Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


File:IanTBensonCanada.jpg

I am needing to ascertain how to copyright reference this file. In looking for a suitable image, I contacted Professor Benson, whose work I am researching, and asked for a suitable picture. This is the picture that he recommended. It was taken by Canadian Law Firm, Miller Thompson and has been used on the Ismaili Net website as well as the official site for the Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa. What would the correct reference be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewooll (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it's either copyrighted by Miller Thompson, or by the photographer who took the picture for Miller Thompson. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ewoll, Wikipedia only accepts photos where the copyright holder has explicitly granted a license under an acceptable free content license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Apart from such a declaration on the copyright holder's part, there is no tag to choose because no such license exists. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has instructions on requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries has a letter that the copyright holder can use to provide us with the necessary permission. If you receive a letter of permission, please forward it to permissions-commons‐at‐wikimedia.org. --B (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

need permission to upload images

Hi There, I am the marketing manager of Dunk and Bedarra Island and would like to upload (lisenced) photos to the page but do not have permission. How do I apply for permission to upload images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banfield1 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Try again. With this edit and your next one you would now be autoconfirmed. So you should be able to upload files. —teb728 t c 06:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cerros de Bogota

Atardecer sobre los cerros de Bogotá. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinowituna (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a media copyright question? ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The license status of the image,File:Scottish Deerhound GCH Foxcliffe Hickory Wind

Carnildo, thank you for your notification:

<<Thanks for uploading File:Scottish Deerhound GCH Foxcliffe Hickory Wind BIS Westminster USA 2011 with handler Angela Lloyd.jpg.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>

This image is a modified version of the previous with the same title, extension:pdf The image has been given by the photographer Steve Surfman, as indicated, and was previously appropriately(?)tagged for Open Domain. I find the system complex and cumbersome, and would appreciate some practical assistance if, as it appears, the copyright issue is still not resolved. Thank you--Richard Hawkins (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Hawkins (talk • contribs)

If Steve Surfman is the photographer and the copyright holder then we need to have him send us his permission by having him follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

david fincher's image

hello there i would like to upload this image(http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/01/8a6548101e27494d8fcc9e0ffb3aba75.jpg) as the article on the famous director does not have one. Please check if this image is suitable or else kindly upload one if you can to make the article about a famous person more liable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.39.166 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The image link you provided for the David Fincher image does not provide any copyright information but this linked page where the same image appears clearly shows the image is attributed to the Associated Press and because we don't accept copyright images of living people it looks like you are out luck with that particular image. Try to find another freely licenced one. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have received a request to update the license. The problem is that I want to DELETE the file altogether. How to?

Can anybody help or just do it for me? Thanks. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it {{db-nofile}}, indicating an empty image. You could have tagged it with that or with {{db-author}}, indicating the sole author requests deletion. —teb728 t c 02:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Joseph Brennan (Clan na Poblachta)pdf.pdf 2

I think I need assistance.

I have been informed their is a file source problem with File:Joseph Brennan (Clan na Poblachta)pdf.pdf

The file description page does not specify who created the content so the copyright status is unclear. I loaded the file and the copyright owner is. Ross Studios Ltd, 59 Grafton Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.

Regards

Kateships — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateships (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this Irish copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the copyright holder or 70 years if the author is unknown. Ross Studios are still a well known Dublin photographers, so you should contact them to get their permission if they are prepared to give it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You say you have permission to use it. Does that permission allow reuse by anyone for anything? If so, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the permission. In case it does not, I have started a non-free use rationale.
In any case, you need to provide the source: Where did you get the photo? Did you find it on the internet? Or did someone (who) email it to you? Or did you scan if from somewhere (where)? Or what? —teb728 t c 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

uploading image and data

i have account on wikipedia that is imranmalikvirgo i want to upload images and data on wikipedia page please tell me the procedure how i can upload data — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranmalikvirgo (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to upload files you must be “autoconfirmed.” Over the next four days make at least nine more edits—like by improving articles or practicing in your personal “sandbox,” Imranmalikvirgo/Sandbox. Then you will be able to upload and use files as described at Help:Files. —teb728 t c 10:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to upload images you've created or really old images that are out of copyright, you'll want to go to Wikimedia Commons. It will be accessible from the Wikipedia projects in all languages, so long as you don't choose a name for your file that doesn't exist already. If you want to upload someone else's image (i.e., a copyrighted image), then it depends on the copyrighted image. In most cases you can't, but for some things (like movie posters or CD covers), you can. Just go ahead and make a request at WP:PERM/C with an explanation of what you want to upload. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Free city seal?

Shouldn't this image be licensed under {{PD-FLGov}} instead of as a logo? That's my impression, just looking for additional opinions. Swarm X 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Not everything in Florida is PD, the right for certain agency's to obtain and keep copyrights and trademarks (and patents) is allowed. There was a rather massive discussion on this at one time. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The most important thing is who created the seal - see commons:COM:COA. Sometimes a seal may simply be a description, so a different artist can draw the same seal in a different way, and thus properly claim copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see this, which answers the question quite easily. Basically, the government can't claim copyright on any 'public record' unless specifically allowed to by the Florida legislature. It would appear that most of the copyright claims that local governments have on their websites are not even valid. On a side note, Wikipedia should really adopt the Commons version of that template. I have a very hard time understanding what that "massive discussion" could possibly have accomplished, with the law so clearly defined. Swarm X 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm still a bit uptight about that discussion (I tried rewording the template in a common-sense manner, only to be reverted). I'll recuse myself and refer you to commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding a scan of the front an old software box

I:

I have add some text to a subject [[1]]Guru Meditation about a commercial software called GOMF that was sold about 20 years ago for the Amiga computer. I would like to add a picture of the front of the software package beside my article. There is no copyright notice on or inside the box but since it was a commercial product I'm assuming that it was probably copyrighted. I having been trying to find the company on the internet, but it doesn't seem to exist any more. Do you think that would constitute fair use if I put that scan beside my text in that article?

JFGOULET (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not. Items automatically are copyrighted for 95 years after their publication, as the law currently reads. The only way you'd be able to upload this as public domain is if it was first published before March 1, 1989 and the company didn't register a copyright within 5 years (see Template:PD-US-1989). For the first item, you're in the clear (although you might want to check the manuals and all very closely); for the second item, you can check at [2]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Picture I Own, Photographer Unknown

I am a relative of William Byron Rumford and want to upload a picture for his page. I have one that was likely his official picture as a California state assemblyman, but I have no way of verifying. The photo is not from the Internet, I own the physical copy of the photograph and have scanned it to my computer.

I have dozens of other pictures of him, but few if any where I can verify the photographer and ask for permission. He is deceased, so I can't take any new pictures with my own camera. Is it okay to upload the picture, or would I have to supply a Non-Free Media Use Rationale, or is there some other course of action I should take?

Compsciasaur (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets starts "backwards" so to speak - as he is deceased do you have any images of him where to *do* know who the photographer is or what the true source is? If you do that would be the "best" one to use - it would also allow you to try and obtain a free license for the image.
Unfortunately if you upload it and simply said "I own the physical copy of the photograph and have scanned it to my computer" that is too vague for the Wikipedia requirements, even more so for the requirements for use of non-free content.
A happy medium might be listing the source website - more so if it is an official GOVT website which may indicate if the image may be in Public Domain, unfortunately simply saying (as you are now) it was "likely his official picture as a California state assemblyman" would not be enough to verify the Copyright.
Overall it may be you will just have to pick one that you feel best represents him and make sure it meets the non-free content policy and uses a valid FUR. And note I said pick the *one* you feel is best - Wikipedia trys to be a fully "Free Cultural Works" encyclopedia and limits the amount of non-free material used in articles.
One thing I wanted to point out is that, as he passed away in the 1980's, it is likely that family members took pictures of him. One of the requirements of the non-free content policy is if there could be a free version of the material that would serve the same purpose, than non-free material is not to be used. If the image is to be used in the main infobox than it a family taken image serves the same purpose. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will see what I can find.
Compsciasaur (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama image

[3] - I'm not sure where the image came from so I'm not sure if its free or not.陣内Jinnai 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tineye finds many results but those I looked at don't show the copyright status or author, so we have to err on the side of caution and assume it is a copyright image unless you can verify it is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I would like to use some of the pics found on your site...if I credit them to your site may I use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allabouteldercare (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:REUSE. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia uses some fair use images, and practically none of our images are actually owned by Wikipedia. Just click on the image and read the licensing/copyright information on the image description page. The vast majority of our images are licensed freely, so those types of images you can use if you follow the terms of the free license (which may vary from images to image).-Andrew c [talk] 02:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

where/how do I upload this image

the image name was EP5.jpg, and it was deleted, i made the picture myself, and it was delteted, how can i use it on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daman222 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the deletion log entry, explaining why your image was deleted: "18:34, 24 March 2007 Theresa knott (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:EP5.jpg" ‎ (poor quality orphan image uploaded for self promotion) (view/restore)" So it was deleted in 2007 by admin User:Theresa knott because it was poor quality, it was orphaned, meaning it wasn't being used on any page, and it was promotion in nature, and therefore unencyclopedic. The image in question was uploaded by User:David.Antler. Was that you? Checking the log file of User:Daman222, I see you have not uploaded any images under that username. Are we talking about the same image here? If not, another image back in 2006 was also uploaded under the same name, this one by User:Jdiazola. Was that you? If neither were your usernames, perhaps you have the file name wrong.-Andrew c [talk] 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot of an IDE on an API article

On the Cocoa (API) article, I have put a picture of Xcode, the IDE used to develop for Cocoa. However, I have learned that that might not be an acceptable illustration. Could anyone tell me for sure on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekmc (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We already have one: File:Xcode 3.2 project window.png. Per WP:NFCC#3, we disallow having more than one image unless the second image you present shows more than the first does. So it depends on what's on your image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood. The file you just mentioned is what I am using on that article. What I want to know is if an illustration of an IDE (i.e. File:Xcode 3.2 project window.png) would be acceptable on an article about an API. It was recommended that I ask about this on the New Contributors Help Page ([4]) --Thekmc (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If the screenshot is non-free (like that one), I don’t think so. The use would require a non-free use rationale for the use, the Purpose line of which would need to explain how the use would significantly increase reader understanding of the article, and the Replaceability line of which would need to explain why a free replacement could not serve the same purpose. I suspect that both explanations would be impossible for such a use. —teb728 t c 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Epeli Nailatikau.png

Hello, I uploaded File:Epeli Nailatikau.png recently. I was told it required copyright information, and it was a screenshot from a youtube video uploaded from Fijian tv. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-dvTrq9ac I figured if it was already on youtube it was okay for wikipedia. Is this accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monocletophat123 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just because you found it on YouTube does not mean it is not in copyright. There are millions of images to be found on the internet but most of them are copyright. Clearly this is a news report and is copyright of the TV channel that produced it, so unless you can verify that it has been released under a free licence by the copyright holder, we have to assume it is still under a copyright. It is certainly not old enough to have fallen into the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationales

Have been working in publicity (non-free) files. It doesn't seem to me what's here File:Robert K Merton.jpg is a rationale, so I tagged it on 1 March. The tag was removed 2 March without anything being done about rationales for the 4 articles it's attached to. My belief is/was that one has to provide some reasons for the file being on the pages, so I re-tagged it today. Because one of those pages is a GA, is it common practice to do something more than tag the file, notify the uploader and tag the image on the page? Though the original uploader seems to no longer be active here, it would seem that anyone actively involved with these articles could provide a suitable rationale for them. Or do I have the idea re: rationales all wrong? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. No FUR - can't use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much-always feels nice to be right (sometimes). :-) We hope (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Added an FUR for the subject's article and removed it from the others three. ww2censor (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

UPLOADING IMAGES

WHERE DO I GO TO TAG IMAGES THAT I PUT UP? Jarrod Johnson 00:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjj1987 (talk • contribs)

With the upload, you select the appropriate entry in the “Licensing” drop-down of the Upload page. If you forget to do that (or if you want to change your selection), you edit the file description page, File:Vlcsnap-2011-02-23-17h21m27s56.png for example. —teb728 t c 00:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone!

