Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Album cover image

Hi, I'm pretty new to all of this. I want to add an album cover - I found the image on all music:

Pharaoh Sanders - Jewels of Thought

Can I do this?

--Sayrahdee (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The direct answer would be "No", because the picture is not one you yourself have taken or own the copyright to. To compare with something recent, I would like to point out part of the first answer to the above question "How to find out what went wrong?": "F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale". If you scan a picture from an album you own, it is more or less a copyright violation and can't be used directly. The recommended method would be to contact the owner of the album or the album art, asking for permission to use an image of the cover in a Wikipedia article. There could possibly be some other way, describing a "fair use", but I don't know which copyright tag to use when adding a copyrighted image for fair use. Hopefully someone else will be able to tell you more about fair use and copyright handling.
TrondBK (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There is more information at WP:FURG. Basically, you have to say that the image of the album art is critical for identifying the subject to the reader. Examples can be found in a variety of articles about albums. File:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg and File:Pepper's.jpg are two examples of well-handled album covers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Descent of Man fig48.jpg

Regarding the image "Descent of Man fig48.jpg" shown on the page Secondary sex characteristic, I find myself thinking "Why is it necessary to point out that this image may not be in the public domain, when the image was published no later than 1882 (second edition of the book The Descent of Man)?" Wouldn't it be more useful to change the copyright notice to display one that states that this image is more than 100 years old and therefore, by default, in public domain world wide? Am I overlooking some other legal point or time of publishing of this image? TrondBK (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The copyright notice for this image (Public Domain in this case) is from a long established Wikimedia Commons template, PD-old. If you want to discuss changing it you can go to the talk page there.--Quartermaster (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I just found something else, I was not aiming towards changing the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old
Rather, I would suggest the use of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-100 as a more fitting copyright tag.--TrondBK (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-old-100}} is for art where the artist died 100 years ago; do you know when this artist died? More generally, I am not aware of any country (much less worldwide) whose copyright law says copyright expires 100 years after creation. In most countries copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist; which means if an artist created a work at 20 and lived to 95, the copyright would last in those countries (95-20)+70=145 years after creation. —teb728 t c 19:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Aleksandra Wozniak

I have a photo of Canadian professional tennis player, Aleksandra Wozniak that belongs her that I would like to upload and replace the current picture on her Wikipedia page with it. Here is her page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Wozniak

How do I go about uploading the photo and inserting it on the page if the copyright has been taken care of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydmel (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have 5 more edits you will be autoconfirmed, and you will be able to upload photos as described at Wikipedia:Uploading images. But note that it must be licensed under a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Most photos by professional photographers are not licensed that way. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial tells how to insert a photo. —teb728 t c 09:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If the copyright owner (who may not be Wosniak, it would depend on the terms of the contract between her and the photographer) has released copyright for all purposes, the process for communicating that to Wikipedia is explained at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

How do you add a 'Fair Use Rationale'? I'm new to uploading files to Wikipedia, and I don't yet know how. I need to add one to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurtanglevictoryroad11.jpg I left my oats on your desk. - Sir Pawridge (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Source Tags

How do you add 'a source tag' as i need to add one to File:Yorubaland.jpg. Thanks Otelemuyen (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing regarding the OOA logo that I put on the Office of the Americas page; this is the OOA's official logo - I'm not sure what other information you need. I handle their communications; thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayn4peace (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: I provided a tag and non-free use rationale and deleted the claim of permission, which is not relevant for fair use. —teb728 t c 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

re: Moving picture on John Jackson Miller's article

I know it's been ages since this edit, but why was the image removed from John Jackson Miller's article? Any details you can offer would be greatly appreciated, as the image in question was being used with permission.

Thanks! -Selphish (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the deletion log File:JohnJacksonMiller.jpg was deleted under WP:CSD#F4, which means it didn’t have a license tag indicating which specific free license allowed Wikipedia to use it. The uploader was informed of the tag problem at User talk:Earnhardt3. (As a side issue, did the permission you mention allow reuse by anyone for anything, or did it allow use only on Wikipedia; the latter is not an acceptable permission for an image of a living person.) —teb728 t c 08:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Great. I'll make sure the appropriate tags are in place and I'll reupload the image later this week. Thank you for the info! -Selphish (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading image

how do i upload an image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahimghiyasa (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Be aware; this person is alive. Any image used to depict him MUST be free licensed. We will not accept a non-free image of him. Further, you can't just taken an image you find on a web site somewhere and claim it's free license. We have to have proof it is so. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Two issues

Please have a look at the discussion pages of those templates: Commons:Template:PD-Malaysia is confusing concerning government works, Commons:Template:PD-Sudan has a dead link and does not mention government works, which seem to be also public domain.--Antemister (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1910 magazine

I uploaded a picture from a 1910 edition of the magazine the Craftsman. Given that it is more than one hundred years old. I'm quite sure that the copyright has long since expired File:William George Jordan 1910.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannrw (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the picture was published in the US before 1923, it is unambiguously in the public domain. If it was later published, that's not relevant. Original picture published in US before 1923 - public domain. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please help find and clean up copyvios

A user, User:Deanb, who has edited Wikipedia for a number of years, has been known to upload copyrighted images on many occasions. He has been warned about it, an ANI case was opened, and he was blocked in the past. After I found out that he persisted in uploading copyrighted materials, I have blocked him again for a lengthy period. The problem remains that there is no proof that anything this user uploaded under a license claiming it is his work is actually his, and there are reasons to suspect that many of the images he uploaded are in fact copyright violations. Due to a lack of time, I will find it extremely difficult to find where all his uploads came from. I suggest immediately removing Deanb's uploads from all articles and looking for their sources to determine which ones (if any) are copyrighted. Deanb has been known to take images from the following websites:

Thanks, —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just identified sources for three more. Unfortunately, many items are now on Commons (some even transferred there by other users, after they were deleted and then re-uploaded here! Sad.) Let's again delete everything, make the block indef, and I'll try and get hold of a Commons admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the block to indef per your suggestion, and after realizing just how many copyrighted images this user uploaded. Thank you for helping with this, as many of the images this user uploaded were featured in prominent articles in many languages. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I see an indef block notice on his talk page, but so far his block log shows only 6 months. —teb728 t c 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
How do I find a list of photos to look for? Wordreader (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are asking about a list of user uploads, at the bottom of user contribution pages is a Files uploaded link. For Deanb that gives this on Wikipedia and this on Commons. —teb728 t c 07:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a Commons admin. What do you need? Stifle (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Military patches

Since official unit patches for U.S. military oganizations are designed by the U.S. Government, all images of unit patches are Public Domain--even if image is found on non-government web-site. Right?--Orygun (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Note though that if an image is not only of a unit patch (for example a photograph by a journalist of a patch on a soldiers arm) or is an image of an "unofficial" or "inspired-by" patch - then these would still be subject to copyright. The public domain has no "share-alike" provisions so any derivative work of a public domain image may still be copyrighted. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1973 Schedule medal

I want to use this image which I took of a 1973 Jets schedule medal (on the other side, there is the name and logo for Johnny Walker Red. My view of the matter is that this side of the medal is PD for lack of original authorship. I left a note for Fasach Nua but I see he's on wikibreak. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to be certain, I would only argue within the English jurisdiction, but It depends on how you are classifying the work, - in certain cases the threshold for copyright protection for industrially formed works has been very very low - see e.g Hi-Tech Autoparts v Towergate Two Limited - (where the shape of a car mat was protected as a copyright engraving - though i think this is wrong, it was a court decision). I would say that there is insufficient originality to attract copyright protection in the original medal, but thats not 100% certain by any means. Equally, your use of PD-INELIG might be quibbled with because the coin is a 3d work and even in bridgeman was suggested that such works might always be original (though I guess you would have no problem free licensing it if that were the case). Essentially, as you can tell from this answer the correct response is that copyright law on originality is a mess, because the law has few underlying principles, is poorly defined and in the opinion of this scholar at least, almost never deals with "difficult" cases well because of a distinct lack of conceptual clarity about what copyright is really meant to protect. I can't see that there would ever be a problem with this, but I can't give you a better answer than "its probably ok". Ajbpearce (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Quite a response. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dinah Manoff Pictures

I recently uploaded a few pictures of Dinah Manoff, Daughter of the legendary Lee Grant. I uploaded them because I saved the pics themselves on my computer but I don't know who has the copyrights. Can you help me? I don't know how to do it. Can you do it for me so that those pictures will not be deleted. I want wikipedia readers to have an idea what she looks like these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E2e3v6 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The source flickr page of File:Dinah Manoff In 2010.jpg says “all rights reserved”; so we can’t use it just to show what a living person looks like. File:Dinah Manoff in Grease 1978.jpg appears to be a screenshot from the copyrighted film; so we could use it only if the use were necessary for understanding of (sourced) critical commentary on her appearance in the film. File:Dinah Manoff At Jewish Image Awards 2002.jpg doesn’t indicate a source, but it is probably the copyrighted work of a professional photographer; so we can’t use it just to show what she looked like in 2002. In general, most photos you find on the internet are not licensed under a free license, which Wikipedia requires except in special cases. —teb728 t c 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

According to this File:Google-Logo.svg, we are claiming that Google don't have a copyright on their own logo? Is this correct? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They have a trademark on it, but being, just colored text, it is not sufficiently original to merit a copyright. (The same applies to File:IBM logo.svg and many other logos.) —teb728 t c 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

David Kato photo: fair use vs resolution

This image was added to the WP article on David Kato: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidKato.jpg

I know you allow "fair use" photos, but exclude: "12. A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content

Then there is this:

"Defining "low resolution": Examples ---

...magazine cover with a 400 px vertical height is probably large enough to read almost all of the text on the cover of any importance

In cases where the low-resolution images would directly compete with an existing market for low-resolution images, extreme caution should be taken." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use/Definition_of_%22low_resolution%22

In researching Mr kato, I've seen this exact image on various places on the 'Net - newspaper articles and blogs. It seems to be a version of the photo like the one found on this page with "AP" trademark cropped off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8412962.stm

  • It seems clear to me that the image here on WP is more than high enough resolution for blog usage, if not other usages. With the current newsworthines of Mr Kato, this image certainly has commercial value.
  • If this tag is applied to the photo page, does the review occur automatically or does some administrator somewhere also have to notified? {{fairusereview}}
  • Does the uploader have to have a chance to reduce the size/resolution of the uploaded photo themselves or can another member just do it themselves?
  • Do you even think there's a problem?

Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, then you're saying this photo does need to be reviewed? Thanks for the how-to (much appreciated), but you don't really come out and say whether this image is abusing the copyright holder (Associated Press) or not. Seems to me it is, but I'm dumber than dirt regarding Wikilaw. Please clarify. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I gave partial answers because I don't know the answer to that one and hoped someone else would reply. I thought I had seen a resolution guideline a while back, but I can't find it now. —teb728 t c 22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's my problem, too. I don't find WP very easy to navigate through at all. Wordreader (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Scan from commercial catalogue in 1938

Hi, I'm working on the Harry Grant (cyclist) article and have been provided with a link to images that would be good on the article (link). The author of the photographs is willing to give permission for them to be used, so I will sort those out before adding them. The sticking point is the scanned-in catalogue page at the bottom of the webpage. Published in the UK in 1938 on behalf of a bicycle manufacturer, I can't think of any way of tracing the author. Has the copyright expired (1938 + 70 = 2008, following this UK guide) or is it unsuitable for inclusion? My first time dealing with a non-original work, so I'm in unknown territory. Cheers, Brammers (talk/c) 16:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Commons allows upload of UK PD material, providing a "not PD in the US" tag is applied. It might be deleted at a later date, but people over in Commons are still chewing over how legally sound the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is. I uploaded it over there this morning before I noticed this reply so I'll see how things pan out. Brammers (talk/c) 11:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a thought: I know that if it were published then in the US without a copyright notice, it would be PD in the US. If it were published in the UK without a copyright notice, would it also be PD in the US? If so, is it likely to had a copyright notice? —teb728 t c 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't help. The URAA established U.S. copyright for things originally published overseas whose copyrights overseas were still live, regardless of whether or not they would have complied with the formalities of U.S. copyright law that were required at the time of their original publication. Jheald (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "is it likely to had a copyright notice?" query - I have seen catalogs of that era WITH notices and WITHOUT notices. Usually they do not (I suspect because since there was no easy way to duplicate things when they were published, there was little incentive to give notice and register copyright). The only definitive answer would come from inspecting the actual physical item. I have only once scanned and uploaded images from a US published source that I personally owned once, and only after duly inspecting the complete item. After verifying there was no notice included, I used the PD-US-no notice tag. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Correct. I never, and I mean never use that tag without a full personal inspection of all pages from that item, either physical or virtual.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, everyone. I removed the picture from the article and Commons. Cheers, Brammers (talk/c) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally uploaded image

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I accidentally uploaded an image I shouldn't have. The image is File:NMSU Aggies Logo.png. I saved the image from a non-free file so I could reduce it, but when I went to upload it to replace the larger image, I accidentally selected the wrong file type, so a new page was created. Here's the original version: File:NMSU Aggies Logo.tif. Is it possible for these two to be merged? If not, the one I uploaded can be deleted. I would have left a note here earlier, but I didn't realize that I had used the wrong file type until someone left a message on my talk page. I apologize for all the trouble this may have caused, and thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not really the correct place to ask this (not your fault, we have far to many copyright boards!) but I have tagged the image for speedy deletion per your request, speedy deletion is a bit of a minefield but assuming i haven't done anything wrong your mistaken version should be deleted soon. Ajbpearce (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, it's been deleted already! I wasn't sure about speedy delete for this, but it seems to have worked.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Public domain license OK on this?

1962 movie still

There's no copyright or photographer information on the front or back of this photo. Does it then fall into Public Domain licensing? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That's a press still taken out of a press kit from the Detroit News archives, and the press agency, or more likely the studio, would have copyright on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We hope (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Oregon Portage Railroad.jpg

What this Commons file's description page looks like right now doesn't at all indicate that I'm confused about its copyright information, but actually I'm totally stumped. This might have been published in the United States before 1923. I don't know for sure. Should I use this, this, or this? Thanks in advance. --Jsayre64 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the work was created in 1867 and the photographer died in 1916. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Public domain?

Is this eligible for copyright? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No it should be properly licenced as {{PD-textlogo}} because it is composed simply of text and graphics though it may be trademarked. You can remove the fair-use rationale but replace it with a fully completed {{information}} template. In that case you can add {{trademarked}}. ww2censor (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about transfer to Commons of possibly non-free file under Trademark

Both File:CNH_Capital.jpg and File:CNH_Parts.jpg have been transferred to Commons as [1] and [2] respectively. I'm removing files from EN:WP when they are properly housed in Commons.

However:

  1. The EN:WP images have a non-free media use rationale. My understanding is that non-free files cannot reside in Commons
  2. The Commons file contains a template indicating that "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm not convinced this image is simple enough to qualify
  3. The Commons image indicates that the image may be subject to Trademark. If the consensus is that the image is simple enough such that it cannot be under copyright, can an image that is trademarked reside at Commons?

I realize that some of these questions should be raised at Commons, but I thought I would start here.--SPhilbrickT 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. You are correct; non-free files (except those owned by MediaWiki foundation) cannot reside on Commons. But these logos are PD.
  2. Wikipedia also has {{PD-textlogo}}. IMO, these logos, being just text and shapes, correctly fall under it, as do File:IBM logo.svg, File:Google-Logo.svg, and (see just above) File:LPR logo.svg.
  3. Copyright and trademark are totally independent of each other. A totally non-graphic word like “Pentium” can be a trademark. As with the logos I just mentioned, Commons allows trademarked files. —teb728 t c 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll delete the files.--SPhilbrickT 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Article: Michael Maddox Runway

I would like to add this picture to the page entitled "Michael Maddox Runway." How do I do this?


File:/Users/michaelmaddox/Pictures/Michael Maddox/Michael Maddox Photo.jpg---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmaddox5 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Files for how to upload and use files. But note that since Michael Maddox is a living person, any photo of him intending to show how he looks would have to be licensed under a free license; most promotional photos are not licensed that way.
By the way the article Michael Maddox Runway will probably be deleted soon as hopelessly promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not welcome advertising posing as articles. —teb728 t c 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to post this, but here goes. I received a note on my talkpage a little while ago alerting me that two images (one of mine at commons, one of another contributor at en.wikipedia) licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL have been uploaded to Flickr and incorrectly licensed as copyright-all rights reserved.

Can anyone inform me as to what the best way of dealing with this is? -- saberwyn 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The flickr user appears to be an active user and has said he took them from wikimedia commons, the best approach is to be friendly and leave him a message on these two flickr pages pointing out that he has picked the wrong copyright license and I am sure he will chance the license tags to match what he means. If this is unsuccessful, you can file a complaint notice with yahoo by clicking the Copyright/IP Policy button on the bottom of every flickr page. Ajbpearce (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, because I'm new to adding copyright tags, how can I do that for an image I've got permission to upload here? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael13111983 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for the procedure on how to request permission and submit it to WP:OTRS. And be sure that the permission you got is not for use only on Wikipedia; acceptable permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 11:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is at: File:City_cafe_matt2_LOMOed.jpg The message I received is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthk&redirect=no I've been to the Copyright tags page but can't work out how I can add my copyright tag to this image. Can anyone advise please? All the best, matthk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthk (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what tag you want to use? If not, tell us more about the image. What is the image: a photo, a painting, or what? Where did you get it: did you make it entirely yourself, did you find it on the web or what? If you didn’t make it entirely yourself, what makes you think Wikipedia has the right to use it? —teb728 t c 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with image!

Hi,

I just put the licensing info on the image I uploaded earlier today, and want to know if the code works, or if I need to reformat it. If so, how do I do that? I copied and pasted the code given to me by the licensing place, and it just shows up as HTML on the wiki image page. Is that okay, or do I need to find the wiki code for all that?

Sorry, I'm not exactly an expert at this...

Thanks!Riceflour (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Can you give a link to the image? Have you clicked on the image, which takes you to the image's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the source of the image? Several places you refer to http://www.umusicpub.com/spotlight.aspx?id=5169 but I don't see the image there, nor do I see anything there about the licensing you claim; where did you get the licensing? —teb728 t c 00:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

CuRapSion

<removed advertisement>

And what was your question? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free book cover from Amazon

Are book scans from Amazon usable under fair-use? It seems like they could be used at least until an image with a friendlier licence was found or made. Marcus Qwertyus 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are asking about a thumbnail of a book cover, one could probably be used in the infobox of the article about the book to identify the subject of the article. If you are talking about scans of the text, no. —teb728 t c 12:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Marcus Qwertyus 00:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(OTRS) File:Frog-toad-logo.png

I marked the file Frog-toad-logo.png db-speedy due to a confirmed copyright complaint to OTRS (Ticket 2011020310016613). The tag was removed by an admin without OTRS access. I posted a request on his talk page not to remove OTRS tags unless s/he had access to the relevant OTRS queue. Furthermore, I reinstated the tag.

I need an admin with OTRS access to review the case and either 1. delete the image due to copyvio or 2. remove the copyvio warning and inform the complainant. Thanks a bundle! Asav (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

According to his edit summary, User:Ronhjones declined the speedy because File:Frog-toad-logo.png is used under WP:NFCC with a valid non-free tag and non-free use rationale. The copyright owner may have complained, but is there some reason Wikipedia doesn't have the right to use the logo under fair use? If so, maybe OTRS should make a separate deletion tag, and maybe we MCQ helpers need to be educated. —teb728 t c 06:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I really believe this should be answered by someone with OTRS access. Maybe a special OTRS tag is a way to go, but this is the first time I've seen a tag clearly marked with the OTRS ticket number deleted. Asav (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting case and a good point to ponder. Wikipedias non-free material usage is based on a valid FUR being provided, and according to policy if it isn't a valid rationale it *is* a copyvio. That policy point is often overlooked for the more liberal "adding a FUR negats any sort of copyvio claims" thought many editors use. Adding an OTRS into the mix certainly is one step beyond an editor claiming the FUR is invalid, but I am now wondering what the difference was/is with this non-free image vs another non-free image where the copyright holder submitted the same sort of thing and, in that case, the OTRS was ignored and the image is still being used. I am going to send of the related OTRS numbers to see if an answer can be posted here. Because of the "privacy" of OTRS that may not be possible. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The principle may be interesting, but I need an administrator with OTRS access to consider the case as OTRS correspondence is confidential. It's impossible to make any judgment about an individual complaint without having consulted the relevant ticket. In general, admins should think twice before removing a tag submitted by OTRS. It's much better to leave that to an admin with proper access. I'll probably see if I can find one on IRC later today. Asav (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that is what I said? I have already contacted OTRS with this ticket number and the other information for a comparison and will see if an answer can be posted here. Because of the "privacy" of OTRS that may not be possible I agree wholeheartedly when there is an OTRS ticket attached an admin (or an editor) should not remove it unless the OTRS can be verified one way or the other. As the image is question has been deleted the presumption is the deleting admin verified the OTRS. That is easy enough to double check however. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked to look at this. I've reviewed the image and the OTRS ticket, and I don't understand really why it was tagged and deleted instead of the url being altered to the copyright owner's http://www.mtishows.com/show_detail.asp?showid=000254? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. After speaking with the deleting administrator, I went ahead and restored it. He was basing the deletion off of the tag's indication that this was an OTRS issue. I've read the OTRS tickets and left a note there, since the detail I can provide here is minimal. I have altered the image with the actual url of the copyright owner/agent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If that edit is all it takes to satisfy the complaint, maybe OTRS needs a non-private adjunct. If we could have been told that they wanted to change the source credit, anybody could have done it. Notwithstanding COI, it would even be reasonable for the complainant to do it themself (either as an anon or from a personal account).
In any case it seems that OTRS needs a special deletion tag; so that non-OTRS admins neither delete nor deny speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 11:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that and have brought it up more than once. One of the driving concepts behind Wikipedia and permissions has always been that the material must be verifiable - I mean that in the sense of what the Image use policy states: Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. This is (should be) followed through with use of the {{Information}} template as described in the "Mini how-to" for images. This whole "privacy" issue when it comes to copyright and OTRS I feel is misplaced. How can anyone but a select few actually verify a copyright - that is a throw back to the "old days" when all one had to do was say "Hey my friend Bob said I can use this here at Wikipedia" and everyone said "Oh, ok." Copyright and licensing does not really work that way. OTRS, in part, is there to allow "Bob" to actual verify they have./are licensing their work as stated, and if that OTRS established a "method of contact for the photographer" it should be public. At the least there could be a statment such as "It has been verified that 'Bob' or 'Bob's photos' has released their work under the given license. To contact 'Bob' directly please do this: {method of contact}" That is a much better method than saying "Members of the supper secret society who have their Little Orphan Annie decoder ring can log in to the member only website to see the secret message." (Being silly - but that is what it honestly feels like sometimes) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding info to a deleted image

I have added an image (File:IDFLqualitylogo.jpg) and it was promptly deleted. I have some information to add to it but I don't know how to access and add info for the image. Also, the image which is a logo does not have a copy right or registered trademark. I found that out by contacting the company.

