Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright help

I would like to upload a photo, but I am unsure if it has the correct "rights". If it does, I am unsure what I should put with the photo to properly display the rights. The rights are "Copyright held by Joyner Library. Permission to reuse this work is granted for all non-commercial purposes." The link for the photo is here. Thanks, PGPirate 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you cannot upload the photo based on that information, because non-commercial stipulations are not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. Your other options are to contact the Joyner Library and ask them to release it under an acceptable license, or see if you believe the image would be acceptable under a fair use claim per WP:NFC. -Andrew c [talk] 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright inquiry

There is ongoing discussion about the fair-use and neutrality aspects of using images in the Gaza flotilla raid article, specifically over some of the following images:

IDF copyright policy, along with FU policy, is here:

According to the law of copyright in Israel and pursuant to international treaties, copyright in the office's publications, including those provided by the service, belong to the IDF and the Ministry of Defense. These rights apply, inter alia, to text. Pictures, drawings, maps, audio tracts, video tracts, graphics and program applications (hereinafter: the protected material), unless stated explicitly that the copyright in the protected material belongs to another party.

User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner.

When quoting from the protected material, User must attribute the source of the quotation, whether it is the office or a third party. User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material.

The copyright for the final image is not as clear. It is posted on an Israeli government site, but then appears to come from a third-party organization.

Would these images be usable?--Nosfartu (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. Wikipedia can only use freely licensed media (except for images that meet all ten WP:NFCC). These images have no evidence they are free, and appear to be correctly tagged as non-free (though proper tagging doesn't mean all ten criteria are met..) If you want review of an image which is tagged as non-free, we have WP:NFR. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
So I need to go to another board. If you want to reply over there, as it appears you are active there as well, it would be appreciated. Thanks for the response, --Nosfartu (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture copying

I would like to use some of the pictures on your dictionary. What are the laws regarding using them under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license? I am making a children's book and would like to use actual photos of the metamorphosis of a butterfly. Although at this time I am making it for my grandson, I may pursue publishing it in the future and want to avoid any legal mistakes in downloading the file from your encyclopedia. Thanks for getting back to me, <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhidalgo1201 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here is in a position to provide you with legal advice on how to comply with copyright issues related to your commercial venture. However, Wikipedia does maintain a page, WP:REUSE, which offers general advice for those who wish to reuse Wikipedia content in their own work. You might also consider talking a look at Wikipedia's sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. Commons is explicitly a collection of reusable media. Commons maintains a page of instructions intended for those who wish to reuse material (text and/or graphics) from the Commons. Not all images on Wikipedia are available via Commons, but those that are have received additional vetting to make sure that they are available for a wide variety of uses, including commercial use. —RP88 (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionally here is the text NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Winifred Knights picture

I've recently created an article on the painter Winifred Knights (1899-1947) and would like to add an image of her painting The Deluge, which was painted in 1919 as can be found here http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/T/T05/T05532_9.jpg As it was created before 1923 am I right in assuming it's in the public domain? Thanks. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of use on Wikipedia at least, yes. The copyright tag should be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Note that it's not PD in the UK, as that goes from date of death of author, so it is important to use the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag, which explains all this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've uploaded it to File:The_Deluge.jpg, would appreciate someone looking at it, as the one thing I'm really unsure about on WP is image copyright. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Nearly correct. Please fill in the details in all fields of the information template I added to the image. ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Have now done so, thanks for your help. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a minor quibble, but technically File:The_Deluge.jpg is {{PD-art|PD-US-1923-abroad}} since it's a photograph of a PD-US-1923-abroad work, but yorkshiresky didn't take the photo himself and in some countries a photographer can acquire copyright to a photo, despite it being a photo of a PD work. I've updated the image description to reflect this. —RP88 (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures taken from an online organizational "newsroom"

I would like to know the classification of (or usability of) photos taken from a news release website. For example, newsroom.lds.org. The photo in question is File:Holland_medium.jpg‎. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougurrd (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only use either freely licensed images or non-free images that meet all ten of the criteria listed WP:NFCC. In this case the source of image, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' biography of Dr. Holland, explicitly says that the image is "© 2006 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved." Intellectual Reserve appears to be a non-profit that manages the LDS Church's intellectual property. So this image is obviously not a freely licensed image. Furthermore, I think the image fairly obviously fails criteria #1 at WP:NFCC -- in fact, Wikipedia policy at WP:NFC#UUI specifically mentions that non-free pictures of people still alive, including non-free promotional images, are not acceptable on Wikipedia. So, I think your options are:
  1. contact Intellectual Reserve, the owner of the copyright to that image, and see if they'd be willing to willing to license it under a free licenses (follow the directions at WP:PERMISSIONS),
  2. find a different picture of Dr. Holland that is either already licensed under a free license or where the photographer is willing to freely license it,
  3. ask someone to take a photo for you (he's a fairly prominent religious figure, it might not be hard to find someone who will be seeing him),
  4. or arrange to take a picture of Dr. Holland yourself.
I'm going to tag File:Holland_medium.jpg‎ with {{db-f9}}, so it will probably be deleted in short order, but feel free to upload it again if you obtain the permission of the LDS Church / Intellectual Reserve.
—RP88 (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the proper copyright tag for a photo taken by myself?

What is the proper copyright tag for a photo taken by myself? Austin3301 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just select one of the licenses. One of them is recommended, and it will tell you that on the upload form.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Photos that you have take yourself should be uploaded to Commons so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of Texas government works?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere about Texas releasing its government-produced works into the public domain. Is this correct, or am I getting it confused with Florida? Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#State and Local Governments in Florida, California, and Minnesota is what you are looking for. Texas is not included. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I know of no Texas state laws that require Texas state agencies to release their works into the public domain, as such you should assume all such works are subject to copyright unless the agency issues a statement otherwise. —RP88 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no Texas law that makes government works public record or domain. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; I didn't remember that state laws were included in the article that you cite. While searching through the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source, I encountered one image that was a Texas government work, and that made me rather curious. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You might want to ask User:Karanacs for help, she does a lot in the Texas history area.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Query from help desk

User:Aristiderazu has an enormous amount of text with a note at the end "(translated by Andrei Radu Georgescu(Aristiderazu) from Constantin Kiritescu's work"Razboiul Pentru Intregirea Romaniei"(The War For Wholing Romania 1916-1919,published in 1921)". There is another copy of this text at WP:Help desk#General Aristide Razu and a third copy at User:89.114.127.23/General Aristide Razu. It was pointed out on the help desk (diff) that this might be a copyright violation.

Can this text stay? Do we need extra information from User:Aristiderazu to resolve the issue? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Under U.S. copyright law which we follow anything published pre-1923 regardless of origin is public domain, so it is allowable here assuming he did the translation(as there would be a new copyright on the translation) and I see no indication that he did not do the translation. There could be issues with the reuse elsewhere, but that's for others to deal with. More details are available at Wikipedia:Public domain if you really want to dig in. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is actually an interesting case. Normally works first published outside the U.S. before 1923 are public domain in the U.S. due to copyright expiration. However, this text may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if the work was only published in a foreign language outside of the United States and without a copyright notice, unless the author is known to have died in 1939 or earlier (more than 70 years ago). Fortunately, content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular copyright law) of Florida, which is not in the U.S. 9th circuit. To be completely aboveboard I suppose we'd like to know when and where Razboiul Pentru Intregirea Romaniei was first published, if it was published with a copyright notice, if it was subsequently ever published in the U.S. (and, if so, when), and if Constantin Kiritescu has died (and if so, when). Nonetheless, I believe using this text is OK, so long as its use is properly attributed so that reusers can verify that the text is in the public domain in their jurisdiction. To that end, a proper citation in the article is probably fine, but a mention of the issue and the relevant details on the talk page of any article that makes use of the content would be going the extra mile. —RP88 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that counts as really digging in to the details. Wow. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

lllustrating a biography

Hello, I would like to use (under fair use) one of these pictures to illustrate the article Toni Musulin. What do you think? Is it ok under fair use? Laurent (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The issue is that with living people it is possible to get a free image - someone takes a picture and makes it available to Wikipedia under an acceptable license. See WP:NFCC item 1. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it fails WP:NFCC#1, so an image can't be used under fair use since it's possible for a free picture to be taken.
That does bring up a tangential question though (for the other lurkers of this page), under what circumstances is it appropriate to use {{Non-free mugshot}} and presume that a free picture can not be taken for a living-but-incarcerated person? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In the UK it is not permitted to photograph a jailed prisoner, so it would not be possible to obtain a photo while they were in jail. However, as our life sentences are anything but, that would not lead to a presumption that a photo could never be taken, even for a lifer. There is no absolute guarantee that even The Yorkshire Ripper might not be released one day - although I hope to G-d that he isn't!--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In Musulin's case the article says he will probably be released in 18 months, so the presumption is even less "presumable". – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So if in largely all situations it's difficult but not unreasonable to expect that a free image can be made, even of prisoners, then shouldn't the use of the tag be restricted to deceased people or those who formerly had some particularly notable appearance per WP:NFC#UULP? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical Examples

Hi there!

I just have a quick question regarding the use of musical score examples.

