Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


releasing a derived work

File:Hear speak see no evil Toshogu.jpg is CC-BY-SA File:Hear speak see no evil Toshogu cropped enhanced.jpg appears to be a derived work released into the public domain by someone other than the creator. Is this legal? Pseudomonas(talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not acceptable. The derivative work must maintain the CC-BY-SA license. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg

The uploader of this picture believed that the statue in the picture made in 1999 has a copyright and as per US law, a photography of a copyrighted 3-D artwork may not have its own copyright.

However, the references in the article Leonardo's horse explained that the artist, Nina Akamu, went to a great length to reproduce the statue as close as possible to the original clay sculpture made by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. This would mean that her horse statue would have not been significantly different from Leonado's original sculpture. Therefore she didn't earn a separate copyright on her work because it was a mere reproduction in a different form of the original artwork. Since Leonardo's original work was of the Old Master as was released to the public domain, therefore, this particular reproduction and all related statues/sculptures are all in the public domain. Now, let's assume it is correct that Akamu's work is in the public domain, the photo taken by this photographer would have the full copyright of the photo itself. If the photographer (User:Jeffness) choose so, he can release this photo using CC-3.0 and upload to the Wikimedia Commons such that anyone can use this photo freely. Please post your thoughts about this. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo Permission Form of San Francisco Public Library

Photo Permission Form of San Francisco Public Library.

San Francisco Public Library has given Wikipedia permission to use 9 of its photos in Wikipedia's articles. This is a scan of the permission form that they sent me for those 9 photos, which were all taken before 1923. Shown is a scan of that form.

What Permission Category should I use when I upload these photos (ex: Freely licensed, Public Domain, what else?). Could you please supply some Sample Text for how the description field should read? Any other suggestions?
And here is a link to one of the photos that they gave permission for:
http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search~S0?/X%22barbary+coast%22&SORT=D/X%22barbary+coast%22&SORT=D&SUBKEY=%22barbary+coast%22/1%2C39%2C39%2CB/frameset&FF=X%22barbary+coast%22&SORT=D&30%2C30%2C

James Carroll (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this doesn't seem to be compatible with any free licenses because you're not allowed to make reproductions or use the images outside of Wikipedia (not to mention commercial reuse). So you'd have to upload them under a fair use claim together with {{Non-free with permission}}. De728631 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you please show a link to an existing Example Photo, similar to the historic example I linked from the library which has been allowed use in an article, under the classification of "a fair use claim together with Non-free Permission"? I'm having a tough time understanding the procedure as I read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content. James Carroll (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If these images are in public domain, why do you need any permission whatsoever to use them anywhere? --CyberXRef☎ 22:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
There isn't any evidence that they are PD, they need to have been published prior to 1923 to be PD, not just created before then. Nthep (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Here is one image with an additional copyright tag. Althoug the key is the fair use rationale to describe why an image benefits the article in question and why there is no free equivalent. You might want to consider the latter point because it could be that there are images of these buildings that were not only taken before 1923 but also published in this period (e.g. in local newspapers). Not the date of creation but the date of publication determines US copyright terms, and all media published before 1923 are out of copyright. So if there are actually any free images that show the same historical content, your files would fail our non-free use criteria too. De728631 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@CyberXRef: Often such images were previously unpublished when they are acquired by libraries or other archives. Which makes the library the copyright holder upon first publication. De728631 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, looks like I misread. With that in mind I don't think they can be used on Wikipedia. --CyberXRef☎ 23:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a general observation: two of the images AAB-6666 and AAA-7033 are really old; were created in 1890 and 1858. If the author is known and died before 1944 (would make him 86 if he took that picture at age of 0); it's in PD; else it's in PD due to 120yr expiration. --CyberXRef☎ 23:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

I would like someone else to look at File:S Line (UTA) logo.jpg. IMHO it does not meet the threshold of originality in the US, thus could be made into a SVG image able to be stored on Commons. --AdmrBoltz 14:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's text and simple shapes, all created in the US, so would be PD-text and SVG-able. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) --AdmrBoltz 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Chess diagrams created using a free online tool

Hi. I'm interested in using this tool (or something similar) to generate gifs of chess games we cover on wikipedia. I'm not sure if posting their gifs would be acceptable, given our policies on copyright. The program is advertised as a free tool, and encourages users to post its gifs to a "web page or blog". The only graphics used are the standard chess piece graphics, which the program creator didn't make themselves (we use them on WP already, I believe), and the blue/white checkered background. I don't see any specific description of copyright or licensing, though. Any thoughts?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I just discovered the gifs generated from that specific tool have a watermark on the side, so it's not acceptable for our purposes. But, I'd still like to have an answer to the original question so I know if other tools might be acceptable. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, tools like that are fine. The board images are too simple or too generic to be copyright. And the tool itself is simply a tool. You are the creator of the work. --Tóraí (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, we have to be careful. The chess piece images themselves could be unique designs and copyrighted; just because the software is free to use does not mean the art assets are. It is probably better to use the {{chess diagram small}} template (used at Chess) which uses known free images of the chess pieces to avoid any copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but, from a glance (and not being a lawyer), they looked like standard (generic) chess icons. In fact, I believe they may even be ours :-) --Tóraí (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If you can verify they are ours, that's great, and then it's fine. While the icons may be "generic" we really should be sure of that before using data from a third-party tool, just to make sure we're in the clear about the resulting images to be in the clear for free licenses, particularly since we have a free alternative way to make them otherwise. It might be worthwhile, if its not explained on the site, to get the webmaster there to affirm where the piece images came from as which can be sent in an email to OTRS so that we have record these are free images. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. An email doesn't hurt. And in my experience developers of apps like this are happy to assist. --Tóraí (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, everyone! If I'm able to track down an acceptable program, I'll shoot off an email about it before uploading anything. @Masem, I'm using {{chess diagram small}} now. I'm hoping to replace it in some places where we're trying to show a sequence of moves by showing one diagram after another... a gif would be better there. Anyway, thanks again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
To simply things, you could sand-box each arrangement via that template, and then make an image from the WP presentation of that as to give a single image using knowingly-free resources. That would be free as our images as long as you mention how you created the image. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Histology images University of Michigan

