Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Company images

I work for a company that just got a Wikipedia page. There are images online at the company website, but my understanding is that these are copywritten content and can not be used on Wikipedia. I would like to upload images for this company. I have permission from my boss at the company to upload images that we have but I dont know what kind of evidence I need to demonstrate that permission. These images were not created by me, but by someone in the company. Thanks for any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtabencki (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

First, we can use copyrighted images but they would be under non-free content, meaning that there are limited cases we'd allow for their use; we would need nothing special otherwise to do this. However, if your company is willing to license the images under a free license (like CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even public domain), that would allow more uses. To indicate that your company is willing to do that, there are instructions WP:CONSENT that describe how your boss can send an email with the details and the like to our internal ticket system to verify this intention. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons license 2.0

Is it allowed to upload images to Wikimedia or Wikipedia, when they have been released with the 2.0 license, in particular a photo from 2008? Though, Wikimedia does not offer the option to select the 2.0 license, but i guess back in 2008 the 2.0 license has been the current version? Could someone clarify? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. Another tap in the Wikimedia upload wizard, offers the 2.0 option. prokaryotes (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about whether loopholes in Copyrights exist or not. My question is concerning the company, UralVagonZavod. Notice how on every single page of the official website, there is a Copyright 2014 meaning that all images are non-free or unusable. However, if you go under the Product towards the top page, you'll see a WALLPAPER link with a few images that are built for mobile devices and in different resolutions. Is it possible to download these pages without violating copyrights? because I find it puzzling that the WALLPAPER link is listed under download in the search bar. Khazar (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a loophole. The images on the Wallpaper page are copyright to their authors. That the firm makes them implicitly available for people to download from that page to their mobile devices doesn't eradicate that copyright. To use them anywhere else would requires specific permission from the copyright holder. Nthep (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo: Michael Dunford and Annie Haslam

I would like to use an image from this website:

http://midliferocker.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/a-21st-century-renaissance-for-renaissance/

The image is in the middle of the first page with the caption: Renaissance's Michael Dunford and Annie Haslam circa their 1970's heyday. Can I use this image or is it copyrighted? Should I load it to English Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons? Keep up the great work. Thankyou CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The image is most likely copyrighted. It is probably not owned by that website, but is also a copyright violation there as well. We cannot host copyright material unless it meets all of the requirements of WP:NFCC. As far as I can tell, it would fail WP:NFCC#1, so in this case I would recommend that you do not upload the file. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Could I try one more, please? I am not seeking non-free content. This image is from a fan website, and appears to have been loaded by a non-professional photographer, Phillip Merkel. The url is:
http://renaissance-fanfare.net/photo/renaissance-infinity-hall-september-16th-2011-011?context=album&albumId=991551%3AAlbum%3A19110
Is this free content or public domain? Thanking you again. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
No it's still a copyrighted image. Items are not in the public domain just because they are available in public (in this case on the internet). If the photographer wants to display their images that's their choice but that doesn't make them fair game for anyone else to use without explicit permission. Nthep (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Most images that you will find on the internet are copyright unless they are specifically freely licenced. You always need to verify it is free, but generally you should assume they are copyright. ww2censor (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What is required to meet copyright standards in downloading an icon for the official logo of RAGBRAI from the Des Moines Register? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbngr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 August 2014‎

Are you talking about this logo: http://ragbrai.com/wp-content/themes/ragbrai/images/logo.png ? In the article about the organisation RAGBRAI, you are generally permitted to use the image in the inforbox for the organisation under our non-free content policy but it most comply with all WP:NFCC policy guidelines. However, I notice that most of the references in the article are self references not reliable third party sources and you should address that problem. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed RAGBRAI references to ragbrai.com because they were from the ragbrai.com page. Are those accepted?

Derivative works how to 'tag'?

I would like to upload images that I have assembled that contain side-by-side comparisons of art works that date from the 16th century. In this case, images by Raphael and Castagno 'cut-n-pasted'...assembled side-by-side, for the sake of illustrating the comparison of the two images.

Although these images are certainly pre-copyright...I was "taken to task" by a Wiki-diva in the past because I tagged a similar composite image as "my own work"...the Diva in question accusing me of claiming authorship of works by Titian and Leonardo da Vinci.

The composite image certainly was created by myself, although it contained works of old masters...which I attributed in the description.

There was, I believe, a tag for such derivative works...which I can no longer find.

Question is:

What would you recommend as the appropriate tag for such an image? (Hoping to avoid a confrontation as occurred in the past involving this issue).

(I certainly would waive any individual copyright claims I have as to the image created. Just mean to upload for the purposes of a 'talk' discussion).

Thanks, very much,

Tobias316

Tobias316 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, if you have created a composite image, you should make sure the source of each individual image is identified. If they are taken from WP materials, we have a template {{Extracted from}} which is also used at commons to show the original images for that tracking. The composition is definitely "your work" but as long as you are clear that all you did was arrange the composition and identify the source images, you should be fine. And if is the case that the individual images are in the public domain and we (en.wiki or commons) don't have that, you should also upload those for maximum usability by end users (and then you can use that Extracted from template to point back to those). --MASEM (t) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Photographer deceased - copyright?

A singer called Annie Haslam has sent a photo of her from the 70's taken by a photographer named Michael Dakota, who is now deceased. I suggested to her that copyright would still exist, but it is now part of his estate. Is this correct? Would we need a signed licence agreement to use the image? Thanking you in advance. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, the copyright forms part of his estate. It can be released either by his heirs or if there are none, the executors of his estate. Nthep (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Recreating of graphs

Hi, i wonder if re-creation of graphs is allowed? Are there any requirements? Example graph http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=64 Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well you cannot just reproduce it, but you can draw it using your own creative input, you can change the scale ranges, scale marker positions and styles, line dashed style, shading and colour, location and exact wording for text captions and labeling, you could have grid lines, you could include geological eons, you could have little pictures of the sun scaled to luminosity; so I am sure you could create your own version of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, that graph has been copied (with acknowledgement) from http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/planets-life-seminar/kasting.pdf which, in turn comes from http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v258/n2/pdf/scientificamerican0288-90.pdf The latter is paywalled but I had no trouble finding an open online copy. The luminosity curve seems to come from an equation at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981SoPh...74...21G Yes, as Graeme says, it is only the graphical presentation that is copyrightable and not the underlying information. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification. prokaryotes (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about uploading a photo