If I were to create my own sibelius files depicting thematic material from a work, how do I properly indicate the source?

If the piece is over 100 years old, isn't the score public domain?

Thanks!

If the music was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
But Sibelius files can't be uploaded here. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Visit Creation and usage of media files for details of format, restrictions, etc. of uploading sound files. BEst wishes --Haruth (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why can't Sibelius files be uploaded into any Wikimedia project? --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sibelius' works might not be public domain in Finland, so it's not a good idea to upload them to Commons; however, anything that he composed and published before 1923 may be uploaded here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha. Referring to Sibelius, the music composition ("note processing") software, and not Sibelius, the Finnish composer, no doubt the questioner means using this to capture music onto a computer so as to display a suitable segment on screen and do a screen capture as a PNG file (Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format Software screenshots should be in PNG format). Providing the music is more than a century old and is out of copyright anywhere, surely one of the tags is appropriate; the question that remains is simply: precisely which? Public domain would indeed appear to be the answer to that. I would suggest that uploading "Sibelius files", meaning the native files of that software, would be inappropriate unless there is a piece of free software that allows one to view files in that format. If it is necessary to purchase a copy of the (fairly expensive) Sibelius software package in order to get access to Sibelius files, I would suggest that it is indeed inappropriate for Wikipedia to allow uploading of files in that format. Iph (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry; I thought that the OP was asking about Jean Sibelius, not a computer program. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of ""public domain" photos

A user, Moc trojan, uploaded a lot of "Public Domain" photos to Wikipedia, and I am positive the user didn't take them. All of the photos in question deals with the East Carolina University campus. None of these houses or places are found on campus or in the city of the university. I already found one of his "public domain" photos from the actual source by TinEye, but the other ones are coming up empty. The user created a couple of articles, that were deleted, and these photos were on there. What is the proper procedure to get them deleted? The photos in question are:

Thanks, PGPirate 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark the ones that are obvious copyvios (if you found the source) with {{db-filecopyvio}}, and perhaps take the rest to WP:PUI. -Andrew c [talk] 16:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't realize these files are hosted at the Commons. Perhaps talk to the user, then do a bulk deletion request at Commons (in lieu of PUI). -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This user just has this crazy delusion with all of this. I want it all correct and cleaned up on here. PGPirate 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The user uploaded the photos twice? Once on en.wiki and once on the Commons? Or the images are showing through on en.wiki from the Commons? You can tell by seeing if there is a message that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below. " on the en.wiki page. If this is the case, then the images can ONLY be deleted on the Commons, based on their rules. -Andrew c [talk] 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like they are all hosted now on the Commons site. It seems like one of the photos the Eames Building photo is of the Egyptian Building in Virginia. Is there a place on Commons that I can ask this question? I don't don't want to mess up anything. I used to have a program to do this for me, but not since wikipedia switched to a new layout, it doesn't work anymore. Thanks, PGPirate 19:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is the help desk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:HD>, also check out the links in the "Important discussion pages" sidebar on the right, next to the Table of Contents. "User problems" or the general admin noticeboard may also be good places to ask. -Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!, PGPirate 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

add a new word

I am the inventer of the FAR*LOG, how do i input this new word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.154.170 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to register an account, but please bear in mind these three policies before you decide to start an article. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll go so far as to say you don't. Doing a search for it found only a reference to your Facebook page for the product, with a whopping 56 fans. This product is not notable. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, such an article would be quickly deleted per WP:NEOLOGISM and, even more appropriate, WP:MADEUP. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain Maps

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says images that are the work of ODFW employees accomplished during their official duties belong to the Public Domain. See ODFW image policy. My question is: Does "images" include digital maps available to the public in official reports and pamphlets? ODFW photos used in agency reports and pamphlets are clearly in Public Domain, but would like opinion on ODFW maps used in same way.--Orygun (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends, just because a digital map appears in an ODFW report or pamphlet doesn't mean that the map is entirely the work an ODFW employee -- it could have been created by a third party for ODFW, or it might have been created using copyrighted digital mapping data. You'd need to contact ODFW to confirm the permission (follow steps at WP:PERMISSIONS). For that matter, all of the photos used in ODFW reports and pamphlets are not necessarily the work of an ODFW employee, the ODFW could have hired a photographer to take one or more of the photos and thus either the photographer or the ODFW could hold copyright to the photos in question (since the ODFW can acquire copyrights). Without an explicit notice in the reports and pamphlets about the origin and/or status of the photos, you'll need to contact OFDW to confirm that they are the work of an ODFW employee. —RP88 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Since most maps don't have attribution, I won't upload any ODFW maps. Here's another question. In releasing photos to Public Domain, ODFW says: "These images are the work of ODFW employees, taken during the course of the person's official duties and belong to the Public Domain." It appears to me that "These images" refer to photos in ODFW on-line photo gallery, where statement is made. When ODFW maintained its photo gallery within its our web-site, it was releatively easy to link photos with Public Domain release statement. Now, ODFW has put its photos on flickr. The ODFW gallery page says: "See our new flickr account for more public domain images" with hot-button link to the ODFW flickr page. However, all of the ODFW photos on that page have copyright logos--even photos that are by known ODFW photographers. I have sent e-mail to ODFW, but no one has answered. Can any of these ODFW photos be used in Wikipedia without special permission from ODFW?--Orygun (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's wierd. Some of them have a CC 2.0 Share Alike license, the others are copyright. Nope, don't understand. There are 3 email addresses here [4] I'd try emailing 'em all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "See our new flickr account for more public domain images" implies that all of the images in their flickr account are public domain. I understand it to mean that they have placed, or intend to place, one or more public domain images in their flickr account. As such, I don't think this declaration can be taken to mean that all of the images in their flickr account are public domain despite specific copyright declarations to the contrary on some of the images in their flickr account. If you want to resuse the images marked "all rights reserved" in ODFW's flickr account because you suspect that ODFW actually intends them to be in the public domain, I think you'll need to contact ODFW directly and follow steps at WP:PERMISSIONS. —RP88 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just received following e-mail from ODFW:

From: ODFW Web
To: ....
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: Copy Right Status of ODFW Photos
Yes, this has been brought to our attention. New to Flickr we’ll have to figure out how to fix that! They are public domain. You may use them as you like.
Thanks!

So, looks like all ODFW photos are Public Domain. Hopefully, ODFW folks will fugure out how to correct their flickr uploads to reflect correct status.--Orygun (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've uploaded File:Lothair article.jpg which, currently, has no license information. What I'd like to know is whether this image (a photograph showing a Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia logo displayed through a projector) would come under Commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia or under whatever license I'd like to release it? matt (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For content containing WikiMedia Foundation logos, use the {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} tag. Normally with non-free images you have to also include a fair use rationale, however the WikiMedia Foundation has stated that there is no issue to using the WM logos in any manner on WMF websites, so a rationale is not necessary. A separate issue is the browser UI elements visible in the image. If that is a non-free browser, you'll need to also use {{Non-free software screenshot}} and a fair use rationale. You can avoid both of these issue if you crop the image prior to uploading to exclude the WikiMedia Foundation logos and the browser UI elements. —RP88 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it turns out that there is a specific image copyright tag for screen shots of Wikipedia pages, namely {{Wikipedia-screenshot|logo=yes}}. Use that along with a {{Non-free software screenshot|<appropriate screenshot category>}} and a fair use rationale. See File:Internet_Explorer_8.png for an example. —RP88 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Would I be correct in thinking that the licenses given for File:Firefox 3.6 Screenshot.png would be fine for my image, as they cover both the software (interface) and the Wikipedia content (text and logo)? matt (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that one is not analogous to your image. In that image the author was careful to use an open source browser, on an open source OS, carefully scrolling the Wikipedia page down to hide the Wikipedia logo. —RP88 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've looked closely at your image and I think it consists of the Firefox browser, running on Mac OS X, showing a WIkipedia page with a visible WikiMedia Foundation logo. I've added image copyright tags to File:Lothair article.jpg based on that assumption. However, what I did is not complete. You still need to add a fair use rationale for whatever article page this image is going to be used on. Once you add the rationale, you can change the image has rationale parameter on the {{Non-free software screenshot}} tag to yes. —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, as an example I placed {{pd-self}} for the rights arising from your own artistic choices when taking the photo. Make sure you change this to the actual license you want to use for your own rights. —RP88 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, you can remove the Mac OS X section of the license tags and eliminate the need for a fair-use rationale if you carefully examine your image and make sure it does not contain any copyrightable UI elements from Mac OS X (see commons:Commons:Screenshots#Web_browsers for details). —RP88 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

