Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/October

Infantry Combat Badge

See also: User talk:Stefan2 § Infantry Combat Badge

Im not sure how taking a picture of a badge with my ipod camera on a white piece of paper can contain a derivative work. Regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The badge itself may be under copyright of the agency that created it. When you take a photo, you are creating a derivative work of the badge (a 2D representation of a 3D copyrighted art), and thus the photograph carries not only your copyright on the photo, but the agency's copyright on the badge. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The badge is awarded by the Australia Army in the same way a commendation or a medal is awarded, by your justification, a picture of a medal group cannot be uploaded because several different companies or agencies own the design or copyright of the ribbons or devices?!? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 14:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't take photos of certain objects because they are copyrighted. For example, see this blog post which explains why it is illegal to take photos of the Eiffel Tower at night, or this article section which explains why it is illegal to take photos of the Atomium in Brussels. Australian law allows you to take photos of many things, but not badges. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be more specific, its not illegal to take the photo, but the entities in question retain their copyright rights on the objects depicted, and thus your publishing of them violates copyright law (though depending on country, fair use allowances still apply). The key thing is that prevents the image from being considered "free" for WP's purposes, even if you put up your photo in a free license. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure about this so I've emailed the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner this discussion for clearty. Regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I just recieved a reply from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and they are unaware of any such legal obsticle, So I have emailed the Defence Honours Directorate. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 07:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this file ok?

I uploaded File:Downtown College Prep gateway.jpg (a photograph I took myself depicting an ornamental gateway at Downtown College Prep in San Jose, California; apparently it is called the Spirit Gate and was created in ... 2000?) but I am wondering whether this is allowed under US law, since it is an artwork. Checking before I use it in the article I plan to write on the school. If it's not ok, c'est la vie, I'll delete it myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it is artistic and the focal point of the photo, I'd say it needs to be licensed as {{Non-free 3D art}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, much as I'd suspected, though I wasn't aware of that license. Since I do not plan to write an article on the elementary school that previously occupied the building and for which the work was created, I don't think the article can reasonably meet the standard of needing detailed discussion of the work. So I will delete it, but this will serve as additional documentation that it exists and I'm quite willing to undelete it in future for anyone who wants to write about the elementary school, the artist, or public art in San Jose. I also took a cluttered pic of the street frontage in which the gate is visible; I'll upload that and put it at the bottom of the article for completeness' sake. Thanks for responding. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Author photos and book covers

First of all, I am very, very new to Wikipedia. My focus is on books and authors. I wrote my first article and it went live last week (yay!). When I was writing it and getting it ready, I tried to add a picture of the author, and I got really confused and to be honest, spooked, so I thought I would add it later when I knew more about it. Now my article has a happy face and someone requesting pictures of the covers, so I guess it is time to learn how to do this!

When I tried to upload a photo of the author, I used the promotional one from the publisher's website. When I picked what kind of photo it was, I picked the promotional one. A warning popped up and it asked me to defend why I thought this was copyright safe (at least that is what I'm thinking it was asking). I wasn't sure how to word it and what the different lines meant, and I was worried about a big warning on my page.

So, my question is, would somebody help me with this step by step? I'm worried about getting lost and maybe missing something, so if someone would give me the steps at a first grade level, I would greatly appreciete it :) BookBard (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If the author is alive then the only acceptable picture will be a free one - we cannot accept a copyrighted image nor would it be usable under our non-free content criteria as it would theoretically be replaceable by a free image. The front cover image may be acceptable under the NFCC (for use only in an article about the book itself). To use it, you would have to upload the image, then add an appropriate non-free use rationale and the {{Non-free book cover}} template. The way round all this would be to persuade the publisher to release the cover images under acceptable licenses, but I doubt that they would agree.--ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I was reading, I thought it would be okay to use a promotional picture? Did I get that completely wrong? Also, I was wondering how to fill out the rationale template?BookBard (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Publicity photos - they can be used only pursuant to the non-free content criteria, which would not apply here as the author is alive. For assistance completing a FUR for a book cover, see the template documentation at Template:Non-free use rationale book cover, but note that in most cases, a non-free book cover is only acceptable in an article about the book itself. Also, please see WP:NBOOK for the notability guidelines for books.--ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi current cover

Wondering how I go about informing you of the email from the publisher, that I have, that gives Wikipedia permission to put the current cover on the Autobiography of a Yogi page. Who do I forward it to? Thanks for your help. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENT.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is permission only for use in Wikipedia, don't bother. But if it is the permission for reuse by anyone for anything (which Wikipedia requires), then yes, WP:CONSENT. —teb728 t c 20:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo-for-wiki.png

This file File:Logo-for-wiki.png has been listed for deletion. At the Files for deletion page (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 2), the reason stated is this: This image doesn't only contain the logo for Bridge Alliance, but also the logos for many other companies. The other logos fail WP:NFCC#8.

How can I ensure that the other logos meet the requirements for WP:NFCC#8 ? I've checked and only CTM and Taiwan Mobile seem to not have existing images of their company logos on Wikipedia. ThanksBrand&comms (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to establish contextual significance for all the company logos in the article about Bridge Alliance. If at all, we can use individual logos in the articles dealing with the respective company but in this case only the Bridge Alliance logo itself would be of any significance to the article. You could try to find a cropped version of the logo and replace the existing image (go to the File History section at File:Logo-for-wiki.png and click "Upload a new version of this file"). De728631 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure, there is no contextual significance for all the company logos even though they are official members of Bridge Alliance? Please refer to FreeMove - Can you kindly explain how there is contextual significance for their member logos to be included in the infobox on the right? Will it be ok if I follow their format and remove the big Bridge Alliance logo at the top, but keep the "Members of Bridge Alliance" and the 11 company logos? Thanks Brand&comms (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:FreeMove New Logo.jpg can be used in the infobox because it (including all of its components) is licensed under a free license; so WP:NFCC is not applicable. —teb728 t c 07:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

...because it (including all of its components) is licensed under a free license or so the uploader claims. Personally, I doubt it as there is nothing at http://www.freemovealliance.com/ to confirm it.--ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Ukexpat. The Telia Sonera logo in there looks actually copyrightable with its 3d artwork. This seems to be a self-made image which was then published under a non-applicable free license. You might want to nominate it for deletion on Commons. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, some of those logos do not qualify for being uncopyrightable (certainly the Telia Sonera one). This image needs to be deleted for that purpose (though again, the main freemove logo can be kept as a single non-free for the article here). --MASEM (t) 21:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:FreeMove New Logo.jpg has now been tagged as lacking evidence of permission. There is no evidence that the uploader drew all of those logos (as is currently claimed). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Brand&comms: The 11 company logos are exactly the problem here, not the BridgeAlliance main logo. These 11 logos should be removed while keeping the BridgeAlliance. This on its own looks even like it's not original enough for copyright and might be used with {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all the advice. Please help me here, is the issue a question of permission? Because I have permission from Bridge Alliance and the 11 companies to use their logos, and I will be able to show it to Wikipedia. Or is the issue simply that other company logos cannot be used? Thanks Brand&comms (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Do they all give permission for anyone to use the logos for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. Wikipedia does not accept any less permission than that. —teb728 t c 05:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The permission is for use in this article Bridge Alliance on Wikipedia. They remain as non-free media. Brand&comms (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that permission is not acceptable. —teb728 t c 08:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaint About Image Use Policy and Editors

I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff Odellhuff (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)(Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odellhuff (talk • contribs) 11:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Odellhuff

Please start by posting a link to your deleted image (a link to where image was before being deleted) or a discussion about the image. You are being very vague at the moment.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference - File:Photo of Warren Coats.jpg which had been tagged for No-Permission Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this image deleted six times? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying Warren Coats is the author of the picture. The author of the picture is the person who took the picture, the sole holder (usually) of the copyright therein; not the person in the picture. As to why we're so picky around here: we have to be, to bulletproof ourselves against lawyers and lawsuits. Believe me, I'd rather be working on articles about obscure legislators of the 19th century like John Cubbins or something equally fascinating. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I reforwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from both the author and the subject (one contention has been that it was the subject's camera for the subject's computer but a friend snapped the picture--we had to track down the person who snapped the picture, the "author," to ask his permission to actually use it?). Then, in Wikimedia Commons on the file's description page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warren_Baghdad.JPG#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D) under the licensing heading I inserted:

An email containing details of the permission for this text has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe and a decision tree this complex are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs.Odellhuff (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reforwarding does not work. the permission must be directly from the copyright holder to the foundation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I only meant I reforwarded the email that had already been sent by the author--I guess the problem was that I hadn't tagged the photo file with the OTRS line.Odellhuff (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pomocy!!!

Jak się nazywa ten słownik: Sprawdzam znaczenie i odmiane polskiego wyrazu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.59.61 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Statue in Japan

Would like someone who really understands copyright rules to review discussion about File:Hachiko 20040803.jpg and other photographs about Hachikō. See the many conversations at Talk:Hachikō. It is clear that art is copyrighted but can it be uploaded and used under non free fair use? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Works of art installed in public places in Japan do not have freedom of panorama, meaning that if you take a picture of it, it is still a picture copyrighted to the art's creator. It is reasonable (under non-free content) that a picture of the Hachiko statue can be used on the article about Hachiko, but nowhere else (I had once considered it for the game The World Ends With You, since the statue is featured in that, but that is a no go per NFC). --MASEM (t) 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Determining the copyright status of a logo or computer icon

Hi.