Braden ParkerParkerbraden (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

{{adminhelp}}
I see you have recreated File:IDFLqualitylogo.jpg without a file, containing only a {{non-free logo}} tag. I suspect an admin can undelete the file, merging it with the file-less tag. You will also need a non-free use rationale; you can use {{logo fur}} for that, adding article and use parameters. (See Template:logo fur for parameters.) —teb728 t c 12:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted image. Please ensure that the file is properly tagged or it may be re-nominated for deletion. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Am I right that this image is a duplicate of File:Logo IDFL.jpg. You have the right idea there, but you don’t have an article in article space to use it in, and the logo won’t be tolerated long without being used in an article. Unfortunately the draft article in your user page is not ready to move to article space because it doesn’t demonstrate the notability of the company by showing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Without that the article will not survive in article space. —teb728 t c 13:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:DeborahProphetess1SM.JPG

Hello! I just noticed that this image is marked as being in public domain because it's author died more than 100 years ago, but it's actually made not by whoever is listed on the page, but by Jose Perez Montero (http://www.amazon.com/Deborah-Brought-Entire-Nation-Outstanding/dp/0802850278), who's still alive. I'm not sure how to edit the page accordingly, so I would appreciate any help with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.218.182.33 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this to our attention. I see that someone has edited the file description page and changed to an apppropriate tag. —teb728 t c 11:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

flickr

I can upload a file when is not from Flick r, and is from other page that I know. Because I can't download a photo in Flick r, I try but I can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetalli (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the way I have downloaded from flickr is that I right-click on the image and select the size I want. The I right-click on the sized image and download it in the normal way. —teb728 t c 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please insert this image?

There was an important historic detail/shift that was missing in one of your pages... Is it possible for you to insert the following image at the end of the third paragraph from the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.commonground.ca/pix/iss/0211136/clayoquot_sound.jpg&imgrefurl=http://feasthouse.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/clayoquot-summer-1993-assembling-the-peoples-history-of-the-protest/&usg=__XnClcMszM8Thld9PoGwOVnVL9Qk=&h=210&w=336&sz=21&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=VsAWyMkiV3jfUM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=206&ei=7nxSTfiKLoz0tgOgz9nWBg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclayoquot%2Bsound%2Bprotest%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D725%26bih%3D339%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=250&oei=7nxSTfiKLoz0tgOgz9nWBg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=203&ty=44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.101.28 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know who the photographer is and the licensing terms? If it is not licensed under a free license, we probably can’t use it because the use would not be necessary for reader understanding of the paragraph. —teb728 t c 12:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The license terms are slightly confusing. It is implied to be under a CCL (Stick them on Flickr and tag ClayoquotSummer or email to choogleon (at) uncleweed (dot) net. Please CC license.) however there is no indication of which one. Perhaps send an email to the given email and see if they can provide you with the needed information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Promethium_powder.jpg

I found this at [5]. As the image given at WP is a fake... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Using text from Wikipedia for a play.

Hello all! I'm currently writing a play relating to the Dutch resistance movement during World War II. Currently, I have the entire text from the third paragraph of the section "Fighter-bomber versions" from the following page spoken, word for word, by one of the characters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history

Given the possibility that I may profit from this play at some point in the future, am I violating copyright by including this text in my play? If yes, what steps can I take to fix that? Should I cite Wikipedia in notes and details, and potentially in show programs? Or can I simply adapt the text to avoid copyright issues?

Cheers, M 142.165.213.224 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While we cannot offer you any legal advise on this you should read Reusing Wikipedia content. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Shankar 706051 n.jpg

Not exactly a copyright question, but the tag indicating that the image is of a currency appears to be incorrect. Can someone more familiar with images take a look at this an correct as appropriate? THanks Active Banana (bananaphone 23:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've remove the currency licence and tagged the image as having no licence. The uploader has a track record of uploading bad images, has been blocked for copyright infringement and the source website clearly says "all right reserved". ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That's clearly a copyvio and now tagged for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ucla logo.png

An IP has been removing this logo from different articles saying "Unfair usage of non-free image" in the edit summary. See, for example, here. I've looked at the image file, and I don't see anything that jumps out at me, but I confess I have trouble with licensing presentation on Wikipedia. Can someone else look at this and tell me whether there really is a problem with the logo or if the IP is out of line. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Every use of a non-free image must have a specific fair-use rationale of its own and currently it only has one rationale for one article, University of California, Los Angeles. If it is appropriate for some other articles, you need to justify that use with a rationale otherwise it fails WP:NFCC#10c. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would caution you that the UCLA seal does not appear to be part of the visual identity of the UCLA school of law, based on a viewing of their web site. Is the seal REALLY necessary for people to understand what article they have arrived at or is the wordmark seen on their web site sufficient? The wordmark would be considered free for our purposes (though of course under trademark). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know which license to use?

I am unclear what license to use for the following pictures?

File:Great Auk Errol.jpg (a painting by Errol Fuller entitled: ' A Last Stand')

File:Errol train station2.jpg (a painting by Errol Fuller entitled: ' The Lurker in the Dark')

File:Errol snooker painting2.jpg (a painting by Errol Fuller entitled ' John the Revelator')

File:Errol orang good4498abc.jpg (a photograph of Errol Fuller taken by Roddy Paine (http://www.roddypaine.co.uk)

I do have the copyright holders' permission and have sent prove of this to the OTRS team.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks. RoAlFuGr (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If the copyright holder, which is usually the original artist, not a gallery or person who owns the paintings, has sent their permission to the OTRS team, they will apply a ticket to the images if the permission is acceptable. There is nothing you need to do but the OTRS volunteers are usually backed up and it can take a long as a month for permission to be applied to images, however, you can add the following template {{OTRS pending}} to the images. ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You say at the file entries, “Errol Fuller has given permission for this picture to appear on his wikipedia entry.” I want to be sure you understand that permission for use only on Wikipedia is not enough. Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content; so it accepts permission only that allows use by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed three files about Gurjar-Pratihar art, that reminded me to the books.google scanned material:

These files are, I think, printed screens from this book, pp 284 and 287. Is this copyvio or not? Should these files be deleted or could be used on other projects? --Wlodzimierz (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Book is copyrighted 1991. Images are not PD-old because the art is not 2D, but is sculptural/relief. The highlighted text is a good give away it's from google books, and clearly this is not "own work" as the uploader claimed. Good catch. I'll delete the files from the commons. -Andrew c [talk] 22:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks! --Wlodzimierz (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to add a photo of Matt Lucas to the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Lucas_(singer) I have an Email from Matt telling me that he is the owner of the copyright of the photo to be used. How do I get that into Wikipedia? Zeeuwus (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And more specifically the process described at WP:IOWN to communicate permission. – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-pasting of tables of estimates

In the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination), one of the issues is that some of the tables in the article are mass re-pasting of data from IBOS where there is a copyright statement that the data cannot be re-used for commercial purposes. I suspect that such a constraint is unenforceable but as the data represents original primary research on their part (they create best estimates using their knowledge of the film industry rather than pure calculation) I was wondering if this falls outside what we would allow to be copied and pasted into articles? Fæ (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The information can be referenced, but not cut and pasted. The copyright notice is they have it theirs - it is enforceable, more so if it is they who collected to data presented. Business pay good money to data collectors to put together such information, other companies pay to receive such information. On the other hand it is clear that this is a "news service" "which promotes reportage via comprehensive Industry reports" - so it places this in line with other outlets such as A.P or even EIN News, meaning outlets would normally pay to use the information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not? How is this any different from copying the telephone book? Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Easy - if a news service gathers facts and presents them you can not simply cut and paste that information and re-present it in the same format, you can reformat it and cite the source however. In your phone book example this exact same idea applies - if I went through the phone book and created a book, formatting it by a town/city and listing it by house numbers cross referenced by business types, and published it you could not take that book, photocopy all of it and than sell it as your own book. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal pictures

these 2 files are from my personal pictures.....there is no copyright, I'm making them free to the public. there are no sources except for me. and my name is Tonya Whithy. How do I fix this problem?

File:Scott Greenall.jpg and File:Scott Greenall and Rich Ragsdale.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaneerg (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you can fix these image because it appears to be copyright images that you found on the internet. While you may have copied those images and uploaded them, that confers no copyright to you, they belong to someone else. The first image File:Scott Greenall.jpg appear to be copied from this YouTube video (18 secs in) and File:Scott Greenall and Rich Ragsdale.jpg is found here on Scott Greenall's MySpace page. Neither of these sources mention your name so I have to believe these are not images that you are the original photographer of, so you cannot claim any rights to them, even if there is no copyright notice attached to them. BTW, we only accept freely licenced images of living people but if you can verify this summary is inaccurate we will happily help you with a suitable copyright tag. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Both now speedily deleted as copyvios. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about "both" being gone. File:Scott Greenall.jpg is still up. In looking over the You Tube video it was uploaded there by "planz666666", which does nothing to establish a source to compare what is being claimed above. Likewise the description says "Filmed by Jack Enlow. Studio photographes by Tonya Whithy. All images and sound in this video are free to the public to use as they "the public" see fit" but the two core issues with that are: This appears to be a frame grab for the video, which, if the You Tube info is correct, means it belongs to/was shot by "Jack Enlow." From what I can see in watching the video at about 1:21 there is video of a photograph, the only such "still" (or "Studio photographes") in the video. File:Scott Greenall.jpg is not that still. At about 3:40 there is a credit that states "Filmed by Jack Enlow" and than a card for the performer. No other credits mention "Tonya Whithy." The second issue is that "planz666666" is most likely not able to release, as they imply, both video and audio to "the public to use as they" see fit. (In looking over the actual "credit" it carries a copyright notice and lists BMI as the publisher of the music.) In short this is still a copyvio as they uploader is claiming to be Tonya Whithy yet is not the person who shot the actual video or the performer seen in the video. (EDIT: I tagged it as a copvio and it was speedied, now I see it *was* speedied prior as well.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Press images / HP TouchPad

I don't know enough about image copyright to sort this out on my own, so... HP TouchPad, HP Veer and HP Pre3 have had a whole load of fair use product shots and HP logos used on them, completely unnecessarily (in my opinion). There's no FUR for the HP/Palm logo, most of the product shots are totally replaceable e.g. by File:Jon-rubenstein-hp-touchpad-2011-02-09.jpg (whether this should be on Commons because of the screenshot is another discussion!). I tried to sort it out but found the gentleman to be... difficult to deal with. Cheers for any help you can give, Alex Muller 07:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Images without FUR need them, but looking at similar articles (e.g ipad - which is a good article, iphone - B class with peer review, Apple TV - GA) the usage of these sorts of elements seems generally accepted on technology hardware articles. Part of the difficulty would appear to be that, for this kind of product the images of the screen are arguably always only usable under a FUR (see e.g File:IPhone_4_in_hand.jpg) and so I can certainly see why it was considered equally appropriate to use FUR press kit images. I have no opinion on whether we should be prioritising non-free images with free "components" over images that are wholly non-free - but if you do go to WP:NFR then its certainly a more complex discussion than free v non-free images. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the advice, I've started a conversation at WP:NFR :) Alex Muller 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
 – image deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This picture File:Konaseema_027.jpg is plagiarised. I had posted it on http://www.indiamike.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13177 in 2006. It was not shot by a Samsung ES15 camera as claimed by the copy-right violator Rishabhchandan. I shot using a Sony DSC W100. The link I provided has the same photo with exactly the same embellishments.