British Army

Hi would British Army cap badges and other emblems fall under copyright ? The Special Air Service article is going through a [Article review] and it been mentioned that the image File:SASWings.png and the cap badge image File:SasclothBadge.jpg may not be released under GDFL. This would probably fall under PD-UK-Gov. They both date from 1941 when they were designed. Is their anyone able to clarify if they would fall under the PD-UK-Gov ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you, or one of the other editors familiar with the history of the Special Air Service, tell us who designed the logos visible in these images and when they were designed? —RP88 (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm betting this book could tell us. Jim, are any of the copies close to you or perhaps available through inter-library loan? Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
[http://www.worldcat.org/title/allied-special-forces-insignia-1939-1948/oclc/43540741&referer=brief_results This one might also be pretty useful. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes - they were designed in 1941 by members of the regiment the cap badge by a Bob Tait the parachute wings, by a Lieutenant Jock Lewes, which were based on the stylised sacred Ibis wings of Isis of Egyptian iconography depicted in the décor of Shepheard's Hotel in Cairo. Both cited in the article here Special Air Service#Uniform distinctions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume this done in the in the course of their official duties? If so, then all we need is evidence that the Crown published these logos before 1960 for the logo to be PD. Note that this is published, not merely displayed. If a pre-1960 published document contained these logos can be found, then these images can be tagged with the {{PD-BritishGov}} tag (along with a tag for photographer's license). Make sure the image description cites the sources for the identify of the logo creator, the date the logo was created, and the pre-1960 document in which they appear. —RP88 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hot.jpg

How is this image "released" into the public domain? Shouldn't there be proof of consent of the person photographed? This file isn't used anywhere, but I have no idea if I should speedily delete it or put it up for FfD or what... it's sort of a creepy thing to do. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proof of consent is not relevant for copyright. Besides, the image is upload on Commons. The image is not in use so it could be deleted or at least renamed. Garion96 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, (sort of) an edit conflict. You're right though, I should bring this up at the Commons, not here. Things are falling into place. And like I sort of mentioned below, but that you already answered above, a name change would be the best thing. Still, I gotta say, if I saw an image of me on Wikipedia, I'd be livid. Anyhoo, thanks for the response! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I managed to find Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and I guess the image is a-ok to use. However, the image has been named "hot" and I think that would serve to be potentially demeaning. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
When a photographer takes a picture they acquire copyright in the photo they took, and as such they are free to license that copyright as they wish (in this case the photographer is placing no copyright restrictions on use of his photo). In some jurisdictions, including some states in the US, identifiable subjects of a photo have personality rights which limit what can be done with a photo of the subject, irrespective of any copyright license. As regards to this image, we can't actually do anything about it here on Wikipedia, as it's actually hosted by Wikipedia's sister project Wikimedia Commons. I went over to Commons and stuck a caution about personality rights on the image. I've also requested the deletion of the image at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests since that image is outside the project scope of Wikimedia Commons (Commons requires images it hosts to be realistically useful for an educational purpose and be named in a manner that does not disparage the subject). —RP88 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay good, then at least there's some common sense involved. Otherwise, we'd have all sorts of images being uploaded that "happen" to fit copyright criteria. Thanks both of you for your replies. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Q re copyright status

OK, before I go and upload this picture to either Wikipedia or Commons, I'd like opinions on its status. The Armed Guard website claims copyright, but isn't the image PD-US as it's over 50 years old / or the work of the US Forces? Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As this image was not published prior to 1923, we're going to need some more details to figure out its copyright status. The armed-guard.com site has a contact page. I recommend you e-mail the person listed there and ask him if he can tell you where he obtained that photo and if he knows who the photographer was and when and where the photo was taken. Get as many details as you can (i.e. if the source was a book ask which one, if from an image archive ask for the ID, etc.). Post back here with his reply, and we'll try to determine if it is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images of US stamps issued after 1978

I was checking out the upload requirements for 1978+ postage images and found out that a "fair use" rationale form or template must be completed on the upload page. Am a bit in the dark here. Am not sure what to enter after the equal sign ie. 'low resolution =' and am not clear about 'replaceability =' Also, if I upload the 1978 Viking Mission postage stamp evidently it can only be used in a specific article, and am not sure whether or not the stamp can be discussed in a topographical capacity. Apparently I can talk about space stamps and use the Viking issue as an example, but can not discuss the Viking Satellite depicted on the stamp. GWillHickers (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Michael-Simms-(software-developer).png

I tagged File:Michael-Simms-(software-developer).png as it was an non-free image of a living person. The uploader has now changed the copyright to GFDL as he/she says notice on the bottom that says that all web content from LinuxEXPRES is under the GFDL. I have re-tagged the image with no evidence of permission but if anybody who can read czech can work out if the image is release as GFDL [5] which is a translation of http://www.linuxexpres.cz/o-webu/podminky-pouziti , thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask one of the volunteer translators at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Czech-to-English and see if they can confirm the accuracy of the translation? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand GFDL is probably not acceptable now per Wikipedia:Licensing update. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually GFDL is still acceptable for media, just not for text (gotta scroll all the way down to Wikipedia:Licensing update#Media files). Nothing like a good dose of copyright confusion. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks for that VW it is not the clearest document on wikipedia! MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can this image be covered under Fair use?

[6] has an image of an artist Mark Rothko who died in 1970. Is that an image that would be acceptable under Fair use in the info box for Mark Rothko with appropriate licensing info? Active Banana (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search, but I was unable to find any freely licensed photos of Mark Rothko. Since Mark Rothko committed suicide more than 40 years ago, I don't expect any newly free licensed images to turn up and, naturally, one can't be created. However, to use a non-free photo you have to correctly source it, including relevent details such as the photographer or copyright holder. A much better, uncropped, verson of that photo is available at rothko_portrait.jpg (2100 × 2401) from Stampfli & Turci art dealers. The page that hosts that image "Mark Rothko. The Retrospective – Kunsthalle Hamburgturn" describes the photo as:
Mark Rothko. Retrospektive – Kunsthalle Hamburg
Mark Rothko, um 1961
© 1998 Kate Rothko Prizel & Christopher Rothko / VG Bild Kunst, Bonn 2008
If you upload the image, make sure you include that information in the image description. Please don't upload the full image (or if you do, edit the image description page with {{non-free reduce}} to ask someone else to reduce the size for you.) —RP88 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the high-res image, is that one of Mark Rothko's painting in the background behind him? If so, can you identify it? If it is a work of art you want to include which one in the image description and make sure to include critical commentary on that work in the Mark Rothko article. Don't forget to include a fair-use rationale for this image on the image's description page. Tag the image with {{Non-free fair use in}} or, if that is a work of art behind him, {{Non-free_2D_art}}. —RP88 (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am looking for an image of Rothko himself to place in the info box of the article, rather than having one of his rectangle works represent him. I assume that the image in the background is one of Rothko's works, but as a black and white photo, I am not sure that we could identify which one if the hosting site doesnt. Active Banana (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is "No. 7, 1960", see [7]. Do you know someone or a library with a copy of Mark Rothko: the works on canvas : catalogue raisonné (OCLC 39257296? That is complete catalog of his works, with a detailed description of each. —RP88 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I kind of liked the idea of having the artist in front of his work, but since we already have a similar work with commentary for use in the article, would it be less hassle to use one of the other images of Rothko without his painting in the background? Active Banana (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a non-free photo of Mark Rothko that doesn't also picture one of his works, and you can properly source it, then yes, it will probably be easier to justify the use of that photo with a fair-use rationale than this one. Whether tracking down an alternate image and sourcing it properly is less of a hassle then making the necessary article changes to justify this one, that is something I don't know. —RP88 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The image discussed above is not permissible fair use under WP:NFC#UUI #6, as it comes from a press agency, Getty Images.[8] Ty 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent find, thanks for digging that up. —RP88 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm curious, what search criteria did you use to find that photo at Getty Images? When I searched Getty for "Mark Rothko" (a few hours ago when thread started) I didn't uncover that photo. —RP88 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I searched Google Images for "Mark Rothko" (with apostrophes). The Getty Images-watermarked image came up at the bottom of page 49. Ty 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you clicked through 49 pages of image search results? -Andrew c [talk] 19:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, 52[9]—just in case something else interesting turned up! Ty 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a fu image at File:Photo of Mark Rothko by James Scott in 1959.jpg. Ty 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How to add Obama nomination YouTube video to James R. Clapper article

Hi: I would like to add the 5 June nomination YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzwE7VR1rcc) to the nomination section on the James R. Clapper page, but require assistance. In particular, I would like it to be an actual embedded video clip similar to this video on the Deewater Horizon oil spill page. Any help is appreciated. - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to asking a question about copyright. However, since this is Whitehouse.gov video that has been uploaded to the the official Whitehouse YouTube account, and tagged as public domain by the Whitehouse, it would be better for this to be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia (the Deepwater video was uploaded to Commons at commons:File:Deepwater_Horizon_fire_seen_by_US_Coast_Guard_helicopter.ogv). Commons has a page of instructions on how to prepare and upload video at commons:Commons:Video. —RP88 (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tag for artists' renderings?

