WP:CITE#IMAGE. What should be done on them? Liangent (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

India government agency logos

User:Shreysoni31 introduced a lot of text copyright violation which I've cleaned. But checking though his contribution history, he has also uploaded three logos which he incorrectly is claiming as his own work.

Clearly, this editor doesn't have the rights to release these images under any sort of license. But are these usable as fair use logos? Are there any specific considerations for the Indian government. Wikipedia:Logos indicates this is the case for US Government agencies but I can find no guideance for India. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Indian Government has the equivalent of Crown Copyright - anything produced by or for the Indian Government is copyright of the Indian government. However, Indian copyright law seems to permit the use of these images under the equivalent to fair use. We had this come up a few months ago with Indian Navy warships, which use insignia to distinguish them. There would appear to be no problem with using the image under fair use.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll look into retagging them as fair use. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

mapquest

like many people on wikipedia, i am NOT adept in stuff like this (editing pages and such) but i am learning, i would loike to add the copyright information on my photo but have no clue how, please explain or uload another copy! help! thx Glman99 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (sry if that was confusing i want to obey the rules...

My guess is that the OP is referring to File:Mapquestlogonew.png, which needs appropriate non-free use tagging. I'll take a look at it. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've gotten better but i still need help with my photo File:Newsboys2.jpg and File:Blindside.jpg and File:Fireflight.jpg and File:Bleachband.jpg and File:Houseofheros.jpg Glman99 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence the first four of these image is freely licenced while the last one has been deleted already. It looks like they were copied from website and are copyright, so we cannot use them. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yah, i know, but what is wrong with File:Hereignssingle.jpg Glman99 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Hereignssingle.jpg has no copyright tag and the fair-use rationale is not linked to the article it is used in. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor has added high resolution photo to Commons and to Attila the Hun. Neither seem to have a proper copyright justification.[8] The Commons permission reads "Permission= közkincs-saját", roughly meaning "I, the author, that my work is hereby into the public domain declare. This applies worldwide."[9]

When questioned about copyright status, the editor responded variously:

1) "its free to show artist works acording to wikipedia policy."[10]

2) "the work is from well-known artist living in hungary and wikipedia has bought the rights from the artist."[11]

3) "i think it's better for you show a little respect to hungarian art and artists"[12]

4) "i wrote an e-mail to the publisher of the original content and i'm waiting for the reply now. since everything looks normal, i have had no clue about that picture"[13]

Making claims that "Wikipedia bought the rights from the artist" suggests ... at least ... lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policy and practice. I've referred Finn Diesel to WP:COPYRIGHT, but he hasn't responded to that. In the meanwhile, he assumes the photo is allowed in Wikipedia, and has replaced it in the article a number of times. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed the image from the en-wiki pages and marked the commons file for deletion. Please let me know if the uploader should cause more trouble over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:LebronMiami.jpg

Copyrighted image: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/102791497/WireImage Speedy delete. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another copyrighted LeBron James image uploaded, this time with a weak fair use excuse claim with no rational and no source to original owner. File:Alg_heat_lineup.jpg -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 19:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actress photo

I have been trying to upload a picture of actress Simone Lahbib for a week now and they keep getting deleted. I am guessing that I'm not adding the correct licensing info, but I can't figure out which one I should cite. This actress has given permission for me to use this image of her for her wikipedia stub. Also, she owns the copyright to it. How do I cite this properly so that the image isn't deleted again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvinegypsy (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Permission to publish on the Wikipedia article is not free enough, we need permission for any one to use it for any reason, and to allow derivatives. See if CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is acceptable, and then follow procedure at WP:PERMIT. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:David Ascalon Kinetic Sculpture Mobile memphis TN.JPG

File:David Ascalon Kinetic Sculpture Mobile memphis TN.JPG is currently being used in the Kinetic art and David Ascalon articles. I would also like to use it in the Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee) article (the synagogue where the sculpture hangs), but a question has arisen regarding Freedom of Panorama. I believe the sculptor himself has uploaded this image (and others), but another editor has concerns about it being appropriately used in these articles. Can the image be used in these articles? Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the other editor. My understanding is this: The U.S. does not have Freedom of panorama, so you cannot just use an image of a sculpture in a public place, per WP:FOP. If this sculpture is itself copyrighted, then a photo of it can only be included under a fair use provision. However I think fair use would only apply to an article about the sculpture itself, not this article. See this discussion that I had with User:Fastily, an admin who focuses on image use rights, a couple of months ago, that resulted in an image of mine being deleted in similar circumstances. Now, if the editor who uploaded the image is indeed the sculptor himself, that puts things in a different light. However, in that case, doesn't the WP:IOWN process need to be gone through (meaning an e-mail by the sculptor to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and the images so marked? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly the above. Only FoP in the US is buildings. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @Wasted Time R; yes, the artist needs to do as you suggest. I've seen multiple cases where people claim to be the original artist, but then nothing happens to release rights to the sculpture. We have to be able to verify the rights, and OTRS can do that. Just an acknowledgment on the upload itself isn't useful. There's no way to verify. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulochana (Ruby Myers) Image

My mother is writing a book on the Baghdad Jews of Bombay, and has written about Sulochana (Ruby Myers). She would like to include the image of Sulochana that you have on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Myers

Is it copyright? I notice it says it is not copyright in India. So is it possible to use if the book is to be printed outside India? Can she use the image and credit the article in Wikipedia? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadamabu (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • If giving credit is desired, I'd go to the source from which Wikipedia obtained the image from the listed source. Based on the licensing, on Commons, it appears to be in the public domain. You may want to research the source further to be certain of the copyright status. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png