Ranga Eunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.87.229 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the image on Commons for deletion as a copyvio. The uploader appears to be a serial copyright violator and has been blocked for it in the past. I will issue a final warning. Thanks for reporting this. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
And deleted. -Andrew c [talk] 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use on file with CC-SA-3.0 license

This File:Petexbatun.jpg image was added in 2007 with a description "fair use". That sounds incompatible with the license. My guess is it is a mistake, but as the contributor hasn't edited since 2007, not sure what to do.

The file is copied to Commons, but I declined to delete it from en.wp, as I am concerned it may get deleted from Commons, if someone is concerned about the "fair use" comment. Any suggestions?--SPhilbrickT 16:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good find!!! This image is actually a copvio (See the last part of this response). Most all of this users uploads claim "fair use", most also say "R Villalobos" as the source. Some, however, say "Own work" and "User:Authenticmaya." Not sure why someone would upload images via their real name as "fair use" and than upload some others as "Own work" with their user name. (Those do not include the "fair use" comment). Most all of their images have now been moved to Wikimedia Commons so there isn't much use in fully discussing them all here, suffice to say I would have questioned why some of the early uploads were credited to the Authentic Maya website, such as File:MonteAltopotbellie.jpg who is credited to "Authenticmaya", but in it's original on Wikipedia (File:Montealtopotbellie.jpg) was credited to "R Villalobos, http://authenticmaya.com." Matter of fact that version is a Derivative of the original source at the website as seen here. The website contains a copyright notice and I see nothing anywhere that indicates any of the images are available via a CCL or GFDL. I did a look over the users talk page see they were warned about copyvios (cutting and pasting text from other sources) as well as one notice about File:Ceibal obser1.jpg, which was sent to a deletion discussion for the exact same reason the thread was started. ("Summary claims fair use, licensing section claims GFDL") There are also a few other questions about images truly being their own work, but I see no responses. All of their uploads should be looked at closer, and all the ones since moved to Wikimedia Commons should also be looked at - possibly all copyvios. As for this one I am going to tag it as a copyvio, because the watermarked version is on the website I already mentioned. (See aguate45.jpg) Again, good find. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

3D Art question-free use statement question

  • Would like to use a photo from this exhibit: Page 20-(10 of 18) with a non-free 3D Art tag. Would this work?
  • Is the following considered a free-use statement? Page "These photos may be used free of charge for non-profit or educational purposes only."

Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The answer to the second question is that Wikipedia doe snot allow (does not consider) material marked as "for non-profit or educational purposes only" to be free enough for our uses. "free" at Wikipedia means free for *anything* - including commercial re-use.
The answer to the first question is yes, *but*, this image shows "Installation view of Keith Edmier's The Ray Rayner Show Set" which is something that was open to the public at, I believe, SUNY so there isn't really a reason why someone could not have taken a "free" picture of it. Going a bit beyond what was asked, another thought/observation: Aside from the clearly marked copyrighted photos it may be considered the photos presumably taken by Keith Edmier were done for SUNY - which is a state run university. The program/catalog carries a copyright notice and "was supported by the University at Albany’s Office of the President and Office of the Provost, and by a grant from University Auxiliary Services." The question would be does this image fall under this? Also the Visual Resources Library copyright info may relate. In the meantime try the {{Non-free 3D art}} tag. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! My understanding from research is that the exhibit was available for viewing there during a given period of time in 2008, then it was dismantled and he returned the items borrowed from the Museum of Broadcast Communications which were part of it. We hope (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image won't upload

I've tried to upload File:Moseley_school_badge.png 3 times but it won't. I've never had a problem uploading .png images before. Edit: This isn't a copyright issue, but this was the page I was directed to for image-related questions. ðarkuncoll 10:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But it has uploaded, I can see it just fine. Maybe you need to refresh your browser cache or something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Just what I was thinking. Thanks anyway - question resolved! ðarkuncoll 10:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

LOV T2.jpg

I want to upload this image - http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:LOV_T2.jpg and use it on this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOV-1#Versions

problem is i am not sure what license i need to apply, as image is already in Croatian wiki and has permission to be used there by the authors Croatian MOD I want to move to English wiki page and use it here. cheers,

i's appreciate if one of the admins does that for me, thank you.Mic of orion (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently hr-wiki is using this file under a non-free "permission for Wikipedia only" license (which they shouldn't be doing, per Foundation policy). The license is filed here [6] and apparently translates to something like "We hereby give you permission to use our material and we thank you for your interest and offer", but there is no mention of free re-use by others. Now, we could of course claim that en-wiki is legally the same entity as hr-wiki, so any permission for them would also automatically include us, but it still fails our own non-free content policy. So, I'm afraid we can't use that image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, not quite. If there was no free replacement possible, we can still use that image non-free; the "wp permission" means that it doesn't qualify under our free license and can't be put at Commons or the like.
But, the question is if a free replacement is possible. I would suspect that a free image of that vehicle can be made by a Croatian user, and Croatia has an open Freedom of Panorama law, meaning that as long as it is publically accessible, a free photo can be made of it. So while one could consider the image in question non-free and usable with the right license, it is unallowable under WP:NFCC#1 since a free replacement can exist. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

About "File:Rajguru-1-.jpg"

Hello sir,

I tag that image as "PD-India".

Plz check that file and remove from "All Wikipedia files with no copyright tag" & "Wikipedia files with no copyright tag as of 13 February 2011" category.

If I m wrong then plz correct that tag. I got this image from Wikipedia's "Marathi" section.

following is link of that page- http://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0:Rajguru-1-.jpg

Thanking You!

Regards,

Sainath Parkar 14:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainath468 (talk • contribs)

To be correctly tagged as PD-India the image needs to have been published before 1951, or the author having died before 1951. To know this, we have to have some idea of when it was first published (for example, if the image was created in 1920 but first published in 1952, it may not be pd) or who the original creator of the image was - neither of which is clear at the moment.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

19th century images of Bath's Old Orchard Street Theatre

I am currently writing an article about a building which was a theatre between 1750 and 1805, then becoming a Catholic church & then a masonic hall (draft in my sandbox), and I've found some suitable images, however:

  • The image at Bath in Time must be 200 years old at least however that site says "© Bath in Time - Bath Central Library Collection" & the image has a small "Bath in Time" watermark in the bottom right hand corner.
  • There is an image at Guide to Bath however I can't find any ownership details & wouldn't know how to legally copy it to commons
  • The same image, and an exterior from the same period are at Bath's Old Orchard Street Theatre but again I can't find any details.

Would it be legal/appropriate for me to copy them to commons for use in the article? if so what licence should be applied? Thanks— Rod talk 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You should probably want to try and get a little more info about the date of the paintings/illustrations but this link appears to be the highest quality image available. Try to find some more details from the museum where it is housed or follow the artist information; J Nixon, Victoria Art Gallery, Bath. {{PD-old}} would likely be the most appropriate licence because the artist must have died more than 100 years ago. ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My Photos were all removed - Help Please

Hello,

I added many photos and I filled out the form in correctly, but I have permission from the websites to use the photos and can provide an email with contact info from each website whose photos I uploaded.

How can I get my photos back up and where can I send my proof of permission? Please help me. Thank you,(Jcalamity (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

It appears that on the forms you claimed both to be the original photographer and to own the copyright. Could you clarify? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I uploaded them on their behalf and I sourced the websites from which they came. I have absolute permission to use the photos from the website owners, I can provide written permission and contact info for owners of all the photos which were removed. When I tried to use the "I have permission to use this photo" it didn't work, and I am not quite sure how to appropriately fill out the requirements. Where can I send the written permission to use the photos? (Jcalamity (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

"I uploaded them on their behalf" is not acceptable permission. You can read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter the copyright holder/s needs to send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Iranian news agency photos

I have a question with a user over some images from an Iranian news agency, http://mehrnews.com. Image pages on that site (eg. [7]) have a license statement saying, in Persian, "استفاده از این عکس(ها) فقط با ذکر منبع "خبرگزاری مهر" مجاز است ", together with a standard copyright notice. The user, an Iranian speaker, translated this as "Using this picture(s) by noting 'Mehr Agency' is allowed". (I know no Persian; a Google translate comes out as "Use this photo (s) only to source "Mehr" is permitted") It's a private, commercial news agency [8]. Its translated versions in English and other languages (e.g. [9]) have no corresponding licensing statement and only a standard copyright note.

Could we consider this statement a free license? I'm rather skeptical; it seems not too plausible for a commercial news agency to just give all its images away for free, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say no because similar pages have no such wording (see Iran launches 4 domestically-made satellites or Iran unveils 3 space projects for example) and About us makes no mention of a attrition only free license for anything. I did a "quick" look over several pages of images and none carry the same tag. It could be the agency or the Govt wanted to freely release these images, but personally I would try to contact them for clarification and if they are free obtain a clear license that is acceptable to Wikipedia. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I know very little about copyright issues, and I can't answer Future Perfect's question directly, but it's possible the image might be admissable under what appears to be a kind of Iranian fair-use law, if that law is still in force. I only became involved in this, btw, because Future Perfect asked at ANI for other editors to help out with the conflict, I went to the talk page of the user who wants to inclde the image and tried to soothe his ruffled feathers, a bit, and also promised to look into his trouble. I wasn't aware that he'd also asked two other editors for assistance, though, so I'm withdrawing. Before I noticed that, however, I looked into one of the links a different editor had provided on his talk page to a copy of Iranian copyright law, viz. this "Pars Times" page. At the bottom of that Pars Times page it says the text mirrors a Unesco site's page about copyright law. There's currently no such page on Unesco's site, and also no current info for Iranian copyright law on the Unesco site at all, as is shown here. The internet archive, aka "wayback machine" results show that the Unesco site included the Iran copyright information page until the end of 2005, after which it was no longer present on Unesco's site. So I have no way of knowing whether the information presented in about Iranian copyright law is still valid; the law this document presents is from ... well, here; here's the info presented at the bottom of the "Pars Times" page:
Date of Law: January 12, 1970.
Observation: Official English translation of Iran's Copyright Law was communicated to Unesco by letter of April 20, 1970, of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
Source: http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/iran/sommaire.html ( evidently a dead link since 2005 )
But if this is still the law of the land in Iran, then I observe that Wikipedia would probably be legally authorized to use images that originate in that country, based on this one of its provisions:
Article 8. Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments, which are noncommercial, may reproduce protected works by a photographic or similar process, in the numbers necessary, for the purposes of their activities, according to a decree to be issued by the Board of Ministers. (emphasis mine)
I have no idea how to determine whether this is still current Iranian law. If it is, though, then I'd think that this touches on our PD template for Iranian sources in some way, although I'm not sure how. ( Maybe a different template, in a different category, should be created to document this kind of (Iranian) "fair use", if this law is still determined to be in force? ) As I said, I don't know a lot about copyright matters here. It does occur to me, though, that there was probably some reason Unesco pulled the Iranian law document from its site in 2005, so perhaps the law was superseded by some new one? Hope some of this helps. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
One thing I wanted to add: It's my impression that Future Perfect's analysis in this has been painstaking, very much up to his usual standard of careful investigation re everything copyright on Wikipedia. Like so many other editors here, I'm sure, I am very grateful for his work in this area. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, the 1970 law appears to still be in effect and the full English translation is linked from this page. As I read it, photos are copyright 30 years pma, or only 30 years in certain circumstances, and this is the same as Commons:COM:L#Iran. ww2censor (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
RE: to OhioStandard. I don't think the issue is if we can use the image, the question is if the license is ok. Because it is so vague it isn't. And if the information you found ("noncommercial" use is ok) applies it for sure does not fall under any license considered to be a "free enough for Wikipedia" license. Outside of seeing if the image meets all 10 of the criteria laid out at the Wikipedia non-free content policy this image/s should not be used under any sort of "free" license unless there can be an OTRS issued that comes from the news agency. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sound: I just saw WP:NONCOM. As I said, I know very little about this area, and I don't mean to muddy the waters with uninformed commentary. I don't suppose, that the sentence, " Published works originating in Iran thus are not copyrighted in the United States..." from our Copyright in Iran article makes any difference, either? Oh ... I just saw Template:PD-Iran-unrecognised which seems to imply that it does. Hmm. Confusing, especially when compared to Template:PD-Iran. Then throw in this very obscurely written news article that announces Iranian copyright law was changed last year, and (?) now appears to conflict with the language of that second template. If all you copyright experts agree about that, would you copy that link to relevant talk pages? E.g. the talk pages for the templates, and for the Iranian copyright article? I don't want to do it myself since I know so little about this area: that not wanting to confuse multiple pages with possibly irrelevant information thing, you know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's confusing all right, isn't it. About the licenses for non-commercial use etc., I think Soundvisions already said everything: "noncommercial-only" licenses are not free enough for us. At most, they might help to make a case under NFCC (putting us on the safe side of WP:NFCC#2, but we'd still need to pass all the other conditions independently too). About the "unrecognised copyrights" thing, last time I looked, I believe we had somehow decided that we were going to honour Iranian copyrights nevertheless, even though current US law doesn't force us to. For one thing, we want our product to be legal (copyright-wise) in Iran too, and secondly, it's safer this way because Iranian copyrights could in principle come into force retroactively world-wide at any time, once Iran decides to sign the relevant treaties. The template you found, {{PD-Iran-unrecognised}}, is actually not used on any file pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm just glad guys like you and Soundvisions are around to keep it all sorted. It makes my head hurt, and I see that my participation here has mostly just been darkening counsel, so I believe I'll retire. Thanks, Future Perfect and Soundvision. And, Ehsan1388, do take Future Perfect up on his offer, okay? If you'll forget what's gone by, just let go of that, and just talk politely to him, I know he'll try to help you, if he can do so within our policies. You guys got off to a bad start, but he's not a child to hold a grudge over something so trivial, and I don't think you are either. Just remain civil, stick to the facts without taking them personally, and everything will work out fine.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello I am Ehsan1388 and the cause of all this trouble here.I have came here to apologize my friends OhioStandard and also Muhandes for problem i have caused to them.OhioStandard is right,I contacted two more uses and asked for help.i am ready to face whatever consequences are.Please do not count this as OhioStandard fault.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan1388 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to over-dramatize things. I was just querying you about the status of that file from mehrnews; there's no reason we can't just talk it over calmly, is there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics on Wikipedia

