Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/October

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Photo of painting from about 1734

There is a painting The Four Bath Worthies on the BBC/British Museum "A History of the World" website at The Four Bath Worthies. Would it be permissible to use a copy of the website picture on Wikipedia? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The frame will need to be cropped out as it adds an element of 3D that creates copyright problems. Otherwise the image should be OK as {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-100}}, but I'd look whether there is a higher resolution version (also to verify the age of the painting). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that appears to be the best image I can find online. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

British trade union propaganda pamphlet 1943

I'd like to upload a map copied from: University of Warwick. The map is from a pamphlet published in 1943 by the Labour Research Department, which is "an independent trade union based research organisation." I don't see any copyright notices, but it does list in detail where it was published. Can do as public domain? Tks in advance  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No can do. It's probably a Works created for an employer [1], where the copyright is held by the LRD (or successor), and persists for life+70 of the author.[2] We don't know the author date of death, but creation 73 years ago means the unfortunate author would have had to snuff it within three years of producing the document. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Compatibility of the ETH Oberon license with CC-by-SA.

The ETH Oberon license is at ftp://ftp.ethoberon.ethz.ch/ETHOberon/license.txt. In case it is offline, there is a copy at http://easthope.ca/OberonUsage.html; scroll down a little to see it. According my elementary understanding, the Oberon license is compatible with CC-by-SA. Comments? Authoritative comments? Agreement? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia Commons (c:File:OberonScreen.PNG), it's a BSD license. BSD licenses are free licenses. From the looks of it, it is in fact freer than CC-by-SA, but I'm not sure if a BSD license is either compatible with it or allows to be re-licensed under its terms. You can upload media on Wikimedia Commons directly under BSD. If you want to reuse text here on Wikipedia, we need to definitively answer the question whether it is compatible with CC-by-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The license on the ETH server, cited above, is authoritative and doesn't mention BSD. How is compatibility determined? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the licenses are compatible. The license requires that:
  • "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:..." Alright, so it allows modification and places no restrictions on type of use, good so far.
  • "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."
  • "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
These are a specific type of implementation of the "sharealike" requirement. It just says exactly how that's to be done. That shouldn't cause incompatibility.
  • "Neither the name of the ETH Zurich nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." That's a specific requirement on attribution, which CC-BY-SA also allows. They're just saying you can't do an attribution in such a way that it appears the original authors endorse you.
  • The final section is a disclaimer of warranty. CC-BY-SA does not in any way forbid a disclaimer of warranty.
So I would say, yes, the license does appear to be compatible with CC-BY-SA. Of course, that's only my own opinion, but I've been around the block with licenses a time or two. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Seraphimblade for the carefully reasoned answer. Now I will proceed with book creation. ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot of Wikipedia to illustrate a problem

Is it allowed to upload a screenshot of Wikipedia to illustrate a problem? It includes the globe logo and other WMF copyrighted matter. Fair use rationales appear to be out of the question as it needs to beused on the Village Pump, not in an article. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: yes, see the way images at Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia are licenced and tagged. The simple thing is to crop off the logo and other copyrighted bits and just leave that which is CC-BY-SA-3.0 to reduce the number of tags you have to add. Nthep (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I need to include the logo because that is a significant part of the problem! DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I've done it here File:Displayproblem7Oct2016.png - does that look ok? DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Nthep (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Rose photo

I uploaded the photo File:Daniel Rose, 2004.jpg as the primary subject photo for the biographical article on this person. The photo, a low-resolution headshot, was taken from the subject's own website home page, where it is used for the same purpose. In the original file description, I noted why I believe this is fair use, and that I was unable to find any equivalent replacement image with a reproduction license. When the file was tagged for speedy deletion, I appealed the decision, editing the description as instructed, and again explaining that I could find no licensed equivalent.