Manchester's coat of arms as used by its libraries (1899)

In the latest FAC for Manchester United F.C., a concern has been raised regarding the copyright status of this image. The image is currently licensed as non-free and used in the article under a claim of Fair Use, but User:Fasach Nua believes that the image does not meet the threshold of originality that would allow it to be copyrighted, meaning that we could claim that it is a free image. Could someone please clarify the situation for us? – PeeJay 12:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The image contains components derived from the PD works File:Manchester_city_coa.png, and the Red Rose of Lancaster Fasach Nua (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not able to look much deeper into this at the moment, but File:Manchester_city_coa.png might not be PD: it seems to have been entirely redesigned/updated in 1958 to be quite artistically different from the old logo (see p. ii of Rich inheritance: a guide to the history of Manchester)[14] and other sites.[15][16][17] It would help to determine the copyright status of the pre-Red Devils badge if we have actual representations of pre-1926 coat of arms of the city of Manchester (which I believe is the main template for both City and United badges). Off hand, I would say that the only focus of originality would be the design of the three-masted sail ship (and there seems to be several different variants, such as the hull, the shape and number of sails.) Jappalang (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, is this the kind of thing that will hold up the article at FAC? As a co-nom, I'd help investigate but I really haven't got the foggiest idea what all this is about. Tom (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have found pre-1923 representations of the city of Manchester's coat of arms. I believe the ship in United's badge is too close in appearance to the ship in this CoA to deserve originality. As such, the badge is a derivative of the older CoA and would have to factor its copyright status. Also, File:Manchester_city_coa.png was created in 1958 and I believe its artistic style is different enough to deserve its own copyright.
FAs are supposed to be showcases of the project's policies and guidelines. As such, copyright status of images should be verifiably correct as well. Jappalang (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so the current copyright status of File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png doesn't need to be changed. Thanks Jappalang. – PeeJay 22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, I think you have misunderstood me. The 1960s crest should take on the copyright status of the 1877 coat of arms (the ship is a derivative work of that one), i.e. PD-1923 in the US and of unknown status (likely expired but not verifiable yet) in the UK. File:Manchester_city_coa.png, which is the 1958 coat of arms of the city, is copyrighted. I have adjusted File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png accordingly. Jappalang (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh right! Well that's even better! Cheers! – PeeJay 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union Postage Stamps

Have several dozen photo images of stamp issues from the former Soviet Union and am wondering if they are in the public domain since the USSR is no more. In any event, I need to know what sort of license if any is require to display these images in a philatelic article. GWillHickers (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that Commons has information on this. I would go there and start running searches. And check under Russian copyright law as well because Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union for most purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Johannesburg photos

TO WHOM IT MAY CONSERN:

Good morning.

I am just doing a inquiry about getting some pictures of Johannesburg and the surrounding areas and attractions. Some of the attraction include gold reef city, Voortrekker monument apartheid museum, Pretoria etc, constitution hill, Soweto and Lesedi Cultural museum. How would I go about using the pictures, with permission from your website?

I would really appreciate any help

Warmest regards Patricia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.155.83 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. All images on Wikipedia have a licensing/permission tag. This licensing information can be viewed by clicking on the image and scrolling down to where you'll see the "Permission" tag under "Summary" or to the "Licensing" tag. For example:

I have tried to upload two images but they have been deleted as I do not know the correct copyright template to include. Which template do I need to use for a UK image where I have permission from the copyright holder, Judges Postcards Limited, to use the images to illustrate the article but the general copyright remains with the copyright holder? Reynoldsworld (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. We accept images in two broad categories; free licensed, or under terms of U.S. fair use. Permission to use on Wikipedia does not fit either of those. Since the copyrights are being retained in this case by Judges Postcards Ltd, then the images must be tagged with a non-free tag. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free to select an appropriate one. Once that is done, you must edit the image description page to adhere to our non-free content policy, paying special attention to providing a rationale. See WP:FURG for guidance on creating a rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cervélo TestTeam

Can de:Datei:Trikot Cervélo TestTeam 2010.png be transferred to Commons?

If not, could it be used with an appropriate non-free fair-use rationale, in;

a) Cervélo TestTeam

b) Biographies about team members

I appreciate that the threshold of originality rules on de and Commons are different, and ask here to seek clarification. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If taking the threshold of originality to be very broad, that is an image of multiple PD-text logos, except the image of the scorpion. Therefore, not all the logos in the jersey are PD-text. Furthermore, the drawing of the jersey itself may not be PD. Taking the threshold of originality to be much less board, the design, color scheme, and placement of the logos may also contribute to something copyrightable. Eitherway, there are clearly (and not so clearly) elements in the image which are not PD, therefore, it would have to be used under our NFCC. I'd say, using it on the team page would be fine, but it would be non-free image overuse to include the non-free jersey image in every article about the riders. -Andrew c [talk] 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Images identified in captions as "Public Domain"

There are two images, a photographic portrait and a painting, on http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jun/13/obituary-frederick-hammersley which are identified as "Public Domain". Is the mere identification on a caption as "Public Domain" sufficient to satisfy the Wikipedia standards? It's the website of The Guardian, a major British newspaper, and if they claim that the images are public domain, I'm inclined to believe them. However, there is no credit given for who took the photograph. And the painting is by Frederick Hammersley, who died last year, so the normal 70 year rule wouldn't kick in for another 69 years.