Not exactly a media question but the lyrics to Elvis' song Return to Sender (song) is included in the article which I believe is a violation of copyright. Elfalem (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is. So delete it then.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Images of Actor added source says Public Domain but dont's know how to add license type

I found a couple of images on http://alejandroalcondez.info/freeimages.html thata sasy its public domain, now when I tried to put the lincense type I did not see only public domain the other type did not apply, please advice how to proceed. Images here... [[10]] and the other [[11]] Thenk you. Cgomez007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

  • The text wording being used is not reflective of the license given. They have clearly licensed the works via a CC BY-SA 3.0, which is not a public domain license. Public Domain would mean there is no copyright, a Creative Commons license retains the copyright and, in this case, requires Attribution be given to Alejandro Alcondez with a link to alejandroalcondez.info/freeimages.html. For these images you would use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, make sure to use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution details}}, where the parameter "Attribution details" says "Alejandro Alcondez. alejandroalcondez.info/freeimages.html." Hope that helps you. {EDIT: I have gone ahead and fixed the tags. However I notcie the images seem to be of the actor "Alejandro Alcondez", so that now opens up the quesiton of permission - is the website correct? If the subject is "Alejandro Alcondez" how are they also the photographer? Or were they a work for hire?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong tag?

Can someone please check this out? The user is registered & the file should be ok. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The ticket is correctly expressed, giving this user account permission to release anything they see fit from the website. The domain the email is from is the correct one for V&A but I don't know the people involved. Fæ (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Eek, now the file is different - of an Australian pop group. It was the 2 steel bangles shown below in the history there, which I imagine is what caused the problem. 10 minutes ago that is what the link on the talk page went to, which is what the V&A uploaded. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have added a ticket (to File:Bangles1.jpg) based on the reference at User talk:VAwebteam, however could you point to where this user was involved in (or sanctioned) the upload of this image, at the moment all I can see is other people using the upload bot and the Commons image page could probably do with a link to the relevant thread. If VAwebteam does not give explicit approval it probably should be nominated for deletion. (BTW, I hesitate to stir things up, but the account name looks a lot like a group account rather than an individual.) Fæ (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done Worked it out and added a link on Commons. Fæ (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes it is a group account, though now hardly used, & formerly actually just by one person. No-one pointed this out at the time, but they have been told since. The approval at their talkpage just now is enough I presume. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, they say it is still the same one person using the account. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Felfel1.jpg

Hello,

I hope you can help me put the correct copyright proceedure for this photo and for future images I wish to upload. I am refreshing the "Caspian Horse" page on behalf of the Caspian Horse Society and the images I wish to use are either taken by myslef, members of the society or have permission by the photographer to use for advertising the Caspians for any purpose. I do not understand the copyright codes or how to use them, I have read and re-read the instructions but feel I need some help on the matter.

Many thanks, Penny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathleyhills (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Penny. Please be aware that your editing on behalf of the Caspian Horse Society raises a concern. If you are editing at their direction, and/or are an employee (paid or volunteer) of them, that this generates a conflict of interest. If this is the case, your editing of Caspian Horse would be rather strongly discouraged. As to the image; we need to know WHAT permission the image is available to us under, and we have to have proof of that permission. You added [12] an OTRS pending tag to the image. That should satisfy the situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

State Treasurer image

Can someone check this image? I'm pretty sure that it is not the work of the user. Truthsort (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • This is a Commons issue, not really ours here on en.wikipedia. That said, it's obviously a staged photo probably done in support of a government profile page. Given that, and that it was the sole upload of the contributor to Commons, and the presence of a reduced sized version of the image 7 months before [13] it was uploaded to Commons, it's likely it was copied from some source. But, TinEye and Google Images are not finding any sources other than I already noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you tell me how to add a copyright tag to this image please? File:ER pic for Wiki.jpg. The image is from flickr under creative commons. Plus I know the photographer and he's given me permission to use it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickyrea (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Civil war photo tags

I happened to run across some photographs of the American Civil War, and noticed that the copyright tags are not consistent. Many of them seem to be done by Mathew Brady, dowloaded from the US Library of Congress. Some use the "US Army" tag, but that seems wrong, since I think Brady was doing it unofficially, or was he a real employee of the government? Also some use the "Published in US before 1923" tag. But they not really "published"? No evidence to that effect, e.g. not in a specific magazine or book - these are original negatives. So my guess is that the "death plus 100" is the right one. I would also think that they should generally go on Commons, but many are just on English wikipedia so I will ask here. Some pictures include File:GenNPBanks.jpg, File:James Allen Hardie.jpg, File:Peck Staff.jpg, etc.

Thanks for any suggestions. W Nowicki (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have only looked at the first one, source page is clear in that it was first published "c1861", that the image is "Copyright by M.B. Brady" and that Rights assessment is your responsibility.. The further breakdown, more detailed, is at Brady-Handy Collection - Rights and Restrictions Information. That says, in part, "Images in the Brady-Handy collection are considered to be in the public domain" and "Published photographs in this collection were created before 1923 and are therefore in the public domain. Unpublished photographs in this collection are also in the public domain as Mathew Brady died in 1896 and Levin C. Handy died in 1932." If the images were all obtained form the same collection this would apply across the board. (EDIT: I see there is even a tag to use - {{PD-Brady-Handy}}) Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag name; that seems to apply to many of them in that collection. However, there are a few other collections from that era too. Many might have been taken by Brady, but many do not specify, e.g. File:James Allen Hardie.jpg. I maybe I am dense, but do not see where it says it was "published"? When I look at the page it just says "Date Created/Published: c1861." Obviously it was taken about then, and this particular one looks like a card that says it was "Entered" in 1861. So my question remains, is a photo legally considered "published" when it was taken? Or is the fact that the Library of Congress has it indicate it was "published"? W Nowicki (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do I need permission to use a Facebook image?

Hi, I want to add an image of a band to a page I created about them. There is an image created by the band and used on both their promotional website and their facebook page. I thought images on Facebook were public. Can I just lift the image from there an place it in the wikipedia article? Or do I need some sort of permission from the band? This is the only wiki article I've ever created, so I don't know the ropes. Thanks in advance for the help! Eandvik (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Public is not the same thing as public domain, and in the absence of any copyright statement on the facebook page, you cannot assume that the image has a free license. Written verifiable permission is required. You could ask for the image to be released under a cc-by-sa license with a statement saying this on the facebook page, but the chances are that the band does not own full rights to the image to be able to release it in that way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See WP:COPYREQ for the permission needed and how to request and submit it. —teb728 t c 12:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:TakeThat riotgear MEN 16022011.jpg is my first go at uploading a photograph from a newspaper. (I made it by photographing the newspaper.) Please, is it justifiable? I apologise and accept the verdict if it is not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The use of non-free licensed photos on Wikipedia is restricted by WP:NFCC. Among the restrictions, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic…” and “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent … could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.… (As a quick test … ask yourself: … ‘Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?’…)” Sorry, but it seems to me that the use is purely decorative: The text is perfectly understandable without showing the photo. And any possible encyclopedic purpose could be conveyed by pure text. —teb728 t c 02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are many styles of police-type riotsquad gear: I thought that an image would be useful to quickly show what style was used. It is said that "one picture equals a thouand words", referring to the amount of information that it sometimes can carry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. So Wikipedia restricts the use of content that is not reusable by anyone for anything. In this case, if the purpose of the photo is to show the style of riotsquad gear, the article must have sourced critical commentary on the style, and showing the photo must be needed for understanding the commentary. —teb728 t c 13:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper or press agency whence the photo came, retains the copyright. There's no way I can see around that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a wonderful recording of In the Hall of the Mountain King on an archive.org project which claims to host only public domain and creative commons licensed recordings. [14] However, I cannot find the correct license for this file anywhere. Is anyone familiar with the workings of this site? --haha169 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We will need a more specific statement that can show exactly what the copyright is, if there is any user uploadable content we cannot rely on site blanket statements. Since it was recorded in 1988 copyright will apply, and a license will have to be granted in some way. The original score may be public domain, but we also have copyright on the recording and any performers rights. Some of the licenses acceptable at archive.org are not suitable for Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CC2.5 for article ? images

This article was published yesterday & says "All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. (CC2.5)" Does this mean the images included within it can be used on wikipedia/commons with appropriate attribution as I can not see any copyright notices on the images?— Rod talk 09:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it means you can upload to commons, but make sure that you link to the copyright statement, and make sure that it is reliable, and the work does not belong to someone else. Also you should establish what the attribution is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"Unless otherwise noted". Scan the text around the image(s) that interest you and make sure there is no copyright statement. If not, then you should be free to upload! Make sure to upload it to commons under the correct license, (CC BY 2.5) [15]--haha169 (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

From fair use to free use?

