Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/June

Image of Facebook

Can image which are available on Facebook be uploaded on wikipedia ?? Are they in public domian like those on Flicker???? Pl advice.Jethwarp (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally not. If the uploader added a free license such as public domain or cc-BY-sa-3.0 or the like then we could use it. But most facebook users would not do that. Even off Flickr you have to check that the license is a free one, and does not use -nd or -nc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Image link= parameter

Resolved

 – – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing this, and I believe it's against the CC-BY license of the image... At Harry potter#Origins and publishing history, there is an image of JK Rowling. I clicked on the link to check out the image information, but it instead took me to J.K. Rowling. I'm pretty sure this is "illegal" (perhaps too strong a word, but I certainly wasn't taken to any attribution of the image). Should I change the link= paramater to File:J. K. Rowling 2010.jpg? The article should be linked in the text. But... the article is a GA... so maybe I'm being stupid. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The link= should not have been there, but there was a link from the bottom of the photo. It may not have ruined the CC-BY attribution but it was close! The link to Rowling was in the caption, so not needed anyway. SO I removed it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks Graeme! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Image which is personal property

File:Moe Jaffe.png I don't see any category on the list of possible tags for images which fit. I chose Public Domain because that came closest. This image is personal property, taken of my father at our house about 55+ years ago. It was never copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apace361 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The physical photo is personal property; but that doesn't give you copyright in the image itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Information about who took the picture would be very useful. If it can be listed as a personal creation or public domain, it should be moved to Commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

CertusBank

I noticed File:CSBAT Logo.jpg used in another article was Fair Use, so now that the bank no longer exists, is it acceptable to use the former bank's logo in a history section of the bank that took over when the former bank failed?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, somebody owns the property of the failed bank, which would include intellectual property such as the copyrights and trademarks; whoever that may be, they would now be the owners of the rights involved, which continue to exist just as they did before the company went under. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears all that applies to CertusBank.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm considering the lack of action to mean what I did was acceptable.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

editing a book of interviews and would like to include some images from Wikipedia

I am editing a book of interviews and would like to include some images from Wikipedia. The interviews were all conducted by volunteers and we are "self publishing" the book with XLibris, using a grant from Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (of Friends). Can I use these images or would it be a violation of copyright laws? If it is necessary to get permission from the copyright holder, how do I get his/her address? Thank you! <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.171.61 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the image: If you click on a photo you are interested in, it will take you to an image description page, which has information about the source and licensing. See WP:REUSE for more. —teb728 t c 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget there are more than 10 million freely licenced media files available on the commons while some images here a copyright, so you can't use them without breaching copyright. ww2censor (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

REF: File:Megan Henwood wiki copy.jpg

I am having problems understanding how best to upload this photo without contravening your copyright guidelines. The photo- File:Megan Henwood wiki copy.jpg - is a photo of the artist Megan Henwood which I am trying to attach to her page. The photo is owned by Dharma Records Ltd. I own Dharma Records Ltd and I am keen that this approved photo is used before another contributor adds a non-approved photo. Please could you suggest how I best approach tagging the photo and how to complete an acceptable rationale? Many thanks Riverman48 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Megan Henwood is a living person, a photo for the purpose of showing what she looks like would have to be licensed under a free license, i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything. You need to license it as described at WP:IOWN. —teb728 t c 01:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To explain further: The only permission that Wikipedia accepts is a free license. Any image which does not have a free license must comply with Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy, one point of which is that non-free content is used only if a free replacement is not possible. Since Ms Henwood is living person, someone could take a free photo of her and upload it under a free license.

BTW, even if you are first to place an image her on the article, that wouldn’t prevent someone from replacing your photo with a more encyclopedic image. —teb728 t c 01:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Using images/names in creative works

I am wondering about creating works that incorporate actual names or images. For example if I were to write a fictional story or novel with references to an actual band, or write a comic which shows a poster for a band on a wall, or a picture of someone reading an issue of a real magazine etc - would legal permission to use such images/references need to be obtained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethonomix (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While we do not and cannot offer you any legal advise, your examples will likely depend on how prominent the use of any copyright image is, so you should read De minimis and also talk to an intellectual property lawyer. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Licensing for specific sizes only

Resolved

 – – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I only saw one instance of this somewhere—I can't find the image now, unfortunately—and I've wondered about it since. A 500x500 (example size) recently-photographed (not PD) image was licensed CC-BY(-SA) and uploaded to Commons, attributed and licensed properly. At a much later point in time, someone, somehow, gets their hands on the same image, only much higher resolution and uploads it to the same filespace. Another user comes along and reverts the upload with the rationale: "License applies to smaller version only." I don't recall any further details, like the source of the image (if the larger image was on Flickr, licensed CC-BY, and the source URL updated, I assume this wouldn't have been a problem). So my question is: is this true? Are licenses size- and/or resolution-specific? I actually cannot find information on this at the Creative Commons website. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

PS – didn't find any info on this in the archives either, searching under "license 'specific size'", with and without quotes. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The license is on the original file, and since it is a free license, it includes the permission to create a derivative work of the original file. The license does not apply to a different version which could not have been derived from the original. A derivative could crop or resample the original, but either would make the derivative smaller. —teb728 t c 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, so to see if I get it: only the licensed image and its derivatives are licensed. An absolute original version of the image, much larger in size and resolution, cannot be "derived" from the licensed image and, hence, is not licensed. This brings up a follow-up question: can a photographer license a small (larger than a thumbnail) image CC-BY for free use, but the high-resolution version of the image can still be used for the artist's own purposes, like printing and selling? (The licensed version wouldn't be of high enough resolution to print in a large format.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. -Seidenstud (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea. Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-record

At WT:FSC there is some debate occuring at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Template:PD-US-record as to whether {{PD-US-record}} is a valid license. This has led to a suspended nomination at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/William Tell Overture (symphony).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Images in Wikipedea for reuse on bookcover

I viewed an article about Osama Bin Ladin and wanted to use the two pictures in it on my bookcover. I am an author and my book is called The Patriot Acts. My publisher( I am self publised) Authorhouse told me that I have to have persmission to recreat any images on my bookcover. My email is -redacted-. My name is Robert L. Glover Jr. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.16.49 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Click the pictures and you should be taken to the picture description pages, where you can check that the copyright is suitable for you. the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported will need you to attribute all the people who made the image, for example in File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg it is (Saki) and a statement of that CC license. File:Osama bin Laden watching TV at his compound in Pakistan.jpg is somewhat controversial but is claimed to be public domain. Materials from Afghanistan have no copyright and if you can show it was published there you are free to do as you wish in the USA. Some other countries may have different rules. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedure to gain copyright on image

I have 3 recent images of a living person to add to their wiki page, but I am unsure exactly on how I do this.

I have permission from the person to do this, and she is the copyright holder of the images I wish to upload.

Do I upload the images first to wikipedia, then have her send the permission email (from the wiki template) to wikipedia?

Or do I gain permission first, and then upload the images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiman (talk • contribs) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See the links at Wikipedia:Images#Requesting_images_from_others. Essentially, they need to fill out a declaration of consent to license their images for free use. They can email it to you, and you can forward it—along with a link to the uploaded image—to OTRS. It's all explained really well in the links provided. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand, I was unsure on the order on how to do things, thanks very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiman (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Society logo

The British Maternal and Fetal medicine Society have a logo that is on their website, www.bmfms.org.uk. We want to use this logo on their wiki page, but I'm not sure what to do about copyright tagging

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffal (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You did a good job on File:Bmfms.jpg except that you might want to increase the resolution a bit, for it looks pretty grainy on the article. —teb728 t c 10:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded File:Logo of British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society.svg to take care of that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged File:Bmfms.jpg as a replaced orphaned image. ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would a movie poster go under?

The article for Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out? needs a picture for the infobox, and since other movies have a promotional poster as their infobox pic, what should I upload it under? Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Following the example of The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) poster, I would use {{non-free poster}} for the tag and {{film poster fur}} for the non-free use rationale. Is that what you wanted to know. —teb728 t c 06:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Licensing photo

File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Polo Piatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Wikipedia editor (user: Voceditenore) suggested I contacted you with my query for help. My husband (user: Magiko) posted on Wikipedia a photograph (File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg) in an article about himself (the article is called Polo Piatti). Since that photograph was taken by myself, I need to give him official authorization to use that photo and so avoid problems with regards to copyright. Can you please help me by letting me know how to do this? Many thanks for your help. Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

One way to do this is the replace the whole bit under licensing with {{cc-by-sa-3.0|User:Zaza888}}, and make the statement that the upload was permitted by you, underneath the summary header put in that you took the photo, name yourself if you wish, and also the date of the photo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot of Google Maps output

This is a screenshot of an image produced using Google Maps from [1]. Does taking a screen capture of a Google Maps application on a government website constitute an original work that can be given over to the public domain? Part 2. Restrictions on use. of Google's Maps/Google Earth's Terms of Use states:

"you must not ... (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;"

Don't want to set a bad precedent. Thanks. TimL (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't allow google maps screenshots or derivatives here. A screenshot does not grant a new copyright, and the original conditions still apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:UK_Cover_of_The_Son_of_Neptune.jpg

File:UK_Cover_of_The_Son_of_Neptune.jpg This file is scheduled for deletion in approximately one week. What should I add to the file information? Mamujeeb97 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to include a non-free rationale that explains what article the image is being used on, its source, and the reasons why you are justifying the use of this image. The given link has templates you can use to do that, but these are not required. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I start a non-free use rational for you using {{book cover fur}}, but I could not provide the Purpose field. The Purpose should explain why use of a second book cover significantly increases reader understanding beyond the use of the first. —teb728 t c 22:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo of a book

Can a photo of a page in a 21st century printing of a classic work such as (File:Jekyll-Hyde Page.jpg) still be subject to copyright? The question is if a modern printing can still be copyrighted because of the typographical arrangement of the text, or other reason. The question assumes that the author has been deceased for more than 100 years and/or meets one of the other requirements, such as being published in the United States prior to 1923. It also assumes that the photo is not of newly added material such as notes, introduction, etc., and is of the original, unchanged, and unabridged text. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

the UK does allow for copyrighting typesetting (with a fairly short term though). Not sure about the US though.©Geni 02:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What about a photo/screen capture from the version of Moby Dick available online at this website?

Here's my issue: I'd like to use a picture of a professionally published work as the lede image at the article, List of common English usage misconceptions. It can't be just any page; I'd want to pick one that shows as many of the misconceptions (debunked) together as possible. Ideally, it would be a version published after the 1930s so single sentence spacing is visible. What's the best way for me to do that without violating copyright laws? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with file at backlog

File:Dougbesterman.jpg This file appears to have started as a free-use image. Someone other than the original uploader has replaced it with a non-free one. Not sure I can revert since I'm not an admin. Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked, but the earlier one was a copyright violation too, a crop of an image at http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/06/doug-besterman-new-king-of-orchestrations/ [2]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible attribution problem

I don't know anything about these things, so I may be wrong, but when taking a picture of a picture, reasonably the copyright stays with the originator of the picture, right?