I'm new here. Could someone please advise on the proper way to upload a logo and the correct way to tag, etc.. The logo is of an educational institution and it's definitely not mine. I took it from its corporate site.

Really appreciate any help I can get. I'm trying to be a better wiki contributor :) Geekcat (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Geekcat

I see you found out how to upload File:Rplogo.jpg. It also needs a {{non-free logo}} tag and a non-free use rationale. For the latter you can use a {{logo fur}} template with the Article, Use, and Source parameters filled out as File:Rplogo.jpg now stands. —teb728 t c 10:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall try to tackle this :D thank you TEB for the info! Geekcat (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC) geekcat

Logo of an Organization

Hi, I just want to know if the logo of this organization, WedPro, is copyrighted. I intend to add it to one of my Wikipedia entries, that is why. Thank you very much. File:WedPro Image for Wikipedia.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiniriya (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No image by that exact name exists on Wikipedia. Please give a URL for the image or better yet a page the image is used on. —teb728 t c 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Often logos can be used for the article on the company, so it could be fair use on WeDpro Inc.. If the logo is very simple it may be public domain. However the logo at http://www.wedprophils.org/sites/default/files/wedprophils.org/minnelli_logo.png is complex enough to have copyright, and it would be owned by Sandra B. Torrijos unless assigned to the org. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That logo is copyrighted by WeDpro; its designer, Sandra B. Torrijos (who is a personal friend), has ceded copyright to WeDpro. However, as a volunteer for the organization, I could probaly say that the logo can be fairly used in a Wikipedia entry. Dssm1979 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So apparently the logo is copyrighted and not licensed under a free license. It could be used under WP:NFCC to identify the WeDpro Inc. article. See Help:Files for how to upload and use it. Upload it with the {{non-free logo}} tag. Provide a non-free use rationale with {{logo fur| Article = WeDpro Inc.| Use = Org| Source = }} —teb728 t c 01:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir Chris Moran

Can the official photograph used by the RAF here be used for the article on Sir Chris Moran? He died in May 2010. Which copyright tag would be correct? Harrison49 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Given that he is dead, a non-free image of him may be used. You would have to tag it as being non-free of course, and provide an adequate rationale for use (see WP:FURG). Some effort should be made to see if free images of him exist though. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I have uploaded the image as File:ACM Sir Chris Moran RAF portrait.jpg. Harrison49 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

License clarification

This was the original photo on World of Color File:Disney_woc_fastpass.jpg

I'm proposing this image I have submitted File:World_of_color.jpg

Please assist me in putting this image in a proper license category. This was a ticket stub that I scanned which I have in my possession. There was similar image. I'm merely providing a better image.

Both of these images contain a logo or theme from the Disney Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueviper99 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at the licensing details on the first image to see how the use of copyrighted imagery is usually handled. Unfortunately you'd also need to upload it here to the English Wikipedia rather than to Wikimedia Commons since Commons doesn't accept any non-free media. Shell babelfish 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

my photos

I have two photos to upload... How do I show that I have rights to these photos and they are able to be posted on Wiki without being subject to deletion? How do I format this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbeh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While not a requirement I always suggest submitting a permissions email to OTRS with your declaration of consent as described here. Also you may also want to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and our Image use policy. Even if you do not take the OTRS path it is best to follow the steps in the Mini how-to which explains proper use of the {{Information}} tag for files. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to upload my own personal photo too but is kinda lost. Shall go through the link you stated here. Geekcat (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

4 photos

Does anybody know whether any of the following photos are in PD? 1, 2; 3, 4. Thanks, Aviados (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two images are from the New York World-Telegram collections for which we have a specific licence tempate, so they should be tagged with these two templates {{LOC-image|id=####}} (make sure to add the photo id number) and {{PD-NYWT&S}}. The last two appear to be older image and with some detective work you may be able to determine if they were taken before 1923, in which case they may be in the public domain. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :) But (a) regarding the first two images - reading here, I understand that not ALL photos within the New York World-Telegram collections are in PD; how then can I tell whether these specific two are free?
And (b) regarding the last two - Israel Zangwill died in 1926 (close, but could've still been photographed after 1923); how would I possibly manage to find out when the photos were actually taken? Aviados (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at Google books for pre-1923 publications and see if those images are there. I don't mean to sound harsh, and I hope you won't take it that way, but this sort of detective work is par for the course when dealing with images of this era. Note that in many cases what you need is publication date, not date of the image. Also, I think there's a website you can go to and plug in the image, and it will tell you where else it is to be found on the web.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course, understood. However, I think GooBoo don't show the pictures found within the books (but only the texts), do they? I don't know of any way to find out when and where a certain image was published and/or created; I tried my luck with tineye, but found nothing.
BTW: Zangwill was a Brit; does the "before 1923" rule apply to him? Aviados (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Photos 3 & 4 appear to be from the George Grantham Bain Collection and we have a copyright template for such images; {{PD-Bain}} that you can use for them, so it looks like you are good for all four. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing to have PNG format for this one?

Hi, I'm about updating an image for this: File:Flock Screenshot.jpg because there is a proposal to have PNG version. I'm going to have request for the PNG version right now. Note the Flock web browser is a copyrighted software, as well it's licensed also by GPL. Thank you. 112.205.12.71 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is allowed for GPL, and the template to use is {{Template:Free screenshot}}. Please upload this to commons and provide a link to the source code. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is correct. The content of the image contains items under copyright and trademark. From what I am gathering the engine that this browser is based on (See File:Chromium (web browser).png) is free, but the content of this grab clearly isn't. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Plots I generate from published tables

I'm considering generating some figures (color-magnitude diagrams for a couple of globular clusters) from data tables published in the scientific literature. The figures would be pretty simple x-versus-y dot plots. The input data are from tables in papers published in the last two or three decades. The tables themselves are still under copyright, but can the data in those tables be used to create an image that is free enough to be uploaded and used?

A complication also (though not from a copyright perspective) is that probably some "data cleaning" will be needed, that is, not every item from a particular table would get included in the plot I make. That kind of editing of data starts creeping toward "original research" and "citing one's self" considerations, because I'd be using my own professional judgment about what data should be excluded. I hope this would be simply "cropping" the plot (e.g., though the data may span a range in X from -2 to +4 and in Y from 10 to 22, all I want to show is the portion of the plot from -0.5 to +1.8 in X and from 13 to 19 in Y), but until I start real work on these, there's the chance that I'll want to exclude other data as well.

Are there established guidelines on either or both of these? And, should I repeat that second question in another help forum here? Thanks, BSVulturis (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a copyright problem, as copyright subsists in the representation rather than the information. You are allowed to crop your data, and original research is allowed in images. However when you describe your chart, please say where the data came from and what criteria you used to exclude data points. Also the image should be uploaded to commons, and .svg format is best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! BSVulturis (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly non-free files in Sheriff Hill

On reviewing Sheriff Hill I've found some potential problems with some of the images. I don't know that much about image copyright issues and find some aspects a bit confusing, so would appreciate help. There are several images in the article that have been taken from the Gateshead council website (and this one). Some of them are hosted by Wikimedia Commons, some here (I realise that the commons ones need to be dealt with there, just looking for general advice on those ones.)

The Gateshead council websites do not appear to license their pictures for reuse, the only info I can see is "Content Copyright © Gateshead Council. All Rights Reserved." - images are available for sale. Some of the images are being hosted here as "public domain"/"copyright expired". Can that apply here? Some of those images are of an unknown date and author - can we still say that copyright has expired? Yet more of the images are being hosted here and at commons, licensed under a creative commons license, as if the uploader is the owner of the images. This, surely, is incorrect.

Any advice would be appreciated, as I'm not really sure what needs to be done, if anything. --BelovedFreak 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit of a mess; it also doesn't help that many of the links given as sources go to the wrong image. You're absolutely correct that no image from that site should be licensed under a Creative Commons license, but it does look like some of them may be public domain. For instance, File:Old Mill 1922.jpg (which oddly has a higher resolution file available [5]) is likely {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} since the author is unknown. Images with both an unknown date and author are more problematic. I noticed one that said the building was torn down in 1923 meaning that any picture must have come before that so again, we can safely assume it's public domain. However, if there's no evidence of date at all or the date could be past the cut-off, they will likely have to be deleted. This may be a case where this contributor's uploads all need to be scrutinized. Shell babelfish 17:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have listed some at WP:PUF, so we'll see what happens.--BelovedFreak 14:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As the uploader I should respond to this. All of the photographs included in this article are outside of copyright. Gateshead Council is legally an arm of the UK Government and all of the photographs on the ASAP Live website are in the public domain for not for profit use. I know this because I had a telephone conversation with June O'Malley, head of Libraries and Arts at Gateshead Council, on June 24th 2010 in which I was informed that these images can indeed be used. I also have a permission to use these images in my textbook on this topic as well and this is granted by email and which I still retain. The problem here is tagging- I do not pretend to be a computer expert and despite my best efforts I could not find a way to tag these images appropriately in light of the public domain status of these images. Any suggestions to remedy this would be appreciated. --meetthefeebles User_talk:meetthefeebles 11.21 11th March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, release for "not for profit use" is non-free - such items would have to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my original response was unclear. The explicit question I asked of the Council was 'can these images be uploaded for use on Wikipedia?'. The response was that they could be so used as they are in the public domain and free of copyright- the council did not take any of the pictures: they are simply an archive collection of photographs hosted by the council and taken by people who died decades ago. This is why they were uploaded and used in the article. Unfortunately, and I take responsibility here, I simply could not find a suitable tag to represent this state of affairs: if anyone can tell me which tag would be suitable I would be happy to amend all of the offending images accordingly.meetthefeebles User_talk:meetthefeebles 12.56 12th March 2011 (UTC)