What is the status of these resources? The page states CC-BY-SA. Can I take screenshots and upload? [1]
-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see by-nc-sa. You can't upload to Wikipedia under a nc license. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Damnit, missed that. Thanks for the help anyhow. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if you only want a few images they might consider relicencing them freely if you make a request per WP:DONATEIMAGE. You never know until you ask. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Worth considering. I think there is an ok chance we can get some of the resources that way, seeing as they are CC-licensed already. I'll have to check what type of images we need most first. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Redrawing copyrighted diagrams

Would it be legal to have copyrighted diagrams like [2] and [3] redrawn by the good folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab? How much detail would we have to loose or change, if any? --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Status of WWII UK Air Ministry photos

I am writing an article about the AMES Type 7 radar. The only image I have found of the radar itself is here on the Imperial War Ministry site. This site covers everything with a blanket copyright, but in this case clearly indicates it was part of the Air Ministry collection, and states it was take by a "Royal Air Force official photographer" which means it would be covered by Crown Copyright. Can anyone speak to the status of these photos? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of IWM images from both World Wars already uploaded to Commons - all of which were licenced in the same way but are treated on Commons as covered by UK Crown Copyright. I'd check to see if it hasn't already been uploaded to Commons but if not upload using the UK Crown Copyright licence. Nthep (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It is already on the commons as File:GCI (Ground Control of Interception) radar installation at RAF Sopley, Hampshire, 1945. CH15188.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Heh! I tried looking for various "radar" images as well as poking through the categories, and didn't see this one anywhere. Searching on the commons leaves some to be desired… Thanks for the pointer WW! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maria J.GASTON

[4]She is a show peson about showbiz Łol says #1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.177.11 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How to tag 1940 photo image that was given to me by the deceased owner (my father, Harris Levey)

Can someone please help me to tag the black and white image of two men sitting at an art table that is shown in the upper right corner of my wiki article on Harris Levey?

This 1940 photo image that was given to me by the deceased owner (my father, Harris Levey).

I tried to follow the wiki rules for tagging photos but must have done this incorrectly as the imageTaggingBot sent me a notification that my image was not tagged (to see its message, click on the following link and scroll down to bottom of the page: User talk:Jonathanlevey

The best help would be for someone to actually make this required modification for me as I have sent hours on the computer and wiki tutorials trying to learn how to execute this process correctly. But to no avail Many thanks! Jonathan Levey (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed copyright issues can be difficult for some people. First there is no point in uploading two copies of the same image under different names as this does not resolve the problem of not adding a suitable copyright licence tag. I have tagged the one not being used for deletion. Second, and most importantly, who took the photo? This is important because that person is probably the copyright owner, not your father who just happened to have a copy of it and gave that to you. Unfortunately possession does not confer any rights to the person in whose possession the photo is. If you really think your father owned the copyright you could use the copyright template {{PD-because}} and insert the reason preceded by a vertical line: thus | . The commons has a specific template for heirs. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ww2censor RE: Harris Levey photo

First of all, can yo up lease re-assure me that the entire wiki page for Harris Levey "is not" slated for speedy removal and that it was only the photo that was slated for speedy removal? I believe this is the case, but would like to be re-assured.

Secondly, I want to thank you for removing the duplicate photo form the wiki files. This was, of course my inadvertent error. As for the remaining image, i it is true that the shows my father but I believe he took it with the self-timer on his camera, which was a Rolleiflex camera from his time in the war (I still have this camera!), as he often used this feature on his camera. The photo was taken in 1940 and it definitely came from his camera, so is he not the rightful owner? Please let me know your thoughts on this and how to proceed so that I can ensure it remains on his page. If the worse situation happens, I do have a photo that he took of himself in a mirror, it shows him holding the camera as he snapped the photo. Therefore, this photo could be posted as a substitute without risk of removal... is that what you know to be true too? Hope so. Unfortunately, this photo of hi is of very poor quality and doe snot show him in his art studio environment, so I would much prefer (and wiki readers would likely much prefer) to see the current photo of him sitting at his art table maintained on his wiki page. Kindly reflect further and advise.

With much appreciation for your time, thought and extra efforts on my late dad's behalf,

Sincerely,

Jonathan LeveyJonathan Levey (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Using a publicity photo?