If these are acceptable, they should preferably be uploaded to Commons, right? Are there any special tags which should be used? Thanks for any advice or info. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to say that the first image is PD, since as you say, it would be rather unlikely for The Guardian to make such a claim incorrectly. Without a question, if the images are acceptable, they should go to Commons. If you upload them, you should probably use {{PD-because|[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jun/13/obituary-frederick-hammersley the source webpage] claims that the image is in the public domain}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Scamardo gets no punishment at all.pdf

There's a page that's using this file File:Scamardo gets no punishment at all.pdf as a reference. Its a PDF file that's from some newspaper. I didn't even realize you could put PDFs up here, but I think the newspaper would be copyrighted, and anyway that doesn't seem like the right way to cite a page. Should I remove it from the references section? Nkgal (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted, see http://www.newspaperarchive.com/HtmlViewer.aspx?ctl=Copyright this material is still withing copyright and not public domain as claimed. PDF files can be uploaded if they serve a useful purpose, and of course if copyright is suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Site clearly states CC license for all content, can we use images hosted on their server?

Hello. I am writing to enquire about the site www.sa.org.au - this site clearly states at the bottom of every page Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License. Can we therefore use the images hosted on this site, because of this statement, and the link to the CC license? I specifically want to use the image hosted on http://www.sa.org.au/australian-politics/2803-gillard-defends-howard-attacks-the-left on the Julia Gillard page, as there is no up to date photo of Australia's current PM and it appears that this one is licensed appropriately. Other editors disagree with me uploading this image on the "balance of probababilities that SA own the image" - but I doubt that a major political party in Australia would be clearly, repeatedly breaching copyright. Thankyou E.3 (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The other relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Gillard image from Socialist Alternative is free? Doubts... and the image's talk page. I note that Socialist Alternative also claims a photo of a refugees arriving at Christmas Island, this 1980s-era photo of former PM Bob Hawke, the cover of this book, this news photo from the recent Thai riots, this news photo of former PM John Howard and the logo of the International Organisation for Migration among many images in the articles on their website as being CC. They're plainly making it up. Socialist Alternative are not by any measure a "major political party in Australia" by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
More examples of dodgy copyright claims are this formal portrait of Frank Lowy (it's most unlikely that he'd pose for an organisation which labels him 'parasite of the year' in the caption!) and this news photo of the Sharpeville massacre. Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do see that they have put other images up and concede your point. Also I should have said political movement not political party. Do we put any weight to the fact that the Julia Gillard image in question doesn't appear anywhere else on the web according to the reverse image search? E.3 (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That really doesn't mean a thing... Timeshift (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Roadside Markers

Do state hisorical roadside markers carry copyright? The one in my town has, after the marker information, the words "Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1988". There is no © or "Copyright", just those words. Does this mean it is copyrighted or just the state (being Virginia) department that put out the marker and the year it was installed? Need this information for a current FAC discussion. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be PD on the grounds it was "published" before 1989 with no copyright notice and my fumble fingered searches of the copyright office records don't seem to turn up anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Several things to consider — (1) Who placed it? Although Virginia isn't one of them, there are a few states whose official works are PD, so you might take advantage of that if you're working with other states' markers in the future. (2) Does it have a copyright notice? If so, you can assume that it's under copyright. (3) If it has no copyright notice, was it published before 1989? If so, it's PD because no copyright was claimed, so you can treat the image as you would if the sign contained text that was PD-old. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears the sign was installed in 1988 (per the bottom text on the sign). I know it has been there since at least 1992 when I moved here. From what I know the state issues and places them where they see fit. Why they choose the Post Office grounds for our sign, I am not sure, but that is where it is. All I see on the sign, which can be confirmed by this photo (not taken by me) is the words "Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1988" at the bottom. It is now called the "Department of Historic Resources", the Conservation part went to the Parks. They are part of the State of Virginia Government. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Unquestionably, it was Virginia's state government that erected it. I've seen dozens of these things across Virginia (I just saw a brand new one outside the Fairfax County Courthouse today) and they differ very little from each other, although the style has changed very slightly over the years, the font is a little different and the image of the Great Seal of Virginia. PD on the basis of no notice is your best shot, Neutralhomer, there is really nothing else that works. It is even possible that the text is older, and that this is a replacement marker. Historical markers are useful, but they can be a pain. I had a long argument with Durova over a Canadian one that went to a deletion discussion and took months to resolve.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
So should I leave the tag your recommended (on my talk page) on the image or switch to another tag? Just want to make sure it is tagged properly. Also, since I took the page, would I remove the "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide."? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
See my change to the image description page — most importantly, you need a permissions template for the image itself, since obviously any picture of a PD sign will be non-free unless it's marked otherwise. You need some explanation of why there aren't any copyrighted materials in the image; while you don't absolutely need the permissions template that you placed, it's more helpful than a simple piece of text would be. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, Thanks Nyttend! :) Glad we got all that worked out. Hopefully tomorrow the user who brought all this up will be happy with the work done and we can move on, if not, I will post back here (and leave a note on your talk pages) and we will tinker some more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Non-free Robert Richardson image}}