This file (Ardipithecus) needs a copyright tag or it will be deleted, but I can't find one appropriate to the subject matter. The image is a non-free artist's rendering of what a fossil likely looked like when it was alive. As far as I can tell, there's no "scientific image" copyright tag, so what should I use? cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific image copyright tag for non-free scientific images, the one you've chosen, {{Non-free fair use in}} is appropriate. However, I have several concerns regarding the fair use rationale for this image. First, it's a bit larger than it probably should be for an image showing the entire drawing -- I've tagged it with {{Non-free reduce}}. This puts the image into a special category monitored by editors who are handy with an image editor and experienced in making judgements about the size of fair use images. Hopefully one of these editors will take a look at it shortly and adjust the size, if necessary. Second, one of the criteria that non-free content must meet to be used on Wikipedia is WP:NFCC#1, i.e. "No free equivalent." I don't think your current explanation as to why this non-free image can not be replaced with a free image is adequate. Is it really true that no artist could create a freely licensed image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free image? If so, you should explain why not in the "Replaceable" section of the non-free media use rationale. It's not enough to say that a free image doesn't currently exist, you have to explain why one can't exist or reasonably be expected to exist. —RP88 (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia use only

Just out of interest this image File:Pat-Burrell.jpg has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License but the permission text says Permission is granted by the author Scott Ableman to use this photo on Wikipedia under a CC-2.5. we have a few images uploaded from the same source. Can you restrict use to wikipedia but have a cc attribution licence? (the original source at flikr has a by-nc-nd licence) thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and ...on Wikipedia... and Any other use requires permission from the author... are in conflict. The image has been tagged for deletion as having an incompatible license. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ukexpat, the licensing of this image looks to be in a confused state, the "on Wikipedia" restriction is inconsistent with the claimed CC-BY-2.5 license. Looking at the revision history of File:Pat-Burrell.jpg, it appears that earlier today Ww2censor tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F3, then Nyttend deleted the file, restored it, and removed the CSD tag. I'll list it at WP:PUF where it can obtain a more considered review. —RP88 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The PUF listing is here for those who wish to discuss this. —RP88 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the uploader should be notified of the specifics of the problem so they can decide whether they want it to be deleted or correct the permission to simply be CC-BY-2.5 ? Per the logs they're the same person so they could go through the formal OTRS process this time if they want to leave the file up. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The uploader has been notified but has not been active recently. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As part of doing the PUF listing, I did notify the user, but ran into an edit conflict with Ww2censor's notification. I let his version stand. —RP88 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I did because there is no good evidence that permission was ever received other than a say-so. The source licence is still different that on the file page and that needs to be clarified, otherwise we have to err on the side of caution and delete it. The PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 4#File:Pat-Burrell.jpg is the best way to go. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more images with the same problem and also make the same claim:

I have not checked all the users uploads, can the be added to the PUF or will they need some other action? MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We also have a dervied vesion at File:Pat-Burrell-crop.jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Understand the uploader is the flikr account so I have struck the ones where he has changed the license, the others still says wikipedia use only. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And "CC-2.5" isn't sufficient license anyway; there are several CC-2.5 licenses which we don't accept. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't we still need OTRS permission and not just an admin's word that they're the same person in order to accept even the struck-out images? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of photographic portrait taken in 1909

I wanted a photograph for George Henry Livens, his grandson is also a professor at Manchester and has sent me a scan of a photograph of Livens from 1909 which he owns and is happy for it to be used in any way that is helpful. The photographer is unknown, given the date and pose was probably professional and (long since dead). Can we assume the Livens family own the rights to the photo? If so what copyright tag can we use?. Billlion (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Has it been published (with notice, in those periods that required notice on publication)?
If it's unpublished, or was not first-published prior to 2003, its copyright expired at the latest in 2002.
If it was first-published between 1978 and 2002, it's under copyright through 2047.
If it was first-published prior to 1978, its copyright will have been 28 (or, if renewed, 95) years from publication. You can't determine the date of expiration without knowing the year of first publication. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
TJRC is right when he says we need to know if the photo has ever been previously published and the circumstance under which it was published to determine the copyright status of this photo. However I think he's wrong in some of his details, most particularly, the copyright term for this document if it's never been published and never registered with the copyright office. Unpublished and unregistered works when the death date of the author is not known have a copyright term of 120 years from date of creation. A work created in 1909 that meets these criteria will enter the public domain on January 1, 2030. The same term applies if was never published or registered and the author is anonymous. If you can track down the identify of the photographer, and this photo has never been been published and never registered, the copyright term is the life of the author plus 70 years, so if you can identify the photographer, and he died before 1940, this photo is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain Confirmation

Have received confirmation from state agency that their images are in Public Domain. Read direction on WP:PERMISSIONS page that outlines how to submit confirmation for review. It says to send confirmation to: "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Does that mean: "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" or "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" or something else.... In any case, I can't find live e-mail address. Have already spent lot of time getting confirmation, but now I'm lost. Really need some help!--Orygun (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org should be the one. You can contact me on commons if you need any further assistance regarding uploads to wikimedia commons (you are now on wikipedia). Deadstar (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Original source information needed for File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila.jpg

The information at commons for File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila edit.jpg refers to an original file which is not available anymore. Can someone check the (licensing and any other) information for the now deleted original file and perhaps even restore/upload it to Commons so both files are available for use in the future. Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The text in the info is the text from the original file. The license is the same as well. That said, it isn't clear why the image was deleted on en.wiki. An admin uploaded it and then deleted it, saying "delete own photo" or something like that. Furthermore, there is no image in the deleted page history. So either it was an error upload, or the image was oversighted, or something is up with the server/my access. It's all a bit odd. -Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The admin who uploaded and then a month later deleted the File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila.jpg image also switched the image on Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg to File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila edit.jpg just before deleting the old image, following the edit (whatever that may have been). It's likely he deleted it as obsolete, without thinking about preserving the licensing history. —RP88 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I have updated the image with a little more info. I'll paste this into the discussion page in case there's any future queries. (I also just found User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_9 which mentions that Fir002 did three possible edits of the disappeared file, so not sure what is going on.) Closing this anyway. Thanks again. Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian Government copyright - official picture of Rear Admiral Nigel Coates, recently deceased serving office of the Royal Australian Navy

Rear Admiral Nigel Coates of the Royal Australian Navy died on 2 June 2010; his funeral is on 9 June 2010.[1]

An official image of him as Commander Australian Fleet, taken on 17 October 2008, is being used extensively for matters related to the funeral. It also features covering the front page of the edition of the RAN's newspaper. (Defence copyright statement)

Can that image, or the image of the front page of the newspaper, or the mock-up of several images of him used on the RAN website and in the newspaper, now be used on his Wikipedia page? If so, which is preferable? What are the grounds, if not "fair use"?

  1. ^ Navy Mourns Tragic Loss of RADM Nigel Coates, Navy News, 7 June 2010, accessed 8 June 2010

- Peter Ellis - Talk 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think you can use that image. Unlike the works of the US government, this image is not in the public domain. Works of the Australian government are covered by Australian Commonwealth copyright. Commonwealth copyright expires 50 years from the date of creation (rounded up to the nearest year), as such, this image will be covered by copyright until January 1, 2059. You also can't use it as non-free content, as it fails WP:NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" due to the existence of this image on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Court photo status

Just checking in with the status of File:Margaret Court.jpg. Since sending the email correspondence to wikipedia as required I have heard nothing and I wanted to make sure that when June 11 came along no deletion would happen. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an OTRS pending notice on the image and that is not always a speedy process, so just be patient, it may take 7-10 days. You won't hear anything if all is well and the file will have an OTRS ticket attached. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lost in traffic

Kindly review my question posted above. Thanks, ליאור (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Aldo Moro's picture taken in captivity is in the public domain due to the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Under the same logic this video footage should be in the public domain, though the inline captions are probably copyrighted. Is it safe to assume captionless screenshots from this videoclip, like File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG, are in the public domain? ליאור (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all an expert in the field, but since it's hotly debated whose fault it really was, claiming it under PD for that reason could open a can of worms regarding the Israel Palestine dispute. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I don't think so for two main reasons. First, the image you are comparing to specifically refers to Italian law. The image you want to claim is PD does not appear to be under the jurisdiction of Italy. What jurisdiction applies, and what laws specifically are comparable? Furthermore, I don't see what crime is being perpetrated by the image (this isn't a kidnapping). How specifically do you believe Ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies (assuming the jurisdiction governing this image has a comparable law). Excuse me if my ignorance of the situation doesn't let me see the significance of this image, so you'll have to spell it out for me.-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (or the related U.S. doctine of unclean hands) can be used as a justification to claim File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG is in the public domain. The pubic domain status of the image commons:File:Aldo_Moro_br.jpg relies on an Italian law that denies criminals certain rights (in this case copyright) if they are generated while committing a crime. Technically, ex turpi causa non oritur actio and unclean hands are defenses one might raise as a defendant in a lawsuit, much like one might claim fair use as defense in a copyright infringement lawsuit. The ability to raise a defense is not a good analogy to the case with the photo of Aldo Moro. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the photo of Aldo Moro was actually an instrumentality in a crime, in that it was used to extort the Italian government, while this footage is largely incidental to any crime that may have occurred. Even if we could untangle which country's copyright law applied to this footage (security camera footage captured in international waters from a Comoros-flagged ship owned by a Turkish NGO while confronting a maritime blockade of Gaza, argh!), and that country had a legal principle similar to the case in Italian law, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to be able to argue that the footage was taken by the ship's owners while they were committing a crime. I don't think we'd want to open that can of worms, even if we conceivably could. —RP88 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about videos of captured soldiers?