Marsh's dinosaur lithiographs

Query. I've got a nice collection of lithiographs commissioned by Othniel Charles Marsh and paid for by the United States Geological Survey, dating to the 1880s. The authors (illustrator and litiographer) are known, although I'm unable to verify their death dates, they've most certainly be gone a while (the lithiographs were created in the 1880s.) Here's the rub. Many of the illustrations were published in various descriptions Marsh made of the dinosaurs, but the lion's share in this book, Marsh's Dinosaurs[6] were unpublished until Yale put them out in the book, it's first edition dating 1966. The only edition I've found, a 1999/2000 one, gives the copyright as 1999, but I'm not sure if the original book carried this notice. My question is if those lithiographs hereto unpublished until the 1960s would then be covered 95 years from 1966 or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether the reproductions of those lithographs in 1966 was done with permission of the copyright holders. Publication is defined to occur only when authorized by the copyright holder. Although Marsh might be the commissioner (and the USGS the funder), the art are still considered private works copyrighted to the artists unless they specifically signed over their rights to Marsh.
Yale likely registered the 1999 edition to copyright the "new foreword" and the "historical update". Whatever material they printed in 1966 under authorization likely fell into the public domain since there is no renewal notice or registration for that edition (search through Copyright records and catalogues). Unauthorized material, however, would still be considered unpublished.
If "unpublished" (because Yale did not have the authority to publish them), then the copyright duration for those lithographs would be defined as 70 years pma (in that case, the death date is of concern since said lithographer might had been in his 20s/30s in the 1880s and lived healthily up to the 1950s. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Officially released and publically sold image 'free use' query

I have a question I would like some help with please. If I myself purchase a copy of an officially released and publically sold version of a photo of a public figure that has no apparent copyright restrictions, and I myself then scan that in to my computer, would my scanned image pass the 'free content' criteria? I am assuming that I would effectively own that purchased photograph and the scanned version of it, wouldn't I? The officially sold photo is intended for public use, and if I do own my own scanned version I assume copyright would not be a problem. What do you think? Its for use on this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Gurinder_Singh_Ji --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If the photo is copyrighted and not licensed under a free license, your purchasing and scanning a print does not change that. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his assignee. By purchasing you have the right to exactly one print, not the right to make additional copies. The fact that someone (you) would pay money for a print indicates that the right to make copies of the photo is of value to the copyright owner. Uploading a pirate scan would reduce their commercial opportunities. —teb728 t c 09:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. How does one know if it is licensed under a free license? The person photographed is the head of what he (and the organsisation itself) calls "a registered non-profit, charitable society, independent of any political or commercial affiliations". The photo is explicitly not sold for profit but is actually subsidised, to make it more freely available to low-income indians. Point being that there are no "commercial opportunities" to be reduced. Does that make any difference? The photo is also used/available on their web page. If no copyright restriction is declared OR mentioned is it natural to assume an unpsoken copyright? I'm not sure how it works in this case, which I think is a bit unusual.
Failing that the person allows no other photo of themselves to be taken, going as far as banning use of mobile phones and cameras at all his centres when he is on the grounds. On that point, there is the issue of non-replaceability: as this person forbids photography of himself outside of that official photo can I present an argument of non-replaceability? And if so, to whom/where? I understand such an argument is accepted only in very exceptional cases. But who would decides if this is an exceptional case?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
With a few exceptions (like works of the US federal government) images are copyrighted from the time they are made until the copyright expires. We assume it is not licensed under a free license unless we know which specific free license it was explicitly released under. If the copyright owner is a generous as you say, perhaps he would release it under a free license; see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle that. —teb728 t c 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for background, this is related to this deletion debate, and has also been discussed with the deleting admin at User talk:HJ Mitchell/Alternate. Mystichumwipe had been making a case at the FFD that this was one of those cases of a notorious recluse, where an exception to the living-person rule might be appropriate (cf. our notorious Wikipedia precedent of J. D. Salinger). He seemed to have something of a point, based on a source [7] that seemed to confirm the subject's strong resistance to being photographed. HJ Mitchell closed the discussion early, before any other user had responded to this argument. I am personally sort of on the fence about it, but I guess a deletion review might be appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Query

I have a black and white picture that was passed on to me by my grandmother. It contains a photograph of my grandfather on a diplomatic mission which was taken in 1962 and does not have any copyright on it or the name of the photographer. It basically became the property of my family. Would it pose a problem if it were posted in the biographical article? Kindly advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmdadet (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there is no conclusive information to derive from until further investigations have been made to determine the identity of the photographer and whether the work has been published elsewhere (your family might have received your copy as a private copy); it might have been published elsewhere with appropriate copyright notices or such. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian silent film screenshot

I want to put up a screenshot from an Italian silent film, which was made in 1916 and is out of copyright (worldwide). Which category should I choose? I have put a quote from the relevant Italian law, but would like to know which Wikipedia category to choose. File:Menichelli.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnorthdur (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag it {{PD-Italy}}. Or better yet upload it to Commons, tag it {{PD-Italy}}. (The warning on the English Wikipedia about not uploading to Commons is no longer applicable for a simple photograph created prior to 1976.) —teb728 t c 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a word of caution. Film stills (under which 20 years are claimed in Italy) are not screenshots. Luckily, Italian cinematographic works are copyrighted in Italy for 50 nears since fixation (i.e. recorded onto film). Upload to Commons with both {{PD-1923}} (for US copyrights) and {{PD-Italy}} (for Italian—country of origin—side). Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC
Have uploaded it to Commons and tagged as requested. I have a large collection of Italian silent films, which are normally only held in film archives who then usually refuse to release them or make them available to the general public. So I shall be adding plenty of screenshots to the Italian silent film pages, and making them all look better. Thanks for your help. Jnorthdur (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

images explosion

Can someone please have a look at the explosion images at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant? This is a high traffic page at the moment, and pictures of worrying copyright are added, but I am not sure I can evaluate if they might be suitable (e.g. screenshot under fair use....)... L.tak (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Electronic-disturbance-theater.jpg

This photo seems to be the same one as listed in this article http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-8159-after-the-storm.html but the photo does not seem to have been uploaded by either the photographer or newspaper it was published but instead by one of the people in the photograph

Not really sure if this is or is not a copyright violation or what process needs to be followed if it is. XinJeisan (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The photo is different than the one in the article. Very similar but different. 68.107.20.125 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Earth 1945 imagery

Google Earth has recently been updated with imagery dating back as far as 1945. Could images from this be uploaded to Wikipedia and under which licence? Harrison49 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends upon the status of the original individual images. This also depends upon any agreements Google has come up with the possible current copyright holders for using them. In general, the fact that Google has used these images does not confer any special permission with regards to uploading to Wikipedia. The status of the images themselves is the determining factor. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it would be beneficial for several articles to have this kind of historical information added in so I'll start investigating. Harrison49 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking an image of copyrighted material

File:LunarSSSCPackage.jpg - can I take an image of this content from my own copy and upload as under a free license or would the fact there is copyrighted artwork present as the main aspect of the image mean I could not? I ask because this wouldn't be the same as me taking a photo of a painting or scanning an image since I'd also be creating a setup.陣内Jinnai 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If your derivative work had sufficient originality for a copyright, and if you licensed it under a free license, using it would still require licenses on each of the components. —teb728 t c 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:P-38 Can Opener.jpg

This image was moved to Commons without information on the date of the original upload or the original uploader. I would appreciate it if an administrator could view the deleted history for the file and update the file description page. Adrignola (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian website yanko.lib

I reverted the good faith edit in the Leontyne Price article here. The reason was this website, which appears to have reproduced the entire Miles Davis book. And other than detailed information about the book and the copyright at the top of the page, there is nothing to indicate that Davis or the copyright owner gave permission for the reproduction.

We can't use this site, can we?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit appear to be fine even though the web source is a copyright violation, so removing the website link would make it ok. Have you checked a hardcopy of the book to see if the reference is otherwise accurate? It is not a situation where large amounts of the prose are being quoted in the article creating a copyright violation here. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of the book, and I don't believe that the editor who made the change has a copy, either. I believe part of the quote was added (didn't check when) by some other editor, and that the last editor "verified" the quote from the Russian website and expanded on it. Thus, when I reverted, it went back to the original quote with a citation needed template for it. To make the whole thing legit, someone would have to look at the book itself. I posted here only to confirm my belief that citing to the Russian website is a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making, but if the edit had been made without the website link no one might even have questioned it. Some of my local libraries have it, so I will see if I can get a look at one and confirm the citation. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Images in foreign government archives

What is WP policy on uploading and using images located in foreign government archive sites? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We still have to establish the copyright status of the image, where when and who was responsible. Then it should be possible to see if the image is now in public domain. For government images, usually different rules apply than if the image came from elsewhere. Archives are often a good source of free images, but often will not tell you if the image is now free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

British Transport Films - in or out of copyright?

British Transport Films were state-produced documentaries produced between 1950 and the late 1980s which are now rights managed by the British Film Institute. However, because they were working for the state, does that mean that under the rules of Crown copyright, the earliest instalments are actually public domain, and by extension are screenshots (or even full copies of the film) acceptable to be on Wikipedia under a public domain licence? At the moment, films such as Elizabethan Express have fairuse rationales, but I would be interested to know if they are technically PD. Bob talk 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If the state actually made them, then the earliest would have fallen into PD. However there may be more copyright material in it such as music, other people's film snippets, script. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah right, thanks. So I imagine the screenshots at least can be licensed as public domain as long as they were first shown before 1960. Bob talk 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
At least a screen shot will not be encumbered by music or scripts copyright. Just make sure about the source of the film, which may appear in the credits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On Flickr confirmation

What to do when have approval from Flickr image owner to use photo on commons (have approval to upload for article)but owner has already used modus All rights reserved. What kind of approval is needed, to upload and give information about owner and his confirmation.