While it doesn't matter to me which photo is used, I am unable to find another one, and this one seems to be a clear case of Fair Use under both law and Wikipedia policy. I would therefore ask that the file be restored (or allow me to reupload it), unless someone else has a specific, free, alternative image they would like to suggest for this purpose. Yorker (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Rose (real estate developer) is a living person, meaning that unless he is a known recluse (doesn't appear to be), it is possible to get a free image of him. And our non-free policy forbids the use of non-free (like the shot you selected) if a free image can be theoretically obtained. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but theory and practice diverge here. He may or may not be a hermit, but try as I can, I can find NO free image, theoretical or otherwise! I'm perfectly willing to concede that you're a better searcher than I am, and that such a photo exists. But if so, please simply point me to it and I'll use it. Otherwise, I have to dispute your contention that a free image can be obtained. Yorker (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not whether a free image already exists, just that the possibility one could be taken. And thus unless he's recluse, he can be see in public spaces and a free image can be taken. Actually getting one might require a great deal of happenstance (just happen to see him), or may need to be scheduled or requested, but its far for impossible. We want to encourage people to generate free content for WP, and not rely on non-free when the possible to generate free content is there. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Dispute away. Such a fair use image will get deleted every time. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria does not lack clarity: "1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis mine.) Clearly the "could' may well be difficult, but life is hard and you get no points for wishing things were different. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I presume, btw, that you've emailed him to ask for a free-licence or PD image? Well within the scope of "could". --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Postage stamps in Commons

May postage stamps be placed in articles without permission of the country of origin?@Jzsj:Jzsj (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the copyright status of those stamps in the originating country. Some countries retain global intellectual property rights in their stamps, and may even retain copyright for a longer term than that which applies to other graphic art --Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I would assume that if the stamps are located at Commons, that generally assures that it is under a free license and/or public domain and/or uncopyrightable in the entire world, and there are unrestricted uses to them here at en.wiki. There are definitely issues related to the different copyright terms and approaches, and there are likely stamp images that are still copyrighted in their country of original but would be free in the US. In such cases, those can be uploaded to en.wiki under a PD-USonly-type tag and still used on articles here. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the stamps are freely licenced on the commons you can use them in articles and the country of origin has no bearing on the matter. However, you need to be careful uploading stamps because different country's stamps are copyright for longer and shorter periods and some are in the public domain for all periods. You may find these two pages useful: Commons:Stamps/Public domain and Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. What country are you specifically interested in? ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd say Madagascar. See also this discussion at Commons. De728631 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this reference a copyright violation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Lima#cite_note-8 92.4.104.195 (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Youtube user seems to have filmed it off a programme by some "Fashion TV" channel. I'm going to remove the reference per WP:COPYLINK. De728631 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
While it is right to remove the copyvio link, keep in mind that the program it was taken from can still be used as a proper cite video/cite TV episode source, without any URL link. Someone will have to fill those details in, just no url= parameter --MASEM (t) 14:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, but that requires the date and title of the original show. As long as we don't know it, we should ask for a better source. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

How to use the correct copyright tag, before 14 October 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamanitkul (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pandamanitkul:, can you be more specific? Please provide a url or wikilink to the page the image appears on, but most images you find on the internet will be copyright to someone and unless they are specifically noted to be freely licensed we cannot use them. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page where I go through most of the problems people have with images they upload. ww2censor (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

upload image

how to upload image in "infobox film" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikiran panjala (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose your question is about File:Eedu Gold Ehe.jpg. First of all we need to know a bit of background information: is this a screenshot from the film, or is it part of some advertising? Where did you get this image from? On a second note, the image displayed in {{Infobox film}} should ideally be the film's original theatrical release poster. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Osmium crystals.jpg

This file has been multi-licensed. See the osmium article, at the top. The first licence appears to be not fully free whereas the second two are free. I presume in this case that the image could be used under any one its three licenses and that therefore it counts as being free. Would I be right? The context for my question is that I'd like to use the image in a Feature Article. Sandbh (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I think those are conflicting licenses, but that's not a problem for you using the image on an article on en.wiki. As it appears to have been a Featured Picture, the authenicity of the uploader as the photographer - and their choice to upload to Commons - means its accepted to use here. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Another editor, here, has commented that it doesn't appear that the licensing issue was discussed during the images's featured picture candidacy. Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I've added my comments on these images as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing Tag from File Description Page

Hello, one of my image files was tagged for not having any copyright info and other descriptive info on it. I have since added that info and now need to remove those tags. How do I do that? Thanks!ADunwoody07 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)ADunwoody07