Working backlog and this file turned up File:Scarabengine.jpg. Since it's from 1928 and has no copyright markings, couldn't this become a free use file instead? Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • My guess is no. As noted on the bottom of the image, it appeared in Aero Digest. There's a reasonable likelihood that there's a copyright statement somewhere within the digest. The statement does not need to be repeated on every page for it to apply to every page. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! We hope (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This advertisement did not have a copyright notice and is in the public domain.
From the US Copyright Office Circular 3. Page 3, Contributions to Collective Works. (A magazine is a "collective work.")

A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement.

SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Day

I uploaded a picture for this article of a Do 17 bomber crashing into Victoria Station in London. It was taken by an anonymous person on 15 September 1940 - so over 70 years ago. Is this legitimate useage of an image? Kind of hoping it is, its a great one to have in the article I am writing which included its demise. Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This image, File:Dorniervictoriastation.jpg, is currently tagged with {{PD-BritishGov}}, but the description says it was created by "an anonymous civilian" not the government. {{Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would seem to be a better fit if it was published more than 70 years ago (no details of the publication have been given) and it is PD in the US. I can't find any details of when anonymous works become PD due to age in the US. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation, or possible test cases concerning WP:NFCC

Hi.
During last days, I had multiple issues with one single user (I think it is even an admin) on my understanding&usage of 'FairUse' uploads. The opposing person was somewhat harsh, eliminating/trying to eliminate several of my uploads by setting them free for deletion, being orphaned without IMO serious reason.
I, for myself, was convinced in all those cases that no free equivalents to my uploads would exist. Samples:

  1. File:Albert Richter (German Track Cyclist, 1912-1940).jpg vs. free File:Albert Richter (1912-1940).png -- IMO, the press photograph of a world champion is not an "equivalent" to the baby-face pic on his gravestone, taken several years earlier.
  2. File:Émile Bernard 1888-08 - Breton Women in the Meadow (Le Pardon de Pont-Aven).jpg vs. File:Breton Women.jpg which is van_Gogh's copy, and therefore of high interest for comparison (v.Gogh, Bernard and Gaugin were 'befriended"' to some extent, and exchanged several paintings), but in no case this is an "equivalent" as claimed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A%C3%89mile_Bernard_1888-08_-_Breton_Women_in_the_Meadow_%28Le_Pardon_de_Pont-Aven%29.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=413450243&oldid=352467437
    -- however, I am not sure about actual "PD" status, not knowing whether the painting had ever been published before 1923 (see Template:PD-US-1923-abroad).
    Similar applies to others of my "Fair use" uploads of this painter's oeuvre, as this artist had used very different styles during his career, and there should be more than half a dozen samples to APPROXIMATELY illustrate this artist's oeuvre (which is all-too much neglected until today). As all of his oeuvre will be PD anyways in 2012, it does not seem worth while to argue very much about thisone.
  3. On some screenshots of French musicians from 1960s, I am also uncertain whether user:Seraphimblade does not overdo
    -- but as long as bootleg videos are available by youtoube, there is not much reason to fight for any of those uploads.
    Nevertheless, I do not think that edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A9o_Ferr%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=413292769 are useful to enWP-readers/users -- there is, imnsvho, some considerable delay from "1960s", where Ferré was a star "in action", to "1985" (a very old man).
  4. Question: How about encyclopedic value?

Hi, the best place to discuss compliance with the NFCC is at WP:NFR, rather than here. thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A person whom I trust had given me the hint to "go here". I nevertheless have no problem to address the link you propose. However, there finally should be but ONE place where this issue is discussed. I'll do my best. -- [w.] 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
@Ajbpearch - I suggested the user come here for the general question (albeit with specific examples). The question is something like: If a non-free image depicts the subject as he might be remembered or engaged in the activity for which he is notable - as opposed to a free image that might not serve the same instructive/educational purpose, is that appropriate fair use? I suppose the specific examples could be taken to NFR as "test" cases, but I am also interested in hearing opinions about the general question. –xenotalk 13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
File "Albert Richter~" was orphaned again, meanwhile (seemingly by some rollback). Maybe it is not worth while to invest any more lifetime&energy on such... [w.] 09:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Ok, well, In general I am sympathetic to your the question as you phrase it. If an image serves an instructive/educational purpose (i.e an encyclopaedic purpose) that cannot be adequately replaced by a free image then I would say that this manifestly does satisfy the requirements of NFCC requirement 1. That being said I would say that you should be clearer about how your images are adding to the article above the non-free versions and to be wary of arguments that don't fall along encyclopaedic value lines such as how these media files are being used off site, or how soon they will be eligible for use as free content. Generally, It would help both you and Seraphimblade if you both more clearly set out how your usage / objections to particular images relate to the NFCC Ajbpearce (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File:AirGroup 35 on Flight Deck of Cheango.jpg

I am new to Wikipedia and thought that I added the above file properly. Our family has had this WW II picture is our possession for over 65 years. The correct copyright tag under USA Military Public Domain Images is: US Navy Images. I am having problems editing the file and adding the copyright tag: US Navy Images. Please help. Thank-you. Mdonovcanmoore (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The image needs more information, such as what you have provided here. Read the Mini how-to on use of the {{information}} tag and see if it helps. As it currently stands "Michael D. Moore Family Photo" is not really a proper source or author. And it was tagged because it is lacking a copyright/license tag. If you belive it to be in PD you can look over Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded a still photo of a sculpture onto wikipedia (File:IMG 1228.JPG), in order to put it onto an artist's page. The photo is on a public website, however only as part of a slideshow, therefore I could not provide a direct jpg type link. I included a description and URL of the website to indicate public access. I was informed that I need to put a copyright tag on to the original still photo, yet I am unsure how to do that. I searched the list of copyright tags, and found one I think can be used, but am confused about how to attach it to the jpg tag on the still photo. How would I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harperjoyce (talk • contribs)

  • There's Freedom of Panorama in Canada, so this will not constitute a derivative work. The only rights we have to be concerned about here are the rights of the photographer. However, the photographer is not you. The caption on the photo indicates it was "Transfer from the Government of Canada to Carleton University, 2006". That's nebulous at best. It's very hard to ascertain what the copyright status of this image is from that caption. Since this image is therefore problematic, we need to consider other options. Since this sculpture is located in a public place, obtaining an image of it that could be placed under a free license would be trivial. Therefore, I think the image you uploaded should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Faithful representation of two-dimensional art

Hi--I recently created my first page ("Haftvad"), and I was wanting to add a picture of a page from a 15th-century illuminated manuscript that depicts the story of Haftvad. I downloaded the picture from this site http://asiasociety.org/countries-history/traditions/shahnama-the-book-kings but it's no longer on the flickr stream mentioned in the picture caption. The manuscript itself is in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. (Info on the manuscript and another photo of the page in question can be found at http://shahnama.caret.cam.ac.uk/new/jnama/card/ceillustration:1055596716). I noticed on the Wikipedia article on illuminated manuscripts that the photos there are used under a "public domain" category and that it's wikipedia position that faithful representations of two-dimen. art are public domain. So, can I use the image I downloaded in my wiki article? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauriePierce (talk • contribs)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you have found in the meantime that the image you wanted is already on Commons, right? (File:WLA lacma Iran Shiraz Ardashir Feeds Molten Metal to Haftvad the Worm.jpg). Great job on the Haftvad article! Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I "Tag" this Right

- I'm new to WIKI

- I don't think I copyright tagged this correctly. Can someone help? File:Karl Rove Courage and Consequences.jpg

Plainsman89 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct tag would be {{non-free book cover}}. But the file could be used only on the article for the memoir Courage and Consequences (when it is written). Sorry, but it can’t be used in the article you are drafting, “Memoirs of Strategic Leaders in the Global War on Terrorism” nor can File:GeorgeTenetBook.jpg be used there. The reason is that a non-free (i.e. copyright restricted) file can be used only where the use would significantly increase reader understanding of the article. It is widely accepted that identifying the subject of an article does that, but it would be difficult if not impossible to make a rationale for any other use of a non-free book cover. —teb728 t c 12:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Chart -- Public Domain?

I would like to use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Chart in a biblical psychology textbook my husband and I are co-authoring. Can I use his chart? Is it in the public domain? -- or Who do I need to obtain permission from to use it? Does it cost? Can I just cite an online source? I can't seem to find information on whether we can actually use his chart in our publication. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgekay (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the copyright tag File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.svg is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. If that tag is correct, all you have to do is comply with the terms of that license. But I am not sure it is correct: The license apparently applies to the graphic presentation rather than the underlying text. On the one hand, it seems to me the graphic presentation lacks the originality needed for a copyright; so the presentation may actually be in the public domain. On the other hand, I am not sure that Maslow does not have a copyright on the text; in that case the licensing would be unknown. —teb728 t c 11:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ship images

The article Carnegie (ship) would benefit from inclusion of some of the images found here and here. The photos were obviously taken more than 70 years ago as the ship was destroyed in 1929, but I am still unclear as to whether that means that they are public domain if they are copied from these webpages. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If the images were first published in the US before 1923, they would be {{PD-US}}. —teb728 t c 10:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
My question here is, what is meant by 'published'. They appeared on the webpages that I linked to above which were originally published in 1982 in the November issue of the Surveyor magazine of the American Bureau of Shipping. However, the images all originate from the collection of the Carnegie Institution so were likely published elsewhere first. Mikenorton (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now found a set of images that were part of reports originally published in 1917 [16], so these meet the PD-US requirement, but does this include maps and plans? Mikenorton (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Having re-read the PD-US description I see that it covers all the published material so I have stricken the above. My question remains though, am I right in my understanding that although the pictures elsewhere on the website were clearly taken before 1930, I should only upload them if I can show that they were originally published before 1923? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In some cases (works created in or after 1978 or not published prior to 1978) copyrights expire in the US 70 years after the death of the author (not after creation). Copyright expiration for works first published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is complicated, depending among other things on whether the work was published with a copyright notice and whether the copyright was renewed. See United States copyright law#Duration of copyright. —teb728 t c 08:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll stick with those images that I know were published before 1923. Mikenorton (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:BritishInsuranceLogo.JPG

I uploaded this logo with a fair use rationale a while ago, but looking at it again now, would I be correct in thinking it doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright and should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}} instead? January (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This could be PD-textlogo, as having jsut circles and text, and a svg version would be better than a .jpg version! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading an image file

Hi,

I recently uploaded the file statsol.jpg and received a message saying I need to provide more details. I am not sure how exactly to do this? The image is from the company's website and I have been given permission to use it by the Managing Director. It is the company's logo and so copyright it theirs. Could you tell me exactly what changes I am meant to make and how to do so?

Thanks Chrisby23 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Salavat added the missing information earlier today [17] (a licence tag and a fair use rationale), so nothing further needs to be done now. January (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help, I'm still getting used to editing Wikipedia. Thanks! Chrisby23 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of costumes from an exhibit?

I just went to an exhibit about a particular TV show. Photography was permitted, so I took a bunch of pictures, especially of some of the characters' costumes. Would it be permissible to upload these photos? If so, would they be fair use, GDFL, or what? Oh, and when you answer this, could you please stick a {{tb}} on my talk page? I'm quite forgetful :3 Thanks! --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Free Thinkers

Buffalo15ny (talk)how do I upload a photograph to my newly created page entitled "Free Thinkers"?Buffalo15ny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Before you even think about a photo, you urgently need to demonstrate the notability of the subject according to the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. If you fail to do that, the article will be deleted, and any work you put into it will be lost. (Hundreds of articles are deleted every day because they do not demonstrate notability.)
If and when you have demonstrated notability, upload a photo and use it as described at Help:Files. —teb728 t c 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of User Created content from a copyrighted Video Game?