Why are images from the Robert Richardson collection considered non-free? According to the copyright policy page of the source website (linked as "actively encourages" on the permissions template), all of the original images are believed in the public domain; it appears to me that the source website is only claiming copyright on the digital images. As far as I can see, this is a fine example of Bridgeman v. Corel, because these are PD images being faithfully reproduced. Am I missing something? Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I read that a little differently. When they say "unaware of any copyright", I took it to mean that they weren't certain of the copyright, not that there wasn't any copyright on the images. It's possible that the images are public domain, especially if they were never published and never listed an author but that would seem to be something we'd want to determine on an image by image basis rather than calling the whole lot one way or another. If I'm missing a bit where they specified that all images were public domain, then yes, I'd completely agree with your assessment; making a digital copy does not give someone copyright. Shell babelfish 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking whether {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies

I've located a photo of Alfred Barton Rendle that I think can be used under {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, but I'd like to check whether my reasoning is correct. The photo appears in his obituary in Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, published in January 1939 (http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/obits/2/7/510.full.pdf+html.) The obituary itself is created to a D. Prain, but there is no mention of who took the photo and in the Royal Society's archive catalogue the photo is listed with "Unknown" for the artist. The catalogue entry says that the Royal Society holds the copyright to the photo, but is the lack of attribution (both in 1939 and currently in the Royal Society catalogue) sufficient to consider it an anonymous work and therefore PD because 70 years have passed since publication? My inclination is that it is, but I'd like to check I've not overlooked anything obvious before I set about extracting the photo from the PDF file. -- AJR | Talk 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I uploaded the photo to commons, and it was quickly noticed that it is very likely the same photo as one that the National Portrait Gallery credits to Walter Stoneman (d.1958) (http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/largerimage.php?mkey=mw93942) and so it isn't as anonymous as I'd thought. Oh well. -- AJR | Talk 00:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Screencaps from news stations

What fair use licence is required to use a screencap from a news network? Specificly this one here [18] mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask the same question about this file [19] --which I personally captured the screenshot myself.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who captured the screenshots. In both cases, you are seeking to use the images to highlight the text of the chyrons. The problem is that this fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically criterion 1 - that the information it contains can be represented in the article text. Duchamps, when your Climategate.jpg image was deleted on 30 November 2009 by User:Black Kite, he wrote: "F7: Violates non-free use policy: Screenshot which will never pass WP:NFCC#1, any information can be given in text." That will be the fate of the image which Marknutley highlights as well if it ever gets uploaded here. There simply isn't a valid fair use rationale for using those screenshots. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance [20] Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The page in question does not cover the use of the term by the media or its creation. --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The users of Wikipedia are presumed to be literate, and capable of reading a word other than on a television screen. These screenshots add nothing to the article to justify the violation of copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
An explanation I posted on my user talk page in reply to another editor might help here:
First, the usage has to be directly related to the source. Suppose that screenshot was from Glenn Beck's show (I don't know that it is, I'm just using that as an example). It could then be used to illustrate critical commentary about Glenn Beck's view of the controversy. However, that would only be viable if Glenn Beck's view of the controversy was notable in itself (i.e. that it had been the subject of third-party commentary). There's a good example of this kind of usage at Truthiness, where a screenshot of Stephen Colbert is shown alongside commentary about a famous segment of his show.
Secondly, any fair use image can only be used if there is no free alternative. Since the informational content of the image [in this case] is the text on the chyron, the obvious free alternative is to mention the chyron's text in the article instead of using the image. That in itself means that this image can never meet the non-free content criteria, since it will always have a free alternative.
Another editor has pointed out that the image is redundant anyway, since the information it provides is already in the article in question. As the screenshot upload form says at the top, "Non-free images must, among other things, be irreplaceable by a free image that exists or could be created, and must add significantly to readers' understanding of the articles in which they are used. If the reader would get the same or similar information without the image, then the image is inappropriate." -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

NRHP documents

I obtained nomination forms from the National Park Service (NPS) for all National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi a while ago, and I've been using them for sources in articles. While the documents have a lot of information in them, they are not online, so other editors cannot look at sources and must assume good faith on my part. Though this is perfectly within the MOS, I would like for others to be able to see the documents as well, all of which are in pdf format.

The NPS is currently working on uploading all NRHP nomination documents to their Focus website, but many – including the Lauderdale County ones – are not yet online. They are constantly working, however, and they will eventually all be on there. I would like to know if there are any problems with me uploading these documents somewhere other than Focus and using this outside location as a reference in the articles.

The outside source I plan to use is my Dropbox account, which allows me to post files online to share between all of my devices (laptop, desktop, and iPhone). It also allows me to share these files with other people by generating a link to a specific file in my Dropbox. I know that I probably don't have publishing rights to these documents, they are in fact owned by a government organization and thus (correct me if I'm wrong) in the public domain. Yes, individual private authors wrote the documents, but upon giving them to the NRHP/NPS, did they give up their copyrights to these federal organizations?