In which case, File:Wimborne_Minster_9.jpg has the wrong copyright information. I asked the author [3], but didn't receive a response. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We should probably wait a bit long for LordHarris to reply, but otherwise it should be nominated on Commons: the original licensing issue has not been dealt with to a satisfactory level. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Henderson photo

Hi, I'd like to upload this photo for usage at Bruce Henderson under a fair use rationale. Do you think it is OK to do so? Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC) That was me missing a tilde. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

John Edwards photo

What non-free criteria would this photo fall into?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 13:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you plan on using it? I think you'd have an uphill battle with that one. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it is an AP photo, the photo itself would have to be the subject of sourced commentary (which I cannot imagine happening). Otherwise it would be speedily deleted under F7. —teb728 t c 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

how to verify copyright is ok

Hello, I would like to use this image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concavité-kheops-photo.jpg on my website, editorial use. The image page says to verify the license is correct - I have no idea how do to this. Please help. I can see that the image is supposed to be from a book published in 1930 by a Belgian who died in 1947. Thank you for your help. Sincerely. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How you prove it is to show that all the facts claimed are correct. The death date is 63 years ago, so you need to find out first where the book was published, then you can determine which country's law applies. If 1947 falls within the public domain expiry then confirm that the image was in the book, and that the author died then. The copyright notice looks to mean that the copyright holder has released the rights somehow. If the work has not entered public domain then you will have to be satisfied that whoever now has the rights to the image has released them, and I would not be persuaded by that commons notice as there is no OTRS, no statement of who released the copyright or any further evidence of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme Bartlett for the answer. I will not use the image, since I need to have the book to do this. But I very much appreciate the explanation. Sincerely. 207.107.246.140 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues on a photo of my deceased ancestor

I want to upload a photograph of my great grandfather, to add it to the page (Edward Ingram (1890-1941)) I have already created for him. This photograph is of one of several I have of him. The photographer is unknown, but it was taken 70 to 80 years ago.

I am the sole possessor of the photo. It was given to me by a second cousin (now deceased).

I uploaded a different image of him earlier – titled “Maurice Ingram.jpg”, and it was deleted (within the seven day rule), because "the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." That was a photo of a painting of him, and so I may not have fully clarified copyright copyright issues.

When I went to upload the photo of him, today, I had to (again) specify "Licensing". But I don't know which of the items on the list apply in my case. When I chose "I do not know the licence?" it seemed to take me into a loop I don't understand.

Which item on the "Licensing list" apply in this case?

Peter71947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter71947 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So the picture was taken in the UK by an unknown person. {{PD-UK-unknown}} on commons will fit the situation. (assuming it was taken pre 1941) The photographer does not have to be known. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I have uploaded the photo, and chose 'Creative Commons Attribution 3.0' for the Licensing list. It is now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Ingram.jpg.

And I was amazed - I was able to link the photo 'Edward_Ingram.jpg' to the page 'Edward Ingram (1890-1941'!!!

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter71947 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Image status questions

• File:Holy Wood logo.jpg This is listed here as not free and "not replaceable" with free media. But go to Commons and it has a free license. What's the status of the image?
• File:Megg.jpg This seems to be a working band but the image is not a free one.

Both of the articles these are attached to are GAs. Thanks, We hope (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged File:Megg.jpg for deletion because it is clearly replaceable per WP:NFCC#1. and should never have been accepted in a GA. In my mind File:Holy Wood logo.jpg does have some claim to originality and should not be on the commons, however other appear to disagree. ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll leave it to all of you to decide the file's status here and notify Commons if need be. Thanks again, We hope (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a freely licenced Flickr image of The Killers. Not as good but proves the non-free is replaceable. ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Another big thank you!! We hope (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just went through the article's changes and there was a free use image from Commons in the infobox that was replaced by the non-free one. We hope (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally Owned Photographic Portrait of Deceased Ancestor

Am I able to grant free use to Wikipedia for a photograph of my deceased grandfather?

To the best of my knowledge and belief, said photo was taken by an unknown professional photographer for my grandfather's personal use circa 1945. If so, what category should I use when uploading that photo as an image? The original was in his Estate, and passed to me long ago as personal property.

Thank you for your help with this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Toll Jr (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the article involved, it could depend on whether you have any siblings who might jointly own the intellectual property involved. The photo sounds like a work-for-hire job, so the photographer wouldn't have any rights. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I have already spoken to all siblings about this and gained their consent for use on Wikipedia.

Could you suggest the proper Creative Commons (or other) category to select for a photo such as this?

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Toll Jr (talk • contribs) 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} with an attribution. But if you don't want any attribution, you can use {{CC-zero}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking this is an American photo we're discussing? If not, some of the above advice might not necessarily apply. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, this is an American-produced photo of an American citizen. How, then, does this fact affect the advice given above? Thank you for your interest and comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Toll Jr (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know so much about US copyright laws. The above advice is probably correct for American photos, but in the UK, for example, a self-employed photographer normally retains copyright of his/her work, and permission would be required to reproduce it (unless explicitly agreed otherwise when the photo is commissioned or purchased). Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

King Conquer(band) Picture

I have permission to use a picture for a Wikipedia page, and it's still up for speedy deletion? Could you please explain what I am supposed to do? Erikwnilsson (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to have a license for every one not just for Wikipedia. So permission for Wikipedia only is not enough. Our fair use criteria would not allow non free pictures of a band, since someone could take a free photo at a performance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

First please link to the image File:King Conquer Band Member Picture.jpg so we don't have to go rooting around for it. Anyway, the image was initially uploaded without any copyright licence and then you added a non-free copyright tag but under the non-free policy we don't accept images that are replaceable with free ones. King Conquer are still an active band so the image is replaceable. If you can get the permission of the copyright holder to release the image under a free licence, not just Wikipedia use as Graeme states, we will be able to keep it. Ask them to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, otherwise it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't technically need permission. No one actually "owns" the picture. So, what am I suppose to do?Erikwnilsson (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoever took the photo would own the copyright (or their employee or assignee). Why do you think you have permission? And what does this permission permit? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is claiming ownership of the photo. The lead singer of the band, James Mislow, said it was alright if I used it for the wiki page. Erikwnilsson (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Did Mislow take the photo himself? Isn't he in the photo? Whoever took the photo owns a copyright on it whether they claim ownership or not. Wikipedia cannot use it without permission, and Wikipedia will not use it without permission that allows reuse by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what would you like me to do, then? How do you want to me to give proof that I have permission from the photographer? Erikwnilsson (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please help me with this? Erikwnilsson (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you could ask James Mislow if he can help you contact the photographer to request the appropriate permission? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:John Hamer Ice Skating.JPG

Hey,

I'm really not sure what's needed for the copyright information for my file. I thought it'd been sorted but have received another message about lack of information about the picture...

John Hamer - the person who the image is of - has been given permission by the photographer to use the image as he sees fit. I'm publishing this image on behalf of John.

I'd be grateful if somebody could advise what's needed to make this image comply with Wiki copyright guidelines?

Thanks, Kris 132.185.240.120 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.120 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the image is attributed to some other then you, or the subject, you need to get the copyright holder verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Permission has apparently been received and verified. – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos from a federal prison

This photo is of an inmate in federal prison, while in federal prison. Would it therefore be considered public domain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reply, but for reference the photo is used at http://www.voiceforinmates.com/inmates/keithjudd11593051.htm —teb728 t c 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for images from non-free game (screenshots / characters) but under CC BY-SA license

Hello.

I am part of the team working on one game.

I would like to put article in Wikipedia regarding that game, but have problem with Screenshots / characters from game - those get removed because of "non-free image excessive use" and similar.

My question is:

• If we create /media page on Game site (promo).
• If all of media on that page is put under Creative Commons CC BY-SA license

Is all above enough to call images free and to include them in Wikipedia article?

Thanks.

Dejan.Vesic (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The game creators can release the screenshots under any license they want, and a free license like CC BY-SA is certainly acceptable on Wikipedia. Make sure not to tag the image as non-free-game-screenshot, but as cc-by-sa. --damiens.rf 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

LIFE and ZOG

Can i upload the picture of king zog? Its older than 70 years, please message me on my talkpage --Vinie007 14:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment to spare the regulars some extra searching: the question boils down to whether a LIFE Magazine issue from 1939 had its copyright renewed. I couldn't remember. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

David King

Hi, I have uploaded some photos which have been deleted and have problems because I do not fully understand the copyright, tagging and license requirements. file:king_spirit.png, file:king_mirror.png, and file:david_king_leona.png. How can I best try to address these problems? Should I try to reload the same pictures and address the issues? Or should I ask for them to be undeleted? I know who owns the copyright and have their agreement for them to be reused. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiemorgan1969 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have permission from the copyright holder they must send us verification of that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, and the images may be restores when the WP:OTRS team add a ticket to the images. ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Central City Rollergirls Logo.png

Hello,

The subject line refers to the logo of a non-for profit sports team I belong to. Howvere I have had a message about an appropriate copyright tag - can you help to advise what action is appropriate here?

Thanks Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenordidge (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added an appropriate non-free use rationale and copyright template, and removed the copyright tag. – ukexpat (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos for Actors

I've had 3 actors contact me personally asking for their photos to be replaced on their pages. The photos they gave me are headshots, and therefore can't call under common use. Is there a way for me to put these under a non-free use copyright for their pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyUranus (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Because they are living people, we cannot use non-free media of the actors. However, you can ask them to release these photos in a license compatible with WP, as outlined at WP:Requesting Copyright Permission, in which either they or you send the email chain to the OTRS to affirm the permission and license for free use here. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, by them giving their consent to use the images under a free licence, We do that by having them verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Advise them the permission must come from the copyright holder, which may not be the subject of the photo, unless it is a work for hire and they own the copyright. Permission must allow derivative works and commercial use, otherwise it will not be free enough for us to use. Also review WP:PERMISSION. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr. Luis Alberto de Herrera.png

in this files uplaoded by kineto007 called Dr. Luis Alberto de Herrera.png has wrong information, and this image its copyright by GETTY and TIME & LIFE , his author its Mr Prston and not techera like kineto007 says, and is not token in 1937 ,

http://www.life.com/image/50456490

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/50456490?esource=life_license&Language=en-US#

JuanMacondo (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I tagged it as a copyvio on Commons. —teb728 t c 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Haley Reinhart Page-Picture

Hi There! I was just wandering if I can have your permission to add a picture to the Haley Reinhart page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiponi (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a photo you took yourself or which is licensed under a free license? (That's the same answer as when you asked the same question on 26 May.) —teb728 t c 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful "own work" status on music file / possible abusive user

The following file (15_-_Hot-Head_Bop.ogg), as used on Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, is listed as being the uploader's own work. Since the user's info/discussion pages show no clues as to his/her identity and indicate prior abuse of (or simple confusion regarding) copyright/usage status on files, this is probably erroneous.

File:15 - Hot-Head Bop.ogg

I'd rather not assume the user is being intentionally abusive, but judging by their history, I'm suspicious. G-Flex (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adventist Church

see the media section. Should the logos be there? bW 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Administrative note: was filed on WP:CP but I do believe this concerns only the media. Resubmitted here on behalf of the original submitter. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be used as decoration and the non-free media rationale does not really give an explanation why they should be an exception to the WP:NFCC. One of the images doesnt have a rationale and I suspect all three would fail NFCC#8 as decorative images. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolving deleted picture/copyright/licensing issues

Hi, I would like to resolve some problems I have had uploading photos which have been deleted or will be deleted because I did not understand the copyright/tagging and licensing requirements. I think I more properly understand the issues now and would like to know if I need to request undeletion or if I can simply start afresh uploading the same photos but with all the correct licensing/tagging information? Thank you.--Maggiemorgan1969 (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if the pictures came from other people or web sites. Since these are not your creations it is more difficult to prove a license, and we need proof from the actual web site or copyright holder that the license is a free suitable one. So please think about how a free license can be proved. If you use the system in WP:Permit the OTRS volunteer can get undeletion to happen. Otherwise if we restore now it is not looking to hopeful at this point. If you already have all the permission lined up you can request undeletion yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You uploaded File:King mirror.png File:King lewis.png File:King cirque.png File:King solent.jpg File:King spirit.png If any of these are your own pictures then you can grant the license yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Maps and Public Domain in Indonesia

According to Article 14 letter c. of the 2002 Indonesian copyright law, there is no copyright infringement for "repetition, either in whole or in part, of news from a news agency, broadcasting organization, and newspaper or any other resources, provided that the source thereof shall be fully cited." I wish to upload a map from the magazine Tempo, in 1998 (I have not uploaded it yet as I am not sure of the copyright status). Would it be considered public domain under the 2002 law? Why or why not? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A map is not news; it is a graphic image, and thus does not fall under the exemption you describe. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, a map consisting of all free images (i.e. all from Commons) using the same information would be okay? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you assembled it yourself, yes, since the content is all acceptable. You'd have to make sure, though, that any restrictions on the images from Commons (attributions, etc.) are complied with. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, would that be "Based on map in Tempo, (date)" or would that have to be based on information in non-map form? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Images from Flickr

Hi Everyone ;) I was just wondering, would I be able to upload any of the following images onto Wikipedia, obviously to their appropriate article?