Thank you for your thoughtful clarifications regarding the legal mess concerning File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG. Wikimedia Israel is currently trying to ammend the Israeli Copyright law, releasing works of the Israeli Government to the public domain. If successful, this ammendment will enable us to upload plenty of valuable media, including that covering the flotilla incident.

I now have another question regarding photos and videoclips of two captured Israeli soldiers, taken by militant organizations as a measure of extortion:

  1. Ron Arad - The second video from the left here was taken by Amal militants in Lebanon while holding him hostage.
  2. Gilad Shalit - This video was taken by Hamas militants in the Gaza strip while holding him hostage.

What Copyright law is applicable for each of these videos? Could the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio be used to claim any of these videos is in the public domain? Thanks again, ליאור (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know that that legal doctrine or a similar one applies to any of the countries/parties involved? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As to whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio can be used to claim that either of these videos is in the public domain, the answer is no. Even if it applies to these works, the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a defense that one might raise as a defendant, it doesn't deny copyright to the work's creator. However, It might be reasonable to refer to this doctrine if you use the image in accordance with WP:NFCC. For example, in your non-free use rationale you might allude to ex turpi causa non oritur actio as the reason that our use does not compete with the copyright holder's ability to use the work commercially (i.e. to enforce the copyright the copyright holder would first have to be willing to admit to conspiracy in a crime, and even if he did so, in jurisdictions where this doctrine applies a court would presumably be less likely to grant damages to the copyright holder for unauthorized use of his work).
As to what copyright law is applicable to each of those videos, my opinion is that Lebanonese copyright law applies to the Ron Arad video, assuming the photographer is a permanent resident of Lebanon. As to the Gilad Shalit video, I think that is a more complicated case. Whose copyright law applies to the residents of the Gaza strip ultimately comes down to the legal status of Gaza, and since this status is still in dispute, I think its probably best to assume the Gilad Shalit is non-free content an use it in accordance with WP:NFCC. —RP88 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Image of the "TROJAN HORSE OF TROY"

I surely hope that you can help me. I need to upload the image of the Trojan Horse of Troy to my FACEBOOK page to discuss this article with my internet friends. Can you help me do this? Many thanks

Lewis W. Tilley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.166.26 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions, if you need assistance using Wikipedia you should ask your question at Wikipedia:Help_desk. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for some recommendations and guidelines on using Wikipedia content in your own work. —RP88 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Licensing

This seems to me to be the relevant information. What else is needed here? Pinot (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears you are referring to a two year old notice. The licencing seems fine and was added by another user the same day you uploaded it. However a full information template should be filled in with better details. ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
From the edit history of Image:Talune.jpg, it appears Polly edited the image description after the bot notified you of the problems with the file. I've added an {{Information}} template to the image description, please fill out the fields with any information you have as there is lots of missing information. I'm happy to help out, but we'll definitely need more information from you. First, where did you obtain this image? Second, do you know the date it was created and/or the identify of the photographer? There currently isn't a description of the photo, can you provide us with a description (I notice that on SS Talune the image is used with the caption "SS Talune in Port Chalmers graving dock, c. 1890s"). —RP88 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The original information template was broken and just needed to be fixed. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've also fixed the text in the permissions field, as the old text was not correct. —RP88 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Author Photo

Dear experts,

I have a question about uploading a photo for an article about an author. I contacted the author, who told me that I could use the standard author photo that he provides to all websites or media that request it, as long as I credit the author and provide a web link back to the source from which it was obtained. Do I need the author to write to an authority at Wikipedia confirming his permission? Also, which tags do I use in the "summary" and which option do I select in the "licensing" menu when I am uploading the photo?

Thanks so much for your help!

Martinjonson (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You need them to follow the procedure at WP:PERMISSION so long as they release the image under a free licence. You may also want to read donating copyrighted materials. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico NRHP photos

I am refered to here, for assistance/logging to deal with copyright issues for a number of photos uploaded recently and previously in Puerto Rico NRHP list-articles and separate articles, indexed via List of RHPs in PR. These include the following nine (and more):

I posted this first here, and was advised "If you know the sources and they clearly state all rights reserved (or are not on a government site), then they should be tagged for WP:CSD#F9, if you don't know the source, then they should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)", and the mention there at Copyright Problems was deleted this edit removing it. The photos are in fact presented in NPS Focus system as "All rights reserved". However, in discussion at User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos, Quazgaa states he/she is now going to seek more info and/or release from the Puerto Rico SHPO office for these photos. I don't think that will be successful for all of them, but it could possibly yield public release of some of them. I could do exactly as VernoWhitney suggested, and tag each of these 9 files individually, but in fact it's a bigger problem, there are more files uploaded than listed so far.

Can experts here possibly monitor, and chime in on, ongoing discussion at User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos? I was wondering maybe this should be revisited in 10 days, but i see there is already some further comment there, a reported consultation with someone believed to be an authority. I replied that i think they don't have the correct info. Thanks in advance for your help. --doncram (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can you tell me how can I add this...

Hi, I uploaded a photo which was taken by me and therefore I own the copyright. Please can you tell me how can I add this as a detail to a photo I uploaded that has been flagged for copyright? Thankyou! David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudey cool240 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Elderbordercollie.JPG

Please can you tell me how I can copyright reference as my own the above file? It has been listed as copyright unknown, however I took this photo and I own the copyright.

Please can you tell me how to proceed, Thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudey cool240 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just like the notice on your talk page tells you, you need to add a copyright tag to the image indicating under what licence it is released. Because you state that it is your own work, you may want to add the {{PD-self}} template to the file as well as filling out the missing details in the information template I added to the file. ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What more is needed?

I received this message about an image I uploaded - "Thank you for uploading Image:Talune.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status....etc etc etc"

The page concerned states :

== Summary ==

This image was made in New Zealand more than fifty years ago - the copyright has expired and the image is now in the public domain. Pinot (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Two silly questions

I searched the archives and only found this thread that is relevant, but I was wondering if anyone could more thoroughly answer two (admittedly asinine) questions:

  1. I take a picture on someone else's camera. I own the copyright of that image, but s/he has the file. Am I right in thinking that, technically, that individual cannot copy the image to his/her computer without my permission?
  2. A friend takes a picture of me, for me. Does this count as works for hire or does s/he own it until s/he says "No, it's yours?"

The latter would seem to imply massive copyright violations on Facebook that, of course, don't matter one iota. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're pretty much correct as far as I know, because digital cameras store their images on internal memory which counts as the publishing required to acquire copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Benelli photos

I want to use some of the images found here. Their usage page is here. It says "Please note that Benelli USA Corporation owns all copyrights to the images, but grants you the right to use the images for editorial or advertising purposes." Would this website count as "editorial"? If not, what would be an appropriate way to ask permission to use the images? I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to let us use them, but the our people are generally pretty anal about copyright and whatnot. Would an email to the representative be appropriate? How would I go about posting that here? I'm bad at the whole "fair use discussion" game and its formatting. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This question raises a number of issues. The first thing we need to know is which ones you want to use and for what purpose? "Editorial or advertising purposes" are not acceptable uses under wikipedia policy but generally when a logo is used in the infobox of a company's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. However some of these logos are composed of simple text and graphics that the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag may apply though such images may also still require a {{trademark}} template per this image. ww2censor (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't we just email them for permission? What would be a good way to word it? Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but they are unlikely to give you permission, however, if you want, you can follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So basically they have to release their work under a new license in order for us to use it at all? There's no "we give wikipedia permission to use it" form? Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Further thought: that seems a bit silly. Would adding a line like "Usage Rights - Non-profit Encyclopedias: The images below constitute Benelli photos. Please note that Benelli USA Corporation owns all copyrights to the images, but grants you the right to use the images for encyclopedic purposes" to their terms of usage be good enough? I'm just hoping there's a way for us to get the images on here (which I'm pretty sure they'd be fine with; a flattering or high-res photo rather than some washed-out shot is a great way for them to make the guns look better), but still retaining copyrights (which I'm pretty sure is even higher up on their priorities list). Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You're correct that there's no applicable Wikipedia-only licence. And your suggested disclaimer won't work either. Basically, as noted above for the logos, you might be able to make a fair use claim (per WP:NFC), or a public domain claim (due to lack of originality in the composition of the logos). But for the product images, etc. (and the logos if other options fail), you'll need them to release the images under a free licence, because it's unlikely that all of the non-free content criteria apply to them. TheFeds 02:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So the only way to get their photos onto here is to ask them to release them under that license? Is there another, more restrictive license that we could use? I want to ask for as little as possible by way of concessions. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any of the licences here could work, but the sample procedure at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is convenient, because the text of Wikipedia is already covered by those licences (so it simplifies re-use). None of those licences are particularly restrictive—because to qualify as "free" in this sense, they all need to allow derivative works and commercial use. If you don't think they'll accept a free licence, then there isn't really that much we can do about it. There exist some less-free licences, but they aren't suitable for use on this site (for reasons of Wikipedia policy, not law).