I am rather new to Wikipedia's field of images and I have a couple of questions about the copyright status of a logo or computer icon. From what I see, I gather that in absence of a specific licensing statement from software vendors, logos and icons of computer software are taken to be licensed under the same terms as the software from which they are derived. For example, Avidemux, Audacity (audio editor), GIMP and Media Player Classic are all published under GPL, so their logos are uploaded under the same license. But the vendor of Blender (software), for instance, has published a separate copyright statement about its logo, so it is not free. Am I right so far? In another word, is this an acceptable general rule? Can I upload the computer icon or logo of any free and open-source GPL software to Wikipedia under a GPL license?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes if the logo is included in with the software the supplied copyright license applies. The Wikimedia commons is a better place to upload free logos though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Graeme. So, the next is question: What is the catch about File:Virtualbox logo.png? With the rule that you just confirmed in mind, I find this image inside this software package which includes GNU General Public License and I have so found no statement from the author that the logo is licensed differently. So, I conclude that its licensing term should be GNU General Public License. Where did I go wrong? (Or, am I wrong?)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The logo is not always included in the licensed software package. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Virtualbox logo.png. See also Commons:Category:Mozilla Firefox for a similar situation with other software: Mozilla logos can't be uploaded as free images if the version number is too low. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. The logo is included in the package that I linked. But I still appreciate your reply. Thank you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see that the discussion has suddenly stopped. I must say I am not yet used to these quirks of Wikipedia but now that both requirements set by Graeme Bartlett and Stefan2 are satisfied, maybe I should act WP:BOLD and change the license tag of the image? Should I? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Lisa - what happens sometimes is that the software itself is open source, but some of the included images are not. Two prime examples are the Mozilla example given by stefan above, and Wikipedia Foundation itself, which copyrights at least one of its logos. The only way to tell is this: you'll have to read through the fine print in the README or licensing file to see if it says the entire package is free or if somewhere it provides an exemption for the logo. However, this is a quite complex case (see the deletion request linked by Stefan above): you would probably do better asking the closing admin of that discussion for an explanation on why he believes it is non-free before marking it as free. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Magog. Thanks for the reply. But actually, I have done both. I studied the license agreement and there was no mention of a separate license for the logo. (This was also mentioned in the Commons discussion.) By now, I pretty much believe Graeme Bartlett's statement applies to this logo/icon, although it is exactly for the same reason that I contacted you: I understand something made you believe the logo is not under the same license as the rest of the package; something that I have not yet discovered. If it isn't much trouble, could you please share it with us?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Namely, that logos are often non-free, and when the logo was originally uploaded, no one had as of yet bothered to look at the source. That no longer applies if you did the work yourself. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I see. You acted according to something similar to Precautionary Principle on Commons. It was a wise move that makes perfect sense. But, yes, as you say, I did the work to the best extents I could. So, unless there is something else I should know, I believe this wraps it up. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you list a step-by-step guide for how to verify that the logo is covered by the GPL licence? You are linking to a Windows EXE file. The deletion request also discussed a Windows EXE file (possibly the same one), and during the deletion discussion on Commons, it was pointed out that there were statements in the licensing terms which made it clear that GPL only applies to certain parts of the EXE file, but not to other parts, and it was not clear if the GPL licence covers the logo or not. For example, in the Mozilla case, the problem was that the free licence only applied to the source package but not to the binary package, and in early versions of Mozilla products, the logo wasn't part of the source package. In the Virtualbox case, the logo is included in the source package as part of the documentation, but located in a directory together with obvious fair use images which are obviously not covered by the GPL licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2

Since you asked for step-by-step, I will do it so, although for the sake of usefulness I shall not do it in the same manner that Commons DR did. After all, you seem to be aware of it.

First, source-checking has requirements that if one fail to fulfill, his action would not be valid. The first and most important of those is checking the evidence provided. For instance, if one is told that evidence is A, one must not check B instead or else his findings (or the lack thereof) may not be valid. In this case, the source is "VirtualBox 4.2 for Windows hosts". The proper way of checking it would be to have person blessed with the gift of sight to install it on a Windows system. If you do so, you cannot help but find instances of File:Virtualbox logo.png everywhere, both during installation and throughout the application.

Second, although you are right that not everything that is installed by that package is licensed under GPLv2, you will find that there is a highly detailed list of such components along with their licensing terms included. The computer icon/logo of VirtualBox is not amongst them. I have made an attempt to find a statement detailing the copyright status of the logo but I have found none so far. Now, Graeme Bartlett proposes that such a logo/icon is covered by the included EULA, which is GPLv2 in this case. You, on the other hand, propose that the logo/icon is probably owned by an uncredited unidentified third-party. I am afraid I find more merit in Graeme Bartlett's proposal, because I have never seen a the logo of a product (proprietary or otherwise) being owned by an uncredited third party. I strongly feel it is not a good idea going about and deleting all free logos on Wikipedia because we have no strong evidence that they are not owned by an uncredited shadowy entity who is yet step forth.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

File:NuvoTV.png

Is this image too common or more creative enough to be copyrighted? --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably just at the cusp of being ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the book cover free?

Is this book cover in the public domain and, if so, what license tag should be used? The copyright page claims copyright only for the introduction and a map. --Jonund (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While it makes sense the body text would be free, there's no ability to assume that for the cover. Since it was published in 2001, there's no requirement to explicitly list copyright for the cover, so we would assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

But they felt required to state it explicitly for the introduction and the map. --Jonund (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As Masem says, there is no longer a requirement to assert copyright; and certainly, there was enough creative design work involved to qualify it for copyrighting; so we must assume copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

creative common licensing for the work already in public domain

Is it possible to license my art work, which is currently in public domain (Web; and now it is not under any license), under creative commons? My interest is to claim ownership. Will it prevent others from for-profit implementations, without attribution? Should I prove as it is my work? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Although I am new to image work, I understand that all unlicensed images are to be assumed proprietary properties of their author. So, as long as you can prove you are their author, you are perfectly allowed to license them under any terms, including but not limited to Creative Commons. Please note, however, that when you donate something to Wikipedia under any of the compatible licenses, you accept to do it irrevocably. If I am wrong, please someone correct me.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that it has been published online does not transfer a work into the public domain. If it is your work then it is still copyrighted to you unless you have explicitely waived all rights. If that is not the case you can still apply a free license to your liking to it. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, especially the section "Granting us permission to copy material already online", for a manual on how to deal with such works. De728631 (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

V4vijayakumar: this depends on how it was placed into the public domain. Public domain is a sticky concept (in some countries more than others), so even if you said it was in the public domain, you might not have given up your rights. We'll probably need to know more details. Anyway, at very least you can try to place the image as CC; the worst that can happen is that someone will notice the discrepency and ignore the rights you've requested. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The phrase "public domain" that V4vijayakumar used does not seem to refer to the concept of the public domain that you mean. If he has just released it on a website, he should include a note that says "this image is public domain". Even in presence of a sentence like "you can freely download it", the work would not become public domain. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Non-free_Crown_copyright/sandbox

The above sandbox is a proposed change to Non-free Crown Copyright licence.

All images tagged as Crown Copyright now have the {{Non-free Crown copyright}} tag and an additional Non-free licence.

It was therefore felt reasonable to 'split' the tag between a source/restriction acknowledgement,and one of the standard Non-free licences.

The original suggested change was done in a Bold fashion, and hence the template wasn't edited, and I got told to seek consensus here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK, but it should explain further with the date the copyright will expire. Also this is only one of several crown copyrights so perhsp we need to somehow specify UK in the title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:MauritiusCommandAudioBookCassette.JPG

I don't think the image belongs in the article Audiobook as this image is owned by Recorded Books, LLC, now part of Simply Audiobooks, Inc. and the author of the article used it without permission from that publisher. --Marceki111 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The tape label is all short text snippets, and nothing copyrightable. There's no copyvio here to take a photo of a utilitarian object (the cassette tape) and a uncopyrightable logo for a free image. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Inherited Photos

I have photographs from 1989 that I inherited from Kurt Oscar Weber. Kurt died in 2011. I wish to make these photos free to all. There is no option in the Wikipedia upload forms for files that were inherited. How do I get past these limitations?

Kitkatcook (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You can send a confirmation by email. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. De728631 (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that physical inheritance of the photos does not necessarily mean inheritance of the copyright of those photos. Were you specifically granted the copyright of those photos in the will? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

PD-Simple?

Would File:Sinematek Indonesia logo.png be PD-Simple or PD-text? I think its fairly clear cut, but I'd like to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it definitely is {{PD-textlogo}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This cover too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure about the cover. Someone should check the U.S. laws and see if portion of a copyright-protected work can possibly be ineligible for copyright. Here, in my country, once something is copyright-protected, all of it is so. Also, if this book is published outside U.S., the law of the country of the origin should also be checked to see if they regard it copyright-eligible. (This will become important if someone later decided to move it to Commons.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for both. Covers are sometimes credited separately as the illustrator would be different than the author. i.e. for The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins would own the copyright to the story and Tim O'Brien would own the original cover's copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Seals/Coat of Arms

I'm trying to figure what would be the copyright of the seals/coat of arms for the towns/cities of Puerto Rico. I had uploaded several (like this one) from pages like this, but they were tagged for incorrect permission/licensing/copyright. Any advice on how to figure the license applicable? Thief12 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for heraldry is something special. In the Western or European tradition, coats of arms are based on a standardised description rather than on a specific graphical design. I.e. while the description or blazon is generally in the public domain, any rendering of a coat of arms is copyright the artist. If you look into Commons:Category:Coats of arms of Puerto Rico, you'll see that all those images have been created by users from scratch according to the relevant blazons. And it turned out that there's also a free image File:Escudo de Jayuya.jpg, so I've inserted this instead of the image you uploaded. For future use, please check the Commons categories for existing files and keep in mind that non-free images of coats of arms are most likely always replaceable with something that be custom-made for Wikimedia, so we can't use them under a fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair use in navbox templates?

I uploaded the file File:Regnum Christi Sheild.jpg which is the sheild used for Regnum Christi and the Legion of Christ as their primary logo. Fair use is fairly clear on the page about Regnum Christi. Howver, I also made a navbox template (Template:Regnum Christi) to link together various things related to Regnum Christi. Can I use this sheild in the navbox under fair use?

While I am at it, is there any way to crop it directly on wikipedia or need I downlaod it and use photoshop (I would want jsut the sheild without the name for the navbox)? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Fair Use#Multimedia, it most likely cannot be used in the navbox, because it is not especially significant to the reader. Chris857 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#9. Non-free files are not allowed in templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally, you would download the file, crop and upload your new version. As that's a simple crop, it can be done with basic graphics software, you don't need specialized software. If it were a file on the Commons site, you could use Commons:User:Cropbot instead of downloading, but I don't know if an equivalent bot exists on Wikipedia. However, as the file is not free and your declared intention is to use it in fair use to show the official logo of the organization, such files should normally be used as they are, without modification. I'm not sure if the use of a modified version (by cropping out one part or otherwise) would be fair use. I guess it may depend if the organization considers that its logo is the whole image (shield + text) inseparably or if they use the shield in isolation as their official identification logo. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. They (or should I say we since I am a member of the organization in question) use the shield in many different combinations of text and occasionally alone. Since someone else pointed out I need to find a non-opaque version, I will look for one that way. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

DotnameTLDlogo-vrsn.png is a plaintext logo

tagged incorrectly as a non-free logo. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Verisign-dottv-logo.jpg also appears to be a {{PD-textlogo}}.

