Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/March

non-free rational

I recently came across the following upload File:ENP Stamps 2001.jpg which has a non-free use rational. However, since it's the work of the NPS, isn't it in PD? hence should be {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}}, right? --CyberXRef^☎ 06:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, image free for a article

Hi! Here's a screenshot of Fuji TV of the Akihabara massacre knifeman. I leave you the image just as if you want to upload it. I don't know English very well and the process of upload is a headache for me in English. Image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 秀良 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless this image has been released under a free licence we cannot use it. And as it appears to be a screenshot from a copyrighted TV channel it is almost certainly copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If there are no other images, wouldn't it constitute fair use? Its not a very high quality image, so the full resolution would be fine.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Sdrealbum.jpg

Could you transfer this file on Commons? It's a simple pink cover.--95.238.190.195 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, its copyrighted. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the pink background is not "flat" and shows some artistic effort to make it copyrightable, so we have to assume it's non-free and cannot be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Head on image of sculpture

I've found an image from a Diprosopus in this article [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23969147] of a 1200-900 BC statue. The image copyright is claimed to be owned by the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT. Could someone well-versed in the regulations tell me if the image constitutes originality, I wouldn't say so. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly there's no copyright on the statue itself, but photographs of 3D works do gain a new copyright to the photographer, as the choice of lighting, angel, and shadows are considered to add creativity to the subject photographed. So in this case, most likely the article required a photo of the statue from the Peabody Museum where the statue is located. Photography in the museum is not prohibited, so it should be possible for a free image of the same statue to be obtained by someone going there and taking a photo of that, and releasing it as a free license. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

":"File:Opening of 67th General Debate of General Assembly.jpg

I am kindly asking for your help/advice. I uploaded the File:Opening of 67th General Debate of General Assembly.jpg two days ago. I got message from you what I should add more. But, I can't find where to put name of the authors (I can't find this template). I did it in description, but obviously it is not enough. Also, I should add tag license and I did it (PD-UN). This picture is 1. Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, ...) and 2.United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol (this is explanation about PD-UN). Please, can you write me what I should do. Thank you very much in advance,Sradivojevics (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You added the PD-UN license tag, and that's sufficient for what was being asked for. You did provide the source link so if you want you can simply add authorship of that anywhere in the body of the file page, it doesn't have to be in a template. Irregardless, the PD-UN makes the image good to go, and I removed the warning tag that was placed. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cardinal Walter Kasper

What address should I use to get a letter to His Eminence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.148.204 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Logo Images

Hi, I'm trying to figure out how to upload a company logo for a page. I am unsure what copyright license I need to select? The image is found in their Press Kit but I don't see anything specifically about copyright. I assume it's ok to put their logo on their page?

Thanks for any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danman1022 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You can use {{Non-free logo}} to state a generic license. Also use the {{logo fur|Article=|Use=Infobox}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Keith williams main image 0.jpg

We have copyright of this image the photographer was James Cameron who can be credited

Which tag do we use please?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krw01 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about File:Keith Williams Architect Portrait Image.jpg? If James Cameron took the photo then he is the copyright holder unless this was a work for hire and there is written confirmation of the transfer of copyright. If this is the case then that written confirmation and the file link need to be sent by you to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

If there is no agreement and James Cameron is the copyright holder then the process at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries needs to be followed and he needs to send his consent for the use of the image, also to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Nthep (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Peters and Lee.jpg

I have attempted to upload a photo to the Peters and Lee page on Wikipedia. Am unsure which tag/authority I need for Wiki to accept it. The photo in b&w was taken by my cousin in 1973 (41 years ago) and I am in the photo as well. My cousin gave me a print of the photo but he is now deceased. Can you advise which tag to use? Thanks. File:Peters and Lee.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidshrimpton (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As your cousin is deceased, permission to use the photo is needed from his heirs. The process at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries needs to be followed and an email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Nthep (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User generated image

User:Polina ka created an image of shiatsu pressure points by following the diagrams in 3 books, as she describes here: here is the image: File:Shiatsu Chart.svg The caption she gave it is: "Major Tsubos (pressure sensitive points) on the Meridian Lines (channels of energy that run through the body) central to the practice of Shiatsu." Two questions - 1) Should we consider this a derivative work of the 3 books, or can she claim copyright as a new work and release it under whatever license she chooses? 2) I have no idea if WP:OR applies to images or not, but I don't know that we can or should trust that this image is accurate. What about that? I appreciate that she is trying to improve the article; I just don't know if we can use this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If the image is created by the user using other books as reference there should be no copyright issue as long as it isn't a direct copy, i.e. tracing etc. Claiming to have used proper references for the points is simply a major plus for the image. Using several diagrams to reference one image is also good as I see it. The references should be stated as per WP:VER. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1900s Robert Balfour Lib Glasgow Partick 06-22.jpg and File:Sir John Traill Cargill, 1st Baronet.jpg

If everything published anywhere in the world before 1923 is in the public domain in the US, shouldn't there be a refernce to that in those two?--The Theosophist (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The key word is "published", not created. As noted on the second photo, there is no idea when the first publication date of these images were, so as such, we have to assume they weren't published until the actual newer dates, and that would keep them out of the public domain. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1930 John Nicholson Barran.jpg‎

MOVED HERE FROM MY TALK PAGE

Hi. I note that you have recently uploaded a lower quality of version of this image that I originally uploaded under licence. In due course, my original version will be deleted and you will appear as the uploader responsible for the use of this image under that licence. The terms of the licence are linked to the page and I draw your attention to the section on No Derivatives. I know that there have been issues surrounding this particular aspect of the licence and wikipedia policy as it has been felt that the type of action you have taken is in breach of their licence. Graemp (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I did what is written at Template:Non-free reduce. I noticed the robot bit after I had uploaded the image. Not sure on what to do now. Perhaps we should contact the admins.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded a number of images from this source under that licence. In a very few cases, another editor has come along and done what you did, but usually they have been left as I uploaded. As for contacting admins, I can tell you that from experience that there was an impass on this issue. Under the circumstances you might want to consider deleting your upload.Graemp (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To be again honest, I have actually not understood why is it so big a deal... Could you explain?--The Theosophist (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not easily. In my view the fact that the image size breaches Template:Non-free reduce is no big deal and the fact that your actions have breached a creative commons licence in the way that they have is equally no big deal. However, there is no guarantee that either the NPG or Wikipedia will see it in the same way as me. I get the impression that those editors who routinely look at uploads have decided to play safe and not invoke Template:Non-free reduce Graemp (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How have I breached the CC licence?--The Theosophist (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the section on No Derivatives. Graemp (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh... now we're getting somewhere. The point is that I didn't resize it myself. Let me describe you what I did:

1. I googled "Sir John Barran, 2nd Baronet" at Google Images
2. I saved the Google-generated thumbnail image (which is of lesser quality than the actual picture)
3. I uploaded said image

--The Theosophist (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. In which case you probably didn't know about the actual source, which is http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw180720/Sir-John-Nicholson-Barran-2nd-Bt?LinkID=mp66220&search=sas&sText=Sir+John+Nicholson+Barran&OConly=true&role=sit&rNo=3 details the exact size that is permissible under licence. Graemp (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Where?--The Theosophist (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Right, I found it. It looks like their designated ideal is 800 pixels. My version is even smaller, so I don't think that there will be a problem.--The Theosophist (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