I found an image on a movie review article written by Joe Bendel for the film "Eden" (2012) on a newspaper site "The Epoch Times" and wanted to add it to the movie's Wikipedia page under the Plot category. I saved the picture onto my laptop under the name it suggested and inserted it between two of the paragraphs and clicked Save. However, a completely different picture appeared on the page from what I had saved. I went back to the movie review article and re-saved the picture with a new title (changing the title from "Eden.jpg" to "Eden-and-Vaughan-talking-in-van.jpg") and inserted it once again and clicked Save. This time, it is not displaying the picture, only the file, and clicking on it only takes me to a page suggesting there is something wrong with the uploading process. I tried citing it but nothing changed. What should I do so that the photograph can be uploaded and viewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Januarytonight (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence that you've uploaded the photo. You would have to re-upload the file. Also know that the type of file you are discussing would be copyrighted and owned by the film's producer. It would need to meet all of the requirements of WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why my files proposed for deletion?

File:NasrSCTraining2014.JPG File:NasrSCTraining2014-15.jpg File:MarinkoNasr.jpg File:KoljaninNasr.jpg All 4 images are my own and have been clicked from my own camera. I have also mentioned my email id in the description. Then why are they being deleted?

Apparently they were tagged for deletion because you didn't explicitely specify that you are the photographer. You wrote "image owner" but that may be a different person from the actual artist, and owning a physical copy of someone else's work does not make you the copyright holder. So if you took those images it would be best if you changed "image owner" to "Photographer: Alhosniomani20" on your file descriptions. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So De728631 I have made the changes but what about those tags. They are still there. When will they be removed?

The proposed deletion tags have been removed. They are now tagged differently for copying over to Wikimedia Commons where they can be used on other wiki projects. Nthep (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why am I getting these messages in photos clicked by me?

My many photos have received this message. Will it any way affect my picture or the articles written by me? This picture was clicked by me from my own private camera? Then why is this tag posted over here? Please help.

No need to see the tags here too.
This is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons. Freely licensed or public domain media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Any user may perform this move—please see Moving files to the Commons for more information.

Please thoroughly review the copyright status of this file and ensure that it is actually eligible for transfer to Commons. If you are concerned that this file could have problems with its attribution information and/or copyright status, then remove this notice and DO NOT transfer it to Commons. By transferring this file to Commons, you acknowledge you have read this message and are willing to accept any and all consequences for inappropriate transfers. Repeat violators will be blocked from editing.

If you have checked the file and it is OK to move to Commons add "|human=username" to the template so other users can see it has been checked and can help you copy the file to Commons.

If the file has already been moved to Commons, then consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to {{Now Commons}}

If the file can't be moved to Commons because it doesn't fit Commons' scope, then use {{Do not move to Commons|reason=Why it can't be moved to Commons}}

If you think that a local copy of this file should be kept, then use {{Keep local}}. Consider using {{Keep local|reason=Why the English Wikipedia needs a local copy}}

Please ensure that the file has a properly descriptive and unambiguous name before moving it to Commons. See here when to rename a file.

Copy to Commons: via wmfLabs CommonsHelper This file was reviewed and flagged by a human (User:Sfan00 IMG) for transfer. By reviewing the file the user confirmed that it is safe to move it to Commons.

Alhosniomani20 (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your files have simply been tagged for transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Commons is our image repository that is also owned/run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Files that are transferred to Commons will still work here in the same way as they did before, but they have the added benefit of being able to be used at other Wikipedias across the world in various different languages. Your photos are not in danger of being removed, simply moved to where they can achieve even more use. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to use one of these images of A. Merritt's Fantasy Magazine. The copyright was renewed in 1981: see here. However, the magazine's five issues appeared in 1949 and 1950, so my understanding is that the copyright would have had to be renewed in 1977 or 1978 to be valid. As far as I can tell it was not renewed until this 1981 registration. Is this still copyrighted, or did the cover images go into the public domain because of the late renewal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)`

That's not a renewal, that's a recorded assignment, the agreement between Popular Publications International, Inc. and Blazing Publications, Inc., under which PPI assigned the copyrights in these 260 magazines to BPI. As you note, the renewal for a 1949-1950 publication should have been around 1977-1978, but the Copyright Office records or renewal only go back to 1978. There could be a 1977 renewal. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I searched for a 1977 renewal in both the January-June and July-December sections and was unable to find one. If there isn't one, what would that mean for the copyright? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hard to say, it's such a pain to prove a negative like this. The copyright could have been renewed in at least two different ways; on the painting itself, or on the magazine issue. There may be some others, but less likely, I think. What resource did you look at to search for renewal? TJRC (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I went here, and searched in both 1977 and 1978-present for periodical renewals. I've done a few of these and I strongly suspect these are out of copyright; what you often find is that the authors of the stories renewed the individual copyrights on those, but the artists almost never renew copyright on the covers, so if the publisher lets it lapse, they're in the public domain. I had another look and don't see anything so unless you can find something I can't, I think I'm OK to upload the covers to Commons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the site I would have recommended. I had also checked that and this one, although in a rather desultory search. There's also another renewal database at Stanford, but it only covers books.
I guess one problem is we don't know the title of the painting to search on whether that was separately renewed. But really, I don't think you can do any more than you've already done; it will never be possible to prove a negative, that it was not renewed.
My take would be to rely on the good-faith search you've done (including a statement that you've searched the renewal database, with the link), and treat it as PD. If someone ever unearths a renewal, it can always be deleted at that time based on that additional information. I've dealt with that myself, and I don't think the sky will fall if the image was on wikipedia (or better, Commons) for a while when it was believed to be public domain after a good-faith search. TJRC (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Done; see here. Thanks for the advice! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Marty Watt article

I uploaded to an article a production still from a motion picture. I know that this photo was distributed freely as part of a press package for the movie Almost You (1985)and could be used for free for the purpose of publicizing the film. Is this not free? It has been deleted from the article. Wattcima (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

When we use the word "free" on Wikipedia we mean free for any use or modification. However the image may be possibly used under fair use if it can meet the 10 WP:NFCC criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair use?