Please be more specific. However, all your uploads appear to have copyright problems, mostly they are attributed to someone other then you. In that case we need the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You also do not appear to have added an {{information}} template (click on the link to see how to use it) to each image that must have all the fields fillied in with all the appropriate details. If you want them deleted, so long as there are problems with the images as opposed to being properly licence and you just don't want them there now, you can add the following template to the images: {{db-g7|rationale=DeletionRationale}} (again click on the link to see who to use it). Most seem to be already tagged as problematic and will be deleted in due course unless they are fixed. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Can this living person image be uploaded

Hi! I am Peterye2005. At Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_non-free_content_guide#No_free_equivalent it says you cannot upload an image of a living person because it is typically possible for someone to take a picture of the subject and release that image freely. I was planning to add an image to Caroline B. Cooney. I could not find a free image. Am I allowed to upload one of the images on this page: http://www.carolinebcooneybooks.com/about/for_the_press.html which is copyrighted?

Peterye2005 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"I couldn't easily find one" is not an excuse recognized under law. If she is alive, then presumably anybody could just ask her to pause for a moment so that a picture could be taken. The images on that page are copyrighted, and we have no right to steal them. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that won't work. Images on Wikipedia, if not used with a fair-use claim, must be free for anyone to use for any purpose. Even those press photos are copyrighted and generally non-free, and as the name implies, they're "for the press" only, which is too restrictive. De728631 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to add this image to Wikipedia or Commons but...

I can't tell if the CC licensing is appropriate for usage here. This is the image's CC license: Creative Commons and this is the: Flickr image. There don't seem to be any other available images of Eliza Garfield, the first child of James A Garfield (she died at around 3 years of age.) It would be nice to have an image for her Wikipedia article Eliza Garfield. Appreciate any help - thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-commercial AND no-derivatives; so that's doubly negative. I wonder if somebody else could go to the museum or gallery where this is displayed, and take a picture with a license we can use? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If we can figure out when that picture was painted, it's likely old enough that it's in the public domain. Usually, photographs of two-dimensional public domain works aren't eligible for their own copyright, under Bridgeman v. Corel. If the portrait is old enough to be PD, likely the photo is as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::It's too bad that the Eliza Garfield article has no image to illustrate her short life, it would be wonderful to get an image for WP/Commons - the painting would seem to fall outside the copyright issues since Eliza Garfield died in 1863. So far as I can tell this painting is on-display at the James Garfield House & Museum in Mentor Ohio. I have seen a photo of Garfield with a young girl but that is of him & his daughter Mollie.Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image - Local Government Official Logos

I have recently been adding official logos to Australian local government entries and have used the Non-free use rationale consistent with local government logos already added - however I received an 'Orphaned non-free image' notification for a number of my entries stating that they 'criteria for speedy deletion'.

This is very frustrating and disappointing as I spent considerable time and tried to ensure that I used the correct 'fair use' information consistent with other similar logos used for similar pages (Australian local government). Could you please advise what I have done wrong / differently to logos uploaded by other users that utilised the exact same fair use justification?

GreenguytroyGreenguytroy (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Greegnguytroy: File:LIverpool CIty Concil Logo.jpg is tagged for deletion because it isn't in use right now. I don't see any other file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Greenguytroy: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Greenguytroy: There are also File:Clarence Valley Council Logo.gif and File:Coolamon Shire Council Logo.png. None of the three is used in an article. Non-free content may be hosted only if it is used in an article. —teb728 t c 10:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If any of the orphaned images are the current logos, then they must be used in the articles about that organisation to be retained, and if not, according to our strict non-free policy (#7) they will be deleted. Yes, it can be frustrating when you have devoted time and effort to this but if you are not familiar with the policy or guideline, it will likely only happen once as you will now know the reason. The advise is to not upload such images until they are ready to be placed in their appropriate articles in the infobox to identify the organisations. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Greetings! I have been searching the net for photos which I need to add on a Wikipedia Article (PNP Maritime Group). I found some articles and photos published by the Defense Video Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) on www.dvids.net and with th following notice: "PUBLIC DOMAIN This work, PNP Maritime Group police conduct direct action training mission with JIATF West ODA Special Forces operators, by SSgt Chris Hubenthal, identified by DVIDS, is free of known copyright restrictions under U.S. copyright law."