'The problem' is that your version is smaller. Graemp (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The CC licence is most likely invalid in the first place as the NPG most likely isn't the copyright holder. Normally, the copyright would belong to the photographer's heir or whoever was the photographer's employer at the time when the photograph was taken, not the National Portrait Gallery. Also, all non-free files need to use low resolution. Besides, if CC-BY-NC-ND doesn't allow resizing, then that licence doesn't help us at all, as images are automatically reduced by the MediaWiki software when images are inserted on pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The starting point should not be "the NPG most likely isn't the copyright holder". Anyone who progresses down that path on the sort of supposition made by Stefan2 is asking for trouble. CC-BY-NC-ND is intended to protect the quality and integrity of the image and if MediaWiki is screwing around with that they would have a whole bunch of problems. Graemp (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Then please provide evidence that the NPG is the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we move it at the appropriate noticeboard, please?--The Theosophist (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is There an Admin in the House ?

An involved discussion about proposed deletions of historic photos which had written permission from their source, the San Francisco Public Library, is about 7 days old (see link below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_1#Terrific_Street

Is there an admin here who could make a determination as to the consensus of that discussion, and possibly close that discussion?James Carroll (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Legality of image on commons

File:Onsen-4-washing-cubicles - 20071009.jpg Is this image considered legal? Many countries would disallow anyone from taking this type of image of public nudity in a shower-room. I do not know how the law stands in Japan, but as Commons images have to be legal in the United States I would think it would be illegal? I see no consent from the individual in the image, even though only his back-side is visible. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly as this is a commons image you should really question it there. Second, we don't know for certain where the image was taken though it is likely Japan. AFAIK, Japanese personality issues are not involved. What do you think is illegal about it? There are many far more explicit images of recognisable people that could be questioned long before this one. ww2censor (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the fact that it is taken in a dressing room/shower, and photography of nude people without consent in dressing rooms, toilets etc. is illegal in the US as far as I know. Other images at least state they are taken with consent.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about US law, but there was recently a case in the European Court of Human Rights where Sweden was fined for having a law which permitted hidden cameras in showers. Therefore, the image might be illegal in all of Europe. The Swedish law was later changed so that you no longer can take photographs at certain hidden places (such as toilets) if the subject of the photograph is unaware that a photograph is being taken, although freedom of speech rules sometimes cancel this prohibition on photography if the purpose of the photograph is to publish it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about copyrights on russian translation of Mein Kampf

Translation from Deutsch into Russian made Karl Radek, who was sentenced in 1937, was killed in 1939 and rehabilitated in 1988. In accordance with current Russian laws copyrights of rehabilitated persons begin in law from the moment of rehabilitation. In case of Radek it means that his copyrights on the translation will end 70 years after 1988 - in 2058. But what about US laws in this case? Is Wikipedia allowed to use the text and place external links to the copies of the translation in its articles? Ашири (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If he was rehabilitated in 1988 and assuming the work was not first published in the US then the work will still have been in copyright in Russia on 1 January 1996 so under US law it will not be out of copyright until 95 years after publication. Therefore you could quote small passages from it on Wikipedia as is allowed for any work, copyrighted or not, and there is nothing stops you linking to externally hosted versions of the work; but the whole text cannot be hosted on Wikipedia or Commons. Nthep (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the fact that externally hosted versions of the work are copyvio. I asked this question after discussion the matter on Russian Wikipedia. During this discussion was mentioned a decision of Russian Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee that prohibited adding external links to copyvio in articles on Russian Wikipedia. Ашири (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The same policy applies here (WP:ELNEVER) so my comment was about linking to a legally hosted version. If there aren't any because no-one has published a legally licenced online version then you'll have to do without links.

It's always open to you or anyone else to create your own translation from the original German to Russian once the original is out of copyright word in italics added later for clarification, the copyright of that derivative work would lie with the person doing the translation and that could be released under a free licence. That is assuming you want the translation to quote in Russian from Mein Kampf. If the reason is identify that Radek created a translation that should be verifiable without linikng to the text of the book. Nthep (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to expand the question to this link list here on enwiki. Does the State of Bavaria hold copyright on non-German translations as well? What is the status of the Murphy translation in the US? Since James Murphy died in 1946, isn't it copyrighted until 2017? Aren't any translations other than English copyrighted by Bavaria (until 2016), meaning that linking to them violates WP:ELNEVER? This article seems to imply that this is the case... Does the fact that Bavaria refuses to publish the book satisfy the fair use criteria? --illythr (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, interesting read, I think it highlights very well the problems in trying to understand and apply global copyright laws in the internet era. The government of Bavaria are the de facto copyright holders even if in some jurisdictions they are not considered the de jure copyright holders, witness the Swedish Supreme Court decision. This allows them to grant permission for translations to be created, it doesn't give them the copyright over that derivative work but if they don't grant permission then the derivative is a copyright violation of the original. I think that other language translations are ok if they were authorised like the Murphy version i.e. pre war. That Hitler was making substantial royalties from foreign language versions suggests that publication in those languages was perfectly legitimate and with Hitler's agreement and the government of Bavaria can't withdraw a consent given by the original copyright holder. So the question of WP:ELNEVER needs each link checking out to see when the original edition was published, the link to Murphy's version is to an Australian website where the edition has been out of (Australian) copyright since 1997 and therefore doesn't fail WP:ELNEVER. If others aren't that old would the link be permissible under fair use? Not sure, but I'd pose this question to anyone wants to claim the link would be fair use - why does the English language Wikipedia need links to an in-copyright text that is in a language other than English?

I'm not sure about the status of Murphy's translation in the US as I'm not sure it has ever been published in the US. If it hasn't been published in the US then US copyright will last for 95 years from the date of it's original UK publication - that there were two prewar US editions but others suggests to me that it was never published in the US, certainly not until after 1940. The UK copyright on Murphy's version will expire on 31 December 2016. Nthep (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Swedish court ruling, Germany confiscated all of Hitler's belongings, and with that came all immaterial rights belonging to Hitler. The copyright to Mein Kampf was later transferred from federal level to the Free State of Bavaria. Not sure if Bavaria owns any of Hitler's other belongings. Bavaria (or Germany) would only be the copyright holder to a translation if the copyright belonged to Hitler at the time of his death. I would guess that the copyright to the translations instead typically belongs to the translator, the translator's heir or the translator's publisher and that the rights to the translations therefore weren't confiscated by Germany but belong to someone completely different. That said, the rights to a translation are useless if you can't use Hitler's copyrighted material as the translations are derivative works of the original German text.

In the Swedish court ruling, the court concluded that Swedish law determines the valid methods for transfer of copyright, and confiscation wasn't listed as a valid method for transferring copyright. The German confiscation of the copyright therefore had no influence on who the copyright holder is in Sweden. The court does not clarify who the copyright holder is in Sweden, although a likely guess might be Hitler's heir, whoever that would be (possibly someone related to the person listed in Hitler's will). It is possible that these arguments also might hold in other countries.