Lepota (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The owner will have to change the permission on the flickr page to cc-by or cc-by-sa or public domain. Otherwise the flickr owner will have to use the procedure in WP:PERMIT, using their yahoo email matching the flickr account name, or some other equivalent way to prove a free license. Note that just giving permission for an appearance on commons is not free enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Everyone! I am not really too new, but I have never uploaded an image before... I was just wondering if you would be able to help me upload an image to Wikipedia. I have never done it before...I have tried, but havent gotten any further than...well anything :|. I am worried about Copyright violations etc. If you can help me, the image I want to upload...It is of a character from the show Law & Order: SVU. I have an IPod touch therefore meaning i go to Itunes and can buy movies shows etc. I bought an SVU episode, and I got a few images (snapshots with a thing where you can prt screen on the ipod like computer) of this character that I would like to upload on to Wikipedia...The only problem is, Is that I dont know if copy laws etc. will let me upload it. Whats more worse is that I don't even know how to upload :| Would you please help me? This picture is not rude or anything... Thankyou! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright would apply and still be owned by the filmmaker. So your snapshot could only be used under fair use. However there already is an image of the character, and it would be unfair to use two. Are any of your images better than the one there? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The one that is currently there...like right now...Was added by me yesterday. It should be with the correct information...hopefully :)-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The fair use rationale looks to be formatted correctly. However there are two old images left there, that will have to be deleted. And could a free shot of the actress replace the screen shot? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That won't be possible, replacing the character profile with the real actress, as they may look different. For example the character may have green hair, whereas the actress has blonde hair. And if it is mentioned in the article, that the character has green hair, The photo won't be able to support that. That isn't just with this character but with, well, basically the whole lot of them. With deleting the previous photo's, that can be done, but I just don't know how to do it :S Sorry. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 06:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be a good argument if a character did in fact look substantially different from the actor, but File:Casey Novak - SVU.jpg does not look substantially different from File:Gday usa2008 dianeneal a.jpg. —teb728 t c 08:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay...But I don't see why we are now talking about replacing a character's photo with the actors. The character is the character...The photo that is there now, is fine (don't want to blow my own bubble). The Casey Novak article is talking about the Law & Order: SVU character, not it's character's portrayer. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 says, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Presumably the purpose is to show what the character looks like. If the character looks like a free photo of the actress, the non-free photo of the character is replaceable. —teb728 t c 08:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information...this photo, that is currently there is fine. It is from one of her latest episodes of SVU. The photo can stay. If you have any concerns/ issues please feel free to take it up with me on my talk page. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What's with the upload page?

This isn't a copyright question, but this is the only help page referenced on the upload page, so I guess I'll leave my response here. I was trying to upload some photos, but the upload page is trying to send me over to commons. I rarely go to commons. I think I have an account there, but can't for the life of me remember my password. The bottom line is that my time is very limited, and I don't have time to be going to all different kinds of websites in order to contribute to Wikipedia. I like to upload my photos as free, public domain images, but will not deal with the hassle of logging in at other sites to do this. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are strongly encouraged to use commons for free images. Then other Wikipedia and wikimedia projects can use your photos. For example the simple English or other language may want to use the pictures on an article on the same topic. Reasons to not use commons are for example if the image is for your userpage and so only to be used on en.wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Unified login lets you login once to Wikipedia projects with the one user and password. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I use this picture?

Can I use this picture? http://www.hennepinattorney.org/Portals/0/2011/mike-freeman.gif It was also a campaign picture.

Leafyplant 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, there is no information on its copyright. Copyright licenses have to granted in writing, and if there is no text on the license granted, there is no license that Wikipedia can use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Terms of Use page says, “All contents of the Hennepin County Attorney Web Site are: © 2011 MN Hennepin County Attorney and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.” So the photo is not licensed under a free license. And since Mr Freeman is a living person, a free photo of him could be made; so the photo could not be used as non-free content. —teb728 t c 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. This person is an elected official, is there any other way to get a picture? Leafyplant 03:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You could ask him if you can take a photo of him for Wikipedia. Many people who stand for election are happy to have their photo taken. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
However, it must be freely licenced because Wikipedia only use is not permitted. ww2censor (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

what is abbnoor

what is abbnoor abbnoor is acollege in fdk ,punjab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepbrar302 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a media copyright question? If not ask at the village pump. ww2censor (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

TASS cabled photographs

I have a number of TASS photographs of Soviet cosmonauts that were wired internationally for publication in newspapers. Each image carries an official caption on the front which includes an ID: eg NXP/Comos1443955-10/12/64-MOSCOW this is followed by a description of the photograph, followed by an attribution: eg PHOTO AND BASIC CAPTION INFORMATION FROM OFFICIAL COMMUNIST SOURCE. TASS PHOTO VIA UPI CABLEPHOTO. The backs of the photos are stamped with the names of those photographed with another stamp reading: "Please Credit United Press International Photo - This picture is for your publication only and must not be loaned, syndicated or used for advertising purposes without written permission from United Press International. By accepting this picture you agree to hold United Press International harmless from any damage or loss arising by any reason of your use or publication of this picture" Then follows their address in San Fransisco. There is also a stamp noting when the reference library of the newspaper received the image. In this case: October 14 1964.

These are official images that were published in both Russia and the West. They would be invaluable primary sources to illustrate biographical articles on spaceflight (cosmonauts). Could these images be used? If so what tags/information should I attach to them? Aakheperure (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The words “must not be loaned, syndicated or used for advertising purposes without written permission” indicate they are not free enough for Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 01:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this is much more complex. The copyright status would need to be checked for each image. If they were public domain in Russia, {{PD-URAA}} might apply. {{PD-RU-exempt}} might also apply, as might either {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-Pre1978}}. Without checking the history of each image, it is very difficult to know what sort of conditions might or might not apply. For background on ITAR-TASS, see Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. Note that many of these photos are available via the ITAR-TASS archives at tassphoto.com. It is also worth noting that any active copyrights originally owned by the international photo service of United Press International are now owned by Reuters. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there enough information at the ITAR-TASS archives to determine if any of those tags apply? What kind of information is needed? Consider, for example, this image of Belka from the archives. Mlm42 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • UPI = Commerical content provider. As noted their material were purchased and now owned by Reuters, another commercial content provider. If these images were sold worldwide various copyrights would be in play - in other words it is fairly standard for various agency to only serve certain sections of the worldwide market. Perhaps TASS serviced Russia, but UPI serviced other areas - such as the United States. The image may be in PD in Russia, but not elsewhere - and if it is not PD in the United States hosting it on our servers, which are located in the United States, would be a copyvio. A claim under NFCC would fail if the images are still being sold via Reuters. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

www.dailymotion.com/us

The above website is being used in the stub article Martin Hirsch. I reverted the use here partly based on the copyright violation (although there are a number of things wrong with the material). The website appears to be a YouTube-type site. I don't see any permission to use the copyrighted material. According to their FAQ, Dailymotion does not review video uploads for possible copyright violations. See here. Am I right to revert cites to Dailymotion?

By the way, is this the wrong forum to raise these issues? I just noticed (stupid me) that this forum is mainly for images and other media, not for possible copyright violations generally. If this is the wrong place, I apologize, but I'd also appreciate knowing where the right place is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Even a suggestion as to where else to post this question would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I finally (embarrassed) figured out that I should post this at WP:CP, which I will do.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo of David Hunter Strother aka, Porte Crayon on Wikipedia

Is this a copyrighted photo - does not seem to have a tag? I am editor for a state surveying mag. and would like to use the photo in connection with an upcoming article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survguy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:David Hunter Strother.jpg, according to the tag it is in the public domain, having been published in 1900. —teb728 t c 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

uploading images asap

I need to upload the photos of my dad and president Clinton with others cropped out, he is in a public place and the photographers name is mentioned I will give him credits;"by" and it was taken for the news paper does this come under cc. How do I proceed forward for a successful upload. I have another photo I took of him. How do I proceed. Debracollier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debracollier (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You can grant a free license on the photo that you took yourself (if you were not working in your job at the time). I suggest that you pick cc-by-sa-3.0 for your license. For the other photo taken by the photographer, only the photographer or the newspaper they worked for can grant a free license, and not you, so you must get a written free license grant (which is usually hard). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Don Leicht

The articles Don Leicht and John Fekner show a number of images with copyright notices in their captions. Looking at the image files, some have copyright notices like "© 1982", some appear to be uploaded by their artist, some say "donated" by the artist, and some just say "own work" with just the normal license. Not sure what, if anything, needs to be done. Station1 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The @ can be removed, putting it in makes no difference in the caption, and the person who put in the text allowed changes to be made to it in the CC-license. Copyright does not have to be claimed for it to exist. The year can be useful information. The pcitures on commons include the information credit anyway. When uploading the fine print says that credit can be a url linking to the information. The CC licenses allow attribution to be given in different ways, it does not have to stay in the caption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What non-free image template should I use?

[8] Would this fall under video game screen shots or not?--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 14:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes, but we already have sufficient images at Mario and an almost identical image as part of the cover art of Super Mario Bros. 2, so you'd have a hard time explaining why you need this additional one (please see WP:NFCC, especially the point about "minimality of use"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
May I point out that its for the {{Reqphoto}} template on the talk page?-- Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Is a photo of painting taken in a Indian's church (Kerala) copyright-free ? I made an assembly of several paintings of Jesus taken in the Cathedral of Santa Cruz in Cochin. Is this a derived work or an original one and therefore copyright-free? Can I post this assembly in the wiki commons and under what license? Thanks for your answers Philippe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Boutelier (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:COM:FOP#India may help you. —teb728 t c 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I use these?

Hey guys. I've been around here for quite some time but am CLUELESS on images. I am currently doing a massive expansion of Boone Kirkman, and there are several images of him at the BoxRec wiki here, but I can't tell if I can use any of them or not. Please let me know if any are usable in the article as they would be a lot of help towards illustrating it. MobileSnail 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately those image have neither a source nor a copyright licence, so we cannot tell the copyright status of any of them. You will have to try and find some freely licenced images somewhere else. None of the image I found online are free either. ww2censor (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add a photo to the wiki page of a local high school

I'm wanting to add a picture of a local high school that does not currently have a picture of the school on the wiki page. I've saved a picture of the school off of its webpage but I am unsure how to go about copyright or any other government type issues. The school is Pigeon Forge High School of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to have an explicit copyright release from the owners (i.e. the school, presumably), in a way that you can provide proof of (per e-mail from the school to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org, or through a statement on the school's website). That's a bit of a hassle. Since it's a local school, wouldn't it actually be easier if you just went yourself and took your own picture? That's by far the preferred way, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I had considered that, actually which I agree would probably be far easier though I really like the aerial shot on the website. But I suppose I'll take my own picture. Thanks for the reply. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You could also draw a map as a substitute for the google map that you can't use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For reference I think the OP is referring to the photo here. —teb728 t c 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the photo I was originally wanting to use. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You can't use that photo unless you can get a release from the copyright owner. You could, however, use your own camera to produce digital photos of the school to illustrate the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Zimbabwean Dollar

My daughter is doing a project at school that requires pictures of Zimbabwean Currency 5-6 different notes. Also the meaning of each picture on the bank note. Please help. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.31.118.177 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Zimbabwean dollar useful. —teb728 t c 09:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate copyright tag for an image thats copyright expired in 2010? i.e. not PD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.112.112 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many PD-something tags, which country is this from and what reason did the copyright expire? Due to many countries extending copyright from 50 to 70 years there is not so much material expiring copyright at present. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I use a google earth image.

I have an aerial view of a high school that I would like to add to the page, but I not sure if that is ok. Richl51889 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

From this page http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html it seems that as long as I include the attribution text, but I don't know there is a lot of information on this page and it is difficult to decipher. Richl51889 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't. It's non-free content, and even if Google were okay with us claiming "fair use" for it, we couldn't do so under our own non-free content criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
What if I took a picture with my camera, I can take a picture of my computer that just so happens to have a screenshot of google earth. Richl51889 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The Google earth / maps license is not free enough for Wikipedia as it imposes some restrictions beyond the CC licenses. For example you are not permitted to remove the word Google from the image water mark, restricting the right to make derivatives. Commercial use is limited, you cannot put it in a book, tv show, or sell it. For your own use you could make a screenshot, but for use here it is not free enough. There are already enough non free images of google earth here that we don't need a non free one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How can I add a photo from other website to Wikipedia?