← Take this logo, for example. It's even fancier than either of the aforementioned logos and yet is deemed {{PD-textlogo}}. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Photos to be uploaded ?

I have written an article about a social entrepreneur. I have somehow managed to get the photos from the organization of the social entrepreneur. But the photos have a copyright of the Photographer. The organization maintains it is free for use. How can I upload such photos ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit.somaiya (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the entrepreneur is still alive, you can't. We need photos of living persons to be considered free (as in freely redistributable) media, and if the photographer still holds the copyright, they would need to relicense the photos with an appropriate free license. "Free to use" licenses don't work for WP, and while we do allow non-free media, if a free replacement is possible (as in the case of living persons) we can't use them. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

I assume "free" in your message means free content. So, that makes the image that this user has non-free. What about WP:NFCC? Can't this user upload the photograph under the NFCC terms? (I think perhaps a use rationale that explain the image is licensed only for use and is therefore subject to NFCC will do. An appropriate copyright tag can also be used.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If the person is still alive we explicitly cannot use non-free content for that, since a free image is still likely possible. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it help, if I could take the same photos from the Organization website ? Also how do you upload NFCC content ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit.somaiya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No that wouldn't help, you need express permission from the copyright owner, see WP:CONSENT.--ukexpat (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Processing Logo Clipped.svg License

The file "File:Processing Logo Clipped.svg" appears on Wikipedia with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. This image is under full copyright from the Processing project (http://processing.org); the person who uploaded it to Wikipedia assigned an incorrect license. It's of course entirely fine for the image, the project logo, to be used on Wikipedia. However, we've had problems with other people using the image and then citing the CC license attributed on Wikipedia as the justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinIgnatz (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

copy a movie poster

i have a pulp fiction movie poster it's too large to hang in my wall i'd like to shrink copy it to a managable size is that copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.119.213 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's for personal, noncommercial use then it's likely a fair use. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Reproduce a graph from a book

Resolved

Can I reproduce a graph from a book? A user asked at WP:GL/I to reproduce three graphs from a book question, book (pdf). Reproducing here means redraw the graph in svg file format. Can I do so? -DePiep (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

When there's little creativity involved with the graph, yes you can. Data itself can't be copyrighted, and we're talking a basic line graph without embellishments here, so while we can't pull the graph from the book as an image, we can make a free equivalent of the graph. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Photograph whose owner I don't know

Hello. Yesterday I was trying to upload some photographs of Richard Sanderson. On the Internet there are lots and lots of photos of him, but nobody can really know where they come from, or who is the owner of them. The problem is that I uploaded just one photo of him and then I got a message telling me the license wasn't correct, or something like that (because I really don't understand anything about licenses, I just chosed Creative Commons) and that unless I sent a prove that the owner gave me permission, Wikipedia would delete the photograph on 14, September. I want to know how to upload a photo of Sanderson without having problems, because it would be impossible to know who has the rights of those images, and because that owner doesn't seem to have any problem with his photos on the Internet, in every single website. I cannot go with Sanderson and take a picture of him now. I wanted to upload a photo of him in the eighties, and that's my problem. Could you help me? Thank you! PD: I'm a 14 years-old Argentinian boy, sorry if I don't speak English very well. WarlusFernando (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't upload a photograph, unless you have the explicit permission of the photographer (you know who he is and have asked him and he as agreed) or through lapse of time. If you mean Richard Sanderson then the time is much too short. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I know that. I didn't understand what you wrote about "through lapse of time". Do you mean that the man has to die and then I have to wait 100 years? I mean, come on! The owner hasn't got angry because his photograph is on the Internet. Maybe he died, because nobody knows who he is. Also I see hundred of images that I feel have no clear ownership. Anyway, thank's for your help. I feel Wikipedia is very strict with images, it's all a very big mess, just for uploading a single file of a man who surely would like to have an photo of him on his own article on Wikipedia. How do people show other people the face of Richard Sanderson if they cannot upload a single photo of him because they cannot work out who's the owner? Thank you anyway, Grandiose.--WarlusFernando (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The person who took the picture is the sole holder (usually) of the copyright therein; not the person in the picture. As to why we're so picky around here: we have to be, to bulletproof ourselves against lawyers and lawsuits, and to preserve our status as a source which can be re-used by others. Believe me, I'd rather be working on articles about obscure anti-Peronist legislators or something equally fascinating. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I know that the owner is not Sanderson. I couldn't understand why did you write that about anti-Peronist legislators. I find Sanderson's article as fascinating as a Resident Evil article or as The Beatles' Nowhere Man article.--WarlusFernando (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am somebody who enjoys writing about legislators of the past, and doesn't know who Sanderson is or care about Resident Evil; so I used legislators from your homeland as an example of the kind of article I would rather be writing. (And yes, though I speak no Spanish, I have worked on articles about Argentine politics in the past.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Walrus. Let me try and explain it like this. A photographer owns the pictures that he or she takes. Some other people feel free stealing these pictures and posting them on various web sites. On wikipedia we do not do that. We find out who owns the picture and get permission or we do not use it. Carptrash (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Carptrash. I know that, but isn't any way to upload it without problems? It would help me very much. About you Orangemike, I was asking something about a photograph, so what do I care about what would you be writing? Man, I made a question on "Media Copyright Questions" and you talk me about my own country legislators. :/ Thank you anyway, Carptrash.--WarlusFernando (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You will need an appropriate copyright release, see WP:CONSENT.--ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate some help

Someone on my page has asked for assistance regarding a bunch of NPDs, PUFs, etc. he got on his page, and he is actually a bit upset over the issue. The thread is at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Deleted photo. While I am experienced in the area, I'm really not sure where to start with him (my brain isn't doing well under my current 12 hour work days), so if someone could help me handle this issue in the least WP:BITEy way possible, preferably by providing a way to restore the images, I would much appreciate it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Commented on your talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

He also discussed some images (possibly the same ones) on my talk page. I answered him, but I realise that I might have been a bit grumpy when I did that. It would be nice if someone could help sorting this out. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Apple iOS.svg and File:KCAL-TV Logo.png

If the iOS logo is glossy yet ineligible for copyrights, then KCAL logo must be treated the same, right? --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Under what license can I upload these pictures?

Pictures from the Official Page of the Prime Minister of Canada. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned when you posted the same question a the Help Desk, the terms and conditions at http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/notices.asp#Copyright are not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements.--ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with a new editor

Hello, a new editor who appears to be an expert in his field, Till Oehler (talk · contribs), has just done a fantastic expansion of the Submarine groundwater discharge article. I have wikified it a bit (among other things), but I'm unsure about the use of the images that he uploaded for the article. Could somebody here get in touch with him? I know next to nothing about images on Wikipedia, because as it says on my user page, I'm totally blind. Thanks! Graham87 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

While both of the images currently used are listed as non-free, having been copied from a modern publication, they absolutely fail the first and possibly important guideline WP:NFCC#1. They are replaceable by a images made to represent the facts from those images and release freely. Of course slavish copies are not permitted. ww2censor (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. I've tagged the images with {{subst:dfu}} and notified the user of this reply and his options going forward. Graham87 02:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Permission for an upload

I sent an email to the Canadian Government asking for permission to use a picture. If I receive their OK, what shall I do? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENT for the formal procedure. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Registered in 1914

There is a composition of photographs from 1914, but I am not proof positive that it was "published". However, it does bear a 1914 copyright notice which was registered with the US Copyright Office, which according to Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart would be PD as registered pre1923. Would they be public domain? If it is important, the author, J. W. Nara, died in 1934 (per here). Chris857 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The Commons article is imperfectly derived from here, where note 2 qualifying "Never Published, Never Registered Works" instructs to "Treat unpublished works registered for copyright prior to 1978 as if they had been published in the US". Hence you may regard the photograph as published before 1923 (which is highly likely anyway) and so PD. Thincat (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

unknown image

would like to insert a .jpg file into the 'wooden spar' edit I have done so far. the image is from a website which I dont know any info who owns the licecnces (if any) the website is http://www.spitfirebuilder.4t.com/catalog.html

http://www.isaacsspitfire.4t.com/photo6.html and

the file is [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebsbro (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on that page to lead us to believe that the photographer waived her or his copyright; therefore, we cannot use it without explicit permission in a form we can use. See WP:CONSENT, if you are able to contact the photograper. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Blind monks examining an elephant.jpg

How can I ensure i have adhered to all copyright rules to use this image in my book?

Chris Cavanaugh <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.97.150 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This image in particular is public domain, so no accreditation is needed. For creative-commons licensed images, see this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• I have removed your email address. You will not be contacted by email, and publishing your email on the internet is a bad idea, for security reasons. As far as the picture, it appears that it is in the public domain which means it is unencumbered by any copyright, however be aware that local laws as to the use of such pictures varies. See here for a description of local laws regarding this. --Jayron32 05:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HarmonicMaths25.jpg

I've sent in the email where the creator provided me this file and gave his permission for me to use it a couple of times, but it's apparently not what's required. What kind of permission does the creator have to send to provide the proper license? Does he have to check in an put the permission into the file's page himself? Pkeets (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENT for the formal procedure. (And yes, the creator himself will have to get involved.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyright holder needs to send an email explicitly releasing the file under a free license or into the public domain. Using the template Orangemike linked you to is strongly recommended, although not strictly required. He doesn't have to actually get on and edit Wikipedia himself, if that's (part of) what you were asking. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(though I found at times that it's much easier to ask the creator to upload directly to commons; once that's done, you can help get the right license and everything else in place for them.) --MASEM (t) 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Self made screenshots depicting freeware aircraft made for Microsoft Flight Simulator, upload for namespace?

Hello,

if you already had this specific case what I would expect, there's no need to read on since the headline gives you all information you need for a yes or no.

If not:

Yes, I consulted FAQs and related materials, but am still unsure. ("Good reasons")

I have started being involved in the enhancement of aviation related articles crossfeeding information between Wikipedias in several languages and in researching reliable sources in several languages.

In my namespace, I explain that my research is strongly motivated by my flight simulator activities. I'd like to illustrate that by about three screenshots depicting freeware models, which are intended to

• give an idea of what I am talking about
• give an idea of what kind of aircraft I am particulary interested in
• make my namespace look better.

They are NOT intended to

• advertise for Microsoft or it's software
• advertise or review these freeware models

Screenshot information will include

• the information that it is a screenshot taken from MSFs2004
• the origin and author of the freeware model - they like to be credited. I can provide a link or web adress if required.
• the information that I took the pictures using IrvanView which is freeware also.