What kind of license would content have if said content was created by someone for a specific purpose but was using a video game to render said content? Machinima is a good example of what I mean. Nothing in the content is technically copyrighted except for the game itself. RottNKorpse (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Alter Picture

I have a question. If i save an image on my computer, but alter it what happens with the copyright? -Diversity8 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your modified image would be a derivative work. The modification would not supersede the original copyright. But if your modification was sufficiently original you would have an additional copyright; so that anyone using your modified image would require a license both from the original creator and from you. —teb728 t c 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Easter Island Statues

Do you know why there are so many wierd statues on easter island and why they look like faces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.191.22 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The needed image info

If one uploads an image and only adds a copyright tag (like {{self|cc-zero}} or other free licenses) and no other information - should we expect a summary, where the author and/or source are claimed for the work? Or are there copyright tags that include the claim for uploader as the copyright holder and author of the work, so just the tag is sufficient? feydey (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Tag {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} seems to work alone, any others? feydey (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Although for copyright purposes this is probably adequate fora first publication, for Wikipedia or commons we would like the image to be useful, so a description will assist people in finding it, and a date or location may also be useful. We also ask that the author be identified, and it can be set to self so that we know that the uploader is the creator of the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The image use policy actually does say one of the requirements is Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. The main issue with use of *only* a "self" tag is that it doesn't really allow anyone to verify the license and the author. If the uploader is very active and uploads all sort of material is may be easy to verify, but if it is an inactive user or one who has not uploaded much it is near impossible to verify anything with just a "self" tag. I always send people who ask to the Mini how-to, which explains how to use the {{Information}} tag. As I deal mainly with images at Wikipedia I often tag images with a {{di-no source}} that have nothing but a "self" tag on them, especially when they are frame grabs, scans, CD covers, posters, band promo shots and so on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if self (in the tag) is the same as a claim for announcing the uploader as copyright holder and author at the same time? Or is a separate line needed to claim source/authorship? Are these files allowed to be moved to Commons? Without author's response - can/should they be deleted as NSD? This concerning images that are not frame grabs, scans, CD covers, posters, band promo shots etc. feydey (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Like this newly uploaded image f. ex. File:RawSexPamph.jpg? feydey (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC) And File:Michael Young 2008.png. feydey (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Why are there so many new CC-0 uploads without summary tables (File:Malibu Lagoon and Malibu Colony.jpg). Is there something wrong with the upload sequence?feydey (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if i wasn't clear. No, use of *only* a "self" tag is not enough. (as I did say the policy sates: Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. File:Michael Young 2008.png has zero information as is required. (Neither do the users other recent uploads - File:Jack Hannahan 2008.png, File:Landon Powell 2009.png and File:Rob Bowen 2008.png) Such images fail the policy. As for File:RawSexPamph.jpg, it suffers from the exact same problem. A look at the exif/meta and it says "Kirby Schroeder" is the "author", but looking at it that may be the "author" of the scan but clearly looking at the image itself that is *not* the author of the product, nor it is the publishers of the product.
I can't answer the question about if there is a problem with the upload sequence in regards to the back end programing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a note - the source for the baseball images do not seem to be the uploader. JackAdjusting is an "all rights reserved" source version of the cropped File:Jack Hannahan 2008.png. I am checking for the rest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Theres a photo I have seen and I'm not sure if it qualifys for deletion so I'd like to ask this question. If a file is showing a crime (for example vandalism) are there any policies that say it should be deleted? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy on the topic. If the picture was illegal in USA then that would be a reason to delete. It may be deleted on consensus if it incites crime or is useless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess that vandalising a Royal Mail postbox doesn't count for that then? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Another reason to delete is if the vandalism is creative content in which case a photo is a copyright infringement. But mere damage will not be copyrightable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well this is the photo in question: File:Paintingpostboxgreen.jpg. Now that in my opinion is simple vandalism and possibly copyright issue due to the Royal Mail logo being slightly visible on the postbox in the picture. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You can hardly see any logo, and this is purely incidental, not the focus of the photo, so this is no problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing image for Town

Hi, I accidentally deleted the main imagine for the town named 'Yeppoon, Queensland' while I was changing the image for a much nicer one of the town. The imagine is still deleted and I still don't know how to change it to a nicer image. Could you please tell me how to change the image or do it for me if I send you the link to the image. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn.F.24 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, with your edit here [18] you specified the name of a file (File:Yeppoon main beach.jpg) that doesn't seem to exist, and I couldn't locate any other of a similar name that you may have intended. You just need to substitute the correct filename of the image you want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Best policy re: TV show cast images

Will need to add images for a local children's show that went on for 41 years, ending in 2001.

  • There are 4 cast members who are still living-am I able to use images that show them?
  • To show major cast changes, it may take 3 photos; know they will all be non-free. Would that be considered excessive?

Thanks,We hope (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an active discussion about would relate to this topic going on currently but without any solid outcome the present policy would allow a "cast" photo over several individual shots. However either one would have to meet all 10 of the criteria found at the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Based on what you are saying you should take note of the first criteria - No free equivalent. Also, in regards to cast changes, in the case of a "local children's show" using more than one "cast" image may very well be excessive. What was the best known cast? The "iconic" cast if you will...that should be the one to focus on. Also be aware that a "cast" of this show may not fully fall under the same concept as, say, the "cast" of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood who resided in the Neighborhood of Make-Believe. Neither of those article use "cast" photos yet I would presume that show was far better known as the "local children's show" you are speaking about. My point being those articles do not use, nor do they need, an image of every cast member to fully understand the article/s. Soundvisions1 (talk)
Thanks much to you both! We hope (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

how to give licensing information

these images are available in google when searched.so i think they r used for free use. what license i should provide..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeetbond (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm sorry, but finding an image on Google does not make it free. To understand what is free, please read Commons:COM:L. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

loc.gov picture of calumet, michigan

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/det1994007110/PP/ This set of pictures of Calumet, MI form a very nice panorama which I have assembled. The loc.gov website states that the image was created/published between 1880 and 1930---making the possible creation/publication after 1923. The picture was originally from the Detroit Publishing Company. Rights and restrictions on photographs in the Detroit Publishing Company collection are listed here at loc.gov: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/102_det.html

Is this OK to upload? If so, which licensing choice should I make when I upload it? Scottk (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, unless you can show that the items in question did not have their copyright renewed (or for which it wasn't registered properly in the first place). Given that Detroit Publishing Co. went bankrupt in 1932, it sounds like a safe bet. Its assets were liquidated, and the Library of Congress held onto the items from 1949 onwards. I can't imagine the LOC would renew the copyright, but if you want to be 1000% sure, you could check the digitized list of copyright renewals from 1950-1960 (renewals had to be done on the 28th year after initial publication). If I were in your shoes, I would probably just slap a {{PD-US}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag on the collage. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take a screenshot of a logo during the beginning or end of a movie, it's the same procedure as if you took it from the internet or something, correct? The fact that it's a screenshot does not change anything procedurally, licensing templates, anything like that? Swarm X 10:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No the only difference it would make is where you describe the source. For logos it is best to get the best quality one you can. Naturally TV and film logos will be seen on a screen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Swarm X 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Canterbury Television

I have added to this article the text, as a quote, of the entire main page of this website: http://www.ctv.co.nz. This now consists only of a 3 sentence 'condolence' notice, as the building the TV station was in collapsed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and all staff are presumed dead. Is this a copyright violation? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 12:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, it could be argued that it could be used under fair use, but more importantly it would fail WP:NFCC. That the condolence message exists is fact, but it doesn't need to be entirely repeated on the article. It would be better to instead indicate intent of the message. Something along the lines of "...but the entire site was later replaced with a message that indicated the main CTV building had been destroyed in the earthquake, and a message of condolence to those affected by the earthquake." --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Images from Online News Media

Are images of public/government officials from official press conferences be used? And if so HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghazipasha (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • No. Copyrights to the images are held by the people who took the images, even if the people depicted are public officials. If the image(s) are historically significant as proved by secondary sources, there might be a reason to include them here, but generally no. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
With respect to the US government, if the images were taken by official government employees as part of their duties (e.g., a Navy photographer taking a picture of an Admiral at a press conference), THEN the images would be in the public domain. Images taken by private news agencies at the same event . . . no per Hammersoft above.--Quartermaster (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Images created by US state governments, however, are not generally public domain. —teb728 t c 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Graphs, Charts, and Diagrams

If one where to take a graph, chart, or diagram from a book or from another source and redraw it with a paint program (inkscape, adobe, ect.), is it still under copyright by said source? Would changing the way the information is displayed help make it more original? And if so, to what degree? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you just used the data values and replotted on different axes, gridlines, plot points and captions, or fill patterns and legend then you will have a complete new creation free of the original copyright. But don't attempt to reproduce everything exactly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the one I made, and this is the source stated in the book (page 12281) is the change good enough? Its interesting that the one in the book is exactly the same as the source it says it is derived from, saying the one in the book is updated yet it exactly the same, every last detail. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 20:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks different enough. However there are some mistakes:spelling of spcies devopment pleogene Neo-gene (no hyphen) are all wrong. Also 200 is positioned a bit low. The original had three colours on its markers. You could use different shaped markers, such as x or * rather than o to indicate the meaning of reliable and unreliable as one has meaning only in the context of the paper. A legend for this would be appropriate. I suggest a reedit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Tags?

Once you add photos, how do you go back and add a copyright tag if you didn't give it one in the first place? Weaselpie (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit the file description page, for example, File:Napatree 1.jpg —teb728 t c 02:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm just curious if you read the top of the page. I know there are a few header boxes filling up space, but once you get down to the text, the very first topic is "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". I suggest, if you haven't reviewed that, do so now. If you have additional question on what to do, or need further help, we'd love to assist you! But this is quite a common question, so the answer is already at the top of the page! -Andrew c [talk] 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

NYC.gov image: Whitehall Crossing

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/panyc/fay.shtml is the site of a photo of Ming Fay's artwork, "Whitehall Crossing," which is part of the waiting room for the Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal. I created the page for that terminal, which includes a section on this piece of art, and would like to include an image from the NYC.gov link, above. (The page is part of the official page of the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs.) I know that federal government images can be used because they are in the public domain. What about this one, which is NYC.gov? NearTheZoo (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon map of East Anglia

Hi, I created (File:The kingdom of East Anglia (Early Saxon period).svg) and a GA reviewer has queried if I have broken any copyright laws. Can you advise?--Amitchell125 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem. Your map is graphically independent enough from any of its sources that there can't be a problem. Remember that the information contained in the other maps is not copyrighted as such, but only their graphical rendering (although, with maps, these two things are somewhat difficult to keep apart). If we took this to constitute a problem, we could never create any historical map at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of images for publication

Dear editor,

I would like to use the following images for publication. Can you tell me whether they are freely usable/public domain, or whether I should ask permissions?

All three are found in the article;

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Attractor_network — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlooijestijn (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not free, you'll need to ask permission. See here. You'll want to make sure to go through the process outlined at {{di-no permission-notice}} to verify the licensing with us. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

L' Intrigue

Is the intrigue (L' Intrigue) by James Ensor which was painted in 1890 in PD?Smallman12q (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not in most European countries, according to the 70-years-p.m.a rule, but in the US according to the {{PD-US-1923}} rule, provided it was actually published (i.e. publicly exhibited) before 1923. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It says here that it was first publicly exhibited in Feb 1892...so would it qualify under {{PD-US-1923}}? Anyhow, I've tagged the commons page for James Ensor with {{NoUploads}}Smallman12q (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A user has added a rash of photos with copyright notices imprinted on the image. A typical example is the photo here. It looks wrong to me to have these at Wikipedia. Should they all be deleted? More may be found from this list. I think some (maybe most?) may have already been deleted (I have deleted* one, but I am not 100% sure about policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.3.146 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) (*By "deleted" I mean deleted from the relevant article, not deleted entirely from Wikipedia.)