I have prepared a page about a well known person in Kerala, India. I wish to use his Facebook profile photo in the Wiki page. How can I add that photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepkottayi (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You cannot, unless the owner explicitly releases it under a free license, such as cc-by-sa. You could ask them to provide such a license in the form of a statement on their Facebook page, or to mail it to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". Without such a license, I'm afraid there's no way we can accept it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Would there be a case when a Facebook photo is permissible without a release? I'm asking because there are cases where Facebook photos are being used. USchick (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair warning, Fut.Perf., you are being set up here in an "asking the other parent" situation. This contributor does not agree with consensus at a non-free content review conversation and is looking for an answer that suits her better. Asking legal counsel is one thing; repeatedly asking other Wikipedians is quite another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hugh DeHaven photo

Hugh DeHaven and Dr Furnas <<<< I need someone to check this image, and Terms of Use page to see if they agree that this image could be used under Fair Use or something similar. I feel I'm in a gray area of Academic Use and just want to double check. Please leave msg on my Talk. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The text says to contact the Buffalo University for rights. It looks as if it was in a private collection, by an unknown photographer and only published recently on the web site you give. Fair use does not have to be granted by copyright owner. However is there a use for the photo? If there was an article on one of the people, that has since died, perhaps you could crop it back to just show that person. But you should consider if other photos are more suitable or whether there are any free ones around. By the way they provide a reference URL: http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/u?/LIB-UA004,35 that should not change. This would be the preferred way to refer to the item. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Presumably it is for Hugh De Haven, which the OP is working on. —teb728 t c 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The 1949 image is still in copyright and the Terms of Use clearly state that material from their website is for academic use and prohibits commercial use, so, unless you can show it to be freely licenced, the terms do not allow us to use it. I don't see any evidence that Hugh DeHaven, if he is the same person you are referring to, is dead, however, if he is, you could possible justify use here under a fair-use claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is WP considered commercial? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You probably want to read WP:NFC, especially the explanation of policy that explains why non-commercial content is not acceptable to the Foundation. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, one of the sources does provide year of death (I added it to the article), so non-free content could be used. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Is {{PD-USGov}} applicable for photos, which were produced by Los Alamos National Laboratory? I think no, but I don't want to decline this request at WP:FFU, without absolutely sure about it. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 11:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • It might depend on the photos. Abstractly, I'd paint a wide paintbrush and say no. Even though it's a federal site, they're claiming copyright on their website which is quite unusual for a federal web site. So, there's different factors at play here. When in doubt... --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Personal experience, the National Labs are sanctioned by the gov't but run academic or commercial entities. So no, work produced by the Labs are not PD-Gov as they are rarely gov't workers. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding an image

To whom it may concern,

I work for FRONT magazine and have full permission to add an image of the front cover to Wikipedia. How can I add this without it being removed?

Thank you.

Matt Harvey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfjharvey (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  • We already had a cover on the article, which I've now restored. Please be aware; permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. Unless an image is released under a free license, we must treat the image as a non-free one, and use it under terms of WP:NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I personally took several screenshots ( one of which is File:Aimstor-policy.PNG ) and I've been advised I've got the wrong copyright classification. I must admit, I am a little lost.

Here are the facts:

- I took the screenshots - Its a commercial product - I have no desire to put any restrictions to the pictures use. They are their for information and I dont see they hold any value.

Advice please to what I should change please?

Thanks

Fabkins (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the copyright type is wrong, but it is the lack of a Non-free use rationale that is an issue. You need to explain why we should allow the inclusion of the non-free image on WP. The given page has some templates that will help address those points. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of images

Hi I am uploading images to my company's wiki page Sideshow Collectibles, and I keep getting messages that I can't use the images or I'm not tagging them correctly. The images are photos we took ourselves so how do I tag the images correctly? Here are the images I'm trying to use on our page. File:SCLobby.jpg File:SideshowHeadquarters.jpg File:SDCCBooth.jpg

23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarissaBlack (talk • contribs)

We don't usually use copyright images and those you uploaded are copyright with a fair-use claim, however, they are replaceable, so a fair-use claim will not be acceptable per WP:NFCC#1. If you wish to freely licence the images, then we can use them and tag them as such but the copyright holder must verify their permission by sending us their WP:CONSENT, however, they need to understand that under a free licence the images can be used by anyone for anything, including commercial usage. Wikipedia use alone is not sufficient. You should also be aware, based on your statement above, that your contributions may be considered a conflict of interest. BTW, File:SDCCBooth.jpg has already been deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just uploaded a picture, and i do not want it to get deleted, so how do i create a copyright tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebigguy1103 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 March 2011

Looking at the images you uploaded it appears you found the images on various websites but they are most likely copyright images belonging to others and not to you. Unless you know they are freely licenced and provide a proper link that shows that fact, or they have been released by the copyright owner and they verify their permission, we cannot use them. So we cannot suggest an appropriate copyright tag for them. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead person, photos from over 65 years ago, probably PD-USGov but no source

I'm working on an article about a mariner who was awarded a medal for service as a cadet of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy during World War 2. He died a few years ago.

I have located several images of him online, and want to arrange the best possible copyright situation for using one on the Wikipedia article about him.

I've been told by the webmaster of the website that this image was provided to him for use on the website by the mariner's relatives. I've arranged for emails to be sent to the relatives, but there has been no reply.

The image on this page at The Times of Malta was almost certainly created by a U.S. government employee (it's a wartime image of him probably taken for publicity purposes), but I can't prove that, and the webmaster of that site has not replied to my emails asking about the source. Likewise the image of him used here at Marine Log Magazine is again almost certainly taken by a U.S. government employee during wartime, but again I can't prove that.

Is the most appropriate thing to;

  • use one of the three images under Fair Use, since he's dead and there's no way of obtaining a freely licensed version;

or,

Not sure if this helps or not, but there's another photo on the USMM.org site which says the photo was provided to them by Francis Dales himself. page-Photo courtesy Francis Dalesphoto There's a similar black & white photo of him in this book (photo section after page 178): At All Costs: How a Crippled Ship and Two American Merchant Mariners Turned the Tide of World War II. The image in the book says it was provided by Mrs. M. Dales from the family collection. Both photos show him wearing his medal. Hope at least one of the sources will provide you with a photo for the article. We hope (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
his death doesnt matter. . its the death of the author of the work that matters, some x number of years after they die the works copyright goes away. you might try telephoning the times of malta, their phone # is on their contact page. its a long shot. good luck Decora (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
His death is relevant for fair use, since it means that producing a freely licensed image (if none exists) is now impossible. I might try phoning, thanks for the idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
ah i was mistaken. i see what you mean. good luck. Decora (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Khalid-Saeed

File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg This image is uploaded illegally from this web site Masrawy. There is a copyright at the bottom of the website.

The person who uploaded it is claiming fair use.
The photo is owned by a family member, and no permission has been given to use it, which is discussed at length here Wikipedia:Non-free content review
This is a blatant violation of copyright and should be deleted on sight per Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Under fair use, no permission is needed, however the image has to meet the 10 criteria in WP:NFCC. If you can demonstrate that any of these are not met, then the image can be removed at the appropriate time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don’t engage in forum shopping. The image is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. If you have something to contribute, enter it there. —teb728 t c 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Non-free content review is finished with consensus that NFCC criteria has been met. What if consensus is in violation of policy? Is there any point in discussing it here? For example, the source of the photo is a Facebook page. USchick (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No, there is no point discussing it here. You would get the same answer here as there. (See the paragraph on “Tendentious editing” at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.) —teb728 t c 12:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Using letter as reference

I have a letter from my wife's (now deceased mother) in a jpeg file. I'd like to post it as a reference on the Big Basin Prairie Preserve page, however not sure what permissions to use. My wife Janie Stein is happy to have this letter from Feb 1975 posted. I just couldn't get through the licensing pages. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Bates (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a reliable source; so even if you did upload it, you couldn't use it as a reference. —teb728 t c 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
what if he just wants to scan the letter and upload? without calling it a reference? there are countless examples where people upload personal stuff, like a guy who uploaded his grandparents concentration camp ID card. i would assume in this case the license he wants to choose is either creative commons or public domain. to be 'super official' about it, they could use the OTRS system, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS Decora (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy when free image is replaced by non-free

Jean-Bertrand Aristide had a free use image for its infobox, File:Clinton&Aristide.jpg, which was replaced by File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg, a non free image. After image was tagged for being non free use for a living subject, uploader contested. IMHO, the rationale to keep the non free image isn't valid, as there is a free one available which the user removed. Does policy ever allow the replacement of a free image for a non free one? Thanks! We hope (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The uploader could perhaps make an argument that the specific alternative, File:Clinton&Aristide.jpg, doesn't qualify as a satisfactory replacement, because it's too small and low quality to show the subject properly. However, since the subject is still living, he can't defeat the more general argument of replaceability (i.e. that some other new image could be created). The argument he actually did make in the hangon tag, that an image is needed from the time Aristide actually was president, is invalid. We do generally accept images of a person's current looks even if their notability is grounded in an earlier period of their lives, and in any case, Aristide was president until just a few years ago and he can't have changed that much since then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think he was able to change that much in a relatively short period of time either. ;-) Thanks!We hope (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. is correct. File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg is obviously a replaceable by any non-free image so clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 and the historical argument is rubbish. A front-on portrait would, of course, be preferable. What he looked like at a particular point in time is not important in identifying him in his own article. Any image would be appropriate for the infobox. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The current photo is actually a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Aristide, it's not a portrait of Aristide and you can barely recognize him. And Aristide was kidnapped/exiled in 2004, 7 years ago. I've spent several hours looking for a free use image, without any success. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A non-free photo could be replaced not only by finding a free photo but also by taking one. Aristide is presently in Haiti. Someone there could take a photo of him and release it under a free license. —teb728 t c 12:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
What TEB said. Or, you could try contacting a photographer who has already published a non-free one, and ask for a free release. Some photos have recently been published by political organizations that are apparently friendly to Aristide [9] and may well have an interest in promoting him, so they might not be averse to giving us one of their images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarkett

I have been trying to upload several images to the English Wikipedia "Tarkett" page. File:Tarkett_Group_Headquarter.jpg, File:Meadowlands_L.jpg, etc.. All images have been obtained with the permission of Tarkett S.A. via their public "Tarkett Media Library" on Tarkett Group's corporate website (http://www.tarkett.com/group/en/press/media-library). What licensing criteria do I have to choose in the Wikipedia up load licensing scroll down in order to admit the images. Many thanks for your help, BBPMB — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBPMB (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you are trying to use those images in a gallery in the Tarkett article. In order to use them in a gallery they would have to be licensed under a free license. Presumably Tarkett will not license them that way, particularly since the article is about to be deleted as blatantly promotional. —teb728 t c 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg before I was able to comply with info request