On the other hand, given that these are promotional images, they might be interested in letting the images be used without restriction to expand the scope of their marketing efforts—in which case a CC0 waiver is the way to go. You could always suggest that, and send them the declaration of consent, with CC0 instead of a free licence, and see what they think. TheFeds 07:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

What copyright license applies to the pictures in [12]? Especially the monk in white, and guy with moustache [13]? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, they will be in the public domain due to age (per U.S. law). But to be sure—because unfortunately, there are a number of possible complications—we could use a little more information. Who took the photographs, what was their citizenship, when did they die (if applicable), and who last owned the copyright? Where and when were the photos taken, and where and when were they first published? If published in the U.S., was there a copyright notice, and was the copyright ever renewed? If some of that information is unavailable, we can see what we can do with what's known.
For example, what if the photo was taken in 1913 by an American who died in 1975, and was never published until 1980, and that publication took place in the U.S. with a copyright notice? Then the American copyright could still be in force...until 2045. On the other hand, there are plenty of scenarios that would make the photographs public domain. (And that's to say nothing of the independent Albanian copyright that may exist if the photographer was an Albanian citizen or permanent resident.) We'll need a bit more information to figure this out—and unfortunately, we need some sort of reliable assurance of the first publication (not just any publication) to make a determination for a large number of cases.
Could you contact the curator of the exhibit for clarification? TheFeds 06:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to Bektashi holy man, 1913 (A. Kahn Museum, Paris), this photograph is from the collection of Albert Kahn. As a wealthy banker, he sent photographers all over the world to take photos for his collection. His collection is currently held by Musée Albert-Kahn. Works published in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain, however all we know about this photo is that it was created in 1913, not that it was published before 1923. The vast majority of Albert Kahn's collection remains unpublished and those that have been published have generally been published fairly recently. As such we're going to need the identity and date of death of the copyright holder to determine the copyright status of this photo. If we assume that this photo was a work for hire (and that is not entirely certain) and that this photo was first published after January 1, 1978, then its copyright will expire on January 1, 2011, 70 years after Albert Kahn's death in 1940 (copyright runs through the end of the calendar year in which it would otherwise expire). —RP88 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorporating album covers into artist's page

Hi. I want to incorporate non-free album covers into the discograpy section of this artist's page. Is it possible? Thank you. Bekiroflaz (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not; we don't allow non-free images to be used in discographies (see WP:NFC) as they violate our non-free content criteria. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Bekiroflaz (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Masem is correct. Thank you for asking!!! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture Question

I was told by one 'PhantomSteve' that I might need to talk to you guys about a little situation involving a sports team that doesn't exist anymore (and yet still remains due to some strange history involved). Anyways, here's the quote of mine that was originally found on this page here.

"Since I'm a little bit new here (I have been editing here from time to time), I have a little bit of a question before I request putting it on here. You see, I found a picture of the original Denver Nuggets' logo, but I found on a website that specializes in preserving sports logos (the website in question is right here). So the question is, what type of copyright is it (if any) before I request uploading it on to this server?"

Basically, since I was told that I apparently need to talk to the original team (you know, the one that doesn't exist anymore, yet still remains due to said strange history) in order to get this picture on here, I have no idea how to do that since almost everyone that's played on that team has died, and I doubt good ol' David Stern would agree to this, even if I somehow contacted him. So what should I do? - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the Benelli post a little further up this page, generally when a logo is used in the infobox of an organization's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria and a fair-use rationale is fully completed preferably using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So in other words, the answer's no on the upload, huh? - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No, as stated above, you can probably use it in the infobox of an organization's own article if a fully completed {{Non-free use rationale}} is added and the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
And keep in mind that just because a team ceases to exist, someone still owns their intellectual property.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lofty Large photo - is this usable?

I'd very much like to add a picture to the Lofty Large article I've created; however, I'm unsure of copyright/fair use issues. The pic I'd like to use can be seen [here]. This is a copy of a picture which can be found in Lofty Large's Memoirs (One Man's SAS, Kimber, 1987), which I have a copy of. I presume that the picture belonged to Large, possibly taken by one of his colleagues. It dates to Aden, 1966. Given that Large is dead (no opportunity for a free use pic to be obtained), that I've been unable to find a free pic anywhere, that he is the subject of the article, that there aren't any commercial use conflicts that I can see, that the pic is of an encyclopedic nature, i.e. not defamatory or at all inapproprriate, would it be acceptable to upload this as fair use? I'm afraid whenever I try to get my head round the various image/fair use policies I end up having nose bleeds and panic attacks.

Any help would be appreciated. Arthur Holland (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • :) First, yes, it would be acceptable fair use. Creating a free license image of him is out of the question, as he is dead as you note. There might be a possibility of obtaining release under a free license, but we draw the line at dead/alive. So, yes, you can upload the image. The question then becomes how to tag. I would use {{Non-free fair use in|Lofty Large}}, and then follow WP:FURG to supply a rationale. If you need help after uploading, let us know. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks - that's hugely appreciated. I've done as you suggested, but if I've messed up in any way, please let me know. Arthur Holland (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Screen Capture of a video

I have done some research and have started drafting a new Wikipedia article. I found a video clip at the following location - http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.32456

I would like to take a screen shot of the video and use the picture on my new Wikipedia article. TnCom (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. Is this OK with regards to copyright issues?
  2. If it is OK, what copyright license would it be?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TnCom (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a work of the U.S. government, this video is in the public domain, and as such screen shots from it may be tagged with the {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} image copyright tag. If you look at the video's description at archive.org you can see the phrase "ARC Identifier 32456". This is referring to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's Archival Research Catalog. If you look up identifier 32456 in ARC you can see the official records for this Army video, including the fact that it is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of uploaded image

I have uploaded Fc Scientific.jpg to use it in the Software calculator article, and on first try I omitted the copyright status. I have uploaded a new copy using the Upload new version of the file and added copyright/licensing information, but it did not replace the original version, so it is still showing as NoCopyrightInformation.

How can I delete the first copy? I want to give the uploaded file the same information as FC Arithmetic.jpg. If the simplest thing is for an administrator to delete it, then please do so and I will upload it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcalculators (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that all though there is a license to freely use the screendump in online or printed form, it is not the same as the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and some rights are not granted, say for example to use it in a film, or to make a derivative of it. So it may better for formulacalculator to release the screen dump under public domain or a cc-0 license. Otherwise we have to use it under fair use, and it may in fact be replaceable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You now have a week to supply a reason for fair use, or change the original license grant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of a diagram in a book published after the original copyright had expired

I have a book written in 2000 about William Stanley (inventor) - clearly the book is copyrighted from 2000.

However, in the book are photographs, diagrams, catalogue pages, etc which are from the 1880s, 1890s and 1900s - if I had the original source in front of me, the copyright would have expired (i.e they were published 90-130 years ago. The most recent one is from 1909!

Is the copyright in the pictures etc based on the original publication dates (in which case they could be used as Public Domain), or 2000 when the book which incorporated them was written?

Any advice would be most welcome! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Once they're in the public domain they can't be removed from it, so they're fine to use. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I've got some scanning to get on with next week! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the right license?

What is the right license to use when i uploaded a photo that I toked? Plase notify me on my talk page Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Masako Katsura

Hello all. I am in the midst of a second FAC on the above article, where questions have arisen regarding fair use of two images. The same two users have opposed both nominations, one with no rationale and another who I disagree with, with no one else commenting on the issue. I was hoping I could get some image regulars here to comment there, whether you think I am correct or not. The first image is File:Katsura-Matsuyama exhibition ad.png which the user thinks can be replaced by me redrawing it, so there is a free equivalent. I will gladly attempt to do so if it makes sense, but I don't think there is a copyrighted "image" at issue; the file is textual, that is what is copyrighted and copyrightable, so free equivalency doesn't enter into the matter. The second issue regards the FU image in the infobox verses another image I uploaded, and whether free equivalency is violated by the first because of the existence of the second. I don't believe they are equivalent, that they don't convey the same information. Please see the first FAC and the second (active) FAC, where I hope to get additional comments on these image issues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The advertisment seems like a clearcut case of an ad published in the US pre-1978 without a copyright notice so it could use the copyright tag {{PD-Pre1978}}, though as you say it is plain text so you could also possibly claim use under {{PD-text}}. I'll comment later in the other images. ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to File:Katsura-Matsuyama exhibition ad.png, this image is PD, not non-free. I've updated the image description to correct this. With regards to File:Masako_Katsura—1954_Buenos_Aires.png, I believe the fair-use rationale and the commentary in Masako Katsura is probably sufficient to prevent the deletion of this image, but it's been my observation that featured articles are generally held to a higher standard. Featured articles are expected to exemplify Wikipedia's goal to be a free content encyclopedia, as such FA reviewers get pretty touchy about Featured Article candidates that lead off with a non-free image. Maybe they'll be amenable to a compromise -- try using the PD image File:Katsura,_Matsuyama_and_Greenleaf.Jpg in the infobox and File:Masako_Katsura—1954_Buenos_Aires.png in the section discussing the 1954 World Three-Cushion tournament. I'll place a comment at the current FAC for Masako Katsura. —RP88 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to File:Katsura,_Matsuyama_and_Greenleaf.Jpg, this photo may, or may not, be PD. I've been trying for quite awhile now to find any source that indicates when this photo was first published. I haven't been able find find any indication that it was published before 1956, so it may not be PD-Japan. Now that I write this note, I notice that someone at Commons has also noticed this problem and nominated this photo for deletion at Commons (as Commons only accepts media that can be shown to be freely licensed or public domain). —RP88 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Would the logo in the upper-left here qualify for fair-use if I state that it is trademarked and\or copyrighted and use a low resoultion? Please talkback me (via the link in my sig) if anyone responds as it seems from earlier entries that it may take a while. Thanks for your time! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally when a logo is used in the infobox of a company's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. However the logo is composed of simple text and graphics so that the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag may apply though such an image will likely still require a {{trademark}} template per this image. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's good - it really needs the pic. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What copyright info for press picture from website?