As Bavaria isn't the copyright holder in Sweden, Bavaria can't impose more control on the work than anyone else. If anyone finds out that someone intentionally or with gross neglect violates the copyright to a work, you could (regardless of whether you are the copyright holder or not) report the person to the police, which may initiate an investigation. If this goes to court, the copyright violator might face criminal charges (the maximum charge being two years in prison), and the copies of the work might be destroyed. Bavaria tried to use this method to stop the book, but failed. It seems that if you try to stop a copyright violation this way, freedom of speech laws pays a greater roll than if the copyright holder simply wants monetary compensation for illegal use of the work. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the German original of Mein Kampf is not under copyright in the US, as it was seized by the US government in WWII and the URAA does not restore copyright to stuff seized and owned by governments in 1996, pretty much just for this type of WWII stuff.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

May I add these two photos to my page?

Hello,

I'd like the add the two following images to my page on Shadism. The first photo on this page (Alek Wek on the cover of Elle magazine) http://fashionbombdaily.com/tag/alek-wek/ and Lupita Nyong'o (one of the photos from this page): http://fashionbombdaily.com/2014/02/04/snapshot-lupita-nyongo-tom-munro-vogue-italia-february-2014/

The Website says that the photos are believed to be part of the public domain. After emailing the blog to ask if this was the case for another image (the third photo on this page: http://fashionbombdaily.com/2014/02/03/fashion-bomb-news-breakdown-look-kate-mosss-debut-vogue-uk-contributing-fashion-editor-preview-cameron-diazs-first-collection-pour-la-victoire-img-includes-plus-sized-models-f/ ), I was sent a response from a representative of the blog, saying that they are a part of the public domain, and that I could freely use the image. Despite this, my earlier image was removed hours after I posted it though I noted that I had permission from the website, and that the photo as part of the public domain.

May I upload these (Alek Wek and Lupita Nyong'o)?

Thanks,--Shaina390 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, despite what the website might say those are all obviously copyrighted images belonging to the photographers who did the photoshoots and are frankly blatant copyright violations. Being widely available in public is not the same as being in the public domain, so sorry uploaing them will result in the speedy deletion of the images. Nthep (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Colleague gave me permission to use his graph

Hi,

A colleague of mine ran a quick data analysis in R and sent me a plot of his results that I would like to use on my WP page I am writing. He has given me all the permissions to do whatever I want with the picture, but I am not sure how to prove this to WP and the reviewers. I'm trying to see what the process is, but I can't find something for this situation.

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeresaUCDavis (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to have your colleague send an email to the OTRS to assert that permission , as listed at WP:CONSENT. Mind you, this is putting the file in a free license, but this is what it sounds like they have given you; they just need to do the steps stated at that above page. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That is only if it has been previously published right? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright applies whether it is published or not. So permission is needed to publish for the first time on Wikipedia. An we like to see proof. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Commons or only locally

Hi, I wanted to share a larger picture of Titanic lookout Frederick Fleet and uploaded it on Commons. Can any expert on Commons check if the picture applies to all Wikipedias? Thank you. And of course, if it does apply to Commons or only locally on English Wikipedia? --Japanesehelper (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This image Commons:File:Frederick Fleet Titanic.jpg uploaded by you is freely licenced on the commons and appear to be ok, so can be used by all language wikis. If you can obtain a higher resolution image, maybe from the LOC, you just click on the "Upload a new version of this file" button. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, here is the direct link to the LOC image http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hec.00939 which comes in several different sizes including two very high resolution tiffs. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A "circa 1920" image

This image is found at various places around the Internet, tagged "about 1920". The American firm Essanay went under in 1925, so I'm thinking this might be safe for use. Comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any way that would be under copyright in reality, though theoretically if they first published it (in this case, indiscriminate mailing would count) after 1922, filed it for copyright and renewed it, it could be under copyright. I'd say that exceeds the limits of reasonable concern, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Is archive.org copyrighted?

Is it permissible to copy and paste into WP from this page? Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

archive.org has a lot of stuff, from public domain stuff to complete copyright violations. As a work published prior to 1923, that work is out of copyright in the US, though I hardly see where it would be appropriate to do more then judiciously quote from it on WP, given its age and the inherent POV nature of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just want to copy some biographical info. You may check it at Théodore Eugène César Ruyssen. Yopienso (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

TVXQ! Article Page Replacement Profile Picture

Hi, I am editing the wiki article page for TVXQ!, and I am trying to update the profile picture with a photo that is of both higher resolution and all around better quality. However, before I upload the picture, I want to make sure that I am placing the copyright correctly. The problem is that the photo that I am attempting to use is an official photo scanned directly from one of the pages of the "sm town live world tour photobook". I need pointers as to which license I should identify. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

For identification purposes, this is what the photo looks like: http://stat.ameba.jp/user_images/20130813/18/chanyumi-1215/d3/b5/j/o0485036412646090548.jpg

In addition:

For the future, how should I choose the copyright for images that are either from magazine publications (that are not necessarily the cover), are official company, sponsor or professionally taken photos, photoshoots, or are from album artwork that is not necessarily the cover photo, Picrues taken directly from the company's official facebook page etc. Examples: http://delzchangmin.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/mc01g.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tpUA0UwWeII/TQuRBOCZ6iI/AAAAAAAAEVQ/YdkcBEtx04I/s1600/HM002-1.jpg http://www.rakseries.com/files/content/IMG1293370313.jpg http://seoulbeats.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/20111120_seoulbeats_dbsk_yunho.jpg http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7042/010105010001487011.jpg http://cdn10.mixrmedia.com/user_photos/blog/2012/12/06/c08c7a35f58d877a319d172506a57c26.jpg http://hominstyle.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/tvxq-humanoid3.jpg https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/58370_412084322179831_1954618719_n.jpg http://yellowslugreviews.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/yunho-airport.jpg --GuilD15 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All of these image are copyright, as are the majority of images you will find on the internet, unless they are specifically stated to be freely licenced. We cannot use them. You must get the consent of the copyright holder, who is often the photographer, or in the case of work for hire, such a magazine images, where the contract has transferred the copyright to the commissioning party, the organisation who paid for the work. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I appreciate it. --GuilD15 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ashford United 1893 team photo

I have a self scanned digital jpg image of the Ashford United team of 1893. This is taken this from a historical review of the team included in a 1948-49 souvenir programme. I cannot find the source of the original image however given it's age (120 years) I would like to upload the image for inclusion in the team article (Ashford United FC) on the basis that it's copyright will have expired and is therefore a public domain item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikipper (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If it were unpublished and anonymous it would now be both PD in the US and the UK, however the previous publication in 1948 throws a spanner in the works. If the 1948 publication was the first publication of the picture then it is not PD in either the US or the UK as both countries work on date of first publication not creation. If you can find an older publication date then the situation might change but as it is I don't see a way of uploading it as a PD item. Nthep (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