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

^ All images above, are licensed on Flickr as : Some Rights Reserved Sorry if this question comes up all the time :S -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• All four of the above are acceptable. They only require attribution, which is in accordance with the Creative Commons License we use. You should upload the pictures to Commons, so all Wikipedias can use them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the upload form. Be sure to understand the rules written there; not all images on Flickr are useable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Ec)The CC-BY license that these are marked by are very much compatible with WP for free images. In fact, I would recommend you upload these to Commons, which can be done easily with this webpage/bot [8] which only requires you register a Toolserver user-tracking account (your en.wiki account works as your commons account). But once you do that, you just have to give it the urls to the flickr pages, and it will pull everything else for you. Once on commons as an image file (say: File:FreeImage.jpg) you can use that like if it was an image file on WP itself. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh...I'm still a little confused :S Sorry -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is your first time, you may want to consider the upload form. The tool may be a little more advanced. (BTW: I'm bookmarking it; looks useful. Thanks Masem!) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the first time I have uploaded an image directly onto Wikipedia...I have never uploaded an image onto Commons...yes call me stupid :) but that for some reason to me, is a little advanced... -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want some help with it, contact me on my Talk Page. I'll help you with either method (tool or upload form). Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When you follow the link on "some rights reserved", you'll see the image's license. If it's either called CC BY or CC BY SA, it's ok to upload it here (and use the tags {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}). If it says something like CC BY ND, or CC BY NC, or actually anything containing ND or NC, we can't use it.

Just for the sake of the information, NC stands for non-comercial use only, ND for no derivative works allowed (both bad for wikipedia). BY is author attribution required and SA is share-alike, that is, derivative works should use the same license (both are ok for wikipedia). --damiens.rf 14:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to note at least one of them (7) was uploaded to commons in February File:Kingston Library, Victoria Australia .jpg by somebody else. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You everyone :) ! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

World War II photos

I have an album of pictures taken by my grandfather during the World War II. My grandfather took the pictures in Alaska while he was serving in the US Army Air Force. He was not acting in an official role as a photographer when he took the pictures. The pictures have never been previously published. My grandfather died in 2005. Can they be uploaded here, and, if so, under what license would they fall?Dsmdgold (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Use {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. Put your grandpa name's as author and something like "personal collection" as source. I believe as long as he was in his service time in Alaska, his photos are to be considered the work of a U.S. employee.

File information

Description	[what's on the photo]
Source	[your grandfather's name]'s personal collection.
Date	[try to date the photos. otherwise, just say 1940s]
Author	[your grandfather's name]
Permission (Reusing this file)

--damiens.rf 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have doubts about this. I don't think that pictures taken with a personally owned camera during off duty hours count as the work of US employee. I'm not even certain that picture taken while on-duty would count. Dsmdgold (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is the owner of those photos? In addition, I am not sure if the US military were not considered as US employee during off duty hours. That would be odd, especially during war time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, off duty in Alaska sounds like just his leisure time, but he was still working on a mission. --damiens.rf 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Are the photographs of the monuments in PD in the USA?

I found this file File:The Victims of Communism Memorial.jpg in Commons, however, I am not sure if that image can be there, because there is no freedom of panorama in the US, and the monument, which seems to be copyrighted, is the central part of the image. Is that correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct: sculptures on public display in the US follow normal copyright laws, so unless its old enough to have fallen into the PD, the photo of it cannot be PD. The image will have to be removed from Commons and if the uploader wants to believe it can be used for non-free here, it will need to be moved here. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Being a post-1978 sculpture the photo is a derivative work with no freedom of panorama exception per commons:COM:FOP#United States. Because it is a non-free image it should be tagged for deletion on the commons and uploaded over here if there is a real need for an image in the article about the memorial in which case it will require a fair-use rationale and must comply with all 10 non-free policy criteria. It is usually acceptable to use one non-free image in such articles but its use in Mass killings under Communist regimes is not likely to be acceptable under WP:NFCC. The other image in the gallery of Victims of Communism Memorial is likely unacceptable as a second non-free image in the same article. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, this issue has been already discussed there[9], and the result was "keep". As far as I understand the rationale, this monument is a replica of the statue erected by the students on the Tianamen Square, and, being the derivative work, has no own copyright. In connection to that, my question is whether the artworks made by unknown authors, or the artworks that have not been explicitly released in PD by their authors are in PD?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?

Hi, I'm quite new hear and I was about to create a new article here for which requierd an image, so searched web but I dont know about the copyright terms. Can anybody suggest if I can upload this or not? Below is the link. http://www.bcelectrician.com/star_delta_starter_230x314.jpg

Shriram 07:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramajois (talk • contribs)

There is nothing to lead us to believe that that illustration is not fully copyrighted; so, no. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

is there a limit on the amount of pictures?

Is there a limit on the amount of images allowed to be added to a page? Is there a way to add a photo gallery? 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusquehannaCommunications (talk • contribs)

Although your on the wrong page for such question, I'll still answer. The answer to your first question is: no. The answer to the 2nd question is: yes. You can create a gallery by doing this:

<gallery> File:Example.jpg|Caption1 File:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery>

Doing that will give you this:

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

Hope this helps! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• While there is no numerical limit on the number of pictures, please review WP:NOTIMAGE. We are not a repository of images, but an encyclopedia, and our articles should reflect that. If you have a minimum amount of text and eighty images, someone's going to challenge that sooner or later.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• For non-free images there is also a limit that you can't use more non-free images than are needed for user understanding. And you can't use non-free images in a gallery without an exceptionally good reason. —teb728 t c 22:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I use images of faculty from a Universities website to post on wiikipedia?

I have an image of a professor that I obtained from the Faculty page on the University of Memphis website. Can I use images of faculty from a Universities website to post on the wiikipedia page I am creating about that professor?--Najamirah (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not unless that website is un-copyrighted; which is not true of the U of M website: "Copyright 2011 University of Memphis". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If, however, you personally know the professor, you can take your own personal camera, take a picture of him or her, and upload it to Wikipedia under an appropriate license. This is how nearly every single photograph (with a few, very complicated and rare exceptions) is supposed to be used at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I do it right?

Please check that I made the right additions to the photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ruth_Maier%27s_parents.jpg Thank you. Ann M. Altman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annmaltmanphd (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture on the right is pretty clearly clipped from a magazine or book of the era, and thus is not something you can license yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Can I upload a Screen Shot image?

I attended a public event and trying to upload a screenshot image from an arena. Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdm2011 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "screenshot"? Is this a frame or screenshot from a video you personally recorded on your own camera? If so, you should be in the free-and-clear. If this is a screenshot from a broadcast of the event, which was part of, say, a copyrighted TV show, then no, you cannot. So, what is the nature of your screenshot? --Jayron32 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lauren Bush.jpg

Resolved

 – – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an old upload, so my question may not even be relevant per WP:AGF. Currently, it's licensed CC-BY 3.0 Unported, but the source image is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 US. I couldn't find when the US license was even instated, though citation #6 of Creative Commons licenses shows a 2009 date, and the US-specific license may be that new (or around then). To take into consideration, the photographer doesn't seem to release the high-resolution image unless personally contacted. So the image may have been emailed to the uploader with the Unported license agreement, but OTRS wasn't involved. What does one do in this situation? Assume good faith? Or contact the photographer and request assistance? My only concern—in that case—would be that the photographer may, not necessarily in bad faith, but just out of ignorance, request the license be changed to US-specific. (My understanding is that licenses cannot be revoked.)

My last question is, and if it doesn't relate to this image, then it's out of my own interest: if the license truly is US-specific, then does that mean it cannot be used on non-US Wikis?

Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany license

I guess I don't understand these country-specific CC licenses. File:Peter Lax in Tokyo.jpg is licensed BY-SA 2.0 Germany. Does that mean it can still be shared and remixed and used anywhere? Or not outside of Germany? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Germany version means only that the legal code (wording) has been accomodated to the specifics of the copyright law of Germany. It's a true BY-SA license. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, that makes it easy then. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighting a picture I took myself

I was just wondering how to copyright a picture I took from my own camera? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.157.246 (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright is automatic, you don't need to do anything. In some countries you can register copyright, but it is unlikely that you need to. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You acquired a copyright just by taking the picture. The copyright means nobody can use it without your permission. Unless the subject is someone else's copyrighted work, you can license it under a free license like {{ cc-by-3.0}} (which means anybody can use it for anything as long as they credit you, and which is probably what you meant to ask about). Login to Commons and upload your photo using Commons: Special:UploadWizard. —teb728 t c 08:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Youth Club International.jpg

this file is my own work I created it on Adobe Photo Shop therefore I am whole sole owner of this Logo therefore I have full rights to use this logo therefore please remove the tag of source problem.

Best Regards, --Faizanalivarya (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to indicate that on the file information page. If the information is not on the file information page, then there is no way that anyone can know this stuff. You should also probably verify that you own the copyright, see WP:IOWN for more details. --Jayron32 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if you fix the source problem of this image it may be rather academic exercise because the image is dependent on the four-times deleted article Youth Club International. This is enough reason to nominate it for deletion because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mere of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles per WP:NOTIMAGE. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Kamalapuram, Mudigonda, Khammam dist

Kamalapuram is one of the famous village in Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District in Andhrapradesh, India, Vanam Narasinga Rao is ruled as president over 30 years Unanimously. The village have historic temple Ankamma where festival conducts every year on Holi, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravibkumar007 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you want Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:USpat1358358paravane1920waterkitecontrollable.jpg - wrong tag?, how to correct

File:USpat1358358paravane1920waterkitecontrollable.jpg is tagged as free due to it being a work of the US government but the image is from a patent application of 1920 which I believe means the tag is incorrect and a different one is required. The image is a copy from Commons but the uploader no longer appears to be active to query. Can I just replace the tag with what I deduce is a better one? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct so if you are sure of the proper tag to use for the image, refine the licence on the commons image over there. ww2censor (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Allu-arjun.jpg

Someone has uploaded an unacceptable copyright image over the previously existing properly licensed image. Can someone revert back?Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change, will be deleting the copyrighted image momentarily. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Australia Denmark Locator.png

I updated this article on my own computer, but apparently forgot to declare whom was the original editor, I am not sure how to search back to find whom he was, will someone please do so for me, and figure out how to post it? File:Australia Denmark Locator.png, also the image you see is what it should be, the image after you click on it is the old one, please help me with that to — Phoenix500 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2011 (PDT)

The problem is that you have uploaded your new image both over an existing image here, that was already being used, and also uploaded it again to the commons using the same name. This is something you should not do, but upload your new image with a new name as it is a different image. I have reverted the image here. Your image most likely is derived from this commons public domain image commons:File:BlankMap-World6.svg. You should get the commons image renamed by adding the commons template commons:Template:rename with the new suggested name and reason to the commons image. Then use the one you need in an appropriate article. ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: Phoenix500's version is just an improved version of Groubani's, showing essentially the same thing but adding the Danish territory in Greenland and the Australian territory in Antarctica. —teb728 t c 05:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Either way it should be on the commons under the same free licence as the base image. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog file question

File:Gabrielle Giffords recovery photo.jpg is in backlog with a non-free tag. The identical file is on Commons with a free use, work of USG tag. Should the license be changed to that of the Commons image or since it's available there, does the file need to be deleted here? Thanks, We hope (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This photo is an AP photo per the NY Times, and the (orphaned) photo itself is not plausibly the subject of sourced commentary. So the local copy should be speedily deleted per F7. —teb728 t c 00:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Attribution

I am creating an article about a transform that we developed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edw987/Ciaccio_Transform). It is mostly taken from an open access article that we just published (see http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter) and I cited it per the instruction at that link:

1.^ a b c Ciaccio EJ, Biviano AB, Whang W, Coromilas J, Garan H. A new transform for the analysis of complex fractionated atrial electrograms. BioMed Eng OnLine. 2011;10:35. The right to use, reproduce or disseminate this research article in whole or part is granted by BioMed Central - The Open Access Publisher, provided that no substantive errors are introduced in the process, and proper attribution of authorship with correct citation details are given.