Reasons for doubt on my part and thus asking you:

Microsoft Flight simulator encourages the taking of screenshots and the parttaking in independent flightsim forums offering freeware, and the publishing of screenshots in their galleries. However, I found no comment about that in the EULA of the software. In fact, almost every topic related website has a gallerie were people post these screenshots. I am aware of the fact that this is not an FS related site, and quod licet Iovi non licet bovi might apply here.

I can proove however that the depicted model is under freeware licence by its documentation and origin.

So, may I ...? Thank you very much in advance for your time and advice,

Johannes "The Rhythmosaur" König

The rhythmosaur (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this license include commercial reuse of the objects? Many freeware licenses are non-commercial but we would need something like Creative Commons CC-by-3.0 or a GFDL license. It might help if you posted a link to said freeware license. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it is a Microsoft product, it is very likely that it is simply {{Microsoft screenshot}}, which is an unfree licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the real quick response.

These freeware authors most commonly use a statement such as this:

"This aircraft package is released as FREEWARE. DO NOT MAKE MONEY WHIT THIS",

some add

"WHITOUT AUTHORIZATION OF ANY AUTHORS INVOLVED IN IT",

to keep the backdoor open I guess. Less common but yet frequent are statements like

"I declare these files to be public domain. Do whatever you want with them."

The problem is, these terms are aimed at redistributing, uploading or selling, some explicitly include repaint policies ( say this aircraft has a United Airlines livery; you want to repaint it as, say, TWA and then upload it somewere, in most cases you may if you credit the model's author and include all original documents), but nobody talks about screenshots, not even payware authors. I have published reviews myself both with and without knowledge of the author (broken/missing e-mail address etc.) using screenshots I made. I don't think it likely anyone of those complains while properly credited; my bigger concern is Microsoft for though it is common practice and as I said, encouraged within the online help of the software itself to publish screenshoots, (The subsequent FSX has in fact a built in software to take and archive such pictures.) I fail to find a passage in the EULA that explicitly states: "Go ahead, do so."

The rhythmosaur (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Freeware is not explicitly the same as the free content requirement we would need for images that can be used in name space. They need to be explicitly licensed as public domain, or in a Creative Commons CC-BY or equivalent. Any restriction on redistribution by any entity (eg such as non-commercial reuse) would not make the image free, and thus would be treated as non-free, and thus not allowable in the User: namespace. Given everything you've said, we have no assurance of the free license, and thus no, you can't use those images in your user space. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The rhythmosaur (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Kirsten Flagstad

Are there far too many fair use images in that article? Ryan Vesey 23:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the bust for deletion: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirsten Flagstad plass 2.JPG. Many of the photos are presumably {{PD-URAA}} because of {{PD-Norway50}} or {{PD-Sweden}}, but {{PD-URAA}} requires evidence of publication before 1 March 1989 (amongst other things). Presumably, there are plenty of PD photos of her which can be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Media question about a wiki

I think i interpret the images on this Wiki(a) to be under CC-BY-SA license but can someone confirm this and also tell me how i upload them here.

• The site in question, which i wish to harvest
• Community Licensing
• Wikia Terms Of Use

Thanks very much ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

According to wikia:community:Community Central:Licensing#Non-text files: "Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file." That is, you need to look at the Wikia file information page to determine the licence of the image. The images on the page wikia:residentevil:Uroboros Mkono do not specify a licence, so the licence for those images is unknown, see {{di-no license}}. Also, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the uploaders are the copyright holders of the said images. Only the copyright holder can choose a licence to use for those images. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that response Stefan2 and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Can File:XenForo.png be Public domain?

This logo is copyrighted in the United Kingdom.

Can File:XenForo.png be in Template:PD-textlogo? Ho Tuan Kiet (Talk) 12:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a British logo. While it looks sufficiently simple to be in the public domain in the United States, it is very unlikely that it is in the public domain in the United Kingdom. British courts use a much lower threshold than American ones. For example, the Edge logo (right) was found to be copyrightable by a British court last year because of modified letters. This logo also has modified letters, so it is presumably also copyrighted in the United Kingdom. {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would work as a licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

News reporting is public domain

I'm dealing with a case where an editor makes the following claim:

WP: Public domain states "Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all. A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the threshold of originality." The news is basically bare facts and has no creative content - so it cannot copyrighted. For a court case on this issue see News Texts not Subject to Copyright

Can I please get some guidance on this? Schwede66 18:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah: facts cannot be copyrighted. If you state the facts that are reported, but in your own words, you are good. But news articles are sure as hell copyrighted; that's what Times vs. Tasini was all about, was writers' copyrights in our own expressions of what we write. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In that particular case, the Court appears to affirm the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in periodicals. Since they were by freelancers, presumably they were opinion and comment and in that sense carried creative content. The ruling was limited to that situation - and does not apply to the bare fact "news" written by employees of the NZ Herald. Offender9000 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And TV presentation of news and their clips are also copyright, at least in the US. Dunno about New Zealand, but I am pretty sure that there is lots of "originality" in TV news cast: the stage set up, the camera angles, when to go to a remote reporter for live at the scene shot, exactly what cuts of tape were put together how for the prerecorded segments.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt about TV presentations. This is about written news only. Keep those comments coming! Schwede66

Who says there is no doubt about TV presentations? What is the source for that statement. I suspect there is a distinction to be made between what is said in TV reports (which may be bare facts in the public domain) and use of the video/film itself - which belongs to the producer/broadcaster and therefore may be subject to copyright. Offender9000 23:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That weblink refers to a court ruling in Germany which decided that a specific set of newsfeeds that reported on facts and happenings was not copyrightable for lack of creativity. Note: other jurisdictions and other journalistical texts may however be totally different. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina made landfall at New Orleans.
• New Orleans was battered by Hurricane Katrina on Aug. 29, 2005.
• Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans on Aug. 29, 2005.

Do I emphasise the time or the place or the event itself? Do I choose "hit" or "battered" or "made landfall"? I dont see how even the most basic "news" reporting in written form could not involve creative descisions in how to express the content and shades of meaning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested in it, this is the original court ruling in German. The threshold of creativity has been found to require "individual, creative expression of thoughts and formulation of content... or an especially intellectual form or manner of collecting, sorting and arranging the material", citing a 1984 verdict by the German Federal High Court. I'm not an expert but the key point here may be the following decision: "The texts by the plaintiff (...) are essentially limited to the reporting of actual happenings, and result more or less from the nature of the cause — which requires a description of events, and the accounting of certain statements made by third parties, or of certain processes — and their entire presentation is prescribed by habitualness and considerations of practicality. They are presentations of actual news that do not exceed the threshold of any standard in this area and are not an expression of an individually creative, unique line of thoughts." De728631 (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that makes it fairly clear that in Germany at least, the threshold for creativity (and therefore for copyright) is higher than that which generally applies to news reporting. Offender9000 23:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

German law does not seem very relevant here. We should respect copyrights arising under US law, since Wikimedia is based in the US, and perhaps also in this instance copyrights under New Zealand law. The Times vs. Tasini case mentioned above makes it clear that the news articles at issue there were protected by copyright. The nature of the reporting (opinion vs factual) was not an issue. The argument that news articles covering factual happenings attract no US copyright because they are uncreative seems dubious to me. The threshold of originality required in US law is low, and the facts covered in the articles are not so simple that there are only a few ways to express them (in which case copyright would be subverted under the merger doctrine). --Avenue (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess this discussion shows that issues involving copyright, especially international copyright are very complex. Unless wikipedia has a media lawyer available to provide a more informed opinion, we are probably not going to resolve anything. Offender9000 20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Offender9000. Given that Wikipedia does not have a media lawyer available, I suggest that we adopt the stance that things get done as per established WP policy, meaning that news text gets shown in quotation mark where it's used verbatim. For the purposes of using material in Wikipedia articles, you should assume that the text is not in the public domain. Schwede66 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns in Parable of the sunfish

I submitted Parable of the sunfish to WP:DYK and a reviewer has raised copyright concerns (comments here, see the last few comments at the bottom of the page). As I understand it, the quoted material is either well within fair use or is no longer under copyright. However, this isn't my area of expertise and I would appreciate a third opinion.

Thanks much,

GaramondLethe 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say quoting the whole parable is already stretching the fair use argument to the extreme. Not to mention that about half of the article is made up of quotes. The only excerpts that need not be worried about in terms of copyright are those from Lane Cooper and Shaler & Shaler since they were published before 1923. I recommend the following: you should sum up the context of the parable in your own words and use the other more recent texts as sources without quoting any full text from them. The only ones you may perhaps keep are the pre-1923 quotes mentioned above, and here I mean "keep" from a layout point of view. De728631 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello De728631. I'd first like to thank both you and Stefan2 for taking the time to comment. After continuing my own research and reading the several reactions, two things have become obvious: technically, this falls well within the fair use exception (< 140 words, 9 of 11 publishers who reproduced the work in full did not acquire permission to do so), but practically speaking, the parable text looks like a copyright violation (or at least, as you mentioned, a borderline case). I'll blank that section for now and either rewrite it and/or ask New Directions if they're willing to put that text under the appropriate license.

Thanks again to you both for the prompt replies,

GaramondLethe 23:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Skulpturen Park Köln

FOP for artworks at this park. The article and website make it clear that the artworks are not on permanent display, and part of the FOP law for Germany (commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany) is intent for permanent display, and it's POSSIBLE that these artworks do not fall under the FOP umbrella for Germany because of the temporary display of the artworks in the park.. Other's opinions here? — raekyt 15:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The images are on Commons, so it's better to have the discussion there instead. It is also easier to find Germans who probably know more about this by asking at Commons. See Commons:COM:VPC#German FOP issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

River Phoenix, Dark Blood

I found some old behind the scenes pics of River Phoenix filming Dark Blood, I think a few of them would be good to include on his Wikipedia article and the Dark Blood article. I can't figure out what the copyright status would be. The photos are obviously scans, and apparently from the March 1994 issue of Premiere magazine according to the webpage (I googled this issue's cover and there is a River Phoenix article featured). The magazine is no longer being published, so can anyone help me identify the copyright status?