Is it possible to use this image under fair use guidelines, since a bot found the author in violation. prokaryotes (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That depends on the context where you would want to use it in. You can find the criteria at WP:NFCC, but personally I doubt you'll be able to make a case for criterion #8. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Criterion #8, is met? See usage. prokaryotes (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Arguably I think it's more a problem with NFCC#1, that it is should be possible to take a freely licensed photo of a person in biohazard suits being showered down (not necessarily as part of an active epidemic but during training/trial runs) to demonstrate the procedure of washing down to prevent transmission. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if there is an alternative we could take it, but so far i wasn't able to find one. prokaryotes (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of a free replacement existing already, but whether there's the potential for a free replacement to be made, and as such it is the case this can happen (again, most likely as part of a demonstration or training run), so we would not allow that photo. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, creating such a photo is not that easy since you need the actual equipment, and this image shows the process during the current outbreak in an affected area. Thus, potential for replacement and published under the correct license appears rather slim.prokaryotes (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
How does the image significantly increase the understanding of the reader? If the picture was absent, would the reader really have a diminished understanding of the subject? I don't think so. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this image is not necessary to understand what the prose states. It just does not pass muster. ww2censor (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It shows a process to increase containment, and the related section is all about this. But if others think it is not required we can remove it. prokaryotes (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As to the original licence, the Flickr image is currently also licenced for "no derivatives" which makes it unfree for Wikipedia purposes even if the uploader had been accepted by the checkbot. That said, I don't see how we could craft a fair use claim for this particular image. De728631 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Approved Photo Upload

I uploaded an image that I was given approval to upload, but it was flagged and removed due to "possible copyright violation." Any insight onto how I can undo the flag and/or upload another image that the owner has granted me approval to upload? Rys411 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The file was deleted as it was found on another website. You need to have the owner of the photograph (this is not necessarily the person in the photo, it typically is the photographer who owns it) to give us permission to use the photo. (As it is a photo of a living person, we can only accept an image that is licensed as a free license). There are instructions that can be followed at WP:CONSENT for this. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Harvard wreath

See also: User talk:Rambo's Revenge § Logos are public domain

I got into a revert with an IP over use of logos in a bio. They were unencyclopaedic but also at the time tagged as fair use. However, correctly the IP has queried whether they should be PD. I think they probably should and have already changed the status of File:Harvard University logo.PNG. My question would be if a wreath would be original enough to constitute a derivative work in File:Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg - as far as I can see the rest is fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that File:Harvard University logo.PNG is a public domain image though whether the "tradmark" tag is appropriate is a side issue. For File:Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg you will need to determine when it was first used. It may well be public domain too but without that knowledge the wereath is complex enough to create a new copyright as a derivative work. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Per [1] I would suspect the current logo was first published in 1935, meaning we cannot immediately assume public domain. I do note that [2] gives a heraldic description of the mark, suggesting we could possibly recreate it freely. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

High resolution claimed for fair use

The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria includes the requirement "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used ", but there are examples of non free images used in their high resolution form: File:Crop from the 4 August processed image of comet 67P Churyumov Gerasimenko.png and File:Lutetia closest approach (Rosetta).jpg. Either these images do not meet the criteria or the criteria need amending. I have raised this apparent contradiction at Talk:67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko#Image used unlikely to meet Wikipedia fair use standard. -84user (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We can allow larger resolution non-free images, but the reason for the larger size has to be explained in the rationale (for example, if the details of the brush strokes on a painting are the subject of significant discussion on the painting's article, a larger resolution image to show those strokes would be reasonable, but this has to be spelled out). But if this is not explained, then the images have to be reduced. If a rationale cannot be provided, or feel that one can't be made, you can tag such image pages with {{non-free reduce}} that places it into a category to have editors reduce the resolution. Note that we have no way to automatically enforce low resolution images we have to deal with them as they are found. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair use because "other image is old"?

Could anybody explain, why File:Verbinski 2013.jpg ist Fair Use? Since my deletion request has been reverted though I thought "other image is old" is obvioulsy no Fair Use reason. --178.1.215.98 (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Somebody procedurally removed your deletion tag because you had mistakenly used an WP:FFD tag but failed to create the corresponding discussion on the FFD page. The more procedurally "proper" way would have bee to use a speedy-deletion tag {{di-replaceable fair use}} instead. But you are of course right about the matter itself. The file was clearly replaceable, and that no matter whether we have an older alternative or whether that older file would be sufficient; it's a portrait of a living person so it could always be replaced with a free new photo. Deleted it now; thanks for bringing it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I don't know about the deletion procedure (for me it is really complex), I thought it would be sufficient to do it this way in an obvious case. I didn't think about that not using the proper procedure would result in keeping the image instead of having a look at it. Thanks for dealing with it and deleting it even though I would rather have it as legal image on the page. But wishful thinking doesn't change the law. --178.1.215.98 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A frame from an episode opening sequence for "The Voyage of the Mimi"

Any thoughts on whether this image (which was extracted from the opening sequence for the first episode of "The Voyage of the Mimi") could be used in the infobox in the article "The Voyage of the Mimi" given a non-free use rationale and a {{Non-free television screenshot}} tag? Among other things, it would seem that the image could help with visual identification for readers of the article given that it shows the series name in its specific style against the kind of background where it would normally be shown in the series. --Elegie (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Flight feather