First the image you linked to is not hosted here, it is at Wikimedia Commons. Second is that a copyright notice may be part of the license requirement and is allowed per the license. Wikipedia has a policy that predates the current CCL's so the language is a bit off, and discussions to reword it to better reflect the accepted licenses have met with varied success. You can read the full "legal code" of the CC 3.0 license at Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Look under section 4. Restrictions. Sub section c - If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work... See Marking Image at the Creative Commons website for more information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So, are you saying that there is no blanket prohibition of such images on Wikipedia? Then what's to stop me uploading dozens of images with my personal name or company name emblazoned all over them, and stuffing them into Wikipedia with an advertising or self-promotional agenda? 86.179.3.146 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Water marks are still discouraged, so the images can be deleted for various reasons. Using the no speedy delete processes. You can also make a derivative that would remove the visible notice, as long as you reproduced the copyright in another form, eg on the file information page. This is allowed under the CC licenses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking your questions one at a time.
  1. there is no blanket prohibition of such images on Wikipedia? - No there isn't. While it is "suggested" not to do so there is no policy that explicitly forbids it or allows for deletion on that fact alone if the license is an acceptable license.
  2. what's to stop me uploading dozens of images with my personal name or company name emblazoned all over them... - Nothing at all is there to stop you from doing so, but see the continuation below.
  3. ...and stuffing them into Wikipedia with an advertising or self-promotional agenda? - *That* Wikipedia has a policy on and such material can, and often is, speedy deleted. An image that is uploaded and contains a copyright notice per the accepted CCL is not in any violation. However if an image is uploaded with text on the image that says "To purchase prints contact the photographer" it is considered SPAM and can be deleted via CSD G11. If an image contains a copyright notice and a URL that links to a website that sells images that same would apply. On the other hand if an image is uploaded and says "Copyright Getty Images" chances are it is a copyvio and would be speedied under CSD F9.
As Greame pointed out if the file is legit - meaning the uploader is really the copyright holder - a derivative could be made by removing any text form the image. However in doing so it runs the risk of invalidation the license (if it was a CCL) because certain things are required per the terms of the license. Of course Wikipedia has the right to say "No thank you" when any material is uploaded, but it becomes a bit more complicated if it is material that has been in use "as is" for days/months/years before action is taken. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Scanning mission patches for Space Shuttle and Apollo flights

Years ago, I visited the Rockwell Company Store in El Segundo CA and bought some shoulder patches for some Apollo and Space Shuttle flights. I have scanned the patches, which are more detailed than the images shown on the Wikipedia pages. I note that the images shown are from NASA. Can I add the image scans or is there a problem with copyright. The patches are as follows Apollo11, 12,13, 14,15,16 & 17. Shuttle Gibson-Bolden, Brandenstein-Creighton, Shaw-O'Connor The last Shuttle patch I have is Bobko-Williams but the vehicle is shown as Challenger not Discovery as shown on the Wikipedia page. Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.40.176 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea if you discussed this at one of the articles on one of the missions you mention. I suggest Apollo 13, there are quite a few people watching the article. These people will be more versed in the history of spaceflight than us dumb oxen.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
They're probably alright as far as copyright if they're official NASA creations and you took the scans yourself, but you might take a look at this page, which gives a little more copyright info for logos and such. I'm not an expert with copyright law, so I can't help you much more than that. Also, as Wehwalt noted, you might want to inquire on the relevant talk page(s) before replacing the photos, just in case.-RHM22 (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm suspicious that they are more detailed than the ones on the wiki and that's why I'd like our spaceflight experts to check it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If the patches are NASA creations, and can be confirmed say on their web site, there should be no copyright problem to scan and upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If you upload on the commons, use {{PD-scan}}Smallman12q (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be {{PD-USGov}}?-RHM22 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Either way, check with the spaceflight people. I find it very odd that they are more detailed than what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Joseph Brennan (Clan na Poblachta)pdf.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam

I need help with choosing the correct tag for file: Joseph Brennan (Clan na Poblachta) pdf.pdf.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateships (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that Wikipedia has a right to use it: Where did you get it from? Is it in the public domain? If so, why? If not, who owns the copyright, and what if any license do they grant for its use? If it is not PD and not free licensed, how do you propose to use it? —teb728 t c 10:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Neli-G

kengetar i ri ...ai kendoi per here te pare ne skene me date 11.01.2011,por kenga e tij me pelqim me shoqerise ,u regjistrua ne studio .ai lindi me 2.10.1996,ne tirane,shqiperi.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKIptJOPWPo kenga e tij ndodhet tashme ne you tube .jo shume e klikuar pasi nuk eshte i degjuar shume.

'New singer ... he sang for the first time on stage, on 11.01.2011, but his songs consent to the company, was recorded in the studio. He was born on 2.10.1996, in Tirana, Albania. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKIptJOPWPo his song is now on You Tube. Not a lot of clicking because it is not heard much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informacionshqip (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a media copyright question? A keni një pyetje media të drejtën e autorit? —teb728 t c 20:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If you are writing to suggest that he should have an article, Wikipedia does not have articles for up-and-coming performers; if and when he has already received significant attention, someone will write an article for him. Nëse jeni të shkruar për të sugjeruar se ai duhet të ketë një artikull, Wikipedia nuk ka artikuj për artistë up-dhe-vjen, nëse dhe kur ai ka marrë tashmë vëmendje të konsiderueshme, dikush do të shkruaj një artikull për të. —teb728 t c 00:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RNZAF photo

I'd like to ask for opinions on the copyright status of File:ChristChurch Cathedral - 2011 earthquake damage.jpg. It was transferred from Flickr[19], where it is licensed with CC BY 2.0 and says "Crown Copyright 2011, NZ Defence Force – Some Rights Reserved". CC BY 2.0 has[20] "or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations" and Crown_copyright#New_Zealand says copyright 100 years. XLerate (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The crown can grant other copyright licenses to other users also, and this appears to be genuine, so we could use this here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. There's a deletion discussion on Commons, which rightly goes towards keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Flickr wording is generic wording used where CCL's are used. You may not have noticed the link at the source but clicking on "Some Rights Reserved" clicks through to the CC BY 2.0 overview. A misconception that some people have is that use of a Creative Commons license means all copyright claims have been released, but in most cases that is not true. Unless a CC0 - Creative Commons “No Rights Reserved” - tag is placed on an image there really are "Some Rights Reserved". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian images

I need an image for an article I'm working on (Flowing Hair dollar), but I'm having some trouble finding a good one. There's one on the Smithsonian, but I don't know if it was made by a government employee for sure or not. Here's the page with the images. Does anyone know if these images are free to use or not? Thanks in advance for your time!-RHM22 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting: we have a template that claims these are public domain: {{PD-USGov-SI}}, but the institute itself fails to allow for derivatives: http://www.si.edu/termsofuse. The former appears to be correct, as "it is functionally and legally a body of the federal government" (Smithsonian Institution#Administration). Shame on them for putting up a false legal notice (although it's not surprising for a museum to do that).
In any case, yes, the scan appears to be made by the SI; barring evidence to the contrary, it looks like a safe upload; you might want to wait for a second opinion though, as I'm not entirely sure. However, I'm asking about the copyright issue at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Smithsonian Institute = public domain?. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but I now know that the image is in fact copyrighted. I asked an editor who is an expert with copyright status, and he noted that the image wasn't taken by a Smithsonian employee, but rather a coin photographer who owns the copyright for the image.-RHM22 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
RHM22, are there any images on Flikr? On some of my past coin articles, I or another editor have gotten the Flikr contributor to allow the use of his image under creative copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There were some others from the Smithsonian that I think might have actually been taken by an employee, but they had a huge watermark on them, so I wasn't sure if that would be acceptable or not. Of course, I could edit the watermark out, but maybe it's there for a reason. I'll post a link here to see what everyone thinks.-RHM22 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind. It was taken by Tom Mulvaney also.-RHM22 (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is something being left out of the first response - not everything *at* the Smithsonian is free of copyright so taking an image only of something under copyright would make the image a derivative and still subject to the non-free content policy here at Wikipedia. Not only that but, as you have already discovered in this case, an image in question may not have even been taken by an employee of the Smithsonian. That is another issue that has been coming up lately, both here and at Wikimedia Commons. The "old" saying that "Just because you found it on the internet doesn't mean it is free" applies to material found on state and government websites as well. Have a look at DMCA take-downs of fair use and US-Gov-PD images for more details. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

An image from a band's website

I am preparing to write an article about one of my favorite bands and I have a picture from their website that I am considering using. They mention that the pictures are from a press-kit. I read through the rules for using images from a press-kit, but I am still not sure it is fair-use. I plan on using it in the info box on the right side that you usually see on most Wikipedia articles. Would it qualify under fair use since the article is basically talking about the band or would I be better off not including a picture at all?

CaCtUs2003 (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think that you would have to meet the same rules as for any other fair use image, and might want to review WP:NFCC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not great with these kinds of questions, but many articles on bands use the logo under fair use rationale. Maybe that would be considered more appropriate than an image of the band itself.-RHM22 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia has a policy that non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. For a band that is still active, and the purpose is to show what they look like, a free photo could almost certainly be created. —teb728 t c 08:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If the logo consists entirely of lettering, you could get away with it as PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
They do include a high resolution graphic of their logo as a .pdf in a downloadable press kit from their website and it does consist of lettering. Does that mean that it could fall under Public Domain or Fair Use? CaCtUs2003 (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It is best to start off with the concept it is non-free and as such must meet the criteria found in the Wikipedia policy on Non-free content. For standard promo shots, unless they are explicitly available under an Free Cultural Works license that is acceptable to Wikipedia, they are normally not allowed as they can be freely replaced. For logos you might want to read Wikipedia:Logos for a guidelines on how to use them. Pay close attention to the band logos section. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And as to the copyright status of the Cripper logo: Although the logo is more-or-less textual, to achieve its graffiti effect it was drawn rather than lettered. IMO, that gives it enough originality to be copyrighted. —teb728 t c 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Eleonora_Olson.jpg.

This image is from a collection in the Library of Congress (the Federal Government). It is from the year 1917. Does a copyright apply to something that old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfa (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Most, if not all, creations made before the year 1923 fall under public domain. To be sure, you might want to do some additional research.

CaCtUs2003 (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Eleonora_Olson_1917.jpg.:

This image is from a collection in the Library of Congress (the Federal Government). It is from the year 1917. Does a copyright apply to something that old? ~ pfa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfa (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was first published in the US before 1923, it is in the public domain. What is the actual page where you found it. The source you cite at File:Eleonora_Olson_1917.jpg is for a collection. The actual page probably gives the info on publication. —teb728 t c 08:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The source of the image can only be reached by going to the collection and searching for "Eleonora Olsen". (Last name must be spelled "Olsen". The resulting page cannot be cited as an address - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:Traveling Culture: Circuit Chautauqua in the Twentieth Century http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ammemrr.pl?title=%3ca+href%3d%22%2fammem%2fcollections%2fchautauqua%2findex.html%22%3eTraveling%20Culture:%20Circuit%20Chautauqua%20in%20the%20Twentieth%20Century%3c%2fa%3e&coll=tccc&default=award&dir=ammem —pfa t —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

That link doesn’t show the photo. What I was looking for was this. It shows that the photo was in a leaflet published in 1917. Since the photo was published in the US before 1923, the correct tag is {{PD-US}}. I fixed this photo for you; I'll let you fix her sister's photo. —teb728 t c 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Thanks.Pfa (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/February&oldid=1147982145"