Hello, I was trying to add a photo to an article earlier but realised I couldn't because none of the descriptions in the drop-down menu were applicable. The image is a behind-the-scenes still from a filmed interview and is licensed for use (I own the copyright), but I wasn't able to find an appropriate label to upload it under. If someone could help, I would be most grateful! Howie ☎ 00:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you, not the organisation you work for, own the image copyright and did not sell the copyright in a work for hire contract then you can licence it any way you like so long as it is freely licenced. The most usual are {{PD-self}}, {{self}} (see the template for variations), {{Attribution}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. There are others. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated advice! Thank you! Howie ☎ 14:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Proper tagging for permitted photo of artwork?

Hi. I could use some help selecting a license type for the picture posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nancy_Buchanan

The picture is of an artwork. I have permission from the artist/owner, but I am confused about which license is the correct one to select. I haven't posted a photo of an artwork before, but would like to again (of course with permission from the artist/photographer). Does the hitch mean that the artist gives up the copyright to the documentation of their artwork via use on Wikipedia.

I know it's important to post quality material about women artists. Suggestions? Thanks Marilyn Nix (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumes you are referring to File:Nancy Buchanan, Wolfwoman, 1977.jpg. The artist must freely licence the image for us. I assume she is the copyright holder and can verify her permission to the OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. That permission must allow others to use or modify the image and make commercial use if they want. The artist may be prepared to allow this but if not then we can't keep the image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Photographs of Easter Rising 1916

Any thoughts on whether photographs of the Easter Rising, 1916 would be usable? Specifically, I'm interested in two photographs:

  • The postcard here showing a group of officers with the captured rebel flag.
  • The photograph here showing the same flag over the rebel HQ a few days earlier.

--Tóraí (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If the postcards were published prior to 1923 then they are PD in the US. The photgraph is a bit more problematical. Has it ever been published and is the photogrpher known? The answers to those two questions could result in very different answers about when the copyright on these images expires or if it has expired. Nthep (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The photograph was taken by a guest in the Metropole Hotel, opposite the rebel HQ. I don't know who took it or if it was ever published. It is currently in the possession of the National Library of Ireland. --Tóraí (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's unknown author and unpublished then it won't be PD in the US until 1 Jan 2037. Tracking a guest at the hotel sounds fairly unlikely so concentrate on finding if it was previously published as that is more likely to have a beneficial outcome. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I know if an image is free-media ?

For example, could the photo-image in the following link not be free-media ? https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/instructor/hblau

Thanks for replying Neuralia (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the image isn't credited to anyone else we need to heed the warning at the bottom of that page "© Stanford University". Since the University has asserted copyright on the image, it is not considered free media. --AdmrBoltz 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
...And in the absence of any copyright notice, we'd need evidence that the image was free-media to accept it as such. Most images are copyright, and the burden of proof is on the person wishing to use the image to show otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Virginia_Railway_Express.svg

I believe that this should be recategorized as {{PD-shape}} ot {{PD-text}}. Can anyone confirm/refute? Useddenim (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A clear case of {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Permission to use image

I made contact with the creator of a webpage and who was at first positive in allowing use of images on Wikipedia. After discussion we came to the conclusion that he could not accept anything but a NC license for the entire collecting. Instead I could make contact concerning specific images, which I did for: [5] I was subsequently sent an improved (labeled) and larger copy of this image to my e-mail and was told I could use this. As it has not been previously published do I need an OTRS statement? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this website is a form of publication so it would be best to contact OTRS. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Image of the Amber Room 300 dpi

I would like to use the images of the Amber Room, specifically the image Bernsteinzimmer02.jpg and I need a 300 dpi image. There is no way listed to contact the Author Jeanyfan (no talk page). Please tell me how to contact this Author or where I can get a 300 dpi image of The Amber room as depicted.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABernsteinzimmer02.jpg

By jeanyfan (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons from Wikimedia Commons

Thank you

Patsails (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You could try to contact them at their Commons userpage at Commons:User talk:Jeanyfan. Other than that there is probably no way to get into contact with Jeanyfan because they don't have any public email option at Commons. But then they've been inactive there since 2008 so maybe you should try to get a suitable photo somewhere else. On a more general note, this board is for questions about copyright licences, but the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities should be a better venue for your question. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Sonic Boom franchise and video game logo.png

Does this picture satisfy the threshold of originality needed for copyright? It's a logo with only text; however, the text is stylized. I'm disinclined to think that this image is eligible for copyright, but I'll ask for an opinion from someone with more experience before I convert it to public domain. --Mz7 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks original enough for me because of the 3d-styling and the "cracked" appearance. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