Even if they are not public domain, I see no problem in uploading them before they make their way on to Focus, since they will eventually be on there anyway. Basically, I think copying text word for word from these documents is a possible violation of copyright (and I have avoided this in the articles using them as sources), but simply uploading them so that others may see what I'm seeing should be no problem. What do you guys think? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly held that photos accompanying NRHP applications, and also that text of NRHP applications, have copyright held by their creators, unless certain exceptions apply. Exceptions putting them into the public domain are: the creators were U.S. Federal employees, or that private contractors were performing "work for hire" and the copyrights are owned by a state office or other party who chooses to release them into the public domain by a specific wp:OTRS release. The most recent example covered was the OTRS release of some NRHP application-accompanying photos by an agency in Puerto Rico, covered at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24#File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG. Note most of the photos covered in that case were deleted from Commons because PD status was not obtained; the case showed good progress in getting cooperation from a state preservation office. When these documents are provided in the NPS Focus system, they are labelled by the National Register as "public access" but "all rights reserved". The NPS copyright policy, given at http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm, states "Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. If you wish to use any non-NPS material, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. NPS shall have the unlimited right to use for any purpose, free of any charge, all information submitted to NPS via this site except those submissions made under separate legal contract. NPS shall be free to use, for any purpose, any ideas, concepts, or techniques contained in information provided to NPS through this site." So, simply, no you cannot publish these documents, either before or after the NPS makes them publicly accessible on its own NPS Focus website.
You could, however, possibly obtain specific OTRS permission to publish some of these, perhaps with cooperation from the Mississippi state office of historic preservation. The Puerto Rico equivalent was very helpful in the recent case. Also the state of Pennsylvania's office was helpful in providing OTRS release for one or more photos needed for a featured article (mentioned with links within the Toa Alta discussion).
I am not familiar with the Dropbox system, but if it is private and only open to a few persons given some kind of password or other restricted access, then I think that would not constitute publication of the documents, and that would be okay. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can comment about that. --doncram (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This is why I didn't want you to comment. Now that you have given this long answer that no one else wants to read, everyone that can add any more input than that which I already knew is deterred away from this section. That would be I said I'm waiting to see what these guys have to say and not you.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You may consider me a tainted source since I was involved in the recent PUF case mentioned above, but I do hang out here and agree that NRHP documents are not automatically public domain. Simply submitting documents to the federal government does not transfer copyright without additional contracts which aren't always there. I'm less certain about the publishing aspect of your question, but if you're linking to the file in a source on Wikipedia, I'm willing to bet that would qualify as publishing and would thus be problematic since the government (apparently) has the right to republish, but not necessarily the copyright, VernoWhitney (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Colored version of a PD image from 1904

I am working on USS Massachusetts (BB-2) and stumbled upon the following picture [21] on history section of the site about the wreck [22]. This is a colored and cropped version of a picture from 1904 [23], which is in the public domain and available online here [24].

Now I was curious whether this means the colored version is also automatically public domain? Yoenit (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope; the coloring and cropping make that version a new work, itself copyrighted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Color film had not been invented in 1904. It was common to hand-color black and white photographs for postcards and illustrations. I have some family photographs from the 1930s that are hand colored. If this image was hand-colored before 1923, it is public domain. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong license?

Isn't this more like a fair use case than pd? 85.77.178.43 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The uploader has plainly claimed to be connected with the film company and thus the copyright holder. If you don't believe the uploader's assertion, you should nominate the image at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Butea with white flowers.

You had nice picture of this 'butea' , in this same plant kingdom we have Red, Black, White, Yellow amoung this white and black are reare species... if you can find butea with white flowers, that will be great. Thanks Raja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.9.136 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

copyright problem - pix facing deletion

Hi, I recently uploaded historical maps of Accra from the following site: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6972e/x6972e04.htm#bm4.1 The images don't have a copyright label, but given their historical nature I assumed they could be used in Wikipedia under a fair-use tag. How do I go about legitimately using these maps in Wikipedia?

The files are:

Thanks Manny9455 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with you: unless you're portraying the map itself, unfree maps can't really be used fairly. Unlike many other types of images, the only reason we use maps as maps is to convey information: they're not primarily artistic or otherwise creative. Therefore, it's always possible to produce your own map with the data in the copyrighted map; as long as you refrain from the styling of the original map, it's fine. For example, when I wanted a map of the boundaries of the Beaver Historic District, I didn't take the copyrighted official map and claim fair use; instead, I found the free OpenStreetMap of the same place and used the copyrighted map to draw the boundaries on the free map. Likewise, you could either use OpenStreetMap or simply create your own map in something as simple as Windows Paint; as long as it conveys the information properly, and as long as you state your source for the data given in the map, it should be fine. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Old photographs

I found two images on flickr that I think are public domain, but the uploader has labeled them as "All Rights Reserved." There two images are from [1880 and 1885. Would I be OK in uploading these as Public Domain?-_GrapedApe (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1885 is 125 years ago, copyright is life+70, it's safe to assume anything older then 120 years is in public domain by now, so provided those dates are somewhat accurate, and they was created BEFORE 1890, then you can upload them as public domain images. — raekyT 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility of various cc-by-sa licences

If someone has a cc-by-sa-3.0 image and a cc-by-sa-2.5 image, can the two be combined and used under cc-by-sa-3.0? Or must they be used under cc-by-sa-2.5, or are they incompatible? Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading through the legalese of 2.5, I see that it says "You may distribute ... a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)" (emphasis added), so there appear to be no problems with releasing it as 3.0 (and you couldn't relicense the 3.0 image under 2.5). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Threshold of originality question at FAC

The image File:Rnc-logo.png is used in the article Royal National College for the Blind, which is currently listed at FAC.

The question was raised in a previous FAC if the logo crossed the threshold of originality and should thus be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademark}}. The question was posted here but not resolved at that time, but has arisen again as a pending issue in this FAC. I am not the nominator. I am one of the reviewers who raised the issue previously.