Hi! Can someone from this project please comment on the conversation going on here? We're trying to determine if a line drawing added to the flight feather article is really "public domain" as assumed by the uploader. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the image c:File:Owl parts 2.jpg is not a simple drawing but is quite complex and does cross the threshold of originality, so it is copyright and not in the public domain as claimed. The owlpages website also clearly restricts the use of the image to non-commercial use per this webpage statement; essentially it allows use under a cc-by-nc-2.0 licence which neither wikipedia nor the commons accepts. On the bright side, this is an image where a replacement, not a slavish copy, could easily be drawn. If you cannot create it yourself, you can make a request at: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! That was my understanding, but I thought I'd check before I marked it for deletion. We'll work on getting a replacement made. MeegsC (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

what do I do? pls reply RADOFINS and ECNALI (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Responded at talk page, this would be a PD-simple situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the US flag the intellectual property of the US Government? I'm not sure, and that is preventing me from answering File talk:Flag of the United States.svg#Protected edit request on 16 August 2014. Can anyone here help? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the tags, I think the argument "it's public domain as it falls below the threshold of originality" (implying there is zero possible ownership) is a "more open" statement than "public domain due to being the work of the US Gov't". --MASEM (t) 04:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, so if the flag falls below the threshold of originality, keeping the tag as it is would be better. The problem is that I'm not sure whether that is the case or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, both license tags technically apply, so I would use both. (Also, this image should be at Commons, its completely free for world use). --MASEM (t) 04:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll do that. We shouldn't remove or unprotect the local copy of the image, though - it's one of the 100 most-used images on the site, and would be a tempting vandalism target if unprotected. Thanks for your help, by the way. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

1922 UK photo

I thought it would be nice to add a photo to Henry Horatio Dixon. There is one at the National Portrait Gallery. They are willing to provide a CC license, but only an NC version. I'm wondering if it is out of copyright. Per the Commons site, it appears that the Crown Copyright expires 50 years after publication. How do I determine publication date? The copyright also expires 70 years after the photographer's death, but he died in 1958, so we haven't reached that hurdle.

I see we are using another photo by this same photographer File:Berta Ruck by Walter Stoneman (1916).jpg, but that is uploaded to Wikipedia, not Commons, presumably because it qualifies as public domain in the US, but not necessarily elsewhere. Is that the way to go?

I checked to see if we had a relationship with the National Portrait Gallery, but I do not see them in this list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainloy has a relationship with them, but it is not good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the photographer is Walter Stoneman (1876-1958), It is not 70 years since he died. Why do you think crown copyright applies? This applies if Walter Stoneman photographed this as a government employee. Just because the National Portrait Gallery has a copy does not mean that they own all rights or can assign copyright to anyone else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking that Crown copyright referred to anything in the UK, but that is clearly not true. I knew Crown meant government employee, but forgot. So the first section applies, and as it is not 70 years, since death, therefore it is not out of copyright in the UK, correct? However, it should be in public domain in the US, if it was published in 1922, although proving that may be tough.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You would be right about the UK. I suppose you would have to look for a newspaper or book published prior to 18231923 with the picture. Then it could be PD in the USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean 1923 rather than 1823! In the case of this photo, what constitutes published? Would the photo being exhibited count? (Not that I have any evidence whether it was or not).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Public exhibition in a gallery would count. Appearance in advertisement flyer would too, but they would be much harder to locate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

pic

I want to upload pic of myself. how can I do it please show me easy way. sincerely yours terrys chryssos greek singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrys chryssos (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When you have done enough edits here, you will see an "upload file" link appearing. Then you click on that. Hopefully you own the copyright on the image (perhaps a selfie), then you select the file, give it a name, pick a license and tell us about the image, then upload. Else if you cannot wait use WP:FFU but this will be tougher as you will have to prove that you own copyright to a third person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If this is to simply upload a picture of yourself in order to promote your singing career, please don't - Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for promotion of singers. Astronaut (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Are images of chemical structures copyrighted?

I understand that i could re-create the structure from an original (example). However, most images i find via google search of chemical structures are relatively identical in the appearance. If this wouldn't meet WP copyright standards, would slight alteration of images (saving as different file type, changing size and colors) be sufficient? prokaryotes (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Choices of font, exact structural representation convention used, thickness of lines: these are in fact creative choices. Slight alterations merely create a derivative work. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, well i guess there are some mainstream software which creates rather identical structures, but i leave that to someone else for now. Thanks, Mike. prokaryotes (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
we do have a template template:PD-chem for simple structures of letters with lines between them. Or the carbon skeletons for organic compounds without letters. In my opinion you can copy these structure diagrams and use PD-chem. Changing a line width or length would not be adding creative content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. prokaryotes (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am working in developing an artist page that I am in touch with and he sends me his own personal photos.

They were never copyrighted but he allows me to post them here.

What should I do when I upload them?

Thank You for making Wikipedia a great place to be!

Filmman3000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmman3000 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that they are letting you post them as freely-licensed images, you should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT , as this requires that you have the artist email the OTRS to indicate this. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the copyright in the pictures remains with the person(s) who took them, not with the subject or the photos, or the person who owns the film and/or prints of those photos. Who took them? Have they waived their rights, or else licensed them in a way we can use here? Are they photos of the artist, or of his/her works? (Or by "artist" do you mean a performer of some kind?) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both. They are just his personal photos. I think Masem nailed what we need to do. Filmman3000 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright.gov down for maintenance August 22-25

Search "The Copyright Office Online Public Catalog will not be available between 5:00pm U.S. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22 and 6:00am, Monday, August 25 while the Library performs maintenance." We hope (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Newspaper Article Copyright Vs Public Domain

I am trying to get a response on an issue which is important for my article I am working on. I have uploaded an image (advertisement) from a newspaper (Pakistan Observer) dated 17 July 1959. I created this file with an upload wizard while I was practicing on creating article in my sandbox. I was not aware of copyright vs public domain issues at that time. Several volunteers have questioned about the copyright issue. After researching I found the following information:

1. American Newspaper Articles published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. For this time frame, if there wasn’t a copyright notice in the newspaper, it’s in the public domain.

2. The situation with foreign works is in some ways simpler but also more complex. For most of its history, the U.S. expected foreign works to follow the same rules that U.S. works had to obey. In order to secure copyright protection, works first published between 1923 and March 1, 1989, had to follow a series of formalities. Failure to comply with the formalities (publication with copyright notice, renewal of copyright, manufacture of some works in the U.S., deposit of copies with the Copyright Office) could limit the copyright owner’s rights or, in some cases, even end copyright protection. Few works published abroad complied with these requirements, and so it was assumed that most of them were in the public domain.