File:BatmanSuperman_film_logo.jpg: Unclear ownership

While this image has been widely propagated as the official logo of the sequel to Man of Steel, it was actually a fan-made creation as seen at http://voeten.deviantart.com/art/Superman-Batman-Film-Logo-387073748 (independently verified at Comic Book Resources, which in turn was linked to by Nerd Reactor, which seems to be the first place that mistakenly claimed the file was official). The question of ownership of the image is complicated, in that it's a freshly-made copy of the image used at the Comic-Con announcement of the film (see video embedded in the Nerd Reactor page), but so far as I can tell Warner Bros. has not released that image in any way (such as for PR use) beyond that presentation. So my questions are, does "fair use" still apply given that this wasn't created by the creators of the film in question and that there is no clear license on the Deviant Art page, and if so, how should the creator of the work (Voeten) be credited? MarkHB (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not so concerned with fair use here, as we are with the non-free content criteria. Now it's possible that we could use this image, but only if we were talking about the fan-created image, and even if it were the actual official one, then I'm of the opinion that the two places it's currently used fail WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Given that it's not the official one then we really shouldn't be using it at all, regardless of free/non-free status (unless the mistaken authorship is actually notable by itself). To answer your other question: if there's no clear license at deviantArt (or anywhere else, for that matter) then it's just a regular copyright, so the creator should be credited on the file page in the template. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've recently noticed that the Template:PD-Israel-Photo is severely out of date. On May 25, 2008, the following got into effect meta:Israeli new copyright law. I am not sure who is typically in-charge of updating these templates, but it should definitely say something similar to commons:template:PD-Israel, saying "The old British Mandate act applies only on photograph taken on May 24, 2008 or earlier". --CyberXRef☎ 07:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Contextual significance – non-free image of a character on the actor's page

File:RobertSwenson-Bane.JPG is currently used in Robert Swenson (only) but doesn't have a NFUR for that article. I am not inclined to attempt to write the NFUR because I believe it would fail NFCC#8 (contextual significance) on the grounds that this image would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. However, before taking any further action (which would presumably be to nominate the file for deletion), I thought I would check in here to ask: what is the consensus on using non-free images of a character on the actor's page? (By the way, yes I did notice that there is no source stated, which could be another reason for deletion. But for my own understanding I'd like to be clear on the question of contextual significance anyway.) Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Without some critical commentary about the photo itself the use in Robert Swenson certainly fails WP:NFCC#8 and the fact that he played the character is already stated in prose, so imho the image is not necessary. Besides thecurrent rationale for the Bane (comics) use is useless because it is not displayed in that article, so I suggest you nominate it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

18th-century ship plan

I acquired a 5.8MB .jpg of an 18th-century plan for a ship from a Dutch museum a couple of years ago, I can no longer find the email to which it was attached but I'm pretty sure they said it was for personal use only. My question is, is this reasonable? The ship, Meermin, was built in Amsterdam between 1759 and 1761, and the image I have is one which was created for me at my request, or so they said, from an original plan dated 1760 – the same plan appears in low res here. The date is in the lozenge in the bottom-left corner. If possible I'd appreciate comments asap, as an article involving the ship is due to be on the main page tomorrow.[6] Thanks for your time. Nortonius (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Merely my opinion. The question for Wikipedia is whether the museum has a copyright for their reproduction of the PD diagram. According to Threshold of originality (and precedent here) not in the US, which is what counts on Wikipedia. In the Netherlands, I don't know, and that would also matter on Commons. In the UK (if you are there), probably yes, and in theory that also matters on Commons. You also might become in breach of contract to the museum but neither Wikipedia or Commons care about that. Thincat (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You sum up pretty much what I had been worried about, particularly the possible breach of contract. I'm in the UK. I suspect the only way to get a "free" copy of the plan might be to visit the museum with a camera. Thanks for your timely thoughts. Nortonius (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ps I just found the email on an old computer – I would be in breach of contract through the museum's terms & conditions, and I don't want to go there, so consider this question answered! Thanks again.
I was faced with a similar problem with high-res images on a UK web server of a historical UK map. I decided not to upload them though WP would have allowed it – I rather hoped someone in the US would upload them but no one has done so! My caution was partly on ethical grounds (the small firm selling them had bought an original map and had put in a great deal of effort in mechanical copying) as well as legal grounds. However, I did put a link in the article so anyone interested could find the images. Thincat (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Morally I agree, the museum too has to protect its assets and earn its keep; but your last point is excellent – I feel silly for not having thought of that already! Even though I did go down that route myself a few years back for an image of an old chart... The plan is on the museum library's website, in kinda sorta useful resolution![7] All I can say is duh! And thanks again. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Delete an Image from Wiki Commons

I decided not to use the image I just uploaded to wiki commons, filename: Robin Russell Grifith Park 2010. How do I delete it from the database. I see the message that it will deleted by March 24, 2014 if I do not provide the necessary information, but I would rather delete it my self instead of an administrator having to take time to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Restfest (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This image commons:File:Robin Russell Gretch Drums.jpg that you uploaded to the commons in 2010 has already been deleted a long time ago but the image File:Robin Russell Griffith Park 2010.jpg is here on the enwiki and is likely to be deleted too but you don't have to do anything to get it deleted. It was never on the commons AFAIK. You cannot delete it yourself, only an admin can do that, but for a more speedy deletion you can add the following tag to the image (just as written here including the curly brackets): {{db-author}}. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have now deleted File:Robin Russell Griffith Park 2010.jpg per Restfest's request. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Calgary Safety Roundup - New contributor unclear on why a photo was rejected

Hi. I'm having trouble understanding why a photo was rejected from the Calgary Safety Roundup page. I own copyright for the photo. My objective was to include the photo in the article but retain ownership of the photo - that is - to deny permission for the photo to be used for some possibly unrelated other purpose. Is it possible to do this? If so, how? Thanks. DzigaV DzigaV (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. Wikipedia is, basically, two things:
  1. An encyclopedia that contains stuff that anyone can read, for free.
  2. An encyclopedia that contains stuff that anyone can copy and use however they want, for free.
The second part is as important as the first. So (with certain exceptions for fair use, but only when we have to, and under various restrictions) we only use photos to which the copyright holder has given away all right to restrict further re-use.
This is done by licensing under CC-BY-SA or something similar, and if you do this you technically still retain the "copyright", but it's what most people would consider pretty useless: anybody can use the photo anywhere for any reason (even to sell it or make it pornographic or whatever), and if they somehow find a way to make a million bucks off it they don't have to give you any. All they have to do is acknowledge that you took the photo. So unless that's OK with you (doesn't sound like it) I guess that's that. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are photographs of PD objects taken by others copyrighted?