The images uploaded so far:

File:Spec0ec.jpg

File:Spec1ec.jpg

are blank test images but I will overwrite them with real images. Can you tell me what the license should be if we use actual images from the article - they must be attributed. Or I can create new images (may do this anyway in the final version). Thank you. .--Edw987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edw987 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The images would have to be licensed under a free license—one that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. I can’t tell if the BioMed Central Open Access Charter permits derivative works; it looks like it doesn’t. (BTW, if the article is to be published here, it must be licensed under WP:CC-BY-SA.) —teb728 t c 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop DEL of uploaded photo of Federal Courthouse, Natchez, Mississippi-before restoration work was done

I ask why is my photo being DEL? I am new to Whkipedia. I thought I gave ALL the information on a photo I up loaded for the page on the Fedearl Courthouse in Natchez, Mississippi. I stated that I took the photo. I own the photo. I gave information about the photo. Before the photo is taken away I hope to understand why it is going to be DEL. What did I do wrong? The photo shows a disputed World War I photo as it was before restoration work was done. It is key to the history of the converted Memoral Hall, Natchez,Mississippi. Help me understand this and be a better writer. Shane505 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag. Someone needs to manually remove it. I did not add it, but anyone can remove it (in good faith) if the problems have been fixed. Since the problems were fixed, the deletion tag can be removed, which I have done. In the future, if you see this, first fix the problems (as you did) then you can remove the tag yourself. --Jayron32 02:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

While the deletion tag was removed I have added the source details in a normal template format we use, not in a prose statement. It looks good now, except that the metadata shows the image was taken on 2005 which may be the correct date or the camera may have had its date set inaccurately, so you may want to change the date. ww2censor (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help. As to the date of 2005 on the metadata, I have no idea how to change it and wonder if changing it might make it seem odd, like I was hiding something.

Shane505 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If the image was actually created in 2004, just edit the date in the information template of the image by clicking here, but I don't think it is possible to edit the metadata. ww2censor (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yasukuni Shrine

Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to publish the photo yusukuni shrine from the wikipedia website Yasukuni_Shrine in a book. Do I have to pay for it or will you grant me permission to do so. My email address is xxx

Thank you in advance for your support,

Homa Afsharian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homa Afsharian (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several images in that article. Which specific image are you interested in using? You should read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images and other media and also the linked commons article. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Using Dick Strawbridge his picture for the wikipedia page?

Hello.

I've noticed there is no picture of Dick Strawbridge on the Wikipedia page. Is it ok if i use a picture from a random google search of from his own website?

Regards, Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCaudron (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because most (probably all) of those are going to be copyrighted! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You may not use pictures other people have taken, but what you can do is use your own camera to take a picture of the person yourself, and then upload it to Wikipedia under the proper license. --Jayron32 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And if you do that, please upload it to Commons so that it can be used by all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Many Sides of Neil Sedaka

Hi, I was told to add a copyright tag to this image: File:The Many Sides Of Neil Sedaka.jpg, but I don't know how. Can someone please help me? Thanks, --JoBrLa (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

which tag?

Hi I uploaded an image I have made of William Gilbert Puckey's signature, from the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840-what would be the appropriate tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthod (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-NZ}} for the whole document as the writer died long ago, or {{PD-ineligible}} as a signature is too simple. This should go on commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Football club crests

I am working on the Dutch page of the Scottish football team Hibernian. I'd like to put the official club crest on there. The official crest is already portrayed on the English, German and French pages of the club. But the description of the image that is used on the English page says the image is restricted to the use on the English page only. But when uploading an image I read that once Wikipedia is allowed to use an image on one page, it is free to be used on every page. What is the case here and how do I have to deal with this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.228.134 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to contact the people at the Dutch Wikipedia for their policy on the usage of copyrighted images. This is not strictly a foundational issue, and each Wikipedia establishes its own standards for using copyrighted images under "fair use" standards, up-to-and-including refusal to use any copyrighted images at all. Since this is handled locally, you need to find out what the standards are at the Dutch Wikipedia by contacting people there and/or reading their relevent policies and guidelines. --Jayron32 16:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What you refer to may be that if a file is uploaded to Commons under a free license, it can be used on any page. But File:HibernianFC crest.png is not on Commons--and can't be because it is not licensed. Even here on English Wikipedia it can't be used on every page, but only on the two for which a non-free use rationale has been provided. —teb728 t c 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Licensing

Hello, can an experienced user please determine the type of licensing that should be used for this image at http://www.screamscape.com/html/cw_-_windseeker_1.htm ? I want to upload it and use it in an article but I'm not sure what type of license its under. And also, can I even use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The page says all rights reserved, so it is not free, and cannot be loaded up here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Licensing 2

Hello, can someone once again review this website if the picture is allowed to be used on Wikipedia? Thanks! http://www.kicentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23358&st=1365 If you scroll down a bit, you'll find the photo... it says that WindSeeker is closed.--Dom497 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you should ask DiamondbackCMH who posted it there. DiamondbackCMH has not put any copyright license with the image so we cannot tell their intention. In the absence of information we must assume it is not free, and that copying is prohibited as is the default under copyright law. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For windseeker you may wish to consider [10] or [11]. If you go to google image search and pick advanced and select labeled for commercial reuse with modification you can find images that may be suitable for Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Files Tube

Files Tube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FilesTube

"FilesTube removes illegal content from its search results on request.[8]"

I wonder about their copyright policy. The last time I saw this language was on the Russian mafia music download sites.

I could be wrong and just not up-to-date. I haven't researched this company as I researched the music sites.

I didn't edit the article because I am not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glintofpewter (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This forum is for questions about images and other media on Wikipedia. If you have a specific proposal for the FilesTube article, you could discuss it at Talk:FilesTube. —teb728 t c 01:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

i got authorization to use the image on the article I created but not to share. What license do i use?

The photographer doesn't want it to become usable by anyone. I appreciate any help! thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaion (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but in that case the image is not freely licenced so we can't use it. ww2censor (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:VChernykhandBukreev.jpg, File:NikolaiGres.jpg, File:SIvanovPDBogachev.jpg

These image files, which have had valid fair-use rationales for some time, have been repeatedly removed in the past two days from Alexandrov Ensemble soloists. Some are sourced at this Japanese "Red Army" website, part of which has been temporarily disabled to save fuel during the fuel emergency which followed the recent tsunami and power station disasters. However the person running the website (who is also a Wiki editor) intends to reinstate all webpages as soon as the emergency subsides. Therefore it is inappropriate to say that the source is invalid.

So please explain why there is suddenly a problem with the rationales? Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We are not stating that there are issues with the source, please read WP:NFURG the guide to writing rationales. As it stands what you are calling a rationale is not a rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The images are non-free, which means that for every single use they need a proper rationale of why they are of use on the specific page they are displayed on. The rationale that is there does not make that clear at all, there is no mention of on which pages the image is used, only a generic why. Although addressed to the uploader, still, the image states "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use". That is (probably) all that is needed to solve the problem. The easiest way of making sure everything is fine is using {{Non-free use rationale}}. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do that tomorrow when broadband better in my village. Too slow today. Meanwhile please protect the 3 images from deletion due to being orphaned. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) (Note: this was done by me on 14 June 2011.)--Storye book (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

All three files have now been given an inappropriate copyright tag, which threatens deletion. Yet there was already a valid copyright tag, and another has since been added. Please remove the tag from the three files? Thank you. If there is anything I can do to improve this situation, please message me asap on my talk page; I don't want to miss your answer. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

use of images and contents

For my site, I would like to use few of your contents and images... My question is is there will be any copyright issue???

You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & Regards, Atul Pisal Ph : 9930616187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtulPisalSS (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Magic of Alphabates

condensed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks & Regards, Atul Pisal Ph : 9930616187 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ].[ ,~,	|.| |.| |.| |.| |.| |.| |.| |.| /~`-'~\ |_| ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ ]^[ (<| |>) ]0[ /~/^\~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ /~`-'~\ \|___|/ ,-`^'~\ {<| $ |>}{<| 8 |>}{<| 6 |>}{<| , |>}{<| 3 |>}{<| 7 |>}{<| 9 |>}{<| , |>}{<| 2 |>} {/ \} {<| |>} \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ \|___|/ /__1__\ \|,__|/ /\ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ | / \ | {/ \ /	__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ /__|__\ |/ \| /__|\/\	| / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | {} {} | / \ | (_| \) (/ \) (/ \) (/ \) (/ \) (/ \) (/ \) (/ \) (/ \) |) (| (/ \) / \ (| |) (| |) (| |) (| |) (| |) (| |) (| |) (| |) (| || || _|) (|_ .,.\_/,..,|,)(.|,.,|,)(,|,.,|.)(.|,.,|,)(,|,.,|.)(.|,.,|,)(,|,.,|.)(.|,.,|,)(,|,.,|.)(.|.,.|,)(.,|.,.|,.),.,. _ .-~\@/~-. / _|_ \ @\__/a@a\__/a a/ \_@_/ \@ \__/ \__/ `a\___/a' ATUL PISAL _ _a/AtulPisalSS (talk)\a_ / \___/ \ @\__/@a@\__/a `a/ \@g@/ \@' \_ Y _/' ~`=/@\='~ ATUL PISAL _,...,_ .'@/ \@'. // \___/ \\		\\__/ \__// `.a\___/a.' DAS `'""""` _,...,_ .'@/AtulPisalSS (talk)\@'. //~~\___/~~\\		\\__/AtulPisalSS (talk)\__// '.@\___/@.' DAS `"""""` ___ _.-'___'-._ .'--.` `.--'. /.' \ / `.\		| \|	\ | | | / '.'._.-'-._.'.' DAS '-:_____;-' ___ .:::---:::. .'--:  :--'. /.' \ / `.\		:::::| \|	\:| `|` |:/ '.'._.:::._.'.' DAS '-:::::::-' _...----.._ ,:':::::. `>. ,' |:::::;' |:::. / `'::'  :::::\ / _____ `::;\  : /:::::\ `  :		:::::: `::;' ,.  ; \:::' ,::::/ \ \:::/ `. ,:.  :;' `-.::::::.. _. ```---- , . ,,, . , ' \_ _ _ _ _ / ', "%%%`-. / \ .'%%%" " \%%%%%~/- . ___ . - \~%%%%%%/" "_ _|_ _ _/%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\_ _ _|_ _ " "/ |%%%%%\. -- AtulPisalSS (talk) -- . /%%%%%| \" " / /%%%%.-~\ /~.%%%%%\ \ " " / /%%%%/ \_ _ _ _ _ / \%%%%\ \ " " \ .'%%%%/ / \ \%%%%`-. / " ". - \~%%%%%/ / /"> \ \%%%%%%~/-._ " " %%%%%\____|____ / TRICO(//ORE \ _ _|_____ /%%%%%" " - . /%%%%%| \ =// / |%%%%%%\ . - " " /~.%%%%%\ \ / /%%%%%.-~\ " " _ / \%%%%\ \_ _ _ _ _ / /%%%%%/ \_ " " \ \%%%%`-. / \ .'%%%%%/ / " " \ \%%%%%%~/- . ___ . - \~%%%%%%/ / " " \ _ _|_ _ _ /%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\_ _ _| _ _ / " " |%%%%%%\. -- AtulPisalSS (talk) -- . /%%%%%| " " /%%%%%.-~\ /~-.%%%%\ " -ATUL- " %%%/ \ _ _ _ _ _/ \%% " " , , " " . ,,,, . " _,aaadP""""""Ybaaaa,,_ ,adP,__,,,aaaadP"""""Y888888a,_ ,a8888888P" "Y8888888b, _a888888888" `Y88888888b, ,d888888888P' "888888888b, ,88888888P"Y8, ,P' `""Y888b, ,d8888P"' "Ya, ,P' `Ya`b, ,P88"' `Ya, ,P' `b`Yi d",P `"Y, ,P' `Y "i ,P' P' "888888888888888b `b "i ,P' d' d8888888888888888b `b `b d' d' ,888888888888888888b I, Y, ,f ,f ,88888888888888888888b `b, b d' d' d888888888888888888888b ,88,I ,P 8 ,88888888888888888888888b,_ ,d8888 d' 8, d8888888888888888888888P'`"Ya,_ ,d88888 8 d88b, ,adP""Y888888888888888888P' `""Ya, d88888P 8 ,88888b, ,adP"' `"Y8888888888888"' `"888888I Y,88888888b, ,adP"' ""Y888888P" 888888' `888888888888P' ""YP" 888888 I88888888888 8 88888I `Y8888888888 8 88888' `Y888888888 Atul000 8 8888I `Y88888888 Pisal000 8 8P"8' `Y8888888, 8 ,d',d' `b""""Y8b 8 ,d" ,d' "b, "Y, 8 ,P" ,d" "b, "Ya,_ ,d88ba,,___ _,aP" ,P" "Ya_ ""Ya,_ _,,ad88888888888888P"' _,d" `"Ya_ ""Yaaad88888888888888888888P _,d"' `"Ya,_ "Y888888888888888888P",d"' `""Ya,__`Y888888888888888P""" ``""""""""""""" _ajjaa _Q???4Qf _,...,_ ) a/]QQb .'@/AtulPisalSS (talk)\@'. jQQba //~~\___/~~\\ _, .?QQ#[ _	]m _.7 "asLaas_a/	, ,\J#L -!4Wba \\__/AtulPisalSS (talk)\__// [aL[ \ \jmm jP '.@\___/@.' ,b#'"[ \jmmmmm _P. `"""""` a##' "4P#mmm# _ya _P !4####m  ?]aa/ /' aaJ#U###m# 4QP' ' aa,/4!44! ' jf _'jQQQQyb7b / '. '.QQQQ4QQPb )? QQQ'QQP?' jg/ f _yQP']QQb aa a#W?'..QQQQ?)?  ?' "##' _jQQP' .j? [ jQQ' aJ jmaaX#L???  ? am' _QjQQQ/ )QQQP? 4QQQ/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AtulPisalSS (talk • contribs) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DO you have a question we can help you with? --Jayron32 12:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I use a photo of the cover of a book I mention in my article