An expert opinion would be most appreciated. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a logo comprising letters in coloured boxes meets the originality threshold. – ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
My first impression is that it does fail the ToO, thus could be tagged non-freePD. I've seen more complicated logos (like Best Western's) tagged PD.
HOWEVER - the determination if a logo fails or passes ToO - a legal determination, to note - is one that cannot be directly answered except if that logo is challenged to be in the ToO in the courts. Sure, we can go to past legal ToO determinations and all that and extrapolate, based on our best knowledge, if this is PD due to the failure of ToO, but that doesn't mean it is PD, only a court case can rule that. My preference, which I've outlined before at WT:NFC, is that we shouldn't be second-guessing the PD-ness of such logos if they are not clearly obvious failures of the ToO; that is, the current way that it is marked non-free is keeping our nose clean of that issue. Since it is a necessary image (a logo for the page of the organization it represents), keeping it non-free is not harming the work or failing our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a textbook case of {{PD-textlogo}} to me (only typefaces and some colored boxes). A benefit of making that call is that it can be uploaded to commons and used by projects that do not allow non-free content (that would be almost everyone except enwp). If it were uploaded to commons our nose would be clean anyway (that is, for some definition of "our nose"). decltype (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Compare with other decisions of the Copyright Office shown in Commons:Threshold of originality#United States. This is a free image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's more than just text and boxes here. There's shadowing of the boxes, embossing on the boxes, and distributive shading on the horizontal bar. Punting the issue to Commons doesn't keep our nose clean. Rather, it punts the problem to Commons. We're well capable of deciding the issue here, rather than punting. The threshold of originality has been set very low within the U.S. This isn't a clear cut case. With that in mind, I err on the side of caution. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How to fix this???: File source problem with File:DfE_Logo3.pdf

Thank you for uploading File:DfE_Logo3.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovecleaning (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Assumed PD

Is there an age where an image can be assumed to be in the Public domain? Everything is "life of the author plus.." or "First Published....". However, I have an image that I want to use where "Fair use" can't be used. It was taken in 1841 image, but I can't connect the image to an Author or First published. However, Just looking at the math it would make since that the image should be tag {{PD-old}}. Assuming that the Author took the image when he was 1, he would have had to live until he was 70+ during the 1900 in order for the image to NOT be PD old.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the convenient chart at Wikipedia:Public domain#When does copyright expire?, an unknown author's copyright extends to 120 years after creation, so that image can safely be tagged PD-old. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That is exactly what I needed to know.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not completely correct (even though we do generally tag them PD-old). Showing that a work with an unknown author was created more than 120 years ago is a defense against copyright infringement in the US. However, that's not the same thing as saying it enters the public domain. The author's heirs would still be entitled to assert ownership and block further publication if they can establish that the author died less than 70 years ago. Which is to say that US allows you to assume a work is in the public domain after 120 years but the actual entry into the public domain is still controlled by the date of death. In practice this rarely matters since the extra 50 years will weed out most people who were alive in the nineteenth century. Dragons flight (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, it's not a guarantee, but it's the operating presumption we can work with until/unless further evidence surfaces. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the section under File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Zabihullah mojaddidy.jpg : User_talk:Fatimama74 I am not sure what you mean by copyright, The photo I uploaded is a file emailed to me by my brother. this is a photo of my father. Can someone please tell me exactly what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimama74 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Who took the picture? — raekyT 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, I can try and find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimama74 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it will probably be deleted, whoever took it owns it, and only they can release it for use on wikipedia. If hes your father, should be easy to just take another photograph of him that way if you take it you should be assured the copyright is yours and you can release it. — raekyT 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize we don't even have birth certificates in Afghanistan, let alone copyrights?? I will find out who took it, then what? Do I need a signed release from whomever took the photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimama74 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Also, if I ask my father for a photo of him, will that then be cited as COI?--Fatimama74 (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I forgot, sorry. If this photograph was taken in Afghanistan, then it has no copyright, see {{PD-Afghanistan}}, just tag it with that template and we should be good, no more issue. — raekyT 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and tagged it with the license tag, just confirm that it was taken in Afghanistan and we're good. — raekyT 02:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Raeky, yes it was taken in Afghanistan as far as I know.--Fatimama74 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And no, there is no COI with photos if you wanted to add more. — raekyT 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Hayes photo deletions

hi, i recently uploaded 5 photos and sent in forwarded consent forms from the copyright holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but have not heard anything back regarding their statuses. two files had been tagged for deletion due to a lack of evidence of permission and have subsequently been deleted. is there a way to verify that the following files have emailed permissions associated with them so that i can get them undeleted?

Hopefully you identified the images in your email. When they are processed, which could take some time, if everything is in order you should see the pictures undeleted. If there is a problem, hopefully you will get feedback. I am not a person who can see these requests though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the copyright-holder has agreed to license the photos under a cc-by license, as indicated, and if notice has been sent to the permissions e-mail address, then they shouldn't be deleted. We can find a way to get the images restored. But there are a couple of problems. For one, you mentioned that you forwarded the consent to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org", but these images aren't on Commons; they're on the English Wikipedia. It would probably be best to re-upload the images to Commons instead of here, so that all Wikimedia projects can use the photos. Make sure that "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" know exactly which images you mean, and what the URLs are. Secondly, it can take a few weeks before the OTRS (Permissions) group gets around to verifying that the image is legit. In the meantime, you can add {{OTRS pending}} to the image description page, to let people know that permission has been sent. Then the file would only be deleted if Permissions says they never got an e-mail, or if the e-mail wasn't sufficient somehow. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestions guys. i would add {{OTRS pending}} to the image pages but they were deleted already. "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" was a typo. i just double checked and i sent them to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" so hopefully that will turn out ok. as for uploading them to wikimedia commons, i'd prefer not to at this time. i am always uncomfortable doing that for blp images despite them being licensed cc-by. i will cross my fingers for undeletion or at least some official feedback.
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored those two photographs, and tagged all five with {{OTRS pending}}. If OTRS received sufficient permission, they will mark it as such. If not, they'll be deleted. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much. i really appreciate it.
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OTRS permission has been verified and the images tagged as such. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon

The article has two thirty-second sound samples from the same video game (although not the same song). Isn't that more than "minimal extent of use" per WP:NFCC 3(b)? Specifically, I believe that reducing each sample to 15 s would not detract from the article. PleaseStand (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a bit legalistic. The real question is, how does the sound clips significantly increase reader understanding? Maybe both are needed? Maybe none are needed. Having arbitrary rules on length and number may be helpful guidelines, but there may always be exceptions. Perhaps we could discuss the specifics. What purpose are the sound clips serving? Are they necessary for understanding? Could they be altered in a way to make the use even more minimal, while still conveying basically the same information? -Andrew c [talk] 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Flickr photos

I need to be able to use photos located on our Flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/46923961@N02/.

My photos keep getting deleted in Wikipedia due to licensing issues, but we own all of these photos. I do not want to get banned from creating pages and uploading files, so I need to know how to make this work.

Is there a licensing setting in Flickr that I need to change to allow myself to upload images "legally"?

Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do one of two things: Either, change the licensing of the images on Flickr to a license acceptable for use on the Wikimedia projects - you will find help at the Commons Licensing page; or you can send an e-mail as described at WP:IOWN to release the images. Note however that in either case a release for use just on Wikipedia is not sufficient, the release must allow all uses, including re-use by others. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As an OTRS volunteer, I would strongly discourage you to e-mail us (we are heavily backlogged at the moment, and we have little way of verifying flickrmail). Your very best bet is to change the licensing on Flickr to one that is compatible with the Commons, as described above. Flickrreview, on the Commons, is set up much better than the e-mail system, to handle such cases. You can change the setting in your profile preferences for all images, or on an image by image basis, by clicking the "edit" button next to "All rights reserved" on the right hand column of the image page (you have to be logged in to flickr to see the "edit" button). There you will have the option to change. Please pick either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, if they are suitable to you, as the other stipulations ND and NC are not compatible with our mission. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you have different licensing for different levels of resolution? I ask because my work shown that it has value when printed big--as most true art lovers are 60+ yrs old and need big print. Yet I have always been with "the mission" even before there was a WP.--John Bessa (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can have different licensing for different resolutions (or different cropped versions, or whatever). VernoWhitney (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Conk 9

Conk 9 (talk · contribs) has a long history of uploading images of buildings and tagging them as being {{PD-self}}. However, a LOT of his uploads have been deleted as copyright violations. (See the talk page history). I have been able to identify a bunch of the images, but there are so many. Can other people help sift through all of these images?--GrapedApe (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not looked but if the user has uploaded a lot of images it may be worth considering raising it at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Lodesa

Resolved
 – All copyvios deleted and user blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lodesa (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded several sports figure images and has tagged them as {{PD-self}}. However, a web search for some of these images shows existing usage that seems to call into doubt the user's ownership. Examples are:

From the diverse existing usage of these images, the assertion that this user is the copyright owner of these and other uploaded images seems suspicious. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All tagged for speedy deletion as copyvios. The user's other uploads look suspicious too. – ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
And have now all been tagged as either copyvios or "no source"/no FUR. Where would we be without TinEye? – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Derivative works and "highly transformative" collages-montages

Extending my Nikonos edit above, I have been doing research, and I am finding that there is strong support for derivative works such as these collages:

  • Highly transformative: "Google’s use of thumbnails is highly transformative" or "the use of thumbnails [is] transformative because [the] use of the images [serves] a different function." from Derivative_work -> Transformativeness . My goal is to put these works into a contextual background and present them for educational purposes transforming them and bringing them into a different "market niche." Further, "fair use" protects educational uses.
  • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. My goal is to show the items "in the round," as well as in context, as I believe that a single 2D image of a camera does not convey necessary information about the camera like, for instance, ideas about how it is used. Same idea applies endlessly: motor vehicles, boats, heads of humans and other higher organisms. The point of doing something artfully is as much to convey information as show a picture.
Artistic information is usually emotional and aesthetic, but not necessarily so--many technical skills can be artful. Artful has broad meaning; you can drive artfully like in those nice-looking British sports cars. Minimal usage is dealt with by maximizing added value.

I am researching this in the wider-scope as I am thinking about doing type of work on other sites, but personally always with permission of the original authors who I call "sharers" in what I am calling "third-party sharing." I see WMF might be attempting to meet "higher standards," which is a concept I don't get--either it is allowed or it isn't. --John Bessa (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The copyright situation around collages is kinda messy. As with much of fair use "allowed or it isn't" is to narrow. A better sort would be "allowed", "not allowed", "it depends" and "no useful caselaw". Aditionaly wikipedia aims to be a free encyclopedia and thus make as little use of fair use as posible. Thus the rather restritive use of fair use.©Geni 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I see where the WP is (or really WMF is) wrt to this; I am trying to look at it a little more broadly to understand the topic. You say it is "messy." I don't actually see that. I see specific commercial support that extends artistic support. And this, without mentioning fair use. Fair use is about well-meaning loopholes; this is not about loopholes, but the protection of derived work, as all work, if you think about it, is derived in some way or other. These links are from the WP, so I think they should apply. I think we need to go with Shakespeare on this.--John Bessa (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Woodcuts vs. photographs.