TOO

Is File:Valley Preferred Cycling Center Logo.jpg considered below the threshold of originality? --CyberXRef^☎ 19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not by me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it because of the thing on the bottom left corner? It's made of a rather generic shape, we have quiet a few similar ones in commons such as this (although it should really be marked as PD-textlogo/PD-shape). And as for the lines on the upper-right corner, that's very simple, used everywhere such as here and here. --CyberXRef^☎ 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

For me {{PD-textlogo}} applies. There are no really unique shapes or fonts: there little flame shapes and some crescents are not original enough. ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is just the sum total of everything. Every element in itself would be public domain due to simplicity, but all together it is not so simple. After all one each word in English is public domain, but together they can make a copyrighted story. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that the US has a very low threshold of originality, much lower than many other countries. ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks --CyberXRef^☎ 18:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Songs on Archive.org

What are the chances that the songs listed here are PD as listed on the archive.org page? I want one for the article "Run, Nigger, Run". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Who knows? While there is a Creative Commons licence on the page, there is also a warning that some material may be copyright. It does not identify which is which, so unless you can verify the one you are interested in is freely licenced we have to assume it is still in copyright. You have to investigate more. ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the uploader at archive.org did a piss-poor job of citing the original artist, I think it's safe to say that the CC license applies to none of these. I just wanted to have a second opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, running Shazam on the song gave me this: Hooked On Country Classics Vol. 31 - "Run, Nigger, Run" by Uncle Dave Macon. --CyberXRef^☎ 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CyberXRef, but that just means he recorded the song not that he wrote it, so we still don't know whether it is in copyright or not. 70 years pma would still mean we have to wait 8 years before it becomes PD, unless someone who died earlier wrote it. . ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, 70 years pma has nothing to do with US sound recordings copyright. The musical composition, maybe, but not the recording. Pre-1972 recordings are not covered by Federal copyright, but state and common-law protections apply. No sound recording has fallen into the US public domain because of its age! Under current law that won't happen until 2067. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that true even for sound recordings prior to 1923? (Uncle Dave would have been 53 then). --CyberXRef^☎ 18:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Commons:Hirtle chart I can see nothing won't expire fully until Feb. 15, 2067. Which is very confusing to me because we have 100s such files uploaded. How come the following Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville sounds uploaded as PD? (such as File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860).ogg, File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860) new.ogg, and File:1860-Scott-Au-Clair-de-la-Lune-05-09.ogg? they all claim PD for author plus 100 years). --CyberXRef^☎ 18:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A phonautogram is more akin to a work of visual art than a sound recording: it is not designed to be played back, and the files you link to are modern reconstructions of the sound. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

70 years pma has little to do with US copyright, period. Anything (other then sound recordings) published 1923-1977 is 95 years from publication, and anything published prior to 2002 has at least 70 years from publication. The composition is almost certainly published and in copyright if it were published after 1922.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

See for example this Commons discussion where the fact that so many files have been uploaded with such rationales is advanced as an argument for keeping them in place. The template must be right, because changing it would be too disruptive. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One loophole: recordings on Edison Records are considered to be PD because of Edison's bequest to the National Parks Service. My web search did not turn up an Edison of this song, though. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Logo Image for an Open Source Software Project

I'm writing the Wikipedia article for an open source software project, as part of the project. I believe the project logo is copyright to the project which makes it non-free. How do I include it as part of my article on the project?

The article in question is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maidsafe and the logo is File:Maidsafe_Logo_2014.png

XtopherBrandt (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A logo for a notable software project (one with a standalone page like you're making) is appropriate to include, you'll use the license {{Non-free logo}} on the logo file page to tag it as such. And the infobox should have an "image=" field to include that logo. However, the logo cannot be included until that page is brought into main article space per our non-free content rules (WP:NFCC#9). --MASEM (t) 16:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms

An experienced user Huw Powell who claims to be an administrator, is using Youtube videos of TV broadcasts of football matches to act as reliable references for Mazy run within Glossary of association football terms#M. I have reverted several times but he insists they are OK. I always believed these were under the copyright of the TV company so, given this guy is an admin, when did they become OK to use?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that Huw Powell is an admin here, but his user page claims him to be an admin at a wiki, not this wiki. You should perhaps point him to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism that specifically mentions not to link to copyright YouTube videos. Try finding some reliable sources instead. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am just trying to create a safe link for the football phrase - used in several articles here - "mazy run". I took best advice and thought to add it to Glossary of association football terms. Egghead06 reverted me several times. I am just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Egghead06 strikes me as being less helpful, and perhaps even being a bit of a jerk, especially with his accusation above, which is completely wrong. Huw Powell (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, NO. I never even claim to be an admin on other wikis (although I was at times) I just read my user page five times. Quit your attacks, Egghead06, you are the problem, not I. Huw Powell (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As it reads "I am an administrator at another wiki - hell, I am a bureaucrat there -" new glasses needed maybe. --Egghead06 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's what it says quite clearly on your user talk page in the last sentence of the lede. Anyway, please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism. ww2censor (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated. Now can we define Mazy Run at the glossary page? You people seem to be against improving the WP in any way. Huw Powell (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can. No, we are not against improvements so long as you provide reliable third party sources for your edits, otherwise they will be removed again. ww2censor (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you aren't, really. Thanks for all the fish and please kindly go fondle your useless selves. Huw Powell (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

How long does copyright last in the UK before expiring?

This map of Nottingham was made in the England in 1831. Has its copyright expired? And if so, can I upload it to the Commons for use on Wikipedia? Anxietycello (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

UK copyright law has the 70 years after publication or death of author so if it was made in 1831, it's copyright has definitely expired. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all UK maps are death+70. Those first published by the Ordnance Survey are Crown copyright, which is publication + 50 years regardless of the lifetime of the mapmaker(s), so any OS map published 1963 or earlier is now out of copyright. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be OK to use images from other Wiki websites?

I'm a new user and am still learning the rules, but my question is if it's OK to use an image from another Wiki website (example.wikia.com), if I put where it came from and specify who owns it, ETC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight2149 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends what the licensing terms are. Do you have any specific images you want help with? —howcheng {chat} 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also please bear in mind that many other wikis are often much less careful about copyright than we are, so just because somebody on some wiki claims an image is freely licensed doesn't necessarily mean it really is. Copyright claims and attributions made on such wikis need to be carefully checked for plausibility. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What about images I created myself from a non-copyrighted source?

Like screenshots from a piece of software authorized by the owner to be used on wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matodt (talk • contribs)

@Matodt: There's a bit of a discontinuity between your section title and your text. Are the images actually "non-copyrighted" rather than "authorized to be used on Wikipedia"? We cannot use any non-free copyrighted image (except under a valid claim of fair use) by permission for our use here. Instead, if the images are non-free copyrighted, we require release of the content content under a compatible free copyright license – a release to the world. Most software screenshots are going to be non-free copyrighted, and the burden is on the uploader to positively show the free license or public domain status of the upload. So if the images are actually "non-copyrighted", what evidence do you have of that? Meanwhile, please note that the fact that you took the screenshot does not make you the copyright owner of what is depicted in the screenshot. With that context in place, can you provide the specifics, so we can tailor an answer?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

?