I checked the Newspaper (Pakistan Observer) thoroughly and did not find any information about copyright protection. Based on the above information, I believe that it is in the public domain. If I am correct on this, how do I change the information on the file (from Source and author) to the public domain? Morahim (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I understand Pakistan copyright law, according to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Pakistan 50 years pma is the basic number and becuase this would be a corporate work the individual author is unlikely known, so, as 50 years have passed you may well be ok but for the commons it must also be freely licenced in the US. You may want to refer to the 1992 copyright amendment act linked from this WIPO page. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to make a correction. The advertisement was published from Pakistan which was East Pakistan that time. It is now Bangladesh.
In Bangladesh copyright is a subject-matter of statutory protection of intellectual property. Prior to 1962, there were no specific laws as regards copyright in the Pakistan or East Pakistan (later Bangladesh)Morahim (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
For the Bangladeshi copyright you need to read this page. As is fairly usual with colonies they retain the previous laws until they make their own, so it is likely the copyright rules for pre-1948 Indian copyright laws apply, which would be 60 years pma in this case unless the new 2000 law says otherwise. If 60 years is the time you are out of luck but if 50 applies, you are most likely ok. This is a tricky one unless some other editors know differently. You may want to pose the question on the commons licencing page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. I think got my answer and I don't have to ask the question to Common licensing page. Bangladesh copyright act of 2000 is largely based on Pakistan's Copyright Ordinance, 1962. The term of the copyright is "50 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies (p.m.a.; s. 18)." Based on this, I can safely say that the article is in the public domain. Please confirm. My next concern is, how do I change the uploaded file images (advertisement) with wrong source and author to PD?Morahim (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This was under copyright in its source nation in 1996 and therefore the Uruguay Round Agreement Act restored it to copyright in the US, and since its 95 years haven't expired in the US, it's still under copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Street art

Hi, I have a query re street art. The Banksy article has a number of photos of his works—the uploader states he is the author and has released them into the public domain. Playing devil's advocate, surely that is creation of a derivative work and therefore a breach of copyright? Or does street art somehow fall under Freedom of Panorama?  Philg88 ♦talk 17:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would follow what has been a subject of discussion at commons which you can find over here: [3] (or Commons:COM:GRAFFITI). Assuming the graffiti is unauthorized/illegal (as Banksy's), but is original art, then per commons, regardless where painted one can make a free photograph of it. That said, we do also consider if the graffiti incorporates original works. As an example, there was an image of graffiti of an image of Kim Jong-Il, based on well-established press photo of the leader. Thought it was painted in France (where graffiti is more in the free than elsewhere), the derivative work of the graffiti was a problem and the image considered non-free as a derivative work of the original photograph. Similarly, copyrighted characters would trigger similar issues. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Masem, I suspected that the illegal aspect would scupper any copyright claim and you've confirmed that. I wanted to check with regard to the second image in the Van Ray article (not the duck :)), but I don't think that the subject of the work is identifiable, unlike Kim Jong-Il. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would presume it is okay, as I cannot recognize the image it is based on. If sometime down the road we find there was an original basis that was still in copyright, then that would be an issue., but for now, this should be fine. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions logo.png

Hello,
I uploaded a logo under Fair Use, but I'm not sure I added the Licensing information the right way. What seems to be very easy in my home-Wikipedia, turned to be a bit difficult here (I'm used to uploading files to the Commons and adding them to articles here but this is the first time I upload a logo). Can you please check it and fix what's needed, if needed? I will be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ldorfman (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it passes the originality threshold to even qualify for copyright protection. Looks like {{PD-text}} to me.--ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Its definitely {{PD-textlogo}} in the US but as the organization is based in the Netherlands, it may not be below the threshold of originality there. According to Commons:COM:TOO it seems like it would be, but I'm not sure. We may need to err on the safe side and list it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Modifying and uploading an image in the public domain.

I would like to modify a map in the public domain, produced by the U.S. Marine Corp in 1955. I have uploaded this original map onto Wikipedia: Table of Distances from Okinawa.jpg.

May I remove items from this public domain image (such as the table of distances), add information (such as larger place names on certain islands) and upload this as a new file with a new name?

If so, is this still public domain or is this my original work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerdog (talk • contribs)

Yes, you can do that with a PD image. We would expect that an image you made from something like a PD source carry a free license - it doesn't have to be PD, it can be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but it does need a free license.
When you upload your final image, you should make sure to indicate it is a derivative work of the original by adding a link to the original image (the link to the file: space version here) in the file description page for your upload, as well as describe briefly what you might have changed. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Graphic designer for the journal cover images has the copyright, but it's commisioned to her by us based on the journal content

Hi, I've recently created a Wikipedia entry for the Journal Cytometry Part A. I also uploaded the cover image of the Journal. We commission the cover images for Cytometry Part A to our graphic designer based on the Journal content, which are then published in every new issue of the journal. I got the following message from Stefan2:

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically Draft:Cytometry Part A, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We always upload the content with the full permission from the authors, and all cover images are created for a sole purpose of appearing on the cover of the journal. Our designer's name appears in each issue's image description, so the entire process is 100% fair in use. Is there a way we can publish a license containing our graphic designer's name and the rest of the license information will remain as is? Please advise. Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WileyLS AnaM (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The message you received appears to be about a technical point. On Wikipedia, images in a context of "fair use" are allowed only in articles. The message you received invokes the fact that your draft is, for the moment, still in the "draft namespace" of the Wikipedia website. It is not yet an article in the "main (article) namespace" of Wikipedia. The user who sent you the message hid the display of the image but left the filename in the code of the page. This seems to imply that if and when your draft is moved from the "draft namespace" to the "main namespace", thus becoming an article, then you can display the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@WileyLS AnaM: I've left a note on your draft asking the reviewer to restore the image if the article is moved to the main article space. Please note that you have yet to submit the draft, and nothing will happen until you do. Good luck with the article.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this info, Philg88 and Asclepias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WileyLS AnaM (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 August 2014