My question is, can I upload it on Wikipedia or Commons? here's some of the links:

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1499434/pnp-maritime-group-police-conduct-direct-action-training-mission-with-jiatf-west-oda-special-forces-operators https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1489202/philippine-national-police-train-with-jiatf-west-team-strengthen-counterdrug-capability

and here's the copyright information: https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright

thanks!

DanRyan132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danryan132 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes these are fine to upload and many have already been uploaded to the commons, which is where you should make any new uploads. I suggest you do a commons search first as there are editors actively uploading US military image from all forces. Many are also on Flickr and even though they often do not have a public domain notice they are and usually you can find the images on some of the other military media websites I prefer as there are usually more details there, such as: http://www.af.mil/News/Photos.aspx , http://www.navy.mil/viewGallery.asp , or https://www.army.mil/photos/. Just make sure the images are attributed to military personnel as all their work is in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Photo of Jerry Falwell Jr.

Hello, I'm looking into uploading a photo of Jerry Falwell Jr. to the article about him here. However, as is the case with most "higher-up" people, it's very hard to get a picture of him (specifically him after he grew a beard) that's not copyrighted. Is it possible to use {{Non-free promotional}} or another template on one of the photos from Liberty University's, press site? (I'd like to note that the "Photographing facilities" section on the Photos page seems to specifically apply to people actually going to LU to take photos, as opposed to just using the ones on the press site. — Gestrid (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Wikipedia has a firm policy that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Since Falwell is a living person, a free photo of him could be created. For example, if someone asked them, Liberty University might provide a free-licensed photo of him: the free photo on his father's article is sourced to Liberty University. Or someone might take a photo of him some time when he is off-campus and release it under a free license. —teb728 t c 08:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone assist a Wikipedia project