Here is the webpage with the pics http://myriverphoenixcollection.com/dark.html

CityMorgue (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite sure all of those images are copyrighted and could only be used under WP:NONFREE, which has SERIOUS restrictions. — raekyt 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Consolidated Contractors Company Logo.svg

Does this meet the {{pd-textlogo}} criteria? It is really just File:Sierpinski triangle evolution.svg plus a common symbol used to represent centroids on engineering drawings and the letter "C"? If so, would Commons accept this file, knowing they would require the logo to be in the public domain in Greece as well? PleaseStand (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's likely below originality for civil law countries (which Greece is? I think) per Commons. It would definitely fall below the originality threshold in the US so should be ok for Greece. This should not be taken as an assurance, but you should be able to upload it to commons. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no generic threshold of originality for civil law countries; it varies a lot from country to country. For example, Germany is very different to Austria. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Government photo use

Hi! I read on the fair use page that photos belonging to the Federal government were not copyrighted. I wanted to use this image for South Carolina's Attorney General. The photo belongs to Congressman Darrel Issa's office, and would therefore be part of the federal government, but the Flickr license says All Rights Reserved. Could anyone tell me if this image would be usable? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's tricky, it doesn't list a photographer. If it wasn't taken by a government employee during their official job duties, then it wouldn't be public domain. Since it doesn't list a photographer, there is no way to verify that it is or isn't available for free use and you'd have to take what they say about the license as it's restrictions. You'd be far safer using his official portrait off his official site: http://www.scag.gov/about-us/full-biography — raekyt 15:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That Flickr page has a "copyright" tag which means that the content is non-free, and it explicitely rules out commercial reuse of the image. So we can't host it here. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note also that Wilson's official homepage is a work of the State of South Carolina and not a US Federal Government page. So that photo is also not free. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. I can't really find (or claim to know anything) about SC copyrights so unless anyone knows otherwise I won't use either then. Thanks for the help everyone.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point something out. While clearly it is difficult to tell the status of the Flickr photo 100% with total certainty, the presence of the Flickr copyright tag does not necessarily indicate actual status. Copyright asserted on a PD work does not remove it from PD. For example, here's an image on Flickr with the "© All Rights Reserved" tag, that is most certainly PD. -Seidenstud (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

But in this case there's still no information on the photographer, so even if the Flickr identification is wrong if what has been said above is correct it still cannot be used.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are only three US states whose images are in the public domain, California, Florida and some Minnesota images per Commons:Commons:Copyright tags#California. Unfortunately South Carolina is not one of them, so unless you can specifically show that the image has been released under a free licence we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-free screenshots of Final Fantasy (video game)

I see non-free screenshots used in this article; are they replaceable by text? --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, despite the simple 8-bit graphics; unless it is a text-adventure game, even rudamentary graphics are fine as non-free image and are a justified use for notable games per NFCI. However, the second one (the non-combat one) likely fails NFCC#8, since it's just decorative. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Help me

I found this picture this , of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a Canadian actor. Can anybody tell me what's the copyright of the picture and why the website can use it freely? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Licence for Wikipedia purposes: {{db-f9}}.

The webpaint.com website either uses it illegally, under a fair use claim or with permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't use it so, that's what you mean. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

send an article

Hi! I am visiting from Michigan. I am going to Fort Worth to visit a new transplant that has moved into the 76107 zip code. She is not a confident driver, and I would like to show around her neighborhood, and the surrounding area. This water park is not far from her home. I was wondering if I could send the article to her? She would love knowing this place is so close to her. She has been in Fort Worth for 2 years taking care of a woman with Dementia. She didn't even know there was a park 4 blocks away from the house she lives in. She is also close to the Botanical Gardens. But 4 blocks! No one ever told her! I will be there for one week. Is it possible to send her the article? Please reply soon. Sincerely; C. Taylor-West — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleentaylorwest (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have left this on your talk page as well. I am not sure entirely what you are asking, but I think Wikipedia:Copyrights probably should answer your questions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal Wamena Papua

Wikimania is the annual international conference of the Wikimedia community. Wikimania allows the community and the general public to learn about and share their experiences with free knowledge initiatives all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kota Tolikara Papua (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But what is your media copyright question. —teb728 t c 08:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg

That photo was deleted long ago under criteria #1. It was being used in Allen Morris (tennis) in the section on his Wimbledon appearance. There is no possible way to get a free image of Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon. Should the image be undeleted? Ryan Vesey 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be careful. I can't see the deleted image, but I am sceptical whether it would satisfy criterion #8. The fact that he was playing at the 1956 tournament can easily be described with text without an image and I don't see how not having an image showing him playing at that tournament is significantly hindering a readers understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fishwife (band) image

An image, currently uploaded as self-created, was originally posted online elsewhere. I do not specifically doubt the claim, but how do we verify that the Wikipedia editor has rights to the photo? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, we might want to get confirmation from that blogger via OTRS. I'm going to contact the uploader. De728631 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Was wir verlieren sollen!.jpg

I uploaded the image, which is online in many different places. I honor the Library of Congress Archives for Pictures and Photographs in the description, but see it many different places, simply by googling it. The only good policy description I know of is the one at the Imperial War Collection (UK), but I can't understand what its policy is saying exactly - it says noncommercial and attributed to author should do it, which I've done, but what Creative Commons license does that fall under? Give it a look and help me fix this - thank you so much in advance.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20700 --Votevotevote2012 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The image File:Was wir verlieren sollen!.jpg, which I presume is what you are referring to is obviously not a US government image so cannot use the template {{PD-USGov}} which is attached to the image. The German publisher is noted at LOC and it may still be in copyright but may be regarded as pseudo-anonymous in which case it could use {{Anonymous-EU}} but you would still need to additionally use {{PD-1923}}. ww2censor (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've transferred it to Commons. The image was published in 1919 which makes it public domain in the US, and the artist died in 1936 so it's now also PD in its country of origin. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you!! Thank you both so much!! This has been a godsend! If it would be okay with you, I would love to contact you both in the future if I get another similar photo issue. Would that be okay? --Votevotevote2012 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to leave me note on my talk page when you run into something similar again. De728631 (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright in a comic where there is a text author and a graphic artist?

I'm reviewing a request to license a comic strip, where the author of the text is not the same as the creator of the graphics. (OTRS agents, see 2012102110004531) This is a fairly common situation, but my (admittedly brief) Google search didn't identify anything on point. I think I owe at least a request for clarification that the graphic artist has relinquished rights, but as I think about that, I realize that there may be conventions I don't know about (maybe it is convention that the text author owns the copyright, and can either do the art or contract out for it, but the text author is considered the copyright holder?). Or is it handled case by case, and I have to ask?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that both authors would have to agree to said license. After all that's a composite work. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some comic strips are works for hire, so the copyright holder might also be the publisher, the syndicate or someone else. This depends on the contract: sometimes the copyright holder is a company, and sometimes the copyright holder is an individual. For example, the copyright to all Spiderman stories is held by Marvel, but the copyright to all Tom Poes stories seems to be held by Marten Toonder's heirs. If it is not a work for hire, but multiple people are involved in the creation, then I don't know what happens. I see several options: shared copyright, one person being the sole copyright holder or each contributor owning his own contributions. Maybe it varies from case to case. I'd assume that everyone involved wants some royalty, and royalty payments tend to be related to copyrights. I think someone pointed out that you only need permission from at least one copyright holder in case the copyright is shared, but please check that up first. It could also vary from country to country. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As is often the case in copyright, whenever I look into something that seems like it might be straightforward, it isn't. Based upon the comment of De728631, I looked up "composite", and found (a slow loading pdf) source from UNESCO. That document distinguishes between composite and joint works. The main distinction being, if I read it right, where the contributions are separable. They give an example of a song, where the music and lyrics are separable, so it is composite, not joint. In contrast, a book with two authors, where they have collaborated on the whole book, as opposed to taking on distinct chapters, is a joint work. I'm not clear how a comic or cartoon falls on this spectrum. While it is not uncommon to hear song lyrics without the score, and vice versa, it is rarer, Pogo notwithstanding, to see the separation of comic graphics from the text. It may not be necessary to decide which applies here, as it would ne most important if one contributor where trying to license only their own contribution. The UNESCO source suggests the joint owners "must generally exercise their rights together" (note the "general" loophole, not sure what triggers it.

In contrast, a Stanford site states "Unless the joint owners make a written agreement to the contrary, each copyright owner has the right to commercially exploit the copyright, provided that the other copyright owners get an equal share of the proceeds". However, we aren't facing a request for a commercial opportunity, we are essentially facing a request that might diminish potential commerical oppportunties, which suggest they do have to work together.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that I write a story script. Then I have a text document which I could publish somewhere (without any art involved). I could hand over the script to User:Sphilbrick and ask him to draw the story. I could hand over the script to User:De728631 and ask him to draw a different version of the story. Sphilbrick's artwork isn't based on De728631's artwork, so De728631 can't ask Sphilbrick for compensation if Sphilbrick uses his own artwork, or vice versa. This shows that the written script can be used without including anything made by the person who drew the story.

Let's say I have a full page of a story. Delete all of the text, since the text was written by the person who wrote the script. The page is still not usable: the person who wrote the script gave instructions about what to draw in the panels, and you could still often get a significant amount of the plot even if you can't read the text. However, let's say that you decide to crop out a single character to use as an example of the artist's drawing style. Then you could probably say that you're not using anything made by the writer, and so you have separated the art from the script.

I'd say that a comic story script is separable from the art, but if you wish to use the art without using the script, there are additional restrictions. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Flickr washing

In regards to the image File:Rebecca Black in 2011.jpg, I am not sure that its copyright is accurate. I was first drawn to the image by noticing that it's definitely not a flattering photo and that we likely have another one available that looks better, as i've seen them in the Rebecca Black article in the past. That was where my concerns about this image being added specifically to be POV and negative toward the subject first emerged.

It's easy to see with a glance that it says it's licensed under Creative Commons via Flikr. However, the location source is stated to be rebeccablackonline.com, Rebecca Black's official website, all of which is copyrighted to her. Therefore, I think this image was Flikr-washed in order to get it under Creative Commons, thus violating the original copyright. Presumably, the uploader to Wikipedia was the one who did the violation. Silverseren^C 20:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion on commons. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it too quickly, someone other than the uploader changed the file description. Ryan Vesey 20:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's better, now it appears to have a proper source added. However, i'm still concerned about this photo being used to create a negative POV about the subject. Aren't there any better images we can use? Silverseren^C 20:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This one was uploaded in February as a replacement after at least four previous ones had to be deleted as copyvios (File:Rebecca-black-music-awards-01.jpg and File:Rebecca Black.JPG here on en-wp, File:Rebecca Black1.jpg and File:Rebecca-black-20110322-622645.jpg on Commons). That doesn't make me too optimistic about better replacements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you see my concerns about the current image though? I just don't think it's an appropriately neutral one to use. I mean, we wouldn't put an image of the BLP subject with a wacky expression on any other BLP article. I don't want it to pass on this one just because the BLP subject was originally known because of a negative song. It would be better not to have an image at all if this is the only one available. Silverseren^C 23:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont see anything particularly "wacky" or inappropriate. Yes its grainy and too far away and she isnt looking at the camera, but without a better free image, its perfectly in line with photos many many many other photos we have and use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Lifetime logo.svg

Is this logo eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I should think not. Other script-/text-only logos are not under copyright protection, such as those for Coca-Cola or IBM. Trademark protection may still apply, but that is a separate issue. Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Derivative work: how to point to the right CC license?