Hello,

I am not sure which copyright info to go with a picture from someone's press section on website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.144.158 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What image are you taking about? Please provide a URL to the page the image is on. Generally modern press or promotional images found on websites are copyright and will not be acceptable on Wikipedia. We need more information before we can advise you further. ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking acrobat files

Hi, I am sure I am missing something obvious here, but when an acrobat file is linked, such as [14], we get a acrobat symbol, this is licensed elsewhere as non-free. Can some kind person explain what I am missing? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's some speculation at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif that it is likely PD-ineligible (and this is the actual file being used for the pdf links, per the Template:PDFlink documentation), so I imagine just like File:Volkswagen logo.svg, it is treated as non-free on Wikipedia until/unless there's support on commons for a presumption of PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use Of Television video clips

Greetings,

I am writing an e-book and would like to show video clips of television news reports within the pages of the book. Can I do that legally?

Thank you,

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.17.243 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here is in a position to provide you with legal advice on how to comply with copyright issues related to your commercial venture. However, Wikipedia does maintain a page, WP:REUSE, which offers general advice for those who wish to reuse Wikipedia content in their own work. You might also consider talking a look at Wikipedia's sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. Commons is explicitly a collection of reusable media. Commons maintains a page of instructions intended for those who wish to reuse media from the Commons. —RP88 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Images Uploaded without My Permission!!!

Hi! To my horror, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. I can provide proof of ownership by showing larger, uncropped, watermarked copies, but I need these images removed, as I never agreed to release them into the public domain!

Please contact me at <redacted> for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.95.193 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note this IP is claiming to be indef blocked user User:NeoThe1. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are in NeoThe1, then I'll note that at least some of those images were uploaded and licensed as they are by you, so as far as I'm aware they are out of your control now. I haven't looked at all of them, but that's my initial comment. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have completed my review and all of them were definitively uploaded and licensed for any use by NeoThe1, except possibly commons:File:Chuck Palahniuk Roses and Shit Tour 2006.jpg which I believe would require a Wikipedia admin to confirm. As I previously said, I believe the attribution license is non-revocable, but if you are not NeoThe1 and they did not have the right to release the images or if you otherwise believe there is a copyright issue which requires that the images be removed, you should send an email following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin and an OTRS agent, and can help clear this matter up with you. I'm a little concerned because above you say, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. but then you also say I am the original creator of the image (user NeoThe1). I own the copyright. I do not permit it to be used So what is the case? Were the images uploaded without your permission, or are you the original creatore User:NeoThe1? And have you just changed your mind a couple years after you uploaded them as User:NeoThe1? We need to get to the bottom of your conflicting statements. Then we can proceed confirming your identity as original copyright holder via e-mail. Thanks! -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI — on his now-deleted userpage, NeoThe1 stated that his name was "Michael G. Khmelnitsky"; consequently, please don't delete these under F4 simply because they're credited to Michael G. K. as a source. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. a) The images *were* created by me. I can prove it. b) The images were *not* uploaded by me, but by my girlfriend, who also used my account to edit Wikipedia years ago, before we separated. The images were cropped and resized incorrectly, and attributed incorrectly. For one thing, I *never* wanted my website to be referenced. c) I *do* own the copyright to the images, and I never signed it away. Please work with me to resolve this.204.50.113.43 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so now I'm curious for some input from other copyright gurus and/or OTRS people. Two questions.
  1. CC licenses are explicitly non-revocable. My gut feeling is that PD or other general licensing is non-revocable for the same general reasons (see also a court ruling from last year). Are there any other takes on licensing revocation?
  2. Even if he verifies that he's the owner of the account, there's no way to verify who used the account to upload the files. When it comes to vandalism/blocking it doesn't matter and the account is penalized regardless, but when it comes to copyrights it's possible that a different person used the account who actually didn't have the right to license these as they are (as appears to be the case here), but without proof how is this handled given that there are legal aspects involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the exgirlfriend available to send in an affidavit that says that she "released" items that she did not have permission to do? (note she may want to talk to a lawyer herself before she signs such an affadavit!) Active Banana (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, at wikipedia, we may not offer legal help. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The law in this case is very simple, and nothing really to do with copyright. You cannot give better title to something than the title you hold. If I don't own something, I cannot pass on the title to it. This applies if I try to sell you a stolen watch, or if I try to grant a license to a copyright I do not hold. In this case, Wikipedia's policies about accounts is of no relevance. The issue is if the person doing the uploading had title to the goods. If the original poster were able to prove via OTRS that he held the copyright, the safe course of action would be to take the images down, as use of a Wikipedia account would probably not be sufficient evidence of who it was who had done the uploading. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential problems

In a peer review, it was brought up that two of the photos could have copyright problems. Both have somewhat strange situations. Would a scale model in a museum be considered a work of art? I know that there was a previous discussion about a model in the UK and an exception was found for models of buildings in public places, but what about in the US? Also, what would the copyright of a photo that was taken in 1866 and whose author is unknown, but probably was not published (as it was kept in a museum archive) until 1972 in a book? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

UK copyright law specifically includes 3d models in its Freedom of Panorama equivalent. The US does not, regardless of where the model is. If the image was first published in the US in 1972, then that is when copyright would start to run, provided it was published with a copyright notice. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Defunct high school music group -- non-free?

I found a picture of a high school music group posing along with the six awards they had won in Washington, D.C. on an online website. I refrained from uploading it seeing that pictures of living people are not qualified as non-free; however, the picture is the only one available (so I can't find one without a possible copyright restriction), one quarter of the team has graduated (so I can't personally reproduce a picture and release it into the public domain), and the awards are stashed away in the school, inaccessible to anyone (thus taking away the use of the photo).

What do you guys suggest me to do? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to link the image: File:Odyssee-harmony-jazz.jpg EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you trying to illustrate? And is it possible to get the photographer to let us use it? It sounds like it will be difficult to come up with an acceptable fair use, the fact that you can't get the musicians and the trophies back together is not a good enough reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So how do I create a copyright? I just uploaded my first photo and got a deletion notice.

The page: Craig_Peyer

I uploaded the photo and (in the comment section for the image) put the URL for the online 'zine where I got the photo.

As usual with Wikipedia, I clicked around & around wasting precious time reading & reading along the way, but I never found anything about how to create the copyright. If you answer this question please contact me somehow (on my "talk page"?) so that I don't embark on another wild-goose-click looking for your reply.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

© Copyright 2009 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC right there where you got it; file deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

~Adding Photos~

I have been working on creating an article on the wikipedia page nl:johannes Evert Hendrik Akkeringa. He is an artist and I wanted to include a few images of his work. I have received permission from the author of a book to use the images she used in the book on the wikipedia page. I tried to upload them but they were deleted. The images would be credited to both the original artist and the book where the images came from. I want to figure out which liscense I need to use to upload them again. I looked at other artists on wikipedia, and their art is displayed.

Please let me know how to solve this. I am an autoconfirmed user and my article on Johannes_Evert_Hendrik_Akkeringa, has been in existance for 4 days.

Thank you, SdeClercq1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SdeClercq1 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is for questions about media on the English language wikipedia, so you would be best to ask your questions on the Netherlands wiki. Perhaps starting here nl:Wikipedia:Auteursrechten because different languages have different rules. If the copyright holder is prepared to release the images under a free licence then you could upload them to the commons so everyone can use them, however, copyright of an artist's work is frequently still owned by them and not often freely given. ww2censor (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg

This file is under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, and I am informed that it needs a rationale. Can you help me what rationale should I provide so that the image can be retained? PS I intend to put the image in the infobox of Draža Mihailović article. BoDu (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a freely licenced image in the infobox of this article, so your image would fail the non-free content criteria because it is replaceable, so a fair-use rationale you might write would not be acceptable. While the current image may not be as good quality as the one you are interested in using I think you will have to live with it, so unless you can prove the new image is free you cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quickly answer. BoDu (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Free-for-noncommercial template?