Hi, the Women in Red wikiproject has been chosen as a finalist for a United Nations award. I think this is a big deal. The project runs in about 8 or 9 languages across the different Wikipedias. We are being judged against other projects who assist gender equality and we are in final five in our category. The organisers have sent by email this image File:UN Women GEM ITU finalist award.png and we have an email that encourages us to use it anywhere, but does not specifically mention copyright. I'm currently bouncing emails with UN's legal department to try and resolve the issue so we can load it to commons. The image at present has a delete tag on it. Can someone assist with with removing the tag? Does anyone know a route into commons? As I say at present I have an email that I can show but we will be judged in 3 weeks and OTRS I'm told takes months. Any ideas? I am an admin but as I co-founded the project I would prefer someone without COI to make a solution (if poss)Victuallers (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The tag cannot be removed unless you either obtain permission or you can find a valid fair use claim that complies with all points of WP:NFCC. That said, even if the image is deleted it can simply be restored at WP:REFUND if OTRS permission comes in - indeed, it's the usual procedure for OTRS agents who have received permission. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"Evidence will be provided upon request" isn't sufficient. If the image isn't clearly marked somewhere as released under a free license, that evidence needs to go to OTRS, who will verify that it is both genuine and that the copyright holder really does agree to a free license release and that they understand what that means. Just permission for "you" to use it, whoever "you" is defined as, isn't sufficient—permission must be given for anyone to use and modify it, for any purpose. The CC-BY-SA license is the normal way that's accomplished, but any terms that allow unrestricted use and modification by anyone will do. If they're willing to allow that, by all means, provide that evidence to OTRS and put {{OTRS pending}} on it. If they're not, or they're only willing to let particular people use it, or they're only willing to allow use on Wikipedia, it's nonfree and would have to pass all of the nonfree content criteria to be used in any given article. But whatever the case may be, it must be clear to someone looking at the image page what its copyright and reuse status actually is, hence why copyright licensing status must be noted on the page, not just provided "on request". Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this file can not meet the non-free criteria because it fails #4 (previous publication). I cannot find this image uploaded on any other website than the English Wikipedia. Unless it was previously printed in a paper source or published otherwise, it does not meet the criterion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Another nominee has stuck it on Twitter here. Nthep (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Another reason it cannot meet the non-free criteria is that it fails #7 and #9, which say that it must be used it an article and only in articles: at present it is used only in project space. Even if there were an article, the use would fail #1 because use could be replaced by a textual statement about the nomination. —teb728 t c 19:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Seeing as there is some urgency to this matter perhaps you should post a request for an OTRS volunteer to handle it by asking at c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. An active OTRS volunteer might be able to expedite it and you find their names at c:Category:Commons OTRS volunteers. Obviously if the copyright holder will no release it under a free licence you are likely out of luck. Anyway, good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow what long answers thank you for your knowledge - I only wanted a solution. Thanks Ww2censor that looks like the best approach. I was deterred by the estimate and you suggest a possibility. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I hope you have success getting a free license, but, unfortunately, I have recently been in correspondence with a UN representative regarding some UN material. They sent a permission statement to OTRS covering a number of posters. link.
Unfortunately, they chose a license with an NC clause (no-commercial). I tried to persuade them to use one of our acceptable free licenses, while they tried to persuade me that Wikipedia should accept the NC license. We are at an impasse, but I mention this because it is my understanding that the use of the NC clause is common in UN work products.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I don't know if it will help, but at least in the case of the UN ITU's GEM-TECH award under discussion here we are in the fortunate position of being able to point to a precedent for the UN releasing content under a Wikipedia-compatible license. In particular, the UN ITU has chosen to use the CC-BY license for the video announcing the 2016 GEM-TECH finalists. —RP88 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Victuallers: you may also want to point out that it appears all the ITU images (maybe all 46,000+ images) in their own photostream at Flickr are licensed {{cc-by-2.0}} and NOT NC, and there are many ITU GEM images (though from previous years) that are licensed likewise. ww2censor (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Victuallers: If an authorized representative of the UN will either fill out a permission statement as show here:Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries and mail it to the email address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org , or better yet, use the Interactive Release Generator here to both upload the image to Commons and provide the permission statement, I'll make sure it is handled within 24 hours, not months.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As an important aside, one of the reasons that it takes months to process permissions is that most emails fail badly - some have a permission statement which literally reads "Feel free to use this in Wikipedia" (FYI, not acceptable), some have the right format, but they did not upload an image, some refer to a photo shopped version of an image available elsewhere on the internet, and a host of other problems. These are tedious to research and resolve, and result in OTRS agent burnout. When the upload exists, is linked in a properly worded permission statement, and is sent from an email associated with the copyright holder, it can be processed quickly, although some of these take time because they are literally lost in a sea of badly constructed requests.

Thanks S Philbrick!! - I'll send the pages you suggest to the UN legal department who are probably used to jumping thro hoops. This is an organisation on the change I think and we need to just assist them with this birth. My sympathies for OTRS. I must admit I load up 100s of pix and I usually tell the owner to load the picture for me - but as you will know they cannot understand why its so difficult. Hopefully the changes in copyright will assist us. Thx again Victuallers (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

CC-SA-2.0 question

This image is licenced under CC-SA-2.0. Is that licence compatible with Wikipedia, as I know only some files with this licence are. If so, how would I upload it to Commons, as the only CC-SA-2.0 licence option is for Flickr images? I know most Geograph photos are compatible with Wikipedia, but this one seems to have a different licence. Joseph2302 09:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 2.0 - the actual license - is fine for both us and Commons. I dunno why the upload form does not believe that this license exists outside of Flickr. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've manually added the correct image tag. Joseph2302 09:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: The commons even has a special template for Geograph images that you should use. It's found at c:Template:Geograph. ww2censor (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately you cannot use the template properly just blank but with the required parameters it links to the image source and gives attribution to the author, which I have filled in. Also you should upload the highest resolution available, which I have also done at c:File:West Horsley Place.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this in the public domain now?