Say you find a website that had a really nice photograph of a public domain 1700s painting on it and also a photo of a 2,000 year old Greek statue. Each photo says at the bottom that it was snapped at such and such museum, and then just below that "Copyright [John Doe]. All rights reserved".

There's no apparent elements of originality in the photos - they're just hi-res photos. For the painting, you can see the picture frame and a bit of the white wall at the edges. For the statue, its front-on and the background is just the white wall behind where its displayed. I have a few questions about this.

  1. Does just the act of taking the photos make each particular photograph copyrighted to the photographer even though the images depicted are PD? If yes, I guess that's all I need to know, but if not
  2. Can I crop out the text claiming copyright at the bottom and just upload them to the Commons? and
  3. If there was some minor element making them more than just photos of the works – say you could see someone's hand intruding on the edge of one of them, inadvertently captured, would that destroy the ability to use them? Where do we draw the line, as to how much original elements make them no longer useable?

I've been wondering about this for some time. Thanks in advance!--108.46.100.156 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It varies from country to country I'm sure. In the United States (which is the controlling authority for Wikipedia) it says at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources "Accurate photographs of two-dimensional visual artworks lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (which it has in the US if it was published before 1923). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored." I see that it specifically says "two-dimensional" so dunno about the statue.
We are discouraged from using images that wouldn't be free in their country of origin. So if say Russia has a different rule and it's a picture of a painting hanging in Russia, we would rather not use it. But we can and sometimes do if it's warranted. (That's Wikipedia; Commons items must be free in their country of origin.)
If it's a statue and it's displayed publicly, the article Freedom of panorama has additional info about that.
This doesn't fully answer all your questions, the others (like the thing about the hand in the photo) I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The act of taking a photograph of a 3D work is considered a new copyright - the choice of angle and lighting are considered creative elements. So if there is a 2000 yr old statue, while the work is well out of copyright, a photograph of it can be copyrighted. And in most cases, as long as the statue can still be photographed, we would not allow the use of that photograph and require one where the photographer released it freely. For 2D works of art, the act of photographing is considered a slavish reproduction with no creativity and thus there is no new copyright by that photograph.
Cropping out the text that claims copyright does not erase the copyright, and this type of image would not be accepted at commons.
If the problematic element does not otherwise obscure the image beyond usefulness, its still considered acceptable. Something super blurry, on the other hand, would not be reasonable to use. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Correct, both. I note that, if you are in the UK, even the reproduction of a public domain, two-dimensional work can be copyrighted (see sweat of the brow). Wikipedia and Commons allow such reproductions, however, even when they are from Google or another major company (the National Portrait Gallery, London, has tried enforcing copyright on their scans of paintings, but the WMF has supported the uploader). 3D images, however, have many more considerations: angle, lighting, pose (for bendable objects), composition (object in the centre, left, right, or what, interacting with other objects?), coloring (B&W? high saturation? low saturation? bleach bypass?), etc), and so on. Many, many, considerations, so File:Sambisari Panorama (29 December 2013).jpg (for instance) is still copyrightable even if the original structure is easily PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Postle

the image of Arthur Postle (half way down, the two runners) is published in 1906. But the museum states it holds the copyright on it.

Is it free now as the copyright has expired, pre-1923? Or is it still copyrighted do we think? --S.G.(GH) ping! 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, its Australia so we have to look to their laws, but even then, "Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died before 1 January 1955, is out of copyright.", so this is very likely PD. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes any photo from Australia from pre-1955 is public domain there, and if it is pre-1946 is also public domain in the USA. So it is safe to be uploaded here PD-Australia and PD-1923 can be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Political flyer?

What are the guidelines for uploading an image of a political flyer that was used in a political campaign in 1995? For example: http://images.politico.com/global/2014/02/13/christiead.png Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So when I upload it the process is to tag it as Fair use? Cwobeel (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You would have to have a reason to justify fair use. I suspect you could replace the flyer image by other pictures and achieve the same understanding. You would have to have text about the flyer to justify use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Control Data Corporation

I've scanned three figures from an operating system manual dated ©1970 showing the architecture of computers CDC 6400, CDC 6500 and CDC 6600 of the defunct Control Data Corporation. May I upload them? If yes, what license tag must I apply? Can the figures be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks. --CeeGee 20:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC) --CeeGee 20:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

They would still be under the copyright of control Data Corporation. And so they are not free to upload here. Even under fair use it would not be permitted as I think you could draw your own diagrams, even using the same words to show the architecture. Even if no one bought the intellectual property, it would still be illegal to copy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your explanations. --CeeGee 09:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Affero General Public License

Is this licence considered compatible with Wikimedia's requirements for free images? At least I can't find any licence template for AGPLbut only the "general" {{GPL}}. Specifically I'm concerned about File:GlobaLeaks.svg which has been tagged with a CC licence while the related original software was apparently published under AGPL. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