I want to upload to commons a derivative work (adding, not overwriting). The original is on commons, and has a licence {{cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}}. But in the regular upload wizard I cannot mark that license: I select This file is not my own work, but then there are only five more general CC options to choose from, not this "UK" one. What should I do? Note: I'd like to use the wizard, because there are some 100 files to upload. Original: commons:File:Electron shell 001 Hydrogen.svg. -DePiep (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the upload wizard you can select the following option: "Another reason not mentioned above" (don't forget to activate the tick), and then add {{cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}} in the little drop-down edit window. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Stock photo houses and validity of their copyright notices

This publicity photo has been tagged for a similar reason as countless others (coincidentally by the same editor) and some clarification is requested. The still, taken in 1958 and used on posters for a film at the time, has been tagged because Getty Images, which was founded in 1995, has added a copyright 2011 notice to their image catalog, one of 24 million images they have available. Note: A search found that they have registered only 493 copyrights since their founding, mostly of random images apparently bought from photographers, along with numerous "compilation" CDROMS.

Therefore, on what legal basis can they claim or have any copyright? The image is a publicity still, described in Film still as traditionally PD, and was taken almost 40 years before Getty Images was founded.

Such stock companies have already been found liable for illegally claiming ownership over thousands of images included in its copyrighted "compilations," and may be liable to countless photographers, per U.S. Copyright Code covering "compilations". It seems that stock company boilerplate copyright notices, at least for old movie stills, are probably meaningless as they misrepresent their copyright status. It would also seem reasonable to rely on the precautionary principle in a new way, and thereby express "significant doubt" that these stock houses actually own copyrights for older images. Otherwise, as these massive stock houses accumulate more PD images and stick their notice on them, useful WP images will continue to be tagged and deleted erroneously. Here's another PD image, tagged as I'm writing this, for the very same reason (and by the same editor.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law. "A must read for anyone who cares about the future of creativity." Jimmy Wales
  --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• • We need prove that the 1958 photo was not renewed for copyright before its initial 28 year term was up. That info won't necessarily be online (the online copyright records only go back to 1978). Without that proof, we have to assume it was renewed for the safest position. There may be other aspects why Gettys is claiming copyright but we cannot make that legal jump ourselves and need to play how the image is given. Ergo we will continue to treat these as non-free until undeniable proof they have fallen into the PD is shown. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Per copyright requirements: " For works copyrighted 1950-1963, renewal was also required for an additional term, but renewal had to occur during the calendar year following the year of the 27th anniversary of the start date of the first term." That would mean that if it had an original copyright, its renewal would have been on or about 1986, a period which is online. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it is possible to find all copyright registrations and renewals since 1891 online. Some are here and the more recent ones can be found by searching on the copyright office's website. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion for validating stock photo agency copyrights:

1. 1. Admins can confirm that the ratio of valid copyrights owned by the photo agencies are miniscule in proportion to their image libraries. A few examples: Getty Images, with 24,000,000 available has only registered 463; Corbis claims 20,000,000 and has taken out 473. Many of those copyrights are for CDROM compilations, which don't protect the material included; many are for audios and videos, most were taken out during the last 20 years, with Getty founded in 1995 and Corbis in 1989. In any case, even if all of their registered copyrights were for images, they would amount to .002%, or a ratio of 1 out of every 50,000 of their images;
   2. For any image found from other primary sources, dated earlier than 1978 (for example), the lack of a notice would override any stock agency notice on their website. This could be based on an assumption of "significant doubt" that they own the copyright;
   3. A search could be required to confirm they have no copyright. Since they only have a few hundred registrations, a search would be simple since you can search by owner or by keyword.

For further reference and support, the article Copyfraud, with a free downoadable paper from footnote #1, can be looked at. A few excerpts from that:

Copyfraud, as the term is used in this Article, refers to claiming falsely a copyright in a public domain work. . . . false assertions of copyright are everywhere. In general, copyright belongs to the author of a published work . . . . Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections, including historical works as to which copyright, which likely never belonged to the archive in the first place, has long expired.
. . . .
Corporate websites include blanket copyright notices even when they feature the U.S. flag . . . or rely on other materials squarely in the public domain. . . . many universities now pay licensing fees for virtually everything they reproduce and distribute to their students, whether warranted by copyright law or not.
. . . .
The limited penalties for copyfraud under the Copyright Act, coupled with weak enforcement of these provisions, give publishers an incentive to claim ownership, however spurious, in everything. . . . There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who, as a result of false copyright notices, refrain from legitimate copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.

WP could also send a formal letter to the few agencies explaining the situation and conclusion asking for their opinion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we at WP have to make sure that the licenses we're presenting to our re-users is, as best we know, exactly right, so that reusers know what material they can reuse elsewhere and would not be harmed by false representation at WP. These stock photos, given everyhing you and others have said, likely fall into PD based on copyright -- but we're not 100% sure. Personally, I would not take the chance on that if it means our re-users would be hurt by the false claim. (A false claim of tagging a PD image as non-free doesn't hurt, but the reverse, making a non-free as PD, does). I expect nearly 100% assurance we've identified the images as PD, but there's enough doubt of concern.

A consideration is to open the question at Commons; there are people there that are better experts on the nature of public domain that would be able to say if they would take the images or not. If they say yes, then great, we have a wealth of material to use.

I doubt that the Foundation would want to see any lawsuit against Getty or the like, and that's likely a non-route. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair-use audio?

Do you think this audio clip (source) of a whale call could qualify for fair use in NOC (whale)? I just wrote the article, which is still very much a work-in-progress; I've included a link to the file in the "External links" section, but I think the article's quality and usefulness would be greatly increased if we could include it using {{listen}}. Some things to consider (WP:NFCC):

• There is no free (as in freedom) equivalent
• The original publisher offers the file as a free (as in no cost) download
• The clip has already been published online by news organizations such as the BBC
• It will only be used in one article
• The inclusion of the file will greatly increase readers' understanding of the topic

I think it qualifies for fair use, but I would appreciate a second or third opinion from more experienced editors. Thanks. Braincricket (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think its completely fair - the "vocalization" is well sourced and discussed in the article. Now, I would treat it as NFC on the safe side, but maybe a better copyright expert can postulate that sounds made by animals (even one specific one, under study by humans) may be uncopyrightable, thus making the sound file free. (This sound file of whalesong is considered free, but I can't confirm much beyond that.) That would be great, but I'm going to suggest for the time to play it safe.

I recommend reading through WP:SAMPLE, ignoring the fact it applies to music - we would still need you to reencode the sound to the worst encoding level in Ogg Vorbis and use only, at most, 30 seconds of a sample. Everything else about NFC (rational and license) would apply. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've contemplated uploading non-free sound files before as well. If you have no idea what any of that means in your second to last sentence, could you upload a sound file and have someone else reduce it and delete the old version? Ryan Vesey 03:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never encountered that situation. It's easy to know how to reduce an image, but the sound side -- I would at least say that you need to trim the sound file to the at-most-30-seconds length that you want to include, tag with non-free reduce, and work from there. Certainly the template {{non-free reduce}} accepts a flag to mark a media file as an audio one, so I would say yes, this can be done. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Red Brick Galleries.jpg

This file keeps getting deleted despite the fact that the author has licensed the image under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kapookababy/5860490436/in/photostream Ozarkshark (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That is because we don't accept non-commercial licenced images. ww2censor (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Cole jpeg file - copyright tag?

I've added a jpeg file to the Isaac Cole page and I'm now being requested to add a tag. I'm unsure as to which tag to add and would therefore require guidance. For information the file is a copy of a photo of my great grandfather, taken in England in 1906 and held within the family since then. I was under the impression that this would be outside of the copyright law due to it's age. Could you assist, please. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole1906 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyright protection of works made in the UK ceases 70 years after the death of the author. Additionally, for being kept on the Wikipedia/Wikimedia servers in the United States, this image must have been in the public domain already in 1996 unless it was published in the US before 1923. So, in this case the photographer must've died before 1926. Photographs from that era are sometimes stamped on the backside with the name of the photographer's studio, so that might be helpful to determine the photographer. Please have a look at the original image and try to find out who made it. But then we would still have to find out their dates.

Until then we may use the image under a fair use rationale. I have now added such a rationale to the file page and have reduced the size of the uploaded image, which is required for fair use by one of our criteria. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Showcase Diva logos

File:Showcase Diva Original Logo.png

File:Showcasediva2009.svg

These logos are Canadian. Do they pass threshold of originality in Canada? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Very hard to tell since Commons:COM:TOO doesn't have a section for Canada. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Likely, yes. I think they would pass in the US (higher bar) and the UK (lower bar). So unless Canada has an even stricter regime, they would pass. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no chance that these logos would pass Commons:COM:TOO#United Kingdom. The star and the graphical effects are way more complex than a small modification of an E in the Edge logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not completely sure about Caltrans photo

I just uploaded a file, after checking Wikipedia copywrite requirments. I would like a second set of eyes to look at the copywrite, before I use the photo. The Caltrans page contains a copywrite notice.

Thanks for your help. Wikfr (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've tided the licncing, although it still needs someone to check the image falls within the State of California PD guidelines. [For the record, the word is "copyright".] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Logo review

File:NordBEC.png seems to be too simple to be copyrightable. It should be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. Please comment. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree The graphic to the left, as well as the distinctive font are clearly copyrightable imo. Doesn't mean a fair use rationale cant be found though. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless created in the UK and maybe a few other countries, fonts are generally not subject to copyright. And the graphic itself is not very creative either, so that's why I asked. This is the logo of a Scandinavian event, so there shouldn't be any considerations of 'sweat of the brow'. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I know we have an example of a font being copyrighted in the UK, but I can assure you that is not the general rule and it must have been the case that the logo declared copyrightable went beyond being a font or was otherwise constrained to limited circumstances. The part to the left, however, is definitely copyrightable: it wouldn't be "simple geometry", I don't think.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

how to upload copyrighted and not copyrighted images

How would i upload images without any problem with or without the permission of the owner? --Vunene (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) --Glossante (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The owner is most often irrelevant for uploading images but you can only upload such files where the creator, i.e. the artist or the photographer, has previously released them under a free license, or the copyright has expired due to old age.