Does the pre-1923 publication of woodcuts based on photographs also mean that the underlying photograph is PD by virtue of pre 1923 publication?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Woodcuts would be considered a derivative which can't impact the copyright status of the original per Stewart v. Abend.©Geni 01:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, if I understand the situation correctly, the original photograph doesn't necessarily need to be published to have a woodcut made based on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This illustrates the above topic. The article on Transformativeness might be a good place to extend these understandings.--John Bessa (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Bazaar (software), this software is licensed under the GPL, but its logo is tagged as non-free. Any idea why the logo isn't marked as GPL? I can't quite see a product being distributed under a free license with a non-free logo. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's logo is also not free. It's pretty common to have something that is free content other than the logo where people want to control brand identity.©Geni 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My understanding from listening to Richard Stallman, or RMS, is that in his view logos overlap with trademarks, and trademark protection is supported by Richard, and hence, GNU/GPL/FSF, or at least is not an issue. It is the actual material, use of it, and derived material that they are focused on.--John Bessa (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a distinction between copyright and trademark protection - they are not the same thing. In brief, copyright gives the creator of the item in question protection against copying and exploitation with respect to the the creative/artistic aspects; a trademark registration gives the owner the sole right to use that trademark, to the exclusion of confusingly similar marks, on the classes of goods to which the registration pertains. So a logo can be protected both by copyright and by a trademark registration. Non-free use as the term is used on Wikipedia relates only to copyright. Violation of trademark registrations would usually not be a problem vis-a-vis use of logos in Wikipedia articles because such use is unlikely to conflict with the trademark registration. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, just wanted to check; I figured that the WMF was odd among the free software organisations in reserving all rights to its logo. I've never understood too well the free software movement — and I'm opposed to its ideology to a large extent — so I wasn't at all sure to understand the simple copyright notice on the source webpage as a notice that all rights were reserved. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Robin Anthony McKenzie

Hi, I'm struggling with the copyright tag for my picture File:Robin_Anthony_McKenzie.jpg. I'm not sure whether I got it right with the tag. Maybe it's because of my poor English. Can you check and give me some assistance? Thanks a lot--Blueeye1967 (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear how Lawrence Dott, CEO of McKenzie Institute International is granting permission for the CC-BY-3.0 license, as the name is different to Blueeye1967. If you are this person then say so, and if the picture has been published before, then you will will have to follow the procedure at WP:PERMIT to prove it is released. Alternatively if the picture is online already, you can change the copyright statement associated with it to be the same as the uploaded picture. Also you should provide a link to the page that shows it to help out! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Illuminated Books Project

The [Illuminated Books Project purports to offer A Free Access Digital Library of Illuminated & Illustrated Books. Currently, all of the scans are of out-of-copyright books, however, at the bottom of each image, it states "Copyright 2006 illuminated-books.com & libros-illuminados.com". The book whose images I'd like to upload is Under the Window which was published in London in 1879 and is thus its copyright has expired. I'd like to know if I were to crop the image to only show the pages and upload to commons, would {{PD-Art}} apply? PD-Art states The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". and that photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain.Smallman12q (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is just the case PD-Art is meant to apply to, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexico Federal Police

Is there an equivalent copyright tag similar to {{PD-FBI}} for the Mexican Federal Police? I have an official Federal Police (Mexico) image that I would like to use in an area that needs PD images only. If this image was taken by the FBI, I know it would be PD, but I cannot figure it out if Mexican copyright law is similar to US law, were official FBI governmental work is PD. I can seem to find anything about this topic one way or the other.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal knowledge, but the blurb provided at commons:Commons:Licensing#Mexico would seem to indicate that it's copyrighted (unless old enough, of course). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook images

What procedure would you have to go through to have a profile picture on Facebook belonging to somebody you have an article about released? Jay-Sebastos (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First, find out who owns the copyright to the image; NB it may not be the subject of the image. Second, ask the copyright owner to release it by one of the methods described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

microsoft public license

I'd like to add a picture of software released under the Microsoft public license, but I can't find a templated license. The Microsoft public license says that According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license. However, it is not compatible with the GNU GPL. So does it qualify for wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of the license is available here. Reach Out to the Truth 17:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So does it qualify? And if so can someone make a template for it?Smallman12q (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it qualifies, but I can't be certain. I was hoping someone else would comment. Reach Out to the Truth 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else?...Smallman12q (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks good to me, too since it explicitly allows derivative works and commercial use too (even though it's only explicit in the patent section). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Image from an 1866 book and an 1880s landscape painting

What would be the copyright status of images in 'A series of picturesque view of seats of noblemen and gentlemen of Great Britain and Ireland' (Published in 1866, William MacKenzie of Ludgate Hill, London)?

Also I have a photo of an 1880s landscape painting of The Hendre but I'm not sure what under what copyright tag to upload it (if I can at all!) Thanks in advance. --Ithundir (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1866 is most likely PD unless the authors were in their early 20s and live into their 90s. 1880 would depend on when the author died and if it was published in the US pre 1923.©Geni 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the US (and hence Wikipedia) is concerned, anything published before 1923 is in the Public Domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#General. Use templates:

{{PD-US}} — for images published in the U.S. before 1923 or in some other cases.
{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} — for images first published outside of the U.S. before 1923.

If the landscape painting was published, e.g. in a book or post card available to the public (but not just painted, exhibited or sold), prior to 1923, it's PD. Otherwise, it's down to death date of the artist. Ty 13:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, guys, thanks for the advice! --Ithundir (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2010/July&oldid=1100705931"