The fair use rationale for this image of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was challenged and I gave reasons why it should not be deleted. In response, I was asked to provide more detailed information about the image on the image details page by March 29 (I believe). But someone has completely deleted the photo (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Bertrand_Aristide&diff=420086604&oldid=420080331 ), so I can't comply with the request. Is there any way to restore the photo so that the evaluation process can continue? I tried to undo the deletion, but the image file itself has apparently been deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what request for "more detailed information" you are referring to. What I can see is that the image was regularly tagged, you were duly notified, you entered your objections on the file page, then the other editor reacted to that with a second ("disputed rationale") tag. At that point the file was still in the regular deletion queue based on the first tag, and an administrator duly processed it on that basis and (predictably) overruled your objection. Incidentally, the image was also discussed here on this board, a few threads above this. Here too there was a clear consensus for deletion. It's really a routine, open-and-shut case. You'd need some rather extraordinary argument to make it not fall under the deletion criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The administrator had posted a template requesting additional information, and gave me a deadline to fill out the template. But now the template and all the other info are gone. My impression was that no decision would be made until after I supplied the requested information. If that info can be undeleted or viewed, you can see what I'm talking about. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That second template was merely an additional means of placing the image into yet another deletion "queue", and as such rather redundant to the first. The two processes are logically independent, and as I said, the first tag meant it was going to be reviewed for deletion by an administrator 2 days after tagging. Which is just what happened, and since you had the opportunity of raising your objection within those 48 hours, and in fact did take that opportunity, all is within due process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought the second request had a deadline of March 28th. I never had a chance to submit the requested information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
What information would that have been? If you make a convincing case against the replaceability, the image can in principle still be undeleted at any time (either by the administrator who processed it, or through WP:DRV). But it would have to be a very exceptional argument to succeed. Frankly, nothing in what you have said so far makes me expect you would have had any "information" to offer that could have defeated the very simple finding that this is a living, public political figure who can still be photographed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre-article question. I am looking to have user Fae make a photocopy of the Mirra Intermezzo. Listen here: [10]. He will have to go to the British Library and copy it manually. Then User Adam Cuerden would compose a sound file of the piece. The concern is that while the opera dates to 1920 (an Italian), the sheet music was published in 1932 (checked two sources, same date). So are we clear or wasting our time? I don't want to do a bunch of multiperson work and then AFTER find out we were unsat. thanks. The sound file would be use on en:wiki in a GA article, but the usage is too remote to justify fair use.TCO (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) refactored by The Interior (Talk) 02:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The composer Domenico Alaleona died December 28, 1928, so you need to check Italian copyright expiry, this is over 80 years ago, so probably expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, commons:COM:L#Italy says 70 years pma so it's definitely PD there, but it was still copyrighted in 1996 and so would be subject to the URAA, which I think means that it's still copyrighted in the US for 95 years after publication and would only become PD here January 1, 2028. Of course it's entirely possible the URAA will be overturned (and commons does allow content which falls into this fuzzy category), but if it was published in the US with a proper notice and renewed appropriately it would still be copyrighted for the same length of time even ignoring the URAA (and would not be allowable on commons or here). International copyright interaction isn't my strong suit, so I may have missed something. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Images from Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive

Hello. Can someone with experience in copyright issues check out Category:Images from Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive? From what I can tell, all files there belong at Commons since they are reproductions of very very old woodcuts. Yet the category contains a lengthy explanation from the uploader claiming copyright ownership and restricting the use of these images to fair-use situations. How do we handle these cases? Pichpich (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

nevermind my last posts. i think you are right about the legality. per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. The Pitts images on english wikipedia have a link to a 'permission' thing stating they are 'ok for non-commercial use', but as you seem to imply, that is incorrect legally because they are technically public domain, thus free for commercial uses as well. (and also acceptable for commons) Decora (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
i think there is an ethical question though. alot of archivists are nice folks doing hard work, good work, who just have a misunderstanding of copyright law. i think it might be good to try to email them and try to gently ask for some clarification before posting their stuff to wikipedia. another solution is to look for the same/similar images from google books; google understands it doesnt own copyright to old stuff, it just asks politely for attribution. but i am no expert, just my amateur opinion. Decora (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
i have just confirmed one of these images can be found in google books. In particular, google has scanned the profusely productive illustrator Samuel Clark, from the 1600s, one work in particular entitled "The marrow of ecclesiastical history: Contained in the lives of one hundred ..." By Samuel Clarke, http://books.google.com/books?id=_A8bAAAAYAAJ , written in the 1600s, has a hundred or so pictures of christians from the past. Page 572 has a picture of Jo. Alasco (the same picture as Pitts apparently) page 894 has a picture of Drusius (also apparently the same that Pitts has). There is even an index at the front of the book by the person's name. Decora (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the ethics argument. This is in part why I asked the question here. Surely this is not the first time that this situation has occurred and there's probably some form of established protocol. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:GLAM for cooperative projects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Royalty-free personal use

This is the license I have and the photographer from whom I got the photos emailed confirming I can use them on IMDB, Wikipedia, etc. But I am told this does not fall under free license so i should check here. Let me know if you can help as I would like to upload an image under this license

Royalty-free personal use The owner ("Owner") of the copyrighted photograph being purchased (the "Work"), hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, and perpetual right to use, reproduce and distribute the copyrighted Work for personal non-profit purposes, and to incorporate the copyrighted Work, in whole or in part, into derivative works for non-profit distribution. You are prohibited from using the Work for any other purpose, including: using, reproducing or distributing the Work and/or materials incorporating all or any part of the Work for profit; selling or distributing electronic copies of the Work as standalone files or as part of a product from which a person is able to extract the Work as a standalone file; distributing the Work in or as part of an electronic template (e.g., as an image available in a word processing or web page creation application) intended to be reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; or using the Work as part of a trademark, service mark or logo. Owner retains all other rights in the Work and any derivative work, including without limitation, the right to use, copy, sell, license, and distribute copies of the Work in all markets and territories. In consideration for the grant of this non-exclusive license, you agree to pay Owner the amount specified, due and payable immediately prior to your downloading a digital copy of the Work. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws designated by Owner, now or in the future.Winniep32 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that that license does not meet Wikipedia's requirements - use, reproduce and distribute the copyrighted Work for personal non-profit purposes is not sufficient as Wikipedia requires a license for all purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I recommended that you ask here with specifics about what image you wanted to use and how/where so you could get feedback on whether it would be possible under our non-free content policy and guideline. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wanting to upload an image of my son to his wikipedia page Robert Naylor which was taken at the Young Artist Award on the red carpet. i purchased 3 images which gave me the above license. So with the additional information provided, can someone tell me if it can be used under the non-free content policy and guideline? Winniep32 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That won't work either because it fails NFCC #1 - you could easily take an image yourself and release it under an acceptable license. – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If I want to upload a photo I got from him, what do I need to ask him for so that I can upload on Wikipedia? I do realize I can put up my own photos but these were really nice so want to see if I get to a point of getting some sort of acceptable authorization from him that fall under the guildeinesWinniep32 (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The key is the copyright owner. You need to get express permission that meets Wikipedia's requirements (see WP:PERMISSIONS) from whomever owns the copyright. Then you must follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to communicate that permission to Wikipedia for review. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo of a trademarked product

If I take my own photograph of say the packaging of an iconic confectionery product, am I able to upload it onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interscan (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be possible on fair use on the article about the product. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm doubious. There would have to be something about the container of product For exampe a bottle of "New Coke" might re relevant to a Coca Cola history article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to edge that it will likely be considered a 2D derivative image of a 3D copyrighted work, which means it will be non-free and treated that way, but it would help if the actual product was mentioned. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Work of the United States Government?

Concerning File:Gul Mudin.jpg, I'm not sure how to interpret http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html regarding "as part of that person’s official duties". Does the reasoning from File:Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg apply here, which has a notice saying: "Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties"?
See also long dispute on Talk:FOB Ramrod kill team about this.
Amalthea 09:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please conduct further discussion at Talk:FOB Ramrod kill team or at the relevant pages on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I haven't looked into the details of that particular image, but there is a distinction. The fact that someone works for the government doesn't make everything they do public domain, even during work hours. It's only if they create it as part of their actual job duties, so in the case of soldiers who have been ordered to take pictures then they would be PD (as in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos as far as I'm aware), but not if they happened to take a quick break during the course of a day to grab a personal snapshot (or write a novel, or whatever). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as i know in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos nobody ordered them to take the photos. For the FOB Ramrod kill team: The killing of Gul Mudin File:Gul Mudin.jpg happened during the soldiers regular service, it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area. There are tons of sources that confirm that they where on regular patrol when it happened. [11], [12],[13], [14], [15]... IQinn (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
None of the sources you cite state that it was a part of their official duties (which is what is necessary to to claim free license) to take photographs of the people they had killed. Since they are being charged with murder it is obvious that they were not acting in an officially sanctioned capacity. You have admitted as much.
The Abu Ghraib photos were made public domain because they were used in evidence at a trial and according to the licensing; "The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have denied this [copyright?] under oath". (whatever that signifies) There was a vote as to whether they should be kept, which of course has nothing to do with copyright law.
Speigel repeatedly claims authorship of the photos. "© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011, All rights reserved, Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH, "All our material is copyright-protected" and they provide a link where the images can be licensed. http://www.spiegelgruppe-nachdrucke.de/syndication/homeeng.nsf The Spegel group has altered these photographs and as such they contain their intellectual property.
The burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate there is no copyright infringement. V7-sport (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It has been shown that there is no copyright violation. (your are repeating yourself that has always been cleared) The Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." What we discuss here is if the soldiers who took these images of the crime could claim copyright and that seems not to be the case.
All of the sources state that the killing of Gul Mudin happened during the soldiers regular service, it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area what was there official duty at that time and they can not claim copyright for a work that was produced during their official duty. Another point is that these images have been seized by the DoD and they are as well part of a court case. IQinn (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it has certainly not been shown that there is no copyright violation. Stating that Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images flies in the face of reality. I've posted the copyright claims and the address where you can get a legitimate license to publish the photos. Being on a "kill team" was not a part of their regular service, or is taking pictures of enemy dead against standing orders not to do so; that is why they are being court marshaled. These photos will eventually become public domain, for the moment they are not. That's verifiable by going to the licensing link. V7-sport (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
(your are repeating yourself we had this already see the talk page of the article there is no copyright violation) Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." If someone has the copyright than that would be the soldiers and that is the topic of the discussion. These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty. We had this also. The question is not if it was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They state- © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011, All rights reserved, Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH, "All our material is copyright-protected and they provide a link where the images can be licensed. http://www.spiegelgruppe-nachdrucke.de/syndication/homeeng.nsf so they are claiming copyright. It isn't their official duty to shoot unarmed civilians or take photos of corpses against orders. Violating orders and the laws of war is not a part of their official duties. Repeating the same thing over and over to get the last word is not a compelling counterargument. V7-sport (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That was never an counterargument and the speedy deletion tag has already been removed from the image page because the image is in the public domain. These are the compelling counterarguments and your refusal to get the point is not helpful: Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." If someone has the copyright than that would be the soldiers. These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty. The question is not if it was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are both wrong: It’s totally irrelevant whether der Spiegel claims copyright on the version they published. And it’s mostly irrelevant whether the original photograph is PD or copyrighted to the photographer. Somebody modified the image, blurring the face of the victim. And that somebody (or his employer) has copyright on the modified image. His copyright is automatic whether he claimed it or not. So the modified image can be used here only under WP:NFCC. Establishing significance for this photo should be trivial. And until the original is released at the court martial, a good case could be made that it is not replaceable (despite the fact the original was leaked to der Spiegel). —teb728 t c 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"Somebody modified the image, blurring the face of the victim. And that somebody (or his employer) has copyright on the modified image. His copyright is automatic whether he claimed it or not." That is correct and they have claimed it. Really, a free version of this, released at the court martial will be out any time now. Indeed, if the person involved is getting 24 years in a federal prison there isn't much need to suppress it.V7-sport (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree blurring the face is not something that can be copyrighted and Der Spiegel has not claimed copyright for the image. It is all over the media and internet and it is in the public domain as taken by the soldier during their official duty in patrolling the area. But i agree that Fair use is certainly possible to do and it is obviously that the images is highly important to the article and it should be added to it as soon as possible. IQinn (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Stating, over and over, that "Der Spiegel has not claimed copyright for the image" is patently false. It is as follows "© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 Alle Rechte vorbehalten Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH. © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 All rights reserved Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH. The link above gives you licensing information. A free version will be yours soon enough when it comes out in the courts-martial. V7-sport (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
(We had this already) Der Spiegel does not claim copyright for these images they are all over the media and the internet and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." IQinn (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof" was posted by a wikipedia editor, not a representative of the Spiegel group or anyone else in authority. Stating that doesn't make their copyright claim void. When they are shown elsewhere Spiegel is credited. V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeap the sentence "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." was posted by another Wikipedia editor as part of the discussion and he is right you have never shown that they claim copyright for blurring the face. These images are all over the media and the internet. IQinn (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've shown that they claim copyright when I posted the licensing information. V7-sport (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That is wrong. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." IQinn (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is now the third page where you have been exchanging these same arguments, and it's going in circles. Please at least keep it together in one page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