File:Luna Mortis.jpg

Apparently this file was deleted by Aka, due to Copyright Vio, but the image (Assuming it was the same one) was uploaded by me after receiving authorization for release from the band themselves. Anyone know what the issue was? Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You uploaded it to Commons, and there, we require the image to be completely free (CC-BY, etc.) To show this, it is not sufficient for you to say that you got permission from the band, but instead you have to have the band to authorize the use of the image under a free license. I know for en.wiki we have WP:CONSENT, a process by which the owner of the photo can send their approval to the Open Ticket Request System as to document the allowance, I'm not sure if Commons has the same, but we would need this approval by the band directly in any situation. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Could be difficult to get them to do it now, but I may be able to swing it, anyone know the process for this on Commons? Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Commons process is detailed at commons:COM:ET ("e-mail templates"). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

file photo

What is the copyright status of a portrait of someone, when, it is used either without attribution or as "file photo" on multiple news sites? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That depends entirely under what copyright licence the image was released, if it even was. However, we do not accept non-free images of living people because a freely licenced image can be made. News sites may use images under a fair use claim but our non-free policy is more restrictive. Exactly what image are you talking about? ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a couple of bad portraits I've seen, where the article's subject was shaking hands with someone else. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Often, because US work for the Federal Government is freely licensed (well, in the public domain), you will find images on Wikipedia with the subject shaking hands or standing next to a US official. Eg at Bob Hawke the lead image is cropped from this. For images on the web used without attribution or marked as "file photo" I think we have to assume the image is not freely licensed. Eg here is a file photo, but, like nearly every image on that website it is under copyright (in this case by AAP). As suggested above we need to see which images in particular you are talking about. I hope this answer is helpful, I was not 100% sure I understood the question.--Commander Keane (talk)

File:Depression Quest screenshot.jpg

I've just uploaded this screenshot for use in the Depression Quest article, but I'm wondering if I made a mistake by uploading it in the original resolution. My thought was that since the screenshot is all text, it would be pretty much useless if readers can't read it because the resolution is too low. However, I've realised that this might put me foul of WP:NFCC 3. Should I upload this again with a lower resolution? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's one of those non-standard cases; it's nearly all text and whatever graphics there are can't be copyrighted (but the text can), but from the standpoint of explaining the user interface, you need the shot. I would reup at a size where you don't lose the small text's readability. Maybe 400px width? 500px? --MASEM (t) 02:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've reuploaded at 600px width. At 500px the text was a little too small to read - hopefully 600px will still be ok for NFCC 3. Thank you for your help! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to compile a (e.g.) List of rivers in the Antofagasta Region using the GeoNames geographical database. The list includes a link to a map where geonames locate the river. For example http://www.geonames.org/3872600/rio-salado.html

It is a geonames server, but down right in the map appears the terms of use of Google. Can WP use this link in its articles?. --Keysanger (Talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend following the practice from WP:GEO, in which if you provide the lat and long. coordinates via the {{coords}} template, then the reader can click and be taken to a toolserver page that gives about few dozen options for mapping (which does include geonames and Google maps), eg: 57°18′22″N 4°27′32″W / 57.30611°N 4.45889°W / 57.30611; -4.45889 --MASEM (t) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It isn't the same service. http://www.geonames.org/3872600/rio-salado.html includes the Unique Feature Identifier (3872600) therefore the map includes some administrative information about the feature as well as other features near and wikipedia pages regarding the sector. --Keysanger (Talk) 14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lisa Head.jpg

This is significantly higher resolution than would normally be considered acceptable under WP:NFCC#3b but the uploader believes it would be a violation of the licence (MOD News Licence v2.0) to rescale the image. Should this be a consideration given that we're using it under fair use rather than the MOD's licence? January (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe that it should be a consideration. Wikipedia's rules require a fair use rationale, but I don't think Wikipedia's rules are actually incompatible with the MOD News Licence, unless we resize the image. So in this case I think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to decide that the "minimal resolution" under NFCC#3b should be the smallest size that doesn't break the licence terms.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I get what you both are saying, but I disagree. Let's say this is a copyrighted image. Copyrighted images are not allowed (by their copyright license) to be modified, reproduced, edited, etc. We take these copyright images (under fair use) and we still minimize resolution per WP:NFCC#3 thereby violating the copyright license. Fair use trumps the copyright license as we are meeting all of the legal requirements of fair use law, and our policies are often even more strict. Whether or not this file has an MOD license should not be of any concern, as, in my opinion, if we are using it under fair use, we should treat it the same way that we would a copyright image. That being said, we might need someone from the Legal and Community Advocacy team to weigh in on the legal side of this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're probably right about the Legal and Community Advocacy people. Can we actually claim fair use on something when the owner's given us (and everyone else) a licence? And even if we can, is it really in the encyclopaedia's best interest to violate the licence?—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When items are released as CC-by-SA-ND (no derivatives) we minimize them, regardless of the fact that it is a "Free license" (just not free enough for us). We treat it the same way as we treat copyright content (as long as it meets fair use requirements). If we are using it under fair use which would trump any other license, I don't see why we would need to keep from minimizing it. I would even go further to say that scaling any image under any non-free license isn't really breaking any license terms as long as it keeps the same look. For instance, would using one of these images in a newspaper qualify for modification? (The image is 800 x 600 pixels at 72 dpi would be a 11.11" x 8.33" image, printed) And lets say the newspaper prints the image only 8" x 6" (same exact scale, just smaller) would this be a modification and a violation? TLSuda (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with the substance of what you say (see my post below), the nitpicker in me wants to point out that most print media are 300 dpi+. Newspapers are an exception and they generally print at 150-ish dpi. 72 dpi is really more of a screen/home printer resolution than something you'd get out of a modern printing press.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @S Marshall: You are correct. My wife does marketing and advertisements and uses this all the time. But. Look at the EXIF data on the image page. It is currently saved in 72dpi. Changing it (even for printing) would be no different than would scaling. In fact, changing the dpi would exactly be scaling the image. TLSuda (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the MOD license has any relevance, since our use is going to violate the restriction allowing use "for the reporting of current news only". I also suspect that the license terms wouldn't be read that strictly, however, since virtually all uses by broadcast and print media would likely change the size and/or resolution. But, since the license expressly recognizes fair use standards, those are all that matter to us wrt the license. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, "current" to the MOD definition appears to be within 5 years. After that they move the image to the National Archives. So yes, I think this is current news. However, you're right to say the licence recognises fair dealing and fair use (I missed that part when I read it earlier), and I'm also coming to the view that you and TLSuda are probably right about re-scaling. I withdraw my objection.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted the MOD IP rights unit ( DIPR-CC@mod.uk ) to see if the MOD news licence is still approriate or whether as time has now elapsed this image is released under the OGL which is CC-BY-SA compatible? Nthep (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo provided by subject, not photographer

I tried to upload the following file [4] which has since been removed due to lack of copyright material. I'd like to re-upload it again and do it right, but I'm afraid I need some help.