Can I use a photo of the cover of a book I mention in my article about the Japanese writer Tomoji Abe? It is a translation of his most important novel into Polish. It was published in 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnbreeze3000 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Usually book covers are only use in article about the book itself and not in author articles. This is because book covers are copyright, unless they are composed only of simple text and plain graphics, so they must comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria. BTW, please remember that it is not my article about the Japanese writer Tomoji Abe because you do not WP:OWN it. ww2censor (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Images from video captures

Hi,

Can I upload video captured images? Like I did right now the image of famous archeologist Victor Sarianidi File:Victor Sarigiannides.jpg.

I do click few images from my camera, how can I get the license for those images and upload on various articles of Wiki pages?

Thanks, Nitesh Nema (talk) Pune, MH, India

The copyright is that of the of the underlying medium. So you contact the copyright owner of the medium--probably the producer of the CD for the screenshot you mention. —teb728 t c 20:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because you captured a video does not give you any copyright to the image because someone else actually created it. Only when an image is freely licenced or you get the permission of the copyright holder, can we use it besides which non-free images of living people are not permitted except in very limited circumstances. ww2censor (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Jono: The Musical

I have added an image that apparently needs a tag. It is an image that I took myself of my friend for use in a musical that I am putting on. There is no outisde sources, so I own all rights to the image. Which tag should I give it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.putland (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Use {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, of course you have to genuinely mean to grant such a free to use license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of images from LIFE Magazine

Hi

I would like to add images to a Wikipedia English article taken from the website of the now defunct American LIFE magazine. The images were taken in 1939 - 1940 and are held on the official LIFE site which contains all the back issues, with the caption as below. Can you please tell me if it is acceptable to do this?

LIFE Magazine is the treasured photographic magazine that chronicled the 20th Century. It now lives on at LIFE.com, the largest, most amazing collection of professional photography on the internet. Users can browse, search and view photos of today’s people and events. They have free access to share, print and post images for personal use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godwhale (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately not, since that statement you have quoted isn't compatable with Wikipedia's lisencing requirements. Wikipedia's lisencing requires that pictures are availible for any use, without restriction, excepting those under Wikipedia's free content lisences GFDL and CC-BY-SA. In other words, Wikipedia can use pictures which are under lisences which are less restrictive than its own licences, but it normally does not allow pictures to be uploaded which are under more restrictive lisences than its own (including normal copyright law). The key clause in what you posted is "personal use". Republishing a picture in an encyclopedia is decidedly NOT a personal use. I should note, before someone beats me to it, that there are some highly confusing and restrictive exceptions to these principles, so that in rare instances an otherwise copyrighted picture can be used in a Wikipedia article, but these cases (known colloquially as "fair use" and covered at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) are rare and editors not extremely familiar with the principles at hand shouldn't upload pictures covered by them, as it always goes badly. --Jayron32 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, the life.com Terms of Use expressly prohibit you to “post, display, publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit” any of its content. —teb728 t c 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are known exceptions and some of LIFE's images fall within this category. If a photo was published and the publication took place between 1923 and 1963, and was published with a copyright notice, such as LIFE magazine, and if the copyright was not renewed within 28 years of publication, like so many LIFE images, they are in the public domain but you should check. You may find it useful to read User:Quadell/copyright page and/or this Cornell copyright page and also review the copyright details text in such images as this 1946 LIFE image. Such image would use this template {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I also recall seeing some LIFE file pages where the details of which years had been renewed was listed but cannot find it. Claiming copyright over public domain images is known as copyfraud and LIFE.com may just not be differentiating between published works and unpublished works that are copyright for different time periods with a blanket statement restricting use when that restriction can only apply to some images. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. My word, its awfully complicated. I makes me wonder if its all really worth the effort - the information on the exceptions is interesting but with so many if and buts how can I get a definitive view? The photographs are as usual with LIFE very good - it was an excellent magazine - and were taken in 1940 but I cannot be sure if they were published in the magazine. They all have the LIFE logo on them--Godwhale (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:RCA Studio II game console.jpg

Hello, I uploaded on commons this image file:RCA Studio II game console.jpg from flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/popculturegeek/5822685038) but only now I realize that in the page there are two licence specification: the usual flickr licence "commons by (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)" and under the photo this information: photo © 2011 popculturegeek.com What do you suggest to do with this image? Thank you --Arosio Stefano (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The © 2011 popculturegeek.com is telling us who owns copyright, the cc-by-2.0 license also tells us that the image is copyrighted but grants extra rights, so they are not inconsistent. The license tagging on the commons image is correct. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog file license question

File:Addamsfamilymusical.jpg Taken by uploader of the copyrighted poster. Free or non-free? Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Posters are non free if they are made in recent times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem from Kansas212

I uploaded a photo of Rebecca Black from Bing Images from the general form and stated it was from Bing Images. They still say it is copyright and I want to delete it now. Can you please delete it? I'm new to Wikipedia, and my two month anniversary is in two days. The page name is File:Rebeccablack.jpg. I hope you can delete it. Thanks! Kansas212 (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, File:Rebeccablack.jpg deleted. Next time you can add {{db-author}} to the file description. Hopefully no next time though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of images from the War Illustrated

Can you please clarify if photos from the War Illustrated, published weekly in Britain throughout WW2 are in the public domain? They published countless photos from numerous different sources, such as re-published photographs from news agencies and newspapers with captions such as courtesy of the Times, Daily Mirror etc. The only times where the photos expressly have copyright with them is where they have been taken by a British official, where it says Crown Copyright. The magazine itself makes no mention or claim of copyright elsewhere in its pages. The magazines were re-printed in collected book form in 2000 but there is no claim to copyright at all, only copyrighting the cover, which was original. This makes me assume the content is now in the public domain, at least in the UK. What do you think? I would very much like to be able to use some of the non- crown copyright images--Godwhale (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the crown copyright material will have the copyright expired by now (valid 50 years after publication) and is now public domain. If you can demonstrate that the photo is anonymous then it will expire copyright after 70 years, which would be stuff from 1940 or before, part of your scope. Also if a photo is not anonymous but has a known or knowable creator then you will have to know when the photographer died. You have to do more searching, such as looking at the newspapers where the pictures came from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading deleted photos again or requesting undeletion

Hi, I uploaded some pictures which were deleted because I did not fully understand what was required of me with regard to copyright. I now have the written confirmation that the copyright holder agrees to release the photos under free license and I emailed that on 15 June 2011 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. When I now try to upload them again I am being told that the 'File extension does not match MIME type'. Is this because they have been previously deleted? Should I be asking for undeletion instead? Thank you if you can help. Maggie--Maggiemorgan1969 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

'File extension does not match MIME type' means something like: you attempted to upload a png file but did not specify .png as the filename extension. I believe that if the filename you specified on the email matches the filename you used to upload the file to Commons, the OTRS volunteer will undelete the file. I have a concern, however, that Special:ListFiles/Maggiemorgan1969 shows you uploaded files with OTRS pending to English Wikipedia (not Commons); I am not sure if an email to permissions-commons will be co-ordinated with those files. —teb728 t c 20:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How to get to page to add photo copyright information?

Sorry if this is a silly question. I'm very new to this.

When I first put my picture on, the page had a bunch of drop down menus and choices for the copyright information, where it came from, and that sort of thing. Now, when I try to edit my picture to put the info in, I can't figure out how to get back to that page. Now it's just a big white box, and I don't know what info they want or how to put it in. How do I get back to the initial page with the nice, easy to figure out little menus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassieCalypso (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about File:2011 Director Chair Close-up.jpg that you uplaoded recently. You can't go back to the original upload page but the information you added appears to confirm this is a copyright image without a free licence. In that case you must get the copyright holder email us their permission by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If that permission is not forthcoming, the image will be deleted because it would fail our non-free content policy as Rachel White is living and therefore a freely licenced image is possible. You will find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote for editors like you. I am retagging the image a missing a copyright tag; what you added is insufficient. ww2censor (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:ConstantinVonDietze.jpg

I uploaded "File:ConstantinVonDietze.jpg" earlier today assuming that since I had found it on an open web page it would satisfy all fair use requirements for Wikipedia. I received a notification recently from ImageTaggingBot and realized that, as a new member, I do not know enough about Wikipedia to prove that it can be used. Therefore, I ask that Wikipedia deletes the file "File:ConstantinVonDietze.jpg " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joss.highmark (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Joss, thanks for your contributions. That image actually looks as if a valid "fair use" case under our rules for non-free content could probably be made for it. You'd only need to provide some information about where the image is from. The rest could be handled with the template {{Non-free fair use in}} and a brief explanation saying why it's necessary for the article and why we don't expect its use would infringe on somebody's commercial interests. (Don't worry, I can help with that rationale.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you blanked the image page so ImageTaggingBot has again tagged the image. If you intend the image to be deleted, you should add the template {{db-author}} and the image will be deleted quickly. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote for editors like you. ww2censor (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{Non-free fair use in}} template, source of the picture, and a (fairly weak) rationale for the picture's use. Please let me know what needs to be done next — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joss.highmark (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some fixes to File:ConstantinVonDietze.jpg: spelling the article correctly (Von->von; capitalization is significant), and providing the {{non-free fair use in}} tag (you didn't do that). The source you provided does not show the image: do you have a better source? And how were you planning to use the image in the article? (Knowing that may identify an improved rationale.) —teb728 t c 12:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You should add the image to the article, otherwise it will be deleted because non-free image cannot remain orphaned per the non-free policy. As you state the rationale is weak: Provide the viewer with a better understanding of who Constantin von Dietze was won't really pass muster but if you use it in the infobox stating that it is an identifying image of the deceased subject it will be acceptable. Oh, on an unreleated topic, you should avoid using ibid in references because if someone add another reference in between, the later idibs will look like they refer to the new reference. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the the photo to the top of the article and improved the rationale accordingly. (I also found how to display the photo at the given source.) —teb728 t c 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaceability

I am trying to fill out a Non-free use rationale template for File:LifeGen.JPG. This image is a screenshot of a game; the menus at the top of the screen are not relevant to the purpose of illustrating the game. The rest of the image consists of blue and red tiles on a gray grid. Something similar could be created in a simple paint editing program. Does this mean the image is "replaceable"? Should I replace it by a copy? Thanks for your help. --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really as to be encyclopedic it should be genuine and not a fabrication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Tags

Hi

I've just uploaded this image to Wikipedia - File:Revol MSP Cover.jpg. I got a message in my talk from ImageTaggingBot which asked me to add a copyright tag so I added an appropriate tag. However I still recieve the message:

"This image does not have a copyright tag. Copyright tagging is required in order to provide a consistent way to identify the copyright status of images, and to allow for automated classification of images. This template should be replaced with the appropriate copyright tag. Failure to tag an image may lead to its deletion. If you have any questions please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions."