uploading a movie poster

hello, I need to upload a movie poster. I received it from the movie's production. What should I do to upload it to the movie's page? Do I need a license or written permission to publish? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acee.la (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Upload it as described at Wikipedia:Uploading images, and use it by inserting the file name in the image parameter of the infobox. See Help:Files for more information on uploading and using files. —teb728 t c 22:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Tag it with {{non-free poster}}, and use {{film poster fur}} to provide a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Permission of free use

Hi, currently I'm working on Jeff Seeney and Next Queensland State Election, of both which require the picture of this Jeff Seeney individual, who is a politician. I emailed his office and his staff emailed me 2 pictures with permission of free use. How do I translate these two pictures into the relevant articles? Thankyou! Dengero (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is needed and how the copyright owner can convey that permission to Wikipedia. (Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not adequate.) —teb728 t c 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) To be sure you understand: when we talk about "free use" here, we mean "free of restriction" not "free of cost". —teb728 t c 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Graph from academic paper

I would like to use a graph from an academic paper in an article. Specifically, I would like to use Figure 1 from "How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited"[16] in the Laffer curve article, as it would greatly enchance understanding of the topic. I realise that diagrams like these are covered by copyright, but is there a fair-use justification for its use in the article, to illustrate the main findings of the paper? LK (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it is easily replaceable by another similar graph that you draw and release for free, so it would fail the fair use criteria. The data for the graph cannot be copyrighted, and you can change axes labelling, form of line etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The graph was created based on simulation of a theoretical model – there is no 'data for the graph'. One can say that the graph illustrates the main findings of the paper. Does fair use apply then? LK (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You could use the same model to make up point for the graph, or you could read off several values from the graph to create data. Fair use would only apply if you were talking about that particular publication of the graph in the article (critical commentary), and that the other recreations of it could not replace it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy of Scholarpedia article

Hello, is it possible to copy completely Scholarpedia article. In fact, I am interesting by this article which could complete our article. So, I would to know if WP licence and Scholarpedia licence are compatible? Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, according to the license on the article the article is licensed only to Scholarpedia; so Wikipedia has no right whatever to use it. —teb728 t c 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

rallykenya.com

A Site for Motor Sport Enthusiasts with a major focus on all motor sport events in Kenya and touching base on similar relating matters worldwide, this interactive, dynamic and highly informative website hosts a huge collection of applications including Rally Social Forum, Rally News, Rally Photos, Rally Videos, rally shop, rally document section and much more. www.rallykenya.com< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity.254 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a media copyright question here? If there is a suggestion that some images might be useful, most likely everything found there is copyright and we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

free speech flag

File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg has been deleted off of english and commons wikipedia. I have been told that the image has been 'oversighted'. You can see some deleted revisions related to the image here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_3&action=history

There are two questions.

First, the flag itself is based off of this flag: at Yale University Law & Tech site.

As you can see, the flag is simple geometric shapes (6 colored rectangles) and 4 letters. Under US copyright law, is this not un-copyrightable for that reason alone?

There is an alternative version of the flag; it is simply 7 colored bars. I would imagine the argument in that case is even stronger?

Secondly, the HD DVD Free Speech Flag exists on many wikipedia pages. I am not understanding how this is different from the ps3 free speech flag. The HD DVD flag file is here: File:Free-speech-flag.svg and the key itself is even listed in this article : AACS_encryption_key_controversy.

Also see:

Thank you Decora (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Are you sure that is the name of the image as the deletion log entry does not appear? If a take down order is given then the image may have to be removed, despite what policies here say. It may be possible that the number is covered by copyright, and that the image is being used as a way to circumvent that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
the edits were Wikipedia:Oversighted, thats where there is no deletion log etc. the key number itself does not have to be listed, only a bunch of colored bars. the intent is irrelevant, you cannot copyright 7 colored rectangles (or 6 colored rectangles + 4 letters) no matter what they represent or what you intend by it. please see Wikipedia:Logos and template:pd-text for more info. since the rectangles cannot be copyrighted, their use cannot be a violation of copyright. any law that attempted to ban a sequence of colors in a flag would be a violation of the First Amendment (congress shall make no law infringing the freedom of speech, press) and unconstitutional under US law, and also a violation of the Universal declaration of human rights. Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
And why is the HD DVD flag OK but the PS3 flag is not? Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Free-speech-flag.svg has also been nominated for deletion. —teb728 t c 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
looks like a unanimous vote to keep, and not delete. Decora (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A number may not normally be copyrighted, per threshold of originality. See Feist v. Rural where an entire book of numbers was not copyrightable, nor any of the numbers included within it ("raw data does not satisfy the originality requirement".) Keep in mind the numbers in that case were organized and correlated with other data, and there were more. Int21h (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.

Can anyone point to any such "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" that is anything other than remotely similar to the flag in question? If not, the flag should not be removed for copyright reasons which do not exist. The other categories do not apply; eg., the work is not a literary work, or software. Also, threshold of originality may apply. A simple string of digits, or colors, or shapes, in the form of a flag or otherwise, would likely not meet this originality, by any stretch.

Every individual on Wikipedia is expected, by law, to know this, as well as all other United States and Flordia laws; ignorance is no excuse. It may be available for Trademark, however, but unless trademark is claimed, such a reason again should not be used for removal.

I have not seen this flag, because the Wikimedia page log says

17:28, 6 March 2011 Decora (talk contribs) uploaded "File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg" (comment removed)

but the flag is not there, and there is no deletion log. Int21h (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the stated flag does not actually represent any kind of "PS3 freedom" as it does not actually let PS3 users do anything interesting. It's a key used to generate factory service dongle keys (which is useless except in some niche scenarios). Somehow it has been mistakenly popularized as some sort of "master key" and repeated by users, but the reality is that it is completely useless. A representative "key" for PS3 freedom would be the "metldr Da key" that geohot released, which is in fact the signing key that can be used to authenticate executables for every manufactured PS3 to date. Not this one.Marcan (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little more concerned that this was oversighted to (what seems to be) avoid scrutiny/sweep the issue under the rug, rather than a valid use of oversight tools. This should never have been oversighted. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, please post all the information about who actually deleted, oversighted, etc. this deletion so that we may get their credentials revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.158.146 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this fell under WP:OFFICE. But it should be tagged as such, to make it more clear. Otherwise, it looks like the other image will be kept after the deletion discussion on commons. If that happens, this one can be re-uploaded there unless counsel advises otherwise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion as an WP:OFFICE action is one thing, but oversighted? I could see it being oversighted if the file name itself contained the key, but it didn't. -- Ned Scott 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have oversight access and can't see the logs but I believe the same thing is done at Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy. Being sued is expensive, so I can understand (regardless whether I agree) why they might do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't. Even if I agreed that the key should not be on wikipedia in any shape or form, oversight is another level on top of deletion. Why make it so there isn't even a log entry? This isn't some kind of personal information or something that could put people in danger. Oversighting still doesn't remove the data from Wikipedia servers. Unless they were afraid that there was going to be a wheel war with admins restoring and re-deleting the information then it was not a valid use of oversight tools. Copyright violation isn't enough for oversight. Like I said before, the oversight alarms me more than the actual deletion. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It was me that originally directed Decora here when they enquired about this on IRC (I have no other involvement in this and I have never viewed the image concerned or any of the pages concerned). There is clearly significant uncertainty over whether oversighting this image was appropriate. Decora, I suggest you email the Audit Subcommittee as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Procedure, refer them to this thread, and ask them to comment. Not as a suggestion that oversight was "abused" in any way by the oversighting admin, but for a clarification of whether this is an acceptable use of oversight. Oversight is a very powerful tool and its use in this instance makes it extremely difficult to discuss the removal of the image productively, or to raise its removal in an appropriate forum for community comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it lame that a file is deleted without a notice. Why not add a note: "Deleted by Office because of xxx se (link). Signature."? --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. But, for example, we might have gotten a legal DMCA "takedown" notice, and the legal group might still be talking about it. They will eventually explain what's up but it can take a day or so. I'm not saying the lack of information is good, though, I think they should have posted a note when they oversighted the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Excerpt from my watchlist today
What's really annoying is that whoever it is is still hard at work oversighting or whatever (see the entry in my watchlist in the image), but refuses to come out of the "inky shadows" (as the Car Talk guys would say) and give Decora the common courtesy of informing her what's going on. I think Decora has a very legitimate grievance... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
looks like edits containing the key in text have also been oversighted in PlayStation 3. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