The image was a photo portrait of Phillip Jacobson. He provided a hard copy of the photo to me, which I subsequently scanned and uploaded. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer, and copyright isn't straightforward, so I guess my question is what do I need to do in this situation? Do I need to provide an email from Mr. Jacobson saying that he agrees to Wikipedia's terms and conditions?

Thanks & Regards, RedIrony (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@RedIrony: Copyright is originally owned by the photographer. Sometimes photographers sell or transfer the copyright when the session is purchased. Often times, especially in my personal experience, photographers retain the copyright to keep their work from being used to generate income they do not partake in. If you submitted only permission from Mr. Jacobson it would not be accepted. If you can get the photographer to either release the image under a free license (per WP:CONSENT) or sent an email saying that they've given the rights to someone else, and then an email from that person releasing the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a photo that you don't want available to the public

I have been working on Wiki page for Anne Tyler, the novelist, for several months. After some back and forth, I have finally obtained permission from her literary agent to use a photo to put on her Wikipedia page. However, the agent does not want the photo to be available to be downloaded and used by anyone except Wikipedia. Is this possible?

Cotinga (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Since she is still alive, a fair use upload isn't even possible. Part of our mission is to make images freely available. I would recommend encouraging them to release it, as it surely promotes her to have a nice article covering her with an accompanying picture. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Photocopy of a newspaper article

Hi I am editing my first page on Wikipedia and had a question. I was given a photocopy of a newspaper article published in 1956 can I upload the image to Wikipedia - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z987 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, Z987. If it is simply text and not a photograph, there is no need to upload an image of it to Wikipedia. You simply need to cite it as you would any other source, which means giving information like the name of the paper, where it was published, the exact date of the article that has the information, and so on. Sources do not have to be available online. Notifying User:Z987 Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - the newspaper article carries a picture, so I was thinking about the photocopy. I am not sure if that is acceptable and doesn't violate copyright principles. Your advise would be appreciated - thank you again
@Z987: Most likely the image is copyright, maybe a press agency photo or the paper's own photographer, so you would not be allowed to upload it unless you can clearly verify it is freely licenced. We really need more details so we can offer you more advise. I notice that you uploaded this image to the commons claiming it to be your own work but I suspect that you did not actually take the photo of Raghbir Singh Bhola. If you took your own photo of the image from the newspaper you refer to above you are not the author of the image, just of the copy, so it is most likely non-free and we do not accept non-free images of living people. I have tagged the commons image for deletion here but it might be free but we really need more information. ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Which country is the newspaper from? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 11:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - The image was given to me by Raghbir Singh Bhola it was his passport picture - If that is not allowed, I can request him to allow me to take a picture. With respect to the newspaper article - it is a photocopy of a news clipping I was given by Raghbir Singh out of his collection which he has preserved. The article appeared in an Indian newspaper in 1956 about the India Team victory in one of the Olympic games. If it is helpful - I can upload a copy for the experts to review and guide me. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.33.35 (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

James Foley beheading video

A few days ago, a video was uploaded to YouTube by members of the Islamic State showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley, presumably taken by someone known as Jihadi John or accomplices. The video was taken down by YouTube soon after as a violation of policy. The video in-full has since been showing up on Bittorrent, shock forums and other social media websites, but no mainstream media websites (though they have published stills from the video). The question is if we can link to the full video from Wikipedia (see Footnote #37 in the James Foley article). For example it's hosted at here at BestGore.com (caution: Police warn sharing James Foley killing video is a crime, The Guardian). The relevant policy seems to be WP:COPYLINK: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." A lengthy previous discussion here. -- GreenC 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Linking to that work would be linking to a site with Copyright violations, and therefore shouldn't be done. Technically someone officially owns the copyright to that video, and as it is not showing from an official source, but rather only places that are sometimes known to host copyvios, we're best to not link to it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@TLSuda: I'm not sure if you're aware, but there has been an aggressive campaign to "black out" the video in the media, with a Senate political campaign and some newspapers using scenes from it, then being called to account for "bad taste" because of the campaign to censor all pro-ISIS material based on its point of view. Ordinarily your argument that the video's restricted play was likely indication of a copyright problem would make sense, but under these circumstances, it simply doesn't apply. Wnt (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The correct solution here is to ask Jihadi John or his cameraman to email OTRS freely licensing the video, as per WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. You could ask him to email Scotland Yard at the same time, as apparently some people there are eager to get in contact with him. Involvement in arranging publication of the video on Commons may be a bad idea for UK residents, though, for the reasons indicated in the links given above. (It may also be morally questionable.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
So far in the discussion I hadn't been looking to host it on Wikimedia Commons, though archive.org does host some ISIS material as public domain. I don't see any obvious way to tell how archive.org made its decision there - is there any? Wnt (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a slightly off-topic question... but wouldn't dissemination of the video make identification of the guy more likely? Weird stance for the government to take. Strange legal stance for the UK to take on this. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but as far as I know David Cameron is a major proponent of censorship - see [5]. I would not have expected him to miss this opportunity. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not the only one who thinks that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I believe you are mistaken. OTRS is not for external links. And the UK is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As is North Korea. Int21h (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
On a broader note, I should ask if this page is ordinarily used to evaluate external links. I didn't come here because my impression was that it was for determining if an image was acceptable to keep on Commons or Wikipedia, but the standard is much lower for third party sites: for example, news organizations can be fairly free with "Fair Use" or "press releases" in a way that Wikipedia doesn't follow. My impression was that WP:EL was demanding we not link to pirate sites, but not a call for us to second-guess the decision making of every third party publisher we would like to cite. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No, this really should be at EL to evaluate the appropriateness of the link. MCQ should be for image/text/media used directly on WP. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If mainstream sites (eg NYtimes, etc.) are not even linking to the pirated versions of the videos, we should not either. There have been cases in the past where mainstream sites have linked to youtube videos that are technically copyright violations, which we don't allow linkages, but the fact that they aren't linking here, directly, is a good sign we should not. You can certainly describe that this video existed, of course, as that's documented. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It should of course be pointed out that there is no way of determining whether the video being linked has been tampered with during the multiple upload/download sequences it has gone through before ending up on the dubious website it is currently being hosted on. Who exactly is the 'reliable source' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The video was distributed by Al Hayat Media Center, the new media arm for IS that was established in May.