AGPl is a software licence so IMO isn't appropriate for images at all, looking at GlobaLeaks parent website (http://logioshermes.org) all content is released under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence so the licence on the image file is correct. Nthep (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Redrawing copyrighted diagrams

Would it be OK to have copyrighted diagrams like [8] and [9] redrawn by the good folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab? How much detail would we have to loose or change, if any? --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You could, but the font and arrangement of text and scales and legend could be different. The small stories there could be explained in a different way. Different colours and exact shape could differ. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:VMware_ESX_PSOD.png Wrong license

The license of this image is clearly wrong, because this is an image of simple text on a purple background (with a few lines and yellow text above, but those don't really count). This image's license should be changed to public domain and should upload to Commons. --189.106.234.186 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is so much text here that copyright applies. I nearly deleted it as a violation, but then found it had a fair use rationale earlier, so I have reverted to that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This is false. There is no such thing as "too much text". --189.24.246.122 (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of text art cover

File:Word Ways Vol. 46 № 4 (November 2013).svg is the cover of a literary journal which is simple text art. (Apart from the volume, issue, and date, it's just a solid background with a repetition of the journal's title set on a path of concentric circles.) Does this pass the threshold of originality and is it thus subject to copyright? Or can it be tagged as public domain rather than non-free fair use? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd consider it to pass the TOO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There are two things to consider here: the cover and the vectorisation. As explained in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. there may be a separate copyright for the vectorisation, held by the person who vectorised the cover. The cover is maybe simple enough, but it's a bit dubious and not at all clear. It is very unclear how much you need to do to get copyright protection for a vectorisation, but maybe the best choice is to delete the file per WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could make a different vectorisation of the cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That's assuming that the design itself were free... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, if the design does pass the TOO then who holds the copyright to the vectorization isn't relevant (except insofar as they need to be credited for our fair use of it, though it's a moot point here as the journal publisher would hold the copyright to both the design and the vectorization of it). If it doesn't pass the TOO then I'm happy to replace the image with one of my own vectorization. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Laura Knight

Hi, this file File:Dame Laura Knight with model, Ella Louise Naper ('Self Portrait').jpg, of a 1913 painting by Dame Laura Knight, (1877-1970), and now owned by the National Portrait Gallery, was recently uploaded to Commons from an American source. Is it ok to use on en-WP ?14GTR (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If commons have no problem with the licence then it's ok to use here. I'm hesitating a bit as I'm not convinced that the {{PD-1923}} used is correct - the creation of a portrait in 1913 doesn't equate to that being the date of publication, see What is publication. Nthep (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
OK - thanks for that; I'd like to use the image in the Laura Knight article as it has a paragraph on the painting.

14GTR (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been nominated for deletion at Commons. Nthep (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait and see what the outcome of that is before anything else.14GTR (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I find out the license information about an image?

I want to upload the logo of a television program to Wikipedia, and according to Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/Wizard/License, I have to provide the license information of the image. Is it the copyright text usually at the bottom of the site? What is the format/template I should use when uploading such image? Tell me if you want me to post the site link (it's in Spanish, but the copyright part can easily be found). Thank you. Habblet (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

File:86-DOS running assembler and HEX2BIN (screenshot).png

The license is very clearly wrong, just green text on black background... not complex enough to be copyrighted. --189.25.195.73 (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be correct about this one not being copyrightable by any software writer. As a good part of the text was added by the uploader, and the only non-trivial bit is the copyright notice of one piece of software. So it should be released under a free license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the copyright?

What's the copyright on this photo? http://hdwallpaperslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Mizzou-football-Pictures-1-3.jpg It came from http://hdwallpaperslist.com/mizzou-football-pictures/ Esb5415 14:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs)

It is likely copyrighted to whomever the photographer was, though that site does not identify who it is. We assume that the photograper has the rights so it would be non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The photos are taken by Bill Greenblatt/UPI. And yes, there is nothing that indicates the photos are freely licensed. The photographer may be contacted here. decltype (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikia

I have just imported the text of a new article 1814 campaign in France from Wikia under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). I have Attributed the article both in the history of the article and with an attribution template {{Wikia content}}.

Before I or any one else starts to develop it further, I would like conformation that importing this text is compatible with both Wikia's and Wikiepdia's licences. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What do I do next?

I had trouble find a non-copyright photo of author Tom Harpur but the nicest was on the front page of his website. I contacted him asking permission and he responded:

You are welcome to use the pix you've requested but I would ask that you run the by- line of Hugh Wesley under the photo of myself please.

I posted the photo on Wikipedia, and when I received the removal notice, I updated the file tags and talk page, and then contacted the photographer using one of the example requests and he responded:

Thks for your inquiry. I am the copyright holder and give my permission for you to use it for the "all file copyright tags" to accompany articles you are submitting.

So what do I do next to ensure the file is not deleted? Radath (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't accept non-free images of living people, so you really need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT or WP:DCM#Donating your photographs. They need to understand that we will accept freely licenced images and that means anyone can use it for anything, including commercial use, derivative use or make modifications. It appears they might be willing to licence it as an {{Attribution}} licence (see licence for ways to do the attribution). Images are not attributed in articles but on the image page itself. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to make this as easy as possible for the copyright holder to offer permission, but I guess I'm still confused myself as to what to tell him. For example, if he wants to choose the Attribution option and I have already uploaded the photo, is this what I should include in the letter to him? Radath (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr. Wesley.