Can Anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTG.Turbo (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the propblem. Once a proper licence is added you can remove the tagging notice, but being a non-free image, it must be added to the article, otherwise it fails WP:NFCC#7 and will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

JTG.Turbo (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Aerial photo of school from 1960 postcard

Hi, I have a scanned b&w image from a ~1960 postcard. It is an aerial photograph of a school which closed in 1971 and has the school name in the bottom corner. I want to use it with an article on the history of the school. I have no knowledge of the copyright and I obtained the image from Friends Reunited web site. Please advise on whether it is acceptable to use the image and which copyright category to use when I upload it. Thanks GordonD (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly which country is this from? If it was the USA, is there a copyright notice on the front or the back of the postcard? if no copyright use {{PD-US-1989}}. Even if a copyright notice was used {{Template:PD-US-not renewed}} may also apply if you can check renewals. In other countries it is probably not public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a UK picture and card. I don't have the original card, only the scan of the front picture, there is no copyright on that only the name of the school. I think the card was commissioned by the headmaster who died in 1971. I know it dates from about 1960 as there was an alteration to the building made after the picture was taken. GordonD (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It would still be under copyright, with copyright owned by the school or headmaster's estate. I am unconvinced that it would be fair use as it may be replaceable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

why am I being deleted?

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

I am the copyright holder for this image. After I posted my copyright status on here yesterday, I received a notice in my email saying the image was tagged for deletion. Again, I am the copyright holder of this image, and would like it to stay on the site, and give my permission for its use on wikipedia only, but don't understand what it is asking for. Any help here is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compudude86 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the tower is an artistic work in the United States, your picture is a derivative work of the work of art and thus it is copyrighted to its creator. That's ok, but we have to treat the image as non-free on en.wiki, and that means that in addition to the license for the image, you need to supply a non-free rationale to explain where and why the image is going to be used on the site. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why he can't release it under a free license. This isn't a sculpture. See: Carillon, Commons:Category:Carillons, File:Bratton Carillon.jpg, etc. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Compudude86, why did you change this? That change is what caused the image to be tagged for deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it because the copyright filing finally went through. but apparently from what I have read once a CC license is applied it cannot be changed. the reasoning behind filing for a US copyright was the fact that my image had been lifted and used for commercial purposes and people tend to ignore it you tell them stop because it is under a "Creative Commons" license. but I will be switching back. oh well, guess they get the one I CC'd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.162.165 (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigs

Are signatures in the Public Domain in the United States? GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They would be, as they are too simple, usually just a name, or abbreviation of one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasonably sure there have been previous discussions of this; I would check archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the complexity of the signature. See this page on Commons for more information on when signatures are PD. MacMed^talk_stalk 22:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Henry Wadsworth Longfellow stamp unveiled.jpg

It seems that the photograph was taken by an employee of the US Government in the course of his or her duty. But the design of the stamp is un-free. So it looks like the photograph is a derivative work of an unfree image. Can you confirm that or give any reason to keep the picture? --h-stt !? 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the stamp is copyright the USPS and the image focuses on the stamp. If it showed more of the crowd and the stamp was incidental to that, I might change my mind, but as it stands, it is a derivative work and is not free use. I can't opine about a possible fair use rationale without seeing how and why it would be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that while the photo may be free, the stamp image is not de minimus de minimis and all post-1977 USPS stamps are copyright, so as a derivative work will need the permission of USPS which is not forthcoming. ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, it's de minimis, the Latin preposition de takes the ablative case. – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC) (former classicist)

Which gives me the perfect opportunity to say to you "De minimis non curat lex".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The law may not care about trifles in a legal context (and IAAL, so I know these things), but the classicist in me does because in Latin, inflection is essential! – ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, it has been too many years since I studied Latin and I never really liked it anyway. ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Userfriendly.20030128.gif

I added this existing image (used in the User Friendly article) to the Any key article a while ago, and it was recently removed because there was no fair use rationale on the image page. (I just added a reason in the article revision note.) So I added a section on the image page explaining why it should be allowed in the article, but I don't think I did it as well as I could have. (I think I included the "four factors" described in the Fair use article, although I listed them as only three items.) Could someone more familiar with fair use issues review the rationale for me? B7T (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright tag added - can the "delete this file" message now be removed?

Hello -

I uploaded an image file that I have express permission to use in the editing of the associated article (Overture Networks), but neglected to add the copyright tag. I've now updated the file with the correct tag. Can the "delete this file" message from the image tagging bot now be removed?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ukexpat - I appreciate it.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha

Are captchas copyrightable or just typefaces and simple geometric shapes? --damiens.rf 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion they do not meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted. {{PD-text}} applies. I will say that that particular example is atypical of what I've seen from RECAPTCHA. Usually its text with distortion waves, and rarely a random line for good measure. Inverse color bubbles are, from my experience, rare. That shouldn't change anything about the legality though. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sven. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Close, a captcha would be {{PD-ineligible}}. Copyright requires originality, which captchas don't have. Abstract images of random patterns which are generated solely by a computer program without user input are also generally not copyrightable. See also [12] --Tothwolf (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper photo of a football playing card.

Hi, sorry to bother you but a lot of this fair use copyright stuff makes my head spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist! Here's the situation: My local newspaper published online a very nice color image of former NFL player Terry Joyce from Topp's 1977 card series. They in turn had scanned it for publication from a private citizen who owned the card. Is there a way I can claim fair use in order to include the image in Joyce's Wiki? Joyce recently died, and the card itself is very hard to find since he only had a brief 2-year career. The newspaper website says "original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons liscense, except where noted". But since they only reproduced the card image, not created it, I'm really confuzled! Here's a link to the newspaper article if that helps: http://www.kirksvilledailyexpress.com/sports/x1260738189/Former-Cardinals-punter-dies-at-57 I'd really like to enhance the Wiki with it unless I have to go through a huge hassle of contacting the cards owner, the newspaper, etc. for e-mailed permission. Any advice appreciated. Can you reply on my talk page? Thanks! Sector001 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper doesn't own the copyright, Topp's does (indeed, they may have been violating copyright in running that image). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Orange Mike. Like I said, all the copyright stuff gives me brain cramps lol. If I can ever return the favor -- the help, not the cramp -- just shout. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, a creative commons non-commercial license is not good enough. Hm, wonder about the copyright status of pre-1978 baseball cards!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this image file on my user page being removed?

File:Nay Toe Stylish Photo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nt.nt (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That file does not exist at Wikipedia, and you have never uploaded a file. Perhaps you aren't uploading it correctly. See Help:Files and Wikipedia:Uploading images will give you some instructions. --Jayron32 02:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nay Toe Stylish Photo.jpg was deleted on Commons because you did not indicate the source. I presume that deletion is the reason you removed it from your user page on English Wikipedia. See your Commons user talk page for more information on the deletion of this and your other uploads there. —teb728 t c 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ko NT.jpg, the current image on your user page, has also been deleted on Commons as a copyright violation, and you have been indef blocked on Commons for persistently uploading non-free files there. —teb728 t c 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

US navy work question

Can this image be uploaded? It was apparently taken by an employee of the U.S. Navy but I have not the exact link from US Navy Official website. The subject is Brandon Lee, an LGBT pornographic actor who served in the Navy from 1998–2003. The image comes from a reliable source (SF Weekly), but I do not know if it is possible to upload images from US Government without the correct link. Thank you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you upload it? Of course you can, but without a link to a better source we cannot verify the copyright so it will likely be questioned and nominated for deletion. To avoid that happening please try to find a better source. Tineye only finds the SF Weekly images that you also found and despite being available from that publication, there is no image attribution and it comes from their blog area which may mean there is no editorial oversight adding to its unverified status. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest e-mail the author of the blog - there's a link at http://www.sfweekly.com/authors/lauren-smiley/. A google image search for Brandon Lee gives 390,000 hots - not useful, restricting the size to 449×621 only shows the blog pic - so maybe it's been reduced in size from the original.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you both of you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied here from my talk page

Q?

Hello, I'm a bit confused about the issue of copyright and photography on wikipedia. Maybe there's a way around it in my particular situation but probably not so I will just end up not using the photos I wanted. Anyway, the situation:

my article is about a cultural event at a university, dating back almost three decades. From the 80s, there is only one photographer whose work has survived to this day, we (people who research the event) have asked for permission to use his pictures before, he's almost impossible to get a hold of (artsy and lives somewhere in the middle of nowhere...). A few years back I asked the people who gave me the pictures, who participated in the event themselves in the 80s to ask the photographer, since they knew him, if I could use them in an article. The answer was yes (I hope). Then our graphic designers decided to use the imagery as part of the entire print design of that years event. They either couldn't get a hold of him or did and couldn't get a straight answer... But ended up going with their idea anyway. There was no scandal, no one yelled at us or sued us. Since copyright laws are loose in Estonia (concerning students' work) and there was no such thing as copyright in the USSR at all (they didn't pay anyone any royalties, ever,- composers, artist, writers...) and these earlier pictures were taking during that time, I thought maybe there's a way of classifying them as archive material which the university allows to use (it's in their interest to promote both the school and the event in whichever medium possible). Is there any copyright label that would suit these photos?

The newer photographs, from the 90s and 21st century, are a bit tricky too. First of all, the ones from the 90s- I have no idea who took them. I found them in an old photo album at the design department and they said I could use them. No one has ever really claimed ownership of those. The deal with photographers both then and now is that they are allowed by the event to come and take pictures IF they in turn allow the orgaziers of the event to use those images in whatever way they like- press releases, websites, social networks... Wikipedia. But again, I haven't personally taken them so which copyright label should I use? In either case- knowing the name of the photographer and not (in the last case, probably means I can't use them, right?)?