Hi,

I currently work for The New York City College of Technology and I've upload a few pictures for the article of this school. Unfortunately, I've received an email stating to put them down because of the lack of evidence for copyrights. My questions are: how to delete property these images and re uploading them with the correct information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnbar1997 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

First you should be aware that you have a conflict of interest and should be careful in that regard and should read WP:COI. We only accept freely licenced images, so if the images you uploaded are not yours or have not been released under a free licence by the copyright holder then we cannot keep them. They will be deleted by an administrator within about 7 days unless you provide the requested verification, which you can do by following the details on the deletion notices that were posted on your user talk page. Or take some new photos yourself and release them freely. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert Simonds

Hi so I was given an image via instant messenger (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/RobertSimondsJan2010.jpg) to upload to Robert Simonds page from a friend who works for him who was supposed to do it. After reversed image searching I found that it was originally posted here: http://www.zimbio.com/This+Is+Team+Sandler/articles/lwP6BE7xpH7/Robert+Simonds and has is copyrighted by Getty Images. Is there a way that this can still be used under fair use because he's a public figure? I'm a relatively new user myself, please respond on my talk page Nateadaniels (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it fails the first criteria of the fair use criteria in that a free image of him can be found or can be created, note the or, as he is still alive the possibility of creating a free image is very likely. Nthep (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And moreover any image from a press agency such as "Getty Images" and which isn't the subject of commentary itself is automatically regarded as failing "respect for commercial opportunities". You just can't use them unless there's something significant about the photo itself which is the object of discussion. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"MH370 last ping corridors" in public domain?

The above file has been tagged for speedy deletion. It came from a general press release by the Malaysian Government to inform the public about the current whereabouts of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. According to Malaysian copyright law (COPYRIGHT ACT 1987; [1]) this image does not seem to be eligible for copy right protection. Only works that are: (a) literary works; (b) musical works; (c) artistic works; (d) films; (e) sound recordings; and (f) broadcasts, are eligible for copyright protection, see section 7 subsection 1. As a general press release this image falls in none of these categories.

Could someone shed some light on the legal status of this image? AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think, from checking our PD-Malaysia template, Commons' template, and the linked PDF, that you've misread it, in that 1) Per Section 11 "Copyright shall subsist in every work which is eligible for copyright and which is made by or under the direction or control of the Government and such Government organizations or international bodies as the Minister may by order prescribe." and 2) Per section 23 "Copyright which subsists in works of the Government, Government organizations and international bodies shall under this Act shall continue to subsist until the expiry of a period of fifty years computed from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work was first published.". That is - Gov't works are not PD until 50 years after creation. So the tag on that image is correct: as the image is factual data (a map and a range), it can be re-created freely. I suggest you drop a request over at WP:GL/M (Graphics Lab/Map Requests) and they can help you recreate that for a free image. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the definitions section at the beginning of the document, "artistic works" includes, among other things, all "graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality", so a graphic like this would probably be included. In any case, a graphic like this would be quite easy to reproduce in a free form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One would imagine, wouldn't one, that a graphic published explicitly to inform the public would be fully in the public domain? Surely the publisher's intention was, and remains, for this image to get as wide a circulation as possible. Wiki image policy notwithstanding, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable person would indeed imagine that, but our policy is not reasonable because it ignores any implied licence. I agree that this is an "artistic work" because that includes a "graphic work" (within which the Act specifically includes a "drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan"). However, we don't know who created the map or when they did it. It could easily not be the Malaysian government. Masem possibly seems to be reading the Act as saying every government work is copyright although it says "Copyright shall subsist in every work which is eligible for copyright" (and now I paraphrase) ... even if it has been created by the government. That is, copyrightable works by the government are indeed under copyright. The "circles" are not necessarily circular. This depends on the projection of the map and it looks to me that for this map the lines are not circular. They are lines on the map along which the Inmarsat Indian Ocean satellite appears to be at a constant angular altitude (angle above the horizon). Hence it is not at all easy to draw a proper diagram and it is decidedly a mathematical and not a creative matter. Has the US government drawn a map? That would be fine and dandy. Thincat (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about he use of symbols from a Role-Playing Game

File:BlackFuries.gif in the article Garou tribes returned as File:BlackFuries.png with the following rationale:

1. it is a logo of a fictional clan described in the article;
2. I think it could be argued that the content of the article itself is copyrighted, since the idea "black furies" (and the rest of the clans) is an elaboration from Whitewolf. In this context there is no difference between the logo and the idea: both are concepts elaborated by the same company with no real existence outside the context created by the said company;
3. in the article there are shown the symbols of the rest of the clans, I don't see a reason why some of them are ok to be shown and not the rest: if Black Furies is copyrighted, so are the rest of the symbols depicted;

If we can use one, we could use all. So my questions:

• Can I have an oppinion wheather we can use tribe symbols or not?
• Should they be compiled into one single image?

I'm not very familiar with US copyright and fair-use. I realize these fictional logos would be "illustration" or "visual identification" if only one image was used in the article, but in this list about 20 images make sense. Yamavu (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Image of Boxtop of Urania's Mirror (1824 or so)

The first large image at http://alteagallery.com/stock_detail.php?ref=8591&search= would be perfectly fine if I took it, but I can't quite tell if it has any 3-D elements. If it has 3-D elements, I believe Bridgeman doesn't apply. What do people think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a "Pink cardboard box with engraved pictorial top label"[2] and (if it is the same thing, but said to be c1880) a "heavy cardboard box covered in pink paper, cloth corners, engraving on lid"[3] Could it be that the box has been engraved in some way? No, because the box has a "printed label"[4] so the label is a flat reproduction of an engraving. The photo you provide is of a flat object, taken straight on, so it is OK. Were it taken in perspective, or showing the sides of the box as here then maybe the answer would be different. That's my opinion. Thincat (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, I'll PD-Art it Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of logos that just consist of basic text in the userspace

Can File:TVNZ TV2 logo.svg be used in the userspace? It is literally just the number 2. Ollieinc (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia's Exemption Doctrine Policy at §9 (Restrictions on Location) insists non-free use should be used only in article mainspace with limited exceptions to do with administration. A very well regarded Wikipedian recently asked for a dispensation at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Non-free_images_in_collaborations_with_other_organizations and it was like he had launched a nuclear attack on Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

But what you can do is consider transferring the image to Commons because it falls below the threshold of originality needed in the US to attract copyright. However I don't know what the situation in New Zealand is about that. The SVG file was created with Inkscape, so I don't think the SVG script itself attracts copyright and in any case Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A makes it clear that "unadorned digital replicas" can't attract copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There'a low threshold of originality in New Zealand copyright law (at § 174: "... the Court of Appeal has stated, the “threshold test for originality is not high”, the determining factor being “whether sufficient time, skill, labour, or judgment has been expended in producing the work”"), but in this case the logo is so simple it can't attract copyright even in Common law countries so transferring to Commons definitely your best bet. I've templated it accordingly and if you follow the instructions you should find it straightforward. Talk me if you have problems (including if there's an objection after you transfer it). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the usual suspects chipping in at Non-Free Content Review. You can but try... Let me know what happens. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh well. I transferred it for you. You can find it at Commons:File:TVNZ TV2 logo.svg. But I don't think your articles will pick up the link until an admin reviews the Fair Use file and the transfer to Commons, so I wouldn't put it into your userspace until that happens. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Métrolor.svg