Thank you for offering your permission to use the Tom Harpur photo. As Wikipedia does not accept non-free images of living people, we want to make sure you understand that by making it a freely licenced image, anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial use, derivative use or make modifications. You can, however, retain your copyright and can specify that the work is attributed to you. On Wikipedia, images are not generally attributed in articles but on the image page itself. On the Tom Harpur page, the caption reads "Tom Harpur photo by Hugh Wesley", your name and the copyright symbol appear on the image, and I have incorporated your name into the filename itself. There are several ways to officially offer your permission, but I suggest that the easiest option to send the-mail text below to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a copy to me.

I hereby affirm that I, Hugh Wesley, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the 2011 photo of Tom Harpur which appears at the www.tomharpur.com website and which has been uploaded with my permission to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_of_Tom_Harpur_by_Hugh_Wesley.jpg Wikipedia page.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"(Attribution Licence) and GNU Free Documentation Licence.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they attribute they work to me and abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Hugh Wesley

http://www.hughwesleyphotography.com

Photographer and copyright-holder

February 26, 2014

I look forward to any suggestions to ensure I am giving the photographer the proper instructions, and then which tags do I change where. Radath (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned above you are better off having the copyright owner deal directly with the OTRS Team through the recommended details above but you can forward the email to them at: permissions-en@wikimedia.org and they will try to close the issue with you or the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Are photographs of PD objects taken by others copyrighted?

Say you find a website that had a really nice photograph of a public domain 1700s painting on it and also a photo of a 2,000 year old Greek statue. Each photo says at the bottom that it was snapped at such and such museum, and then just below that "Copyright [John Doe]. All rights reserved".

There's no apparent elements of originality in the photos - they're just hi-res photos. For the painting, you can see the picture frame and a bit of the white wall at the edges. For the statue, its front-on and the background is just the white wall behind where its displayed. I have a few questions about this.

  1. Does just the act of taking the photos make each particular photograph copyrighted to the photographer even though the images depicted are PD? If yes, I guess that's all I need to know, but if not
  2. Can I crop out the text claiming copyright at the bottom and just upload them to the Commons? and
  3. If there was some minor element making them more than just photos of the works – say you could see someone's hand intruding on the edge of one of them, inadvertently captured, would that destroy the ability to use them? Where do we draw the line, as to how much original elements make them no longer useable?

I've been wondering about this for some time. Thanks in advance!--108.46.100.156 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It varies from country to country I'm sure. In the United States (which is the controlling authority for Wikipedia) it says at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources "Accurate photographs of two-dimensional visual artworks lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (which it has in the US if it was published before 1923). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored." I see that it specifically says "two-dimensional" so dunno about the statue.
We are discouraged from using images that wouldn't be free in their country of origin. So if say Russia has a different rule and it's a picture of a painting hanging in Russia, we would rather not use it. But we can and sometimes do if it's warranted. (That's Wikipedia; Commons items must be free in their country of origin.)
If it's a statue and it's displayed publicly, the article Freedom of panorama has additional info about that.
This doesn't fully answer all your questions, the others (like the thing about the hand in the photo) I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The act of taking a photograph of a 3D work is considered a new copyright - the choice of angle and lighting are considered creative elements. So if there is a 2000 yr old statue, while the work is well out of copyright, a photograph of it can be copyrighted. And in most cases, as long as the statue can still be photographed, we would not allow the use of that photograph and require one where the photographer released it freely. For 2D works of art, the act of photographing is considered a slavish reproduction with no creativity and thus there is no new copyright by that photograph.
Cropping out the text that claims copyright does not erase the copyright, and this type of image would not be accepted at commons.
If the problematic element does not otherwise obscure the image beyond usefulness, its still considered acceptable. Something super blurry, on the other hand, would not be reasonable to use. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Correct, both. I note that, if you are in the UK, even the reproduction of a public domain, two-dimensional work can be copyrighted (see sweat of the brow). Wikipedia and Commons allow such reproductions, however, even when they are from Google or another major company (the National Portrait Gallery, London, has tried enforcing copyright on their scans of paintings, but the WMF has supported the uploader). 3D images, however, have many more considerations: angle, lighting, pose (for bendable objects), composition (object in the centre, left, right, or what, interacting with other objects?), coloring (B&W? high saturation? low saturation? bleach bypass?), etc), and so on. Many, many, considerations, so File:Sambisari Panorama (29 December 2013).jpg (for instance) is still copyrightable even if the original structure is easily PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating! Never would have thought 2-d and 3-d are different. I'm sorry I took so long to come back to this question and answer. Excellent information. So, let me see if I have it right. (I personally find that restating answers in my own words and then asking if I have it right is essential to learning whether I actually understood someone's answer about a complicated subject. Also, I find (and I think there's scientific support for the idea) that the act of writing out my understanding does something in my brain to help me understand better and transfer the ideas to long term storage).
  • 2-d and 3-d are not the same.
  • For 2-d works, for a photograph of a painting that is PD in the U.S., I can crop out the person's false claim of copyright ownership if the image lacks any expressive content (but the boundaries of what makes something expressive are a bit fuzzy, but an everyday, accurate, unmodified photograph is not) and upload that 2-d image. But, the ideal image is one that is PD in all countries, even though I am still allowed to do so if the image is PD in the U.S. but not necessarily in all countries. And I suppose that means that I can surely use that work on the English Wikipedia, but, even though it's at the Commons, I might not be able to use that work at a foreign language Wikipedia where it fell under sweat of the brow or some other basis of that country's laws that holds is is not PD (or is that wrong, since all Wikipedia servers are actually in the U.S.?).
  • For 3-d works any photograph is copyrighted, so I would need one that positively states it is PD or freely licensed. And, the burden to show something is not copyrighted is on me as the uploader, so lack of proof means its presupposed as copyrighted.
  • Dealing with copyright is really, really complex!
Is that about right?--108.46.100.156 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
We would consider that a 2D photograph specifically only of the painting (straight on, without the framing or how its positioned on a wall, etc.) to be non-creative enough to remain illegible for a new copyright.) This is why, for example, we are able to use photos provided by museums of old artwork installed in the museum (typically off their web page) as a free image, since the museum can't claim copyright on it. You might run into images that can only be considered free in the US but not in other countries; from a non-free content point-of-view, these would be treated as free images since we're talking usually an issue with the underlying work and not the photography; you'd just simply upload those to en.wiki and not commons since commons can't yet accept those.
Everything else seems correct. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Masem. Just one note, however: "For 3-d works any photograph is copyrighted, so I would need one that positively states it is PD or freely licensed", this applies to both the photograph and the statue (if it is recent) except in countries with freedom of panorama. So if, say, there is a statue of me erected in the US (which does not have freedom of panorama), the sculptor would retain copyright and no free pictures of the statue could be made. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You can upload photos of paintings that are in the public domain in the US and their source nation to Commons even if the photo is still under copyright in some nations. See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Promotional images automatically public domain?