Depending on the country of origin there are also many different terms of copyright after the death of the creator, and in the United States, copyright is based on the date of publication and / or registration with the copyright office. So if you are unsure about the status of your image it would be best if you could provide more details about the author and the origin, so we can try to find out about the legal requirements for uploading it. De728631 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Image Copyright Question

How would I know which images may be uploaded and which ones are copyrighted? --Glossante (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice on multiple logos in ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference

I'm sketching out how I would like to improve ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference. A unique logo is designed for each year (all logos can be found here). I would like to include the logo for each year in the table in the "History" section (along with a significant amount of additional textual information and links). However, doing so would seem to fall afoul of the "use no more logos than necessary" clause. However, as all but the most recent logo are only of historical interest, and since adding the logos would make the article easier to navigate, I think this might be an exception to that rule. Comments? GaramondLethe 04:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Judge Augustus Woodward

This image of the judge is listed with "© July 2006 Woodward Avenue Action Association", but the terms and conditions seem to allow commercial and non-commercial electronic and non-electronic uses so long as attribution is made. I'm not seeing anything explicit about derivatives though to know for sure if this is something we could use. Any help is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not profess expertise, but the "Use in any form not explicitly described above permitted. This term allows for commercial use of the item in ways not foreseen." leaves me optimistic. Every line of the terms and conditions seems to be permissive so long as it is attributed. Chris857 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That was my thoughts as well. Sadly, the one portrait at File:BrevortWoodward.jpg is a relatively-recently-commissioned painting by Robert Maniscalco for the Michigan Supreme Court that was presented in 2005 to the court, and it's listed on the painter's website that has a copyright notice. This image, or a version with the bottom cropped off, have appeared on the website for The Detroit News in relation to news articles here and here as well. It would be nice to get one image to use in the article on the judge and his street. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as long as "anything not prohibited is permitted" and as long as they don't prohibit derivative works, such a permission is valid. Remember that Creative Commons licenses and GFDL all depend on copyright to enforce their provisions; a © symbol doesn't contradict WP-a acceptable permissions statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg

I have uploaded a newer version. Does this version meet WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see two problems. First, you've taken two screenshots and merged it into a composite image for which we consider that two NFCC uses, so the question if this is better than the previous image (which can be seen in the history) is already unlikely to work. The second problem remains that while the affair is notable via critical reviews, it is unlikely that it cannot simply be described by text alone. Two people cuddling is not that hard to envision. If there was some artistic merit to the framing or filming or the like, it might be better justified but right now its not. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Polly_Barton.jpg

Hi, I got a Bot message on my talk page about licensing, but I really have no clue how to add a license to the file, and which license I add. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, TerryAga (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The images at that page direct to her official page www.pollybarton.com which clearly states that everything is copyrighted. Our fair use policy doesn't allow copyrighted images of living persons to be uploaded. So we have to delete that image. mabdul 20:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

would like to add an image

I would like to add an image of Stugeron15 (a Cinnarizine medication) to a webpage, and I found images of the package on Google, how can I use one of these images on Wikipedia?

Cisabell (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that you can; the packaging is going to be copyrighted, and a photo of the package does not substantially contribute to the readers' comprehension of the medication, so there's no fair-use rationale for its use here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary sculpture

Hi, I'm creating a Wikipedia article for a contemporary sculptor. The sculptor has sent me a few photographs of her artwork that she had either a) taken herself or b) had someone else take at her request. Can you tell me what I need to do so that I can include these images in the article? Thank you! MartinMartin226 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to have the artist give her consent to use the images that she photographed herself via WP:CONSENT. For the works that she had a photographer for, she either has to demonstrate that the photographer transferred the copyright to her (unlikely) or have the photographer do the same via WP:CONSENT. Further, in this latter case, she also likely needs to give her consent for the photos of her art taken by someone else is ok (eg: the photographer holds the copyright on the photo, but she holds the copyright on the sculpture within the photo). --MASEM (t) 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at articles such as Jackson Pollock and Robert Longhurst. For artists whose works are still under copyright, we frequently will include an image of one piece of artwork as an example, and we'll claim the image under fair use because visual artists' works must be seen to be appreciated more fully. Why can't we do this with one of these images? Just copy the description page and fair-use rationale from File:'Push Plate', bronze sculpture by Albert Paley (American born 1944), 1981, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg and adapt the details so that they apply to the image that you're uploading. NOTE Everything I said is only relevant if a freedom of panorama exception be available. Basically, you can use these images if all photos of the sculpture would be copyrighted by the artist. If the sculpture be located in a country that grants freedom of panorama for this type of photo, the images would be replaceable, so you wouldn't be allowed to upload them. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two copyrights: the copyright of the photographer and the copyright of the sculptor. The photographer's contribution is easily replaceable, so I believe we only allow the sculptor's copyright to be used under a fair use claim. Normally, files would be tagged with {{Photo of art|free licence for the photographer's contribution||{{Non-free 3D art}}}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Blank edges of nonfree logos

File:The Master's College logo.png is a good example of a proper claim of fair use for a logo: it's being used in the infobox about the logo's owner to identify the owner. However, to satisfy the no-more-than-is-necessary chunk of the NFCC, does it need to be cropped to reduce the size of the white margins? Or do we ignore the margins for NFCC purposes, since they're obviously not copyrightable by themselves? Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In general, yes, margins that contain no content don't affect NFCC, though it would be recommended to trim away extremely large margins simply for visual sake (that's not an issue with that picture). --MASEM (t) 00:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea with WP:NFCC#3b is that you should show as little as possible of the copyrighted work. The blank edges are not copyrightable, so it shouldn't matter how much space they take up. Compare with a photo of a copyrighted sculpture. In many cases, the photo will also show some nature around the statue, and it's only the statue itself (not the nature) which is copyrighted. On the other hand, see Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old: "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." If the intended use is to show it with a huge blank border, the result is that you show less of the copyrighted work in the article, so maybe it should be reduced anyway. However, I wouldn't care too much about this. There are more important things to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ineligible for Copyright

The Licensing section here states that particular image is ineligible for copyright, but I doubt that. The image is displayed in the Second Reality: it's not moving; just being displayed. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

When you have questions about an image on Commons, it's best to discuss them at CT:L. That being said, this image definitely isn't ineligible, so I've filed a DR for it. Thank you for pointing out this problem! Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please use Commons:COM:VPC (not Commons:CT:L). However, this particular image went to a deletion request, so discussions about it should take place in that DR. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I use this map of the U.S. electoral college

Dear everyone. I have asked that question already at German Wikipedia but none was able to answer it and I was advised to request it here. I would like to take a screenshoot of that map while it shows the current presidential polls in the US election. Might I upload it at commons? I mean it's a simple map with colours, nothing that much special. Thanks in advance --Jerchel (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the outlines and colours of the states might be enough to push it over. I've never seen a successful argument that something like the US map, which is always the same in idea but has variations in rendering, doesn't qualify, but it might exist. The colouring inherently shows some originality though. I suggest taking File:Blank US Map.svg and colouring the states, using that as a source. (If they update it, try to find a stable version.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Grandiose's comments. The simple choice of colors to use for the blank US map isn't copyrightable (e.g. you can use the same colors as they do), but I would advise against it for the sake of people like me who suffer from red-green colorblindness and thus have difficulty distinguishing some of the shades of blue and purple from each other. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In a case like this where it is very easy to replace the map, I'd say that it is safer to use something which is unquestionably free instead of speculating on whether a map from some other website is below the threshold of originality or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Some Disney's repainted images

Please have a look at b:Animation:Master Features/Rendering/Toon Render, the images about the repainted Toy Story scene is a copyvio, or? I would tag them, but I'm not 100% about that kind of copyright. mabdul 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about b:File:Thickness10.jpg: you see so little of Buzz Lightyear, so it might not be a copyvio. All other images of him are unquestionably copyright violations to me. I don't know if b:File:Toonrendertoplogod.jpg shows a character from some commercial product or if the Wikibooks uploader designed the character himself. The screenshots of software menus are likely {{PD-ineligible}} due to Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., but it feels safer to list {{GPL}} instead. The tag also proves that the images can be used freely anywhere in the world. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Publication question

I have a book, published in 1969, that contains an image with a caption that says the image was made circa 1884. It has no other attribution information, but the book's author was not born in 1884, so I know it isn't his. I know the rule in the U.S. is that the image has to be published before 1923, not just created prior to then. But what does it mean to be published? Does it have to be published in a commerical, copyrighted work prior to then? If not, what is the threshold? I'd really like to use this image, but I'm not sure I have enough information to keep it from being deleted. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK "published" in this context means that the work has to be made accessible to the public. While this is not necessarily a commercial act it would certainly include publication in books or magazines, but also exhibitions at galleries and such. Can you give us some more details, e.g. the caption of the image and a bit of context? Maybe then we can find some more information on your image. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The caption just says it depicts the structure in question "circa 1884". I've contacted the publisher to see if I can find out more information. Thanks for the clarification on "published", though. That helps. So, if the author took the photograph around 1884, but it just laid around in his/her basement until it was published in this book in 1969, it's still under copyright? For how long? Would "life of the author plus 100 years" still apply, or would it be some number of years after publication? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If the author never published it then the copyright term depends on the year of first publication and whether a copyright notice was then applied or not. For more information, see this chart. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If the photo was first published in 1969, then the copyright to the photo expires 95 years after publication if either the book or the photo has a copyright notice. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter that the photo was taken about 85 years before publication; it's still copyrighted for 95 years since publication. On the other hand, if it was published illegally in the book (or under a fair use claim), then it doesn't count as publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