I added this in good faith when I translated it (at Métrolor) in good faith, but if it is not fair use it should be deleted: I know that Wikipedia takes WP:COPYVIO very seriously and the article doesn't really need it. I would have thought it was fair use, but if not, please delete it, we don't need it. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You are good - we allow a non-free logo to be used to identify the entity that is the subject of the article in question, and you've got all the licensing and rationale right, so no problems that I see. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not that good (but I created it four years ago and it was only today that it came up for question). I think it came up for discussion at Commons and I was told off there. Is it at Commons or on EN:WP, the image? I thought it was at Commons. Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The image is stored on en.wiki, which is the proper place for it; it is non-free so Commons will not accept it (they require the material to be free). Basically, you don't have to do anything else - the image as stored here on en.wiki is perfectly fine, used properly within our NFC criteria (considering logo use), and documented appropriately. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The way to tell if an image is on Commons or is local to en.wikipedia is to look at the file description page. This begins with some links (which vary according to user settings), then comes the image itself and then some information about file sizes or types. If this is followed by a box stating "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.", it's on commons; if that box is absent, look in the upper left-hand corner. If you see the Commons logo, it's on Commons; but if you see the Wikipedia puzzle ball, it's on Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Photo to Wikipedia Article Copyright Question

Hello I wanted to add an image to the article on John Kearney Bishop of Ossory. The article does not have one and if you look a link is provided to the Trinity College Dublin section of former Provosts. You will automatically be in his section and there was a photo of a painting by William Cuming around the early 1800s and I would like to use that photo in the Wikipedia article. When I asked about it on the message board for adding and editing articles they were telling me about all this copyright stuff and whether the photograph of the painting is copyrighted. Here is the link you'll see the photo on the right http://www.tcd.ie/provost/history/former-provosts/j_kearney.php#footnote1 even if there is a copyright couldn't I just add the source of the photograph on the wiki page so that credit is given to the college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmeyer2013 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's got to be free - we know the painter and that he died 150+ years ago, which exceeds all current copyright terms, so the painting is in the public domain. The photo of a 2D work is not going to be considered a new copyright so this image should be free too. As it is going to be public domain universally, I'd upload that to Commons, with , using the Upload Wizard their, you'll mark it as "The copyright definitely expired in the USA" and "Faithful reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain". --MASEM (t) 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay I uploaded it to commons and added the photo to the info box on John Kearney's article. Is there anything else that I need to do or am I all set? I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I want to make sure everything was done correctly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmeyer2013 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a small template issue at Commons that I fixed up for you, but you should be good now. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use Inquiry

To whom it may concern:

Hello! I am a student at the University of Michigan, and for a course I am taking, we have to edit/improve a stub article (here's the link for our Wikipedia Course Page). My group is working on the Center for Internet Security article, and I have uploaded a handful of images to Wikipedia for use in this article. Unfortunately, all but one of the images have been taken down twice thus far. (I apologize for making your lives harder by uploading them twice--the first time they were removed, it was done by a Wiki user my group was unfamiliar with, and there were several changes in the formatting so I believed it to be an error made in the editing somewhere. The second time they were removed, the person left a link to the Wikipedia:Non-free Content article, which cleared the confusion.) The Center for Internet Security has four divisions, and the images in question are the official logos for the four divisions. When I uploaded the images, I filled out the appropriate fair use form, listed my source for the image, stated that use would be minimal (each image only posted once in it's specific section in the CIS article, and states that this was the logo found on the official website for the division. In the actual Center for Internet Security article, I wrote for each of the image descriptions: "Logo for (division, ex. Trusted Purchasing Alliance), as seen on their official website." All official division website links were located at various points throughout the article as hyperlinks and also in the "External Links" portion of the article.

I am having trouble understanding why it is not acceptable for these images to be posted in this article. I believe the images to be fair use. Here are my arguments, based on the US copyright law, as seen in the Fair use article:

1. "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes..." A large majority of the article's content has been added/edited by undergraduate college students who are in no way affiliated with the Center for Internet Security or its divisions and are (as I have already stated) doing this for an academic course. There is no direct benefit benefit my group will receive from posting these images publicly to the article. While the superficial improvement to the article could potentially increase the grade our group receives on the project, this is extremely improbable. Our course page states how our grades will be composed—25% is allotted to meeting the minimum requirements of the assignment (following instructions on the page), 25% is allotted to group participation, 25% is allotted to the quality of our Wikipedia revisions, and 25% is allotted to the quality of the comments we offer when we review other groups' articles. In addition, when our group began work, the Wikipedia article on the Center for Internet Security had already been created, the sections on each division were already in place (with the exception of the Integrated Intelligence Center division section), and the hyperlinks to the division websites were already listed. Here is the most recent version of the page before my group began working on the project. Any section of the article that would encourage advertising or the equivalent for the organizations was already in place when we began work (and in the case of the Integrated Intelligence Center, the premise for the section was already in place due to the inclusion of the sections on the other three divisions). Though we have added a considerable amount of information, we have added nothing that, when enhanced by the logos for the divisions, could be objectively interpreted as advertising or anything else that would practically increase contributions to the organizations. By nature of the project causing us to make these contributions, in addition to the academic nature Wikipedia is based on, it is clear that the intent of posting the images is to add educational value to the article. (For example, if someone did not know what a stop sign was, you could describe what a stop sign does and its role in society, but actually seeing what a stop sign looks like will help them to recognize it in everyday activities, appreciate the safety it promotes, and help them to distinguish it from, say, a yield sign.)

2. "the nature of the copyrighted work..." The logos, unfortunately, have no free alternative.

3. "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole..." The logos are iconic of the organizations they represent, just as the glyph globe logo is iconic of Wikipedia or the maize block 'M' logo is iconic of the University of Michigan. Each division is instrumental for the functions and progresses made by the Center for Internet Security, and considering how beneficial visual representations can be in learning, the presence of the logos improves the educational value of the article.

4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Posting the logos for the divisions on the article, which are already available on the websites the Center for Internet Security Article has hyperlinks to, would not practically increase or decrease the potential market for or value of the logo. Confining the logo to the webpage of such a small organization keeps the value of the logo static, and the logo being shown on one additional webpage would not do anything worth noting to increase the value of the logo or the organization it symbolizes.

Even if the use of the logos does not qualify for fair use, I believe a persuasive argument could be composed for their permission under the Wikipedia:Non-free Content criteria. Should such an argument be necessary, please do not hesitate to inform me.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Mkstring (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Mkstring.

It would have helped if you had offered a link to the images removed. Here is the latest relevant version, and anyone slightly familiar with Wikipedia non-free content would know at once that all but the article page subject's logo at the top would have to go. In this case an experienced editor at Non-free content review has taken them down on his/her own volition, referring you to Wikipedia's exemption doctrine policy (EDP) without bothering to submit the case for review, and I think that's absolutely right.