Hope you can help, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccchnl (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

feydey (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason you're not getting replies is that people arent' certain the rules with respect to Estonia. Can I suggest asking at Commons, or on the Estonian or Russian Wikipedias?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

How do you post new images under an article? I'm from Cincinnati and I want to put new pictures on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.27.223 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to upload the images first - can't do anon - you need to create an account, and ideally upload to Commons, not here (if possible) - so all wikis can use them.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true, assuming they are images you made entirely by yourself, rather than images you found somewhere. For image you made entirely by yourself you can release them under a free license, which Wikipedia requires; for any other image you have to get licensing from the copyright owner. —teb728 t c 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

seals of cities

Does a low-res picture of a city seal (i.e. 200x200 px) from a website such as vector-images.com fall under fair use? Something like this: sacramento city seal--Sportsfan92 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sacramento city seal could be uploaded, tagged with {{non-free logo}} using a filled-out {{logo fur}} for a non-free use rationale, and used in the {{infobox settlement}} of the article using the image_seal parameter. —teb728 t c 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rational

I uploaded this image under fair use and provided the following rationale:

• It is a low resolution image of a movie poster
• It does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the film in any way
• It allows for identification of the film The Wise Little Hen
• No free alternatives are possible
• The image's use on Wikipedia is entirely encyclopedic in nature
• It illustrates the film in question

Yet the image was marked for having insufficient fair use rationale. I don't understand what it is missing since it is the same rational included on many other film posters. Thank you. Pigby (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have used {{poster fur}} for the non-free use rationale myself, but your rationale looks adequate to me. If it had been tagged by a bot, I might understand why it didn't recognize the rationale. But this was tagged by a human; so I am mystified. —teb728 t c 00:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I just didn't see the FUR. Tag removed. Eeekster (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonfree question

A user has asked whether the following 7 images can be used at Maritime Heritage Trail - Battle of Saipan. Please also see Talk:Maritime Heritage Trail - Battle of Saipan for more info.

• File:TBM Avenger Plain, Maritime Heritage Trail, Tanapag lagoon, Saipan Site Ships of Discovery Compressed.jpg
• File:PBM Mariner controls Maritime Heritage Trail, Saipan Ships of Discovery.jpg
• File:Mariner under wing Maritime Heritage Trail, Saipan Ships of Discovery.jpg
• File:PBM Mariner gun turret Maritime Heritage Trail, Saipan, Ships of Discovery.jpg
• File:Emily inside gun turret looking out Maritime Heritage Trail, Saipan Ships of Discovery.jpg
• File:Emily painted surface of fuselage Maritime Heritage Trail, Saipan Ships of Discovery.jpg
• File:Emily wing and fuselage, Maritime heritage Trail, Saipan Ships of Discovery.jpg

Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, these images cannot currently be used. Non-free images must comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria and one of those is replaceability. Someone can take virtually identical photos so they fail the first non-free criteria. If you can get permission from the copyright holder, they would need to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and then the images may be kept, otherwise they will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the copyright owner has granted permission for their use only on Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not accept such permission, for it would be an impediment to reuse of article content. —teb728 t c 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifying copyright?

If the uploaded claims to be the copyright holder, is there anyway to verify the accuracy of the statement/ identity of the up-loader? (File in question: Trent Kowalik, 2011.jpg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booth088 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is File:DhondupWangchen.jpg suitable for use on Wikipedia?

This image was recently nominated for deletion, and it seems that broader community input would be helpful in determining whether the image is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia based on the NFCC criteria. (See:File_talk:DhondupWangchen.jpg). Looking at the NFCC criteria, it seems to me that such an image should be suitable for use on Wikipedia:

1. No free equivalent: the uploader of the image states that it depicts "a significant figure whose image is not easily replaceable with a free image (Tibetan filmmaker currently serving a sentence in a Chinese jail for subversion). Dhondup Wangchen will not be eligble for parole until 2015, and sentences of political prisoners are commonly extended indefinitely."
2. Respect for commercial opportunities: Using the image on Wikipedia is unlikely to negatively impact its market value
3. Minimal usage: single, low-resolution image
4. Previous publication: yes
5. Content: meets content standards and is encyclopedic
6. One article minimum: yes
7. Contextual significance: A photograph of the subject of a biography significantly improves the quality of the biography.
8. Restrictions on location: To be used in article space

Is there a policy on whether this images & other images of this sort (e.g. photographs of notable prisoners of conscience serving long sentences in countries where it is illegal and/or impossible to obtain a free image of the person) can be used on Wikipedia? Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what the nominator says, there is a widely accepted consensus that use of one portrait in the infobox of a biography to visually identify the subject significantly increases reader understanding and that text alone would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The remaining issue is whether a free replacement portrait either exists or could be created. I am not sure where the consensus would be for this image on that issue, but the claim that a replacement portrait could not be made while he is imprisoned in the PRC is at plausible enough that the image should not be speedied. —teb728 t c 04:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Whitey Bulger Booking Photo

Looks like WBUR has obtained a recent booking photo of Whitey Bulger - see [13] and [14]. I'm no expert, but is it suitable for upload under PD-USGov? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

343 Industries logo

File:343 Industries logo.png

I would like to convert this to SVG and move it to commons. But it is tagged as possibly restrictive. Should I move it to commons, or remove the request to have moved to commons? Phearson (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I replied at the OP's user talk. —teb728 t c 10:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

question from Rollo1988

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50505_52645078754_3782494_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo1988 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your question? —teb728 t c 08:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Event programmes

If I am uploading an image of the cover of an event programme, what licence template should I use on that image? A programme is neither a magazine, a newspaper, nor a book, so I wouldn't have thought any of those would apply, but I have to add something, so what should I add? – PeeJay 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd treat it as a book(let); but I'm a trifle puzzled as to how you're gonna claim fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you worry about fair use, let me worry about blank. – PeeJay 17:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Texas Lieutenant Governor William P. Hobby, Jr.,

I have a photograph of former Texas Lieutenant Governor William P. "Bill" Hobby, Jr., for his wikipedia profile, can you guys upload it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 725edwards (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If it was taken by you, you may upload it and release it under a free license or into the public domain. Connormah (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

:Spike-waves.png:

Hello! I need to know if this image can be used in my class assignment. I am creating a patient education pamphlet about EEGs for my advanced assessment nursing course. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoreeto (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Share-alike license. Therefore, you are free to use it in your pamphlet, provided that you attribute the image to its creator (User: Der Lange on the German Wikipedia) and that the pamphlet you create is also licensed under the same licensing terms. To read more about the license in question see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en. -Seidenstud (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the pamphlet really need to be licensed on the same terms, or can it be considered an aggregated work, okay so long as it is made clear that the image is separable and free? (In the same way that WP is an aggregated work -- not everything here is free, but what is not free is readily severable from what is; or that commercial pages that re-use WP content are aggregated works -- they add all sorts of non-free rubbish, but the content from Wiki is readily severable and re-usable). I'm posting here because I'm not 100% sure of the answer, but isn't the pamphlet the same -- ie isn't the important thing that the re-used free content is clearly acknowledged/identified, with a statement that it can be freely modified/reused ? Jheald (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of station crest

Would a photograph of the RAF Uxbridge station crest be allowable under the GFDL licence as a replacement for the fair use version? Harrison49 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still a derivative work, and thus subject to the same restrictions. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Harrison49 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Image flagged for deletion - no author or source

File:Eileen_portrait_small.jpg This image has been flagged for deletion because it does not have an author or source. I'm unsure what to put because the photograph was taken by an unknown WAAF servicewoman about 70 years ago. It was not taken by a professional or official military photographer, therefore the copyright owner cannot be identified. The image was scanned in by myself. Please can someone advise on the most appropriate label. Thanks!

Well if the image is demonstratively over 70 years old you can use {{PD-UK-unknown}}. But if it is any newer it is still under copyright and is not free. Even if you do not know the photographer, you know where you got the image from. That description constitutes the source. I am assuming the picture was taken or published in UK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on the new US cig warning labels?

If you go to this NPR link, you can see that the image is tagged (c) US HHS. Isn't that not possible, since the Department of Health and Human Services is a US Federal Government agency? xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not impossible: A work that the Federal government creates is PD, but the Federal government can own a copyright on a work created by someone else. —teb728 t c 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Is there a centralized place where I could get info about when a copyright is assigned to the feds (I doubt it)? xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 01:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#Exceptions what you want? —teb728 t c 02:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Federal government often contracts out work such as this, where expert photography and effects are sought. I've run into a similar problem with official portraits of Supreme Court justices, where the justice selects a photographer to do the work, he or she contracts with the government, and the government acquires rights to the work. It is why you have to be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Placing a photo in an article

I have a photograph which is my own property, which I would like to upload from my computer into an article. But I have been unable to do this. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwgwilym (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

First you need to be an autoconfirmed user before you can upload images. That means you have been registered for at least 4 days and have made more than 10 edits. After you are autoconfirmed you can go to the upload link on the left side of any page and proceed per the instructions. Possession of a photo does not confer any copyright, so we need to know when and who took the photo, so we can determine the copyright. If you took the photo you can release it under a free licence, such as placing it in the public domain or using one of several acceptable Creative Commons licences. Your email have been removed for privacy. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are the owner of the copyright, you can upload to Commons immediately, which is a preferred location for images which to not have non-free issues. However, to reiterate what was said above, merely "owning" the photo isn't enough, the copyright resides with the person who took the photo.--SPhilbrickT 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Software Screenshots

In relation to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG and a disscussion on my talk-page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Say_what.3F_Fair_use_rationale_for_a_non-free_image.3F

The first concern based on the talk page note is that there maybe stuff wrongly tagged as 'Non-free' content because of a template migration, which needs reviewing..

The second concern is that of a clarification on where the 'threshold of originality' is in relation to software screen-shots , often because there are some that don't really contain much more than 'common UI' elements. Is there some reason why compared to other works software 'look and feel' seems to have a much lower 'creativity' standard?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RSS logo

This logo is used in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. According to the image file, its purpose is "to identify the organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." Is that considered sufficient as a rationale? It sounds generic to me - the same could be said about any logo used in the article about the logo's organization.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It took me a while to get your point. This is the default purpose text for {{logo fur|Use = Org}}, in other words when the logo is used the body of an article away from the top, which apparently is sometimes OK. If the parameter were Use = Infobox, the purpose would be better: "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." —teb728 t c 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you had trouble with my explanation. I'm just trying to understand if we can always use logos in the infoboxes of the logo-organization articles or whether further justification is required. WP:LOGO is fairly long and, in my view, unnecessarily complex because at the end of the day it appears that the answer is yes. Is that right? If so, I'll stop fighting the use of the logo in the article, even though I disagree with the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a widely accepted consensus that the use of one image in the infobox to visually identify the subject of the article satisfies NFCC #8. Of course it still has to satisfy the other 9 criteria, including #1 and #3. And it actually has to visually identify the subject (which most logos, including this one, would do, as would most portraits for a bio); I have seen screenshot deleted at FfD, however, because they did little to identify the subject TV episode. I agree with the consensus, but it has the unfortunate effect of making some people think that an image is acceptable for merely illustrating a mention of something. —teb728 t c 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright information and tags.