i might as well point out that File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg predates the File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg by more than a month, (i didnt find it until after i'd uploaded the 6-bars black text version). It has not been deleted either. Decora (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the outcome of this discussion [17], which was strongly unanimous in keeping the other flag, I'd say you would be justified in re-uploading the image to commons. If someone wants to make an official statement to contradict that, they are of course free to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
i emailed the arbitration audit committe as suggested by Demiurge1000 and will wait for an outcome.. i asked another person familiar with the matter yesterday if i should just upload the flag, they said basically no. Decora (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the other image related to this File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg until we know the outcome of this issue. I find it personally odd that one image is kept, but the exact other is nuked (I personally think if the other one was named with regards to the PS3, it would have been nuked too). Once the outcome is determined, then we will move forward. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Then what about File:Free-speech-flag.svg  ? it is essentially the same thing. Decora (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with different keys (and issues). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the difference? I dont understand. The issue is not copyright law? Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The image kept was that of the HD DVD key, which has been resolved a few years ago. The Sony key, which is of the deleted files, is still ongoing and Sony is sending take down notices. Can't say this is exactly happened in our case because I don't know, but once we do figure out what is going on with the Sony key, we can move on from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Who did Sony send takedown notices to? Wikipedia? I think that [citation needed]. When was the HD DVD key resolved? thanks for the info Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
If Wikipedia got a take down, we cannot say. As for others, http://www.techspot.com/news/42569-geohot-on-sony-ps3-hacking-lawsuit-beating-them-in-court-is-just-a-start.html among other sources states "Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key." The best place to look for take down notices is at Chilling Effects, but none from Wikipedia that I am aware of. As for the HD DVD, I remember being one of the admins trying to scrub the key from the site when it first came out, but in the span of....I would say about 3 weeks, the issue was resolved and we could keep everything. I will have to look this up later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have hit upon an explanation of why oversighting File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg makes sense. Arguing from analogy: My telephone number is 10 digits long. I have no possible copyright claim on it, for it contains no originality, and I didn’t create it anyway. But if someone posted, “teb728’s phone number is (xxx)xxx-xxxx,” nobody would question that an oversighter would suppress it. Similarly if someone uploaded a color bar and 4 extra digits with the explanation, “Reinterpret the 6 hexadecimal digits of the RGB value of the bar as decimal digits, and append the 4 extra digits. The result is teb728’s phone number.” An oversighter should suppress that as well, for it reveals the same private information. Well, just as my phone number is my private information, so Sony’s key is their private information; and protecting privacy is one of the normal and valid uses of oversight. The whole argument about whether the image is copyrightable is irrelevant. —teb728 t c 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that the only reason given for the deletion was 'copyright violation'. nobody mentioned privacy. Additionally, Sony did not sue George Hotz and members of fail0verflow over privacy law, they sued them over copyright law, the DMCA law (part of copyright law), tresspass, Misappropriation, Tortious interference, Breach of Contract, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the computer fraud and abuse act, etc. is one of those related to privacy? i dont know, maybe tresspass
Secondly, "There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. ". . considering Sony re-tweeted the key on twitter...i think they may have a hard time arguing that Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thirdly, corporations do not have exactly the same rights to privacy like people do. Lower court ruling (Proskauer.com) was recently overturned by the Supreme Court (India Times) (story in the Atlantic) Decora (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
(EC. In reply to TEB728)No, that's a very different situation. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding living people in regards to privacy, but a company is not a person (at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned).
What is much more likely is that Sony is making a claim that, despite how widespread this and other PS3 keys have become known, that having the information on Wikipedia is a tool for bypassing digital rights management. So even if the key itself isn't copyrightable, it's apart of a DRM system, and protecting that key becomes a copyright issue under the DMCA. They might not even care about this key, which isn't the recent Geohot key that has been in the news lately, but are systematically sending out take down notices to any site that has posted any of their keys.
I think CBM's right that this is simply a case where things are still being discussed/processed, and that's why we haven't seen any official notice about this. It's still very strange and troubling that there isn't anything being said. Not even a simple "There's an issue regarding this and we can't talk about it right now, so please stand by". And while I still don't think that it would have required oversighting, having some notice would at least tell us that maybe the Foundation is just playing it safe right now until things have settled (likely when some ruling in the Geohot/Sony case is made). As it is now it just causes confusion and frustration. -- Ned Scott 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Where did Sony claim anything about wikipedia? Citations are needed. Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not just us, but everyone. Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key. Sony last week was granted permission to obtain information about who downloaded files and watched a video pertaining to the hack of its PlayStation 3 gaming system. So even just eyeballing something on youtube can get you a lawsuit notice from Sony. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the insight, very much appreciated. Decora (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know for sure if this is Sony's doing, but I believe it to be the most likely explanation. Just another reason why we need an actual explanation for what's going on here. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to mention that some vaguely related discussions are occurring currently and/or previously and/or in the future at Wikipedia talk:Office actions and Wikipedia talk:Oversight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhm... I wonder, why nobody asked the reasons to the user who hid the image? (or any other oversighter) -- Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. My understanding is that the issue was raised with an oversighter five days ago, and the response was to confirm that the image had been oversighted; but an explanation as to why, was not available. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the note. when i emailed the arbitration audit committee, i asked them why it was deleted, they said that was outside the scope of their committe to answer questions like that.
IIRC i also left a message on the editors talk page. the discussion got kind of complicated, i had posted a link to an article that had the hexcode for the key as a citation for the flag, and they felt that itself was a problem. then i just asked if it was ok to post the flag by itself, i think they said basically no. you can see my talk page IIRC and link to the discussion on the editor's talk page. Decora (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the two (the editor removing the flag in the article and the deletion/oversighting) are directly related. There are a few editors who don't think the key should be in the article, and the talk page indicates that this isn't the first time someone has tried to mention it. Besides, it's not like just anyone can find and oversighter and get something oversighted just because they personally believe something might be a copyright issue. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for that. yeah i forgot the flag image (at commons and en) and the 'flag in an article' are two diff things.. the prob with the images is that there is no log, whatsoever, nothing to link to. thanks for the info. Decora (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Decora. I am a member of the Audit Subcommittee, which exists to investigate complaints of misuses of CheckUser and oversighter privileges, since, as you have noticed, they leave no public logs and are opaque to most editors. To clarify our response: we are currently looking into the use of suppression in this case. However, the point that was made in our reply was that administrative decisions about deletion are up for the community at large to decide, so while we might decide that suppression (which hides an item from even administrators) was unwarranted, it wouldn't mean that the file would necessarily be undeleted. Dominic·t 21:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Dominc, thanks for writing. The File:Free-speech-flag.svg , which is virtually the same issue at hand, was unanimously voted for 'keep'. I can imagine that if PS-3 free speech flag came up for a vote, the results would be similar. However, I would like to know how long we can expect to wait for a decision before the flag can be reposted and brought to a vote? Decora (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Any new news? — MK (t/c) 09:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I have heard nothing. I have received no email from any committee, and I have seen no edits to my talk page, and I have seen nothing in the 'wikipedia sign post' magazine, nor anywhere else. Decora (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If Sony sent a DMCA takedown then it should have been posted for all to see as was previously done with takedowns such as wmf:File:DMCA PCI.pdf and others in wmf:Category:DMCA. If a DMCA takedown was not sent to the WMF and Sony is only making public threats, then the file should not have been deleted and oversighted. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
well, it has been two weeks and counting, not sure what i should be doing, if anything. Decora (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
according to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Reports it can sometimes take 60 days or even 100 days for them to make a decision. Decora (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Got this today: "This note shall confirm that the Audit Subcommittee is still reviewing the circumstances surrounding the suppression of File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg. As you may know, the subcommittee will be changing personnel within the week and we will make our best efforts to conclude our review in a timely manner once the changeover is complete." Decora (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Links related to this issue:
*User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Official_Office.2FWMF_response_to_HD-DVD_key_controversy
*Wikipedia:Keyspam
*Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#unecyclopedic_argument_is_unconvincing
Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear that this is taking so long. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Just came across this undeletion request on commons for the file commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg -- Ned Scott 12:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pushparaj Kulal

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushparajkulal (talk • contribs) 09:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Wp50949693_0f.jpg

Hello,

Can you check image File:Wp50949693_0f.jpg now that I have amended the text?

Many thanks Mark Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinbych (talk • contribs) 11:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The amended text helps but even though you state a source and also that there is permission, there is no verification of the permission nor the type of licence under which the copyright holder releases the image. We require a freely licenced image which means that anyone can use the image for anything and you need to have the copyright holder confirm their permission bu following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. I have added an information template and you should fill in the missing details too. BTW, the image title is rather useless, it is best to name image based on their content. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

question about peggy.jpg

I am brand new to wikipedia and am having a hard time finding out how to do some of the things.

I got a message that I needed to indicate the copyright information on an image I uploaded. How do I do that? I will confirm with the person whose picture it is, but I believe it is a personally owned picture from her own collection, with no copyright. How do I indicate that? And if it turns out I am incorrect, how do I label who owns the copyright? Basically, I guess I need to know how to edit image information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaylor64 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions relating to how to add copyright information after the fact are so common, we have the answer at the top of the page. (also note, the upload form has a drop down menu for license, so when you upload, you can choose the license there. however, if you forget to do that when you upload, read the instructions at the top of the page). That said, the photo has a copyright. Under US law, all creative works are automatically copyrighted by their creator. So in this case, whoever took the photo, owns the copyright (unless it was a work for hire, say by a professional photographer, and the rights were transferred to the subject under contract). Did you take the photo yourself? If not, you really should not be uploading other's creative works without their expressed permission (or without concrete evidence the work has been licensed freely). So we either need an official website or something of the sort with a copyright notice, stating the corresponding free license, or you need to check out WP:PERMISSION and have the copyright holder (the photographer, not the subject, unless rights were transferred) e-mail us a declaration of consent (WP:CONSENT). I know this may all be a bit overwhelming, but we have a very strict policy on copyright and licensing, as we are the free encyclopedia, and we must ensure our content is licensed freely. Hope this helps. If you have any follow up questions at all, from how copyright and licensing works on Wikipedia, to how to edit an image page, feel free to ask, and I (or another volunteer) would be glad to assist you. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am busy writing a book and would like to include some images from Wikipedia, but I am not sure how to ascertain whether these images are copyrighted or not.

Example: Johann Titius. I cannot see whther it has been tagged with copyright. Can you please assist and advise.

Regards Suzette Els —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.26.104.55 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Click on the image in the article. That will take you to a “file description page.” Every file description page is supposed to have a “file copyright tag.” (Some don’t in violation of policy.) The tag indicates that the image is in the public domain (and why) or that it is licensed under a free license (and which specific license) or that it is unlicensed and being used under fair use. —teb728 t c 08:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/March&oldid=1138542386"