To put it at its simplest, you're using these logos as eye-candy. But these are other peoples' property, and fair use has to be better grounded than that. If you look through the EDP you will see that one of the criteria is "§3 Minimal usage". There's no way your use satisfies that, and then later there's "§8 Contextual significance" that requires the images substantially increase readers' understanding. Plainly that doesn't apply either. And finally, taking this one as example File:Logo,_Integrated_Intelligence_Center.png, you said in your rationale it would serve as the "primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", but there's no article Integrated Intelligence Center and it can't be used as visual identification for Center for Internet Security, where you already have your one allowed logo providing that.

The only way you're likely going to get these logos into Wikipedia article space is to provide separate articles for each of their organisations and use their logos for visual identification. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As you already know, we use a higher standard than the US legal concept of fair use. We use have a policy for non-free content criteria and you will find it at WP:NFCC. It is policy and normally we just use the logo for an organisation in the infobox, not several if they have several divisions. I assume the others were just scatted in their appropriate section. Criteria 3a, minimal use, and 8, contextual significance, are the most likely ones to be quoted. Do the images really enhance the reader's understanding of the topic? If the logos are omitted will it be detrimental to the reader's understanding? Most likely not unless you have a very persuasive argument to keep them. If the individual division were notable enough to have their own article they would justify a logo each. BTW, there are several problems with the article so I will drop a note on the talk page. ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

hansik.org license - is it free or not?

Hansik.org is a website run by the Korean government to promote food of Korea. It's license is a bit more liberal than usual, but it is still iffy: http://hansik.org/en/member/copyright.jsp First, the notice claims the text is copyrighted. Then the second paragraph seems to indicate that they require asking for permission for commercial use. Finally, the last paragraphs raises issue with the non-derivative scope, through it's not clear - they allow for small modifications, and clearly large ones are allowed by copyright in general, so I don't think ND is an issue. And of course their requirement about attribution is totally fine with us (BY). So the primary question I have is this: is their second paragraph enough to make us reject their license as NC, or not? This concerns some edits by my student Kjeongeun (talk · contribs) who is learning how to edit Wikipedia in my course, and thought that with said license it is ok to copy and paste from that website. Also pinging User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:LogoMetroLigero.png

Is this simple enough to be re-licensed as {{PD-shape}}? Useddenim (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickr: how to view license?

Flickr used to make it easy for people to see image licenses, now it is a bit of a mess. Can somebody tell me what the license on this photo is and if it is suitable for a Wikipedia article? Link ---> [5] Nathan121212 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the English language layout at Flickr is now different from other language versions. E.g. I get the German layout by default which contains a section "More information" at the bottom of the page. But when I to switch to English there's a sort of sidebar on the right edge with icons and stuff. If you click the info icon there, a linked notice will appear at the bottom of the sidebar that says "(CC) some rights reserved". In fact this photo is licenced under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 which is not suitable for Wikipedia articles because it doesn't allow commercial derivatives of the image. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:NYPlayingCards.jpg

I took a picture of a deck of playing cards and posted on New York-New York Hotel and Casino, but I don't know which tag to use. I posted a fair use rationale, but chances it might be removed. Is this image legal for Wikipedia? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Northern Marianas Flag

I have provided the appropriate license on post 1978 USPS stamps for File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg for use at Territories of the United States on stamps, a topical philately article, and removed the tag. I hope that complies with procedure. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:BBC World Service red.svg

On March 8, 2012, Martijn Hoekstra attached a notice to File:BBC World Service.png, stating that it was ineligible to be copied to the commons because it is eligible for copyright in its home country (the UK). Such a restriction would presumably apply to the SVG replacement as well, but that is already in the commons. The PNG version is now up for deletion, so I want to know whether its replacement requires the same treatment as the bitmap image for copyright reasons. Could someone more familiar with copyright restrictions of the United Kingdom could please assist in verifying whether the new version should or should not be moved out of the commons? Thanks. --LinkTiger (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the greatest copyright buff, but the UK is a sweat of the brow country, that doesn't have any threshold of originality. As such, textlogos are not PD in the the country of origin AFAIK. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

While this is probably an accurate statement, Commons is specifically allowing BBC logos per this deletion discussion there, specifically calling to the fact that BBC's logo is made from Gill Sans which fell out of copyright in ~1950s. There is the case of Edge Magazine's logo File:EdgeIssue234.jpg being determined by a court of law in the UK is because it is a non-standard font and thus has the proper sweat of the brow to be copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

USGS quad maps

• What’s the status of Public Domain quad maps from the United States Geographical Survey when they are found on commercial topographical map web-sites? Can I use a USGS map image that is carried on a commercial web-site? One like this topozone map. If so, how is the image source recorded when it is uploaded into Wikipedia? Here's a USGS map that is available on Wikipedia Commons. It cites USGS as the source, but it doesn't say what on-line source it was taken from.--Orygun (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• They're simply copying PD works, so you can use them, as long as you're not copying stuff they've added; for example, I've seen websites (can't remember at the moment which one/s) that add their logo here and there over the map. The situation is analogous to a newly published book that includes PD-old text: you can copy that text all you want, since it's already in the public domain, and republication of a PD original doesn't recopyright it. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Great...thanks!--Orygun (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

PD-Israel-Photo for digital

{{PD-Israel-Photo}} reads:

Photographs become public domain 50 years after the photograph was developed from the negative. (See Wikimedia Commons: Category:PD Israel & British Mandate for details)

How in the world is this applied to born-digital images, since they don't have negatives from which they can be developed? Given the lack of digital cameras in 1964, I understand that this isn't a practical question yet, but we ought to mention it on the template if the law addresses the issue. No links to law-hosting pages are provided here or at the Commons page (which itself doesn't address the issue), except for one link to a 404-error page. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The descriptin in the Commons category was updated in 2009 to remove the "negative" stuff.[6] I have just now updated the link to the WIPO page. I think Commons:Template:PD-Israel-Photo looks rather odd as well but in different ways. The 1924 Copyright Ordinance[7] is a mystery to me. It doesn't seem to mention negatives (or photographs at all) but it does discuss "Protection of Computer Software". It refers to years since publication whereas commons:Category:PD Israel & British Mandate talks about years since creation. Very perplexing. Thincat (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The ordinance is irrelevant for photographs. The ordinance just stated a few local adaptations to the Copyright Act of 1911. For everything not specifically adapted by the ordinance, one should just look directly to the text of the Copyright Act itself, including about photographs (section 21 of the Copyright Act). Commons:Template:PD-Israel-Photo is since 2009 merely a redirection to Commons:Template:PD-Israel. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Copyright Act of 1911 spoke of "the making of the original negative". If a tribunal had to consider the question, it would probably conclude that the basic idea is the creation of whatever constitutes the initial recording of the photo, whatever recording method was used. (Sidenote: In en.wp's t:PD-Israel-Photo, the passage "the photograph was developed from the negative" sounds like a mistaken rewording.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a copyright vio.