Hi, I'm adding an Image to Andrew Scheer, the Speaker of the House of Commons Canada. I'm having trouble correctly editing the tags and what not to completely enter in the copyright information. It seems a bit confusing and tedious. Do you have any recommendations as to how to edit it (or what to add to it the image page so it is not deleted?) I found out where it belongs to (public domain Canadian govt.) Image page File:SpeakerScheer.jpg Thanks.Ahutf (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a PD tag for Canada government works except for {{PD-Canada}}, which is for expired Crown copyright. This seems to be in the belief that all Canada government works are under Crown copyright for 50 years. What makes you think this protrait is not under Crown copyright? If it is indeed under Crown copyright, then I am afraid that it cannot be used here because it would be a replaceable non-free image. Sorry. —teb728 t c 07:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, however what is more confusing is there is no claim on the website or any in that matter as who indeed the photographer is. He would be contracted by the office, which makes it available for public use and distribution. I was given the Green light to use the picture, by asking the Member himself. Even though the Government is "under the crown" it would not necessarily mean that the picture is a crown copyright. A crown copyright is Canada-Post for instance, a government corp. There is no "royal seal" kind of picture that I used, however you can indirectly state that the Speaker and the Government work on behalf of the Crown, so really it's a big Farce. It can be more than 1 or 2 copyrights in total.Ahutf (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the member owned the copyright in the picture in order to grant permission? And did they grant a free license in writing? If the answer to either question is no, then we cannot use it here, and if answers are both yes then it needs proving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also you say the Member gave permission to use the picture: Does that mean he gave permission to use the picture only on Wikipedia? As I understand it, that would be in accord with Crown copyright since Wikipedia is non-profit. But it would not make the picture free use, which is what Wikipedia requires. —teb728 t c 08:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe when I asked, I had to get authorization of the person in question as well, (since he is the subject of the picture) and the photographer is not unknown but not listed on the site. Similar pictures appear on his riding (constituency office) site that were free for the public to access and use, provided a they do not take it to sell it in which it would definitely be in violation. While it may be crown copyright it may fall in another category which I was looking at originally. I believe it was the Licenses that I was trying to get down as well, to be more clear.Ahutf (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be sold then we almost certainly can't use it. Why? Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content; so we give strong preference to free content, i.e. content that can be reused by anyone for anything, including commercial use. To the extent we use a picture with a commercial restriction, it hampers the ability to reuse the article for commercial purposes. So there is a policy: Non-freecontent is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. As a result of this policy pictures of people still alive are almost never allowed, since it is almost always possible to take a new free picture as a replacement. Sorry. —teb728 t c 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ariel ortega

Ariel‑Ortega‑2.jpg am i aloud this. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh2211 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no file of that name here or on the commons, so you need to provide a complete wikilink or URL before we can help you. ww2censor (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Photograph taken in 1981

I found the the statement below in one of the Wikipedia articles about image copyrights:

Copyright notices are not needed any more when published in the U.S., without a copyright notice:

• From 1923 to 1977: in the public domain
• From 1978 to March 1, 1989: only in the public domain if not registered since

I want to include a cropped version of a photograph that was taken in 1981 and never copyrighted (LWPortrait cropped2.png). What copyright tag(s) should I use?

Thank you, M343r (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1989}} is the tag. But was it published in 1981 without a copyright? If it was not published then copyright still applies. You will also have to say where the original picture came from and when and where it was published so that others can confirm the copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This table File:PD-US table.svg is very useful for determining what copyright applies to US works. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

image for Big Band Reflections fo Cole Porter

Thanks for the feedback, I need to go over the tags and how to get the image page to work the right way. I am confused at this point and will probably have questions at as to what to use, let me try to do this first and not waste anyones time. I am still slow with some of the functions, it was my first use of it for a CD cover.

Jcooper1 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For File:ALBUM COVER, Big Band Reflections of Cole Porter.jpg you will need to use {{Template:Non-free album cover}}. Also take a look at template:information/doc for how to make an information template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why my file is not matching with MIME type

I am trying 2 upload an image of Shakira's Whenever,wherever but its saying that the "file does not match the MIME type".it is an screenshot of her music video Whenever,wherever and suerte.I have many images to upload but not a single is uploading.What i do now??Pls help me frinds.Adi21124 (talk2me —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

This means the name of the file does not match the content. For example if a .jpg was named with .gif on the end you would get this kind of error. You should be able to rename the file before or at the time you upload to correct this, if you know the type of the file. On the copyright side of things we do not want a lot of screenshots from the same video as they would be non-free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

To see what the file really is you can cat or more the file in a command window and see what the characters are near the beginning: GIF89a = .gif ; JFIF = .jpg ; PNG = .png ; BM = .bmp.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that i have many images 2 upload but not in that single one article whenever wherever but in many articles u got me wrong dude.now i m going 3 try what u said thanks 4 ur opinion..Adi21124 (talk2me —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

License information for Public Library's holding

I have not indicated the license status of an uploaded image because I am not sure which copyright tag to choose. The image is not copyright protected and is the property of the Oak Lawn Public Library, where I work. The images are a scanned copy of a photograph and a postcard that were both given to the library with the former owners' rights relinquished. I have uploaded the images a few times each. As of today, there is a version of each image that is labeled as "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain." I would like these to be the images set in the Oak Lawn, Illinois page.

Here are the image links:

Unless your donor was the photographer who took those two pictures, they had no right or power to release those images into the public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2 requests concerning copyright

I largely created the article Battle of Cunaxa and am now having problems with the proper copyright stuff. I believe I've done all the right stuff, and Im requesting that it be deleted, but before it is I'm wondering if someone will go in and check on the pictures for themselves and make sure they are all copyrighted (so to speak) correctly. I believe they are, but I'm not sure.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

the license tags and information look to be reasonable now. However what is the relationship with "Alexander: a history of the origin and growth of the art of war from the earliest times to the battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301, with a detailed account of the campaigns of the great Macedonian"? Does the link mean that you based your diagram on information from this book? If so that could be made clearer in the description. Also at an earlier point you said public domain. This is also a valid possibility. The date in the information template should be the date that you drew the picture. The warning tags can now be removed. What are you asking to be deleted? The article was a joint effort, and so should not be deleted just on your request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Their is information in that book that is pertinent to the battle of cunaxa. Ok, I can do that. Secondly, I was asking if the removal of the photos could be deleted, so that they wouldn't get deleted. Unless their still some work to be done...SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you fix the date and clarify that you used information from the book, you can remove the two warning notices. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How? It says only administrators can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? It didn't say that either in the warnings on the file page or in the messages on your talk page. The only thing it said about administrators was that administrators could delete the files if license tags were not added. Once the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license tags were added, anyone could delete the warning tags. —teb728 t c 06:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you have not done it, I have removed the tags. For pending deletes like this you can remove the tags if you have fixed the problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Headshots in Belldandy

I'd like a second opinion on the headshots in Belldandy. I think that there are an excessive number of them, especially the color ones, where three look almost completely identical. Should I go ahead and remove some of the headshots? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah too many get rid of at least 5 out of 7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why in particular? Their intent was to show different art styles in different works, and evolving art style in the the main work. I don't see a real probem with reducing the number of colour ones, although they do serve a role, but the black and white ones show a clear progression in artistic style. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The color ones were the ones I was most concerned over. I'm no expert, so from a layperson's perspective I can't really see a difference between 1, 3, and 4 in the color ones. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Although with the colour ones, each comes from a different series, so I guess there is some interest in the fact that they do use a consistent style. I'm more interested in the black-and-white, because of the clear progression in style. You wouldn't recoignise the later version of the character based on the earlier ones. - Bilby (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we would need to have commentary on each drawing to show that it contributes to understanding. Galleries are normally oulawed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How?SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Two aspects, in the article, it should be made clear what the image is showing. So there should be text saying when and where the picture was made, and what is changing over time. The fair use rationale has to explain why this image adds meaning. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question on File:PatrickMcGoohan2.jpg

Does File:PatrickMcGoohan2.jpg look kosher? It looks like an autographed headshot, and the uploader has given no indication that they actually took the photo, rather than just uploading it. --Jayron32 14:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to WP:AGF and all that, there is no way I can believe that this is the uploader's own work. That's a classic studio-provided, professionally-taken photo, suitable for autograph sessions. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree it looks like a studio shot - the same image (or part of it) appears at http://www.screenrush.co.uk/stars/star-1036/ and is captioned © Collection Christophe L. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also this may be of interest http://uk.gamespot.com/users/GusF/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-24545518 may not be a reliable source but indicated as Orangemike says an image used by the artist when he send out autographs, it mentions it comes with a "certificate of authenticity" - suggest nominate it for deletion at commons as there is reasonable doubt about the provenance. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

While this image is currently hosted on the commons, there does not appear to be any confirmation the uploader is the author; he only made that one upload to the commons. Because McGoohan is dead we can likely move the image over here, before it gets deleted, and justify its use here with a properly written fair-use rationale unless we can find a freely licenced image of him. ww2censor (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a perfectly fine solution. I am fine with any solution that brings the image into compliance with policy, deletion is not the only option. I just wanted to confirm my suspicion that it wasn't up to snuff currently. --Jayron32 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of good order, I have nominated it for deletion from Commons, but there is still time for it to be moved here per WP:NFCC. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland images

Does anyone know the status of pre-entry into Confederation (1949) Newfoundland images?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Copyright Act 1911 article the Dominion of Newfoundland adopted and enacted that act as the Newfoundland Copyright Act 1912. The original term of copyright is available here and shows a general term of 50 years pma. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

who is the author of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.150.101 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No article yet, I generally write one article on a major Canadian political figure a year, or, rather, take the existing article and improve it to FA standards. I was asked to consider Joey Smallwood as the 2012 possibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of two scientific papers

I own copies of two scientific papers related to number theory.

• Meissner, W. (1913), "Über die Teilbarkeit von 2^p − 2 durch das Quadrat der Primzahl p=1093", Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Zweiter Halbband. Juli bis Dezember, Berlin: 663–667
• Beeger, N. G. W. H. (1922), "On a new case of the congruence 2^{p − 1} ≡ 1 (mod p²)", Messenger of Mathematics, 51: 149–150

These two papers are cited in the article Wieferich prime. The copy of the Meissner paper I own is a direct photocopy of the paper that I received from the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities on request. The copy of the Beeger paper is a PDF file that was available online for some time from http://ia301527.us.archive.org/1/items/messengerofmathe5051cambuoft/messengerofmathe5051cambuoft.pdf for download.

Now my question is, are these two papers still protected by copyright? If not, is it possible to upload them to some Wikimedia project? (In case of the Meissner paper this means I would have to scan (digitize) it first.) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It will be important to know which country the papers were published in. The first one looks to be Prussia, which no longer exists, but perhaps German law applies, may be 70 years after death of author to go public domain. Messenger of Mathematics looks to be published in UK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should it be OK to upload them (and I don't know if it is or it isn't, I'll leave it to others to decide how to answer that part of your question), the correct place to upload them would be Wikisource. --Jayron32 14:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I have been unable to determine when Waldemar Meissner died, I will assume that the work is still copyrighted. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Aeroman facility night time.jpg

Hello! I've just uploaded this photograph and I received a message on my usertalk since I didn't put a license status of the image. I just added it. Can anyone tell me if it is ok? Thank you Alfred ban (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is not. We need to have some sort of proof that the website from which this image came is OK with the license placed on the page; unless they explicitly state they release the image under that license, then the image remains under non-free copyright, and Wikipedia can't house it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words we must assume it is copyrighted unless we have evidence to the contrary, such as an explicit release on the website or a permission communicated per the WP:IOWN process. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

this is my own picture....

I took the photo and I am letting anyone use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANSUB AHMED SIDDIQUI (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Where??? We don't see no photo. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of image

File http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Feathers_and_wedges_2.svg/250px-Feathers_and_wedges_2.svg.png

I am writing a local history book and would like to use the above image as I think it would be ideal to illustrate what feathers and wedges are and how they work. Do I need, and if so can I get, permission for this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.45.16 (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual image page says it all File:Feathers_and_wedges_2.svg "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." - X201 (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ozgu Namal

• http://www.cabadak.com/hanimin-ciftligine-ceza-geldi

Can I, and if I can, then how upload this photo? Alex ^discussion 10:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, all the content of that site is covered by the copyright notice at the bottom (© 2011 Güncel Bilgi Paylaşım Sitesi). – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

University of Western Sydney

Does this file met the threshold of originality? I ask because I think it does, but there is a file on Commons, which claims it doesn't. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Commons file info page. (My internal test is that if I (the least artistic person that I know) could have come up with it, then it doesn't meet the threshold.) – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lycanthropus

While looking at File:ScreenshotCurtLowens5-1-2.png from Lycanthropus (1962), I noticed that the movie is listed at http://www.archive.org/details/Werewolf_In_A_Girls_Dormitory as public domain. AT 00:10, I see a copyright notice. Compare this with Night of the Living Dead (1968) http://www.archive.org/details/NightOfTheLivingDead1968-Restored where our article explains its copyright status being due to the copyright notice being omitted. Does anyone know why this movie is public domain? Or whether Moving Image Archive is reliable when it comes to copyright? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)