For a general introduction to the notion of "publication" in U.S. copyright law, you may find useful pages 3 and 4 of this circular, from the Copyright Basics series by the United States Copyright Office. However, as it is intended as a basic introduction for the general public, and not as a detailed doctrinal work, it leaves many gray zones and it will not answer all your questions. More comprehensive works on the subject, from various authors, can be found on the internet. If you're more inclined to read legal stuff, you may want to have a look directly at a few of the court cases that are most often quoted about this subject. The actual facts in each case may be determining. One example of something that is not published is what you mentioned above: the author took the photograph and kept it in his basement (as did his heirs), without distributing any copy to anyone, or, if they distributed copies, it was with a restriction that precluded their selected recipients from further divulgating or distributing them. But if copies were distributed, with the consent of the author, without such restriction, that may constitute publication. However, please note that, as a Canadian, I'm not really familiar either with the notion of publication in U.S. copyright law. I asked similar questions, as you can read in this short discussion on Commons. But the Wikimedia projects provide interesting learning opportunies on the matter. About your 1884 photograph, see if you can draw reasonable conclusions from what you can learn about the whereabouts of this copy of the photograph between 1884 and its 1969 printing in the book and if you can identify in that period the year when the author or his heirs first distributed a copy of the photograph to someone without restriction on its divulgation. If no such prior distribution can be found, caution may dictate that the 1969 printing be considered as the first publication. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the great wealth of information. No wonder we have to have an entire noticeboard devoted to this! Based on some continued digging, I'm beginning to believe this photo comes from a personal collection that was subsequently donated to a state historical society. I've got an email in to confirm that it is the same one, since it is only described online and it's a three-hour drive for me to physically view the original. I didn't flat out ask about the copyright status in my initial query. My experience has been that libraries and historical societies often try to represent something as still being copyrighted even when it isn't so they can retain some kind of restriction on its redistribution. If I can confirm that this is the photograph that I suspect it is, I know the author died more than 100 years ago, but it sounds like that won't actually matter. What matters is when it was first made available to the public. At this point, I am not aware of any other publications that use this photo besides the 1969 work that I have. Hopefully, the author (or his/her heir) released all rights as a condition of donating the collection, but somehow I doubt I'll be so lucky! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair use of old advertisement ?

Hi,

For the Ansco article, I would like to include the following old advert:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5022799996/

The flickr site has a Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) designation, but the image in question is a page from a magazine.

So, is it acceptable for Wikipedia, considering

Ansco stopped making films in 1977. Anscochrome name brand's trademark is expired, see: http://www.trademarkia.com/anscochrome-71678859.html The trademark owner, General Aniline & Film, no longer exists and the new owner does not market photographic products.

It seems to me that this is analogous to the situation of an image of a deceased person, no?

Thanks, --Zeamays (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There would still be some copyright owner to the original advert, but it would near impossible to trace down (it might be GA&F, but that's not how it always works). As it was published at least as late as 1955, with no discernable copyright markings, we would need to consider if the copyright was formally renewed 28 years later (1983). But checking the Copyright Office ([2]) I'm not seeing any renewal in a 5yr period around that date for either "asnco" or "general aniline" (But you might want to check this yourself). Per US copyright law, if there was no formal registration, then the work would have entered public domain in 1983. Assuming that now this ad is PD, the scan is a faithful reproduction, and thus while the uploader has tagged it with a CC-BY license, this is improper as there's no new copyright that can be claimed, and instead the work treated as a PD image, which we would easily allow for WP. Thus, as long as we are satisfied there's no renewal of copyright on hand, the image can be used as a free image. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I verified your USPTO copyright search, no entries for "Anscochrome". The original publication date was stated to be 1955 and it couldn't have been earlier than that because the higher speed Anscochrome described in the Ad was first sold in 1956, see: http://billsphotohistory.com/3.html Thanks, --Zeamays (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Advertisements need a copyright notice. There's no copyright notice on the page on Flickr. Does the advertisement cover multiple pages? If not, then the advertisement is in the public domain as {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do terrorist groups have copyrights?

Hezbollah is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Israel. The way I interpret this is that Hezbollah's flag [3] should be public domain at least in the U.S., because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibits terrorist organizations from participating in commerce in the United States.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we've discussed this at some length before. I wonder if someone/I can dig it out. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I've found the one I remember, but both commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg and commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-10#:File:Flag_of_Hezbollah.svg might be of interest. However both were about Commons so that leaves the US position unclear. As regards that, I don't think think we've ever going to clear it up completely, and so it would be best (as is the default) to assume copyright unless shown otherwise. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a image from al-Qaeda on en Wikipedia that uses a similar logic: [4], so why can't we apply the same logic for Hezbollah? FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyright claim for File:JackHensley.PNG is most likely invalid. Even if it's illegal to participate in commerce in the United States, I don't see why anyone else would be allowed to violate the organisation's properties within the United States. Also, do you have any evidence that the copyright is held by the organisation and not by the individual author? Would it make any difference if the copyright holder instead is an al-Qaeda member?

If it was made by people who are both citizens and residents of either Afghanistan or Iraq, and first published in either country, then it is in the public domain in the United States due to lack of copyright treaties, but an RfC decided that such images are unacceptable on Wikipedia anyway. Besides, if it was first published on Youtube, then it was first published in the United States and is copyrightable as a US work. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia presumes copyright on recently created images to exist from the moment when the work is published, unless it is explicitly stated by the copyright holder that they have released the image in the public domain. I don't believe that exceptions are made based on how much we like or dislike the activities of the people who published the work. --Jayron32 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

To repeat part of what I already stated with regards to this situation on User talk:Futuretrillionaire: Being prohibited from engaging in commerce isn't necessarily the same as not being able to hold copyright unless there's a law (or regulation/case law/etc.) that says so. If there's a source or a series of sources which establish that such images are in the public domain, so much the better. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How to prove publication under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

Hi, I have a question about proving that an image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. I uploaded this image: File:Product space from Atlas.png, extracted from the Atlas of Economic Complexity, which I sourced to http://atlas.media.mit.edu/book/. On that website, which is the only place where the Atlas has been published, it is stated that the work has been published under that license. However, another user still notified me of a file permission problem with the file, stating that there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. How do I prove that this is the case? Thanks, Claravdw (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OTRS. – Connormah (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that you indicated that it's licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY), which it's not (at least not according to the source webpage). If it is only licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND as is indicated at the source page then it is non-free content as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and its use is severely restricted. OTRS isn't needed unless the copyright holder has agreed to a license which isn't plainly obvious at the source. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In other words, we generally cannot use an image which is licensed under a NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, as images for use in Wikipedia must be licensed under one of the CC licenses that DO permit commercial use and derivative uses. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it! Thank you very much for the clarification. I also know many of the authors of this work personally; in order to obtain permission for using the image, is it necessary I contact all authors for permission? Or only the authors that actually created the image? Claravdw (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of work it is. If the contributions of each author are separable (so that you can use the contributions of author X without using the contributions of author Y), then I believe that you need permission from all of them. If the contributions of each author aren't separable, then I think that you only need permission from one author. However, it would always be safer to obtain permission from all of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The website you linked to above provides that: "Permission beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://atlas.media.mit.edu/about/permissions/". It even provides a contact e-mail address for that purpose. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. So if the contributions are inseparable, I only need permission from one person? It sounds counterintuitive, but I'm sure there is a reason. I would argue they are inseparable: the images are created by some authors, but reflect calculations that have been made by others, and ideas that have been thought of by yet others... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claravdw (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what was referred to is the idea that each author can exploit the work without having to ask permission from his co-authors. That doesn't necessarily mean that each author can unilaterally decide to alienate part of the rights of all the authors. This was discussed recently in another section (I don't remember which exacly). Anyway, for your immediate purpose, it is not necessary to discuss this point of copyright law (unless you really want to). In practice, in this specific case, the person (at the address mentioned above), who appears to be mandated by the authors to deal with requests from the public, will probably be able to tell you how the authors have agreed to manage their copyrights in relation to this work and she can probably request more instructions from them if necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. I will e-mail that person and see what she says. Thanks! Claravdw (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A help me about file copyright

You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:TornadoLGS#File_permission_templates. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of materials made by organizations subject to U.S. sanctions on the English WP

How are non-free content tagged by this Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions treated differently on the en WP than typical non-free logos? Does that make a difference when using such non-free content on the en WP? Does it mean that the content can't be used at all outside the U.S.? Are both treated the same?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A typical non-free file like logos can be used outside the US, but the reuser should take care to assume the reuse in their country is appropriate, but that's all. Per the IEEPA template "Reuse of text or images in other circumstances may require a license under the IEEPA or under corresponding legislation outside the United States." - this means that the reuser likely cannot immediately reuse the content unless they have said license or the like. It is a clarifying warning to those reuser that this is not your typical non-free file. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The ban on importing (into the US) just about any sort of information from those organizations/states and the violation of that can and has led to jail time for violators (see e.g. this story about someone importing broadcasts by a Hezbollah-affiliated TV station for profit). In addition to a warning for reusers like Masem said, it's an assertion that we believe our use of this material is under one of the allowable exceptions to the law. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein as the above answers: My understanding is that on en.WP those files are treated exactly the same way as other fair use files. Actually that's exactly the point of what that template says, or tries to say. However, it can be noted that the template refers both to copyright and non-copyright aspects. Copyright-wise, the template simply says that those files are used under the fair use provision of the U.S. copyright law, and that is all there is to it. The rest of the template is irrelevant in terms of copyright. Therefore, just refer to how en.WP deals with fair use files. However, independently, the template also addresses a second, distinct question, which is about a potential non-copyright restriction in the U.S., only to explain that that potential non-copyright restriction does not apply to the files tagged with that template. (N.B.: The question about the non-copyright restriction is posed due the the identity of the actual copyright holder, but, still, that potential restriction is of a non-copyright nature, if you get the idea.) Now, what it all means for external reusers is not different from any other content on en.WP. The external reuser should do his own analysis and verify that his eventual use of the file is legal under the laws of the country where he intends to use it, that is to say, under all the laws of that country, copyright laws and non-copyright laws. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Photograph copyright question

I have recently obtained permission to upload a photograph by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago to Wikipedia. What is the next step? Post the relevant permission somewhere on Wikipedia, send it to somebody, or just upload the image? Thanks in advance! Toccata quarta (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PERMISSION for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Image of a new stamp from the USPS

I work at the LBJ Library and have been in communication with Robert Bolen at the USPS about the new Lady BIrd Forever Stamp that will be issued here on December 22, 2012, which would have been her 100th birthday. The stamp is copyrighted by the USPS but he has given me permission to post it on Wikipedia through the fair use agreement as long as I credit the USPS in the caption.

I cannot seem to find the proper permission. Can you help me? Margaretwmiller (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t need permission for fair use, and we put credits in captions only in very unusual circumstances. The tag would be {{Non-free USGov-USPS stamp}}, and each use would require a detailed non-free use rationale, explaining among other things how the use significantly increases reader understanding of the article and why a free replacement could not be used. —teb728 t c 22:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)