I would like for some one with the proper image copyright knowledge to look into the following image: File:FortVerdeBuildingAndGeneral.jpg. The reason behind this request is that the despite the fact that it seems to be a professional image. The image file page does not contain any information as to the camera used, plus the image appears in multiple websites, example: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]],[14] and [15]. I don't know, but the image maybe copyrighted. If the image is legit, then let's keep it, however if there is any doubt then it should be deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see any reason to question the legitimacy of this image. It was taken in 1995 and uploaded in 2004 by User:Elf, who is an administrator on en.wikipedia. You can see her uploaded photos on her subpage User:Elf/photos (full view). Although she is not much active on the project in recent years, I'm sure she will be pleased if you leave a message on her talk page telling that you think this photo looks professional. :) The fact that a Wikimedia photo has been reused on external websites is nothing out of the ordinary. That is the idea of offering them for free reuse. It is not surprising that a a photo that has been offered on Wikimedia for ten years has been reused. Unfortunately, many external reusers do not credit the Wikimedia author. As a general rule, the fact that a photo is on external websites does not mean that the Wikimedia photo is not legitimate, unless it can be found that an external version is, for example, older or less cropped or has a finer resolution. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. Your explanation makes total sense. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to proposed removal of the photograph of Samantha Dubois

Resolved

Samantha Dubois was a radio presenter. There are many people who simply do not know what she looked like. The photographer is credited on the file page and the article itself.

If this photo is deleted will those who do so replace it with an alternative image themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpick1 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 March 2014

I've disputed the deletion after searching for images and edited the file page to reflect that she is deceased more then 20 years. Non-free images of deceased subjects are usually considered acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Larry A. Thompson - Official Photo Deleted

Dear Wikipedia Representative:

On Septermber 24, 2012, I uploaded an official photo of Larry A. Thompson for placement on his Wikipedia article, Larry A. Thompson. Mr. Thompson gave to me permission to use the photo. Yesterday, March 24, 2014, the photo of Larry A. Thompson was deleted from his article.

Larry A. Thompson in 2012

I would very much like to reinstate it. What documentation do you require to fairly use the photograph in perpetuity? I appreciate your help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProductionFan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikiepdia requires free use for everyone and all purposes, not just permission for you. The purposes of use must include commercial and modification. See WP:PERMIT. The photographer could well own the copyright, or have assigned copyright to someone else. This person is the one to grant the free license, which could be CC-BY-SA-3.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Do photographs taken by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency fall under Crown Copyright? I'd like to add this image from this BBC News story to the List of shipwrecks in 2013 if possible. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A much larger version of that image can be found in the official MCA digital image library at MV Danio grounded. As far as I've been able to determine, MCA claims Crown copyright protection on their works but unfortunately don't appear to offer a sufficiently free license to their images (unlike, say the gov.uk site, which explicitly licenses their crown copyright content with the Open Government Licence. You might try contacting the MCA and asking if they're willing to license the image under the OGL (see WP:PERMISSIONS and WP:OTRS). —RP88 ^(talk) 07:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

But I think it is licensed under OGL. MCA is part of the Department of Transport[16] and the latter is a Crown Body[17] to which OGL applies.[18] DfT says "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v2.0, except where otherwise stated"[19] and I don't see MCA as stating otherwise.[20] Thincat (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Crown Bodies are not obliged to release their content under the OGL, and many do not. The statement you reference as a "DfT statement" is the OGL release for the content of the www.gov.uk website, not a claim that all agencies mentioned on the site apply the OGL to all of their works covered by Crown copyright. —RP88 ^(talk) 18:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is a Crown Body[21] and it does not have delegated authority from HMSO[22] and so their publications are covered by OGL except as specified in "What does the OGL cover".[23] Thincat (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, you've convinced me — works of the MCA, a Crown Body without the delegated authority from the Controller to license their own works, default to the OGL license absent a number of exemptions that don't apply to the image in question. It can be uploaded to Commons and tagged with the Commons license tag {{OGL}}. —RP88 ^(talk) 06:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rarely does anyone change their minds on image copyright matters. I'll have to try it myself sometime! Thincat (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation - Lawrence of Arabia

There may be a copyright problem due to an incorrect license type for File:Peter_O'Toole_in_Lawrence_of_Arabia.png, which is used in the article Lawrence of Arabia (film). The image is described as a crop of a screenshot from a trailer for the film, and I think inclusion of the image might be valid under fair use rules for illustration of the article describing the film, but the license used for the image may not be correct. The license uses a PD-US-no notice template, which says that "This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." However, the film Lawrence of Arabia, a 1962 production, seems to be under copyright protection, with a registration number of RE0000469359 (February 20, 1990) listed in the US Copyright office database.[24] Dezastru (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that we've had discussions on this point before, and has been decided that if a movie trailer lacks clear copyright notice (in that year where it was required) even if the full film is copyrighted, anything specific in the trailer is fair game as PD no notice. It's a good question to ask since I know we've been there before, but we've determined that trailers are considered separate works from the film. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I release a script into the public domain?

Hi. I am looking to release a modified version of a user script to Wikipedia:User scripts under the same copyright as the author, but want to understand the copyright licensing ramifications.

Quick background: User:Splarka made User:Splarka/dabfinder.js and I created User:Meteor sandwich yum/dabfinder.js, a modified copy of it.
Splarka has on their userpage multi-license text notices, specifically: {{User Publicdomain}}; and three in invisible comments, noted by Splarka that they still apply: {{TextLicenseFreeUse}}, {{ImageLicenseFreeUse}}, & {{Public domain release}}. In contrast, I have no free-license declarations on my userpage.

I just patched a couple of features, but don't see myself as a major future contributor. If Splarka wants to expound on my script I assume they'd have to release it with a matching license as me (it couldn't truly be public domain because I would need to be credited).

Thus I have the following questions:

• Is it possible to release just this script into the public domain?
  • How would I go about that? Simply add "I hereby release this into the public domain..." to the top of the script, in code comments?
• What would be the consequences? Is there anything I should know? Will this come back and bite me in the ass (is there some unseen downside to this)?

Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

since you made a derivative of a public domain item, you can release this into the public domain in the US. If elsewhere you can still do a CC-zero license to release all rights. Text on the script will do this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Alabama Judicial System seal

File:Seal of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama.svg justifies itself as public domain, released by its "creator", meaning some WP user. Choor monster (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an issue on commons and being dealt with there, but as has been fixed, the seal is in the PD (due to age, it appears), and whomever place that tag didn't seem to take that into account. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't be age. According to the source, the image dates to 1977. Choor monster (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this might be a problem. Though the seal image is created from elements that are in free licenses, the ultimate result is an image that is a derivative work of something that might be derivative. I'm going to tag it for review there, but again, that's a matter for commons to work out. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

[25] is the discussion there. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Per that discussion, they raise a good point that while 1977 , it appears published without copyright which was required at that time, and as such, is PD no-notice (among other reasons). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

thumb|right|Hersh Leib Gottlieb (Sigheter)

Hi

This picture was deleted, although it was taken before 1920 and although the photographer Stern does not exist anymore. Further, this picture is already depicted in a book (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=396076473837453&set=a.120528938058876.19640.120516668060103&type=1&theater). Besides, I am the owner of the original of this picture because Gottlieb (Sigheter) is my second great grandfather. Thus it is a family picture. Please instruct me how reenter the picture without the bot deleting it again.

Thank your for your time.

Regards, Gabriel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejugi (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)