--79.223.15.144 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That name is helpful. With it I am finding stories like [6] and [7] that provide some insight - including that Al Hayat had distributed media on archive.org, which has licensing similar to that of Wikipedia. Specifically of the Foley video, the latter source says "Both Twitter and YouTube have reportedly rushed to suspend accounts that have posted the video or graphic images from it, but site administrators can only move so fast. Copies of the video seemed to be uploaded as quickly as the original was taken down. The Islamic State-run Al-Hayat Media Center had provided a link on its website allowing visitors to download the footage." Now you can argue what the meaning of "allow" is, but this matches my expectation that the people posting the video to social networks had a blanket permission to redistribute, though I can't say what the license terms are from that. Now in the meanwhile I can't say I've accomplished much beyond making the discussion a little more honest - now, at least, they're admitting that they simply don't want to link the video, they have some numbers and they're going to censor it, calling it "editorial discretion". But at least they don't get to keep the illusion that they're an uncensored, unbiased compendium of all available human knowledge. Wnt (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A little more honest? Thanks for the good faith. And Wikipedia is not intended to be a compendium of all available human knowledge - if we were why would there be an AfD process? There are three issues for me. One is WP:CONSENSUS which you've made clear you aren't happy with, but we'll leave that be. The other to me is the site itself and whether it hosts enough copyvio links to be a site to avoid. And the other is WP:BLP as relevant to his family and the families of other hostages see this link. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to concur with Doug on those three points. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Upload privileges

How soon will I have upload privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LethalEmperor (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To editor LethalEmperor: If your contributions page is accurate, then you should already have upload privileges. Are you having a problem uploading images? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Civil War photos

I'm working on web page for a bed and breakfast and want to use an old civil war era photo. Do I need to worry about copyright on those old photos? Thank you ---- prefix:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.227.38.112 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe photos from the Civil War are old enough that their copyright has expired. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Public Domain Photo - Do I need to credit the author?

Hi, I hope someone could help me out with this. Basically I've got this number of photos that I uploaded some years ago to Baitul Futuh and am the owner of them. Now these photos are all over the internet (especially the main photo) and while some do credit me, others don't. My question is, since I posted it as a public domain, does that mean it can be freely copied without having to credit the author? --Muffingg (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement to credit you. You released the image with this licence:
I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
By using this wording you didn't specify that you wish to be attributed or otherwise credited if the image was re-used by anyone else. You could ask for attribution but nobody would be obliged to agree to do so. For any future images I suggest you use a creative common licence like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} where as part of the licence you can specify how you wish to be credited whenever the photo is reused. Nthep (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If what he wants is attribution, he should probably use {{Cc-by-3.0}}, which only adds the requirement of attribution, without adding the share-alike requirements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
(Which should be noted, won't stop some people from using the photo uncredited, as some people simply think "oh, free image!", but at least more respectable sites like newspapers will typically follow the attribution requirements, even if it just a link back to the file: page). --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
(Although in some cases your images are credited to "Wapedia",[8] and no polite email will make them change that.) - Floydian τ ¢ 13:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ToO question

Is File:Crosstown line logo.png & this {{PD-textlogo}} eligible? --///EuroCarGT 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the NGO's logo is available & maybe even meant to be shared/used by the masses, especially in a situation that pertains to the organization. There are quite a few (MANY) things wrong with my effort to create a Wikipedia page but this is the first one as I go down the ridiculous page I made...if it were mediocre & just a few errors I would've given up but the stupendous failure has me going to prove to myself that I'm not totally incompetent. Anyway, how can I get permission from Wikepedia to post the logo of an organization for a page regarding them? Thanks! Benji11568 Re:The Indian Subcontinent Partition Documentation (ISPaD) Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benji11568 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is in fact possible to use their logo -- see WP:LOGO. The requirements on that page for the use of the correct rational and template need to be followed exactly. According to our current interpretation, the image cannot be added until the article has been accepted. (I will say that I personally consider all of this so much a nuisance that I never bother with it, and let those people add images who are prepared to focus of technicalities, rather than content) For other problems with the article, see your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable to Wikipedia?

File:Francis Poulenc & Wanda Landowska.jpg is unquestionably public domain in its country of origin (the National Library of France vouches for that fact), but I wonder if it is PD in the United States? I can see no evidence that it is, and would be glad of an expert view. Tim riley talk 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we figure out the date on that photo? Based on the subject's lifetimes and their age in the photo it is like before 1923 which would make it clear PD in the US. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Poulenc was born in 1899 but I don't think he looks like he was in his early twenties in the photograph. I'd rather not assume that this was pre-1923. And don't forget that US copyright is based on publication but not on the date of creation. Even if the photo was shot prior to 1923 we wouldn't know if it was published immediately after. De728631 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Poulenc didn't meet Landowska (with whom he is shown in the picture) until early 1923. Tim riley talk 18:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: and @De728631:- Thank you for your thoughts above. Given that the photograph cannot have been taken before 1923, should it be deleted, and if so how does one set that process in motion? Tim riley talk 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
First, it's hosted at commons so it might be good to ask about it there, noting it could be PD in France but not in the US. That said, the current use of the file on Poulenc's article would clearly meet even non-free allowances (a photograph of a deceased person for identification of that person). If Commons needs to remove the image, you can re-up it here with a non-free allowance for that article. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that advice, Masem. I shall do just as you suggest. Tim riley talk 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2014/August&oldid=1161796426"