Asside from the fact that I cannot find either a registration or extension for this work anyway, would File:Black Destroyer Astounding July 1939.jpg not have fallen into PD in 2014 anyway? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, does it bear a copyright notice? "It" includes the magazine it was published in, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the US-based magazine does. But it is from July 1939. That was more than 75 years ago. So is there any way it could still be in copyright? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
commons:COM:HIRTLE suggests that without renewal a 1939 work would be out of copyright if it was published in 1939 in the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The work in question was first published in the July 1939 edition of Astounding. Jo-Jo Eumerus is correct, as a work first published in the U.S. in 1939, if renewal did not occur, 1939 issues of Astounding would be in the public domain. The July 1939 issue of Astounding was published with notice and registered (B 420586). Since a copyright renewal has to be sometime in the 28th year, the renewal would be in the copyright records for the original copyright date plus 27 years or 28 years (also 29 years since there are a few periods in the past where the Copyright Office was slow in processing renewals). The July 1939 issue of Astounding was renewed in 1966 (R388848). So, as a work first published in the U.S. from 1923 to 1963 with notice, registration, and proper renewal, the copyright will expire on the first of the year 95 years after the publication date, in this case on January 1, 2035. —RP88 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is it 95 years, not 75? Mickey Mouse rule? Does this apply to only the US? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
For works published since 1978 the U.S. copyright term is life of the author plus 70 years, except for anonymous works, pseudonymous works, or works made for hire which have a U.S. copyright term of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter. The rules for works published prior to 1978 are more complex, Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States is a good summary and you can also find a bit at Copyright law of the United States#Duration_of_copyright. At the time it was published the July 1939 edition of Astounding was eligible for a copyright term of 28 years, with an option for an additional 28 year term if the copyright was renewed, for a total of 56 years. The copyright term of works published in 1939 was extended nine times between 1962 and 1974, again in 1978 with the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976, and then again in 1998 with the Copyright Term Extension Act.

With regards to "Does this apply to only the US" I am not sure what you mean. Copyright law is a function of national law in most (if not all) jurisdictions, so copyright term varies by country (see List of countries' copyright lengths), although most countries are signatories to treaties that obligate them to meet or exceed certain copyright terms (e.g. the Berne Convention requires at least life + 50). Some countries extend copyright protection to foreign works identical to that of local works, some have the "rule of the shorter term" where the copyright term for foreign works is at most the copyright term granted in the work's country of origin, and some countries have entered into treaties that honor the longer terms of treaty partners for foreign works. It is entirely possible that the "Black Destroyer" cover art is protected even longer in other countries than it is in the U.S. since the creator of the artwork, Graves Gladney, died in 1976. In counties with a term of life + 50 and no rule of the shorter term, this cover would be protected until January 1, 2027 (1976 + 50 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this file public domain?

I haven't done expired copyright so i'm not sure if this (File:Painting of Leslie Coombs Brand.png) is considered PD or not. Please change the license if needed. Thank you. --Ben Stone 03:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Benstown: If the painting was indeed originally made in 1887, yes, it is in the public domain in the US, as is any work published before 1923. You ought to change the license template to indicate that this is a free file in the public domain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Map of Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel route.png

Hello. Unless I'm overlooking something, I don't believe that the above image is in the public domain as claimed by the uploader.

The original image can be found here: [3], and this is the site's copyright statement: [4].

EDIT: My mistake; I wasn't paying attention to the details of the images; but from the source listed in the image's description, I still do not believe that the file is PD. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the source webpage the image is attributed to an "Andy Ball" and not specifically to the Government of Victorian, so no it is unlikely to be PD, even if the government produced it. According to this commons page Australian government works are copyright for 50 years, so this cannot be PD until at least 2065 as it appears to have been produced in 2015, maybe even longer if the artist owns the copyright. A new version could be created so, if you really need to show this development with a map, maybe ask the commons Graphic lab to draw one and tag this for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Antonio Jacobsen pictures

Danish-born American painter Antonio Jacobsen died in 1921. His article has a gallery of pictures that have been uploaded to en.WP. Some paintings were photographed by Neochichiri11 during a visit to the Mariners' Museum. For some of those photographs, Neochichiril1 claims the copyright:

while others that he took say public domain:

To me, Antonio Jacobsen's paintings are in the public domain and moveable to Commons. The author entries should say Antonio Jacobsen; the source entries can say that Neochichiril1 made the copies of the paintings, but the photographer cannot claim a copyright unless there is something more. Glrx (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The analysis seems correct iff the paintings were published before 1923, but I don't think we usually care about such distinctions when they don't make a difference between free and non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2016/October&oldid=1077417350"