I don't understand File:Studio publicity Janet Leigh.jpg . Someone used Google to find an old image, nothing about it or the photographer is known, but it can be considered as promotional photograph and thus is automatically in public domain? Is this correct? --94.220.230.236 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Publicity shots are not public domain. Old USA ones, if there is no copyright statement on the front or back, would be public domain however. To prove that we need the upload of front and back Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
But doesn't this mean that this picture is not correctly marked? --94.220.230.236 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated the Janet Leigh image for deletion at Commons. Unfortunately, there are active Commons contributors who believe that because most older publicity photos are PD, all publicity photos should be treated that way unless they're proved to be in-copyright. That's clearly contrary to policy, both on en-wiki and at Commons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What a mess. I've just finished nominating dozens of the uploader's images at Commons for deletion, and there are scores more to review. Many of the uploader's images have already been deleted, but they made deceptive changes in their PD claims and plunged blithely forward without correcting their misbehaviour. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've seen this now and it really seems to be a huge mess. Sometimes it just seems to be lies: E.g. File:AudreyTotter.jpg says the original image had the name of the studio, but there is no name. It says they made a search at copyright renewal records, but they are sorted by copyright holder, how could they search thousands of entries without even knowing the holder? --94.220.230.236 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

C-47 Skytrain.jpg

Hello there. In the page about transport and Dakota planes there are several photographs. One of them C-47 Skytrain.jpg is in Wikipedia Common. May I use this in a free Newsletter as long as I give it full credit and reference? Jbhygiene (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)jbhygieneJbhygiene (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to. Take a look at the license on the photos. If they are a CC-BY- license then you will need to credit the creator, and also include the license. Some other images may be public domain and then do not need credit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a coffee shop in Seattle (Monorail Espresso) with a picture of its early days in the window. No one in the shop knows where the picture came from. I took a picture of it with my phone and want to use it in the article about the shop. If no one knows who took it and I took a picture *of* it, can I use it? Thanks.

George R. Brumder (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)grbrumderGeorge R. Brumder (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My offhand reaction is: US law regarding orphan works kind of sucks. On a constructive note, do you know when the photo was created? Article says the shop dates from 1980, so that isn't that long ago. Was the photo taken by some individual, or was it taken for the company, making it corporate authorship? Has the image ever been published? Does the shop hold copyright to the photo (might be hard to tell if no one knows who took it)? Chris857 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Being displayed as described counts as "published". Choor monster (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't (unfortunately) - see the section "What is publication? here. Nthep (talk)
I said "as described" and I see I imagined things. It does seem to count as publication if the photographer gave it to the coffee shop people as opposed to if he simply put the picture up himself. Both are reasonable scenarios. Thanks! Choor monster (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
For photography, the mere act of giving a developed set of photos does not transfer copyright on those photos; they'd have to have transferred the rights too, and it's highly unlikely they did if the photographer is not known. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair use image: person that has deceased

Person deceased, Canadian, 2012. A search for a free image yielded no results. I understand, that under such circumstances an image, reasonable in size (say 400px x 300px) and content (normal pic of face with a bit of neck), found "on the web" can be uploaded. How would I categorise this image correctly? Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Non-free historic image}} is the license tag. Just make sure to check Flickr (you can do an advanced search to limit to Creative-Commons images) to make sure there's no image there that can be used since 2012, there's a possibility that an image exists. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2014/February&oldid=1142595970"