I've uploaded File:Lockington Covered Bridge.jpg with what I believe to be a valid fair use rationale. Some time ago, I contacted the organisation whose website hosts the image, asking if it were PD or otherwise available for commercial usage; in response, I was told that it was still under their copyright, but that they permitted noncommercial usage. Obviously a noncommercial permission isn't enough (unless it can be used fairly, such as here), but do we have a template saying that noncommercial is permitted by the copyright holder? I'd find such a template useful, since (at least in my mind) it bolsters the image's chances of passing WP:NFCC #2 — there's no chance of the image harming commercial opportunities if the copyright holder is happy to have us use it. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, media with a license that limits use to non-commercial use can be tagged with {{Non-free with NC}} in addition to the required non-free license tag and a fair use rationale. I've added it to the image for you. —RP88 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Legrand, with longish cites from an 1854 book1855 newspaper. OK?

I just reviewed Paul Legrand, per a request at Requests for feedback. I note a couple of longish quotes. The source is an 1854 book1855 newspaper, so I'm thinking PD, but it's not a US book, so I'm out of my depth. I also note the quotes are comfortable shorter than 300 words, but I also know that 300 words isn't really a safe harbor, so I'm looking for confirmation that everything is OK.--SPhilbrickT 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • What 1854 book are you talking about? The longish quotes are taken from 19th-century French newspapers--La Presse and Le Moniteur Universel--and their translations are taken from a 1985 book (which I wrote) called Pierrots on the Stage. I don't think their use violates copyright, but I'm not an expert. Beebuk 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs)
  • You can ignore this note. I just think I figured out why my signature doesn't appear correctly on my posts, and am testing the correction here. Beebuk 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, so the 19th century newspapers are PD (at least under US law which is fine for Wikipedia, so I'm not going to bother checking other countries) and quoting directly from a PD source is allowed, it just needs to be attributed (which these are). Now this case is actually not that simple because it's a translation. The translation (unless performed by a machine) is a creative act and so the translator acquires a new copyright. I'm personally of the opinion that the quotes are too extensive to qualify under WP:NFC, but I haven't read the whole article yet to see how much context there is, just skimmed it, so I may be mistaken. If they are too extensive then they either need to be released under a free license, or trimmed.
    If the author of the book copied the text here or otherwise agrees to donate it then two things need to be verified through OTRS: 1) their identity and a statement of releasing the text and 2) that the author still holds the copyright to the text and not the publisher (look into the history of this CCI if you want to know what problems not verifying the 2nd point can lead to). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    I support Verno's interpretation here; Beebuk, only you are in position to know your agreement with your publisher. As it says at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us." If you think that might be the case, you'd be better off sticking comfortably within the "brief excerpts" allowance or retranslating the original content. If you have not assigned the rights to your publisher, you can provide permission for the translation to be licensed accordingly. (Sorry, but we do have to use external processes for this, since we don't have any means of verifying identity within Wikipedia; see WP:DCM, again.) Alternatively, it's best to either write a fresh translation or summarize and abbreviate the quotes. We not only try to conform to US fair use, but attempt to keep our material widely reusable even in countries that have less restrictive allowances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have written to Princeton UP and asked about fair use. As a long-time academic writer, I feel pretty sure that the quotes are within permissible range, but I'll soon know for sure. Beebuk 10:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about copyright status of image.

I want to use an image that is apparently in the public domain (it is a photograph taken by Nadar, a French 19th-century photographer who died in 1910; the photo is from the 1850s), but my source (on the internet) claims that it cannot be reproduced on the web since the source owns the copyright. The URL is: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.linternaute.com/musee/image_musee/540/56427_1291930240.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.linternaute.com/musee/diaporama/1/7183/musee-d-orsay/5/35508/paul-legrand--doublure-de-debureau/&usg=__x. I see that several Flicker sites feature the image.

Is it PD or not? And can I copy from the source? Beebuk 10:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean http://www.linternaute.com/musee/image_musee/540/56427_1291930240.jpg? Your Google image search isn't working for me. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is from a page at L'Internaute Magazine. It's is a photograph of Paul Legrand taken by the French photographer Gaspard-Félix Tournachon. The page says it was taken c. 1855-1859 and currently resides in the collection of Musée d’Orsay. Gaspard-Félix Tournachon died in 1910, so this image can be tagged with {{PD-art-life-70}}. —RP88 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The only possible reason that you shouldn't upload it is if you're in a country where mere scanning (or whatever this is) can attract copyright; if you are, leave a note on my talk and I'll take care of it, since I'm in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This photo has a page in Musée d’Orsay's online catalog with more details about the photo (click image on page to zoom). —RP88 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for everyone's help. Beebuk 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Scatter plot copyright

This question was asked at WT:NFC, but this page appears to get more traffic so I'm posting it here: There is an image located in http://www-cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/voting-icwsm10.pdf but the data from which the image was produced is not provided. Is the plot creative enough to be copyrighted? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dlibert6.jpg

Hello:

I've been trying to upload the above mentioned picture and link it to [[15]] but it always seems to be deleted for a variety of reasons. I own this picture, am relinquishing all rights to it and, as far as I know, have followed the instructions to have it displayed on the 'David Libert" page. Can someone please help me with this? Thanks.

Regards,

David Libert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divilibil (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

David, I'd be happy to help you. I am going to assume you are attempting to add a photo of yourself to the David Libert article. The issue we need to resolve is who took this photograph of you? Were they a professional photographer? If so, we're likely going to need the permission of the photographer. Copyright to a photo is usually held by the photographer and not by the subject of the photo. This is true even if the subject paid the photographer to take the photo (although exceptions exist if the photographer is an actual employee of the subject and they took the photo in the course of their employment or if photographe signed a written transfer of copyright). Let me know if you have any questions. —RP88 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking permission to use Wiki screen capture

Hi. I'm a Technical Publications Manager for a multinational consulting engineering firm with approximately 25,000 employees. I want to write an internal communication for the entire company because we are finding many of our engineers and scientists, as well as our technical publications specialists, are using the Wiki as a primary reference source, which you yourselves discourage on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AResearching_with_Wikipedia

I would like to take a screen capture showing the URL and the top of the webpage (so, your logo), plus the "This page in a nutshell" box (and ending the capture at the bottom of the box) to emphasize to staff worldwide that while Wiki is a good place to start research, it should not be used as a primary reference. Of course, I don't want to violate your copyright in the process so would like your permission to use the screen capture.

Thanks very much for your help,

F FRubright (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You should contact the Wikimedia Foundation in St. Petersburg, FL. While our content is licensed for free use, the logos have their rights reserved. They would be able to advise you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt, this page is maintained by the efforts of volunteers, no one here is likely to be in a position to offer you official permission to use Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) trademarks. If you need official permission you'll have to contact the WMF. However, the WMF does maintain a page on its policy regarding its trademarks. In particular, you'll want to the refer to the "Things You Can Do, a Summary" section of WMF trademark policy. Note that there they list several things that you can do with the Wikimedia trademarks that do not require WMF permission, including: "distribute unchanged Wikimedia content, including appropriate attribution, for as long as you distribute them without charge or receipt of anything of value and do so in accordance with this policy". Content of Wikipedia, including the Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia article, are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Pay particular attention to the attribution requirement. Because there are generally many contributors to a Wikipedia article, providing proper attribution is easiest by a including a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using (as each page has a page history which attributes each contributor to the article). For more details see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. —RP88 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince's signature and WP:NFCC#9

Hey there WP:MCQ, Greg L raised a legitimate concern on my bot's talk page. Here is the original message:

This bot edit doesn’t strike me as supportable. Per this, at Prince (musician)#Stage names, the artist used that symbol as his legal name from 1993 through 2000 and also copyrighted it in 1997 because he had used it on the cover of one of his albums released in 1992. Accordingly, whether or not it is fair use to use the image depends on whether one is referring to the album, or is referring to the artist as he was known during the 1993–2000 time frame. It would be nice if DASHBot could be told to seek human guidance instead of automatically deleting all use of this symbol in talk pages. I was referring to the artist File:Prince logo.svg as he was legally known in the 1993–2000 time frame, in my post. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some comment from someone who is more knowledgeable of the fair use policy than I to help us out. Thanks, Tim1357 talk 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To sum up the discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 6#Image:Prince symbol album.svg and Image:Prince symbol.svg: since he actually had it copyrighted it's copyrighted until a legal body finds otherwise. Given that for now at least it is copyrighted, it can't be used outside of article space per the non-free content policy. I also don't see a cite supporting the article's claim that "free use of the symbol depends in part on whether one is referring to the album, or the artist", but I'm inclined to think that it would be fair use, not free use. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I wanted to upload this picture here to use on an article. http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong/kkfrank.jpg The problem is I'm not sure of the copyright. This was a sketch from a proposed King Kong film. The man who sketched it was Willis O'Brien. His late widow Darlyene supplied this picture (as well as others) to Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine back in the 1960's. Since then it has appeared in various publications as well as on various sites on the net (such as the link I supplied above). Is it possible to still upload the pciture even if I don't know who actually owns it anymore (if anyone owns it anymore) or should I play it safe and not bother?Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you track down exactly which issue of the Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine that this sketch was first published in back in the 1960's? The reason I ask, is that if you know that the issue of the magazine in which this sketch was first published lacked copyright notice, or that the copyright was not renewed in it's 28 year, then this sketch is now in the public domain. If you're sufficiently interested we can probably dtermine copyright status of this sketch with a little legwork. —RP88 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to give me some time to find the particular issue. But I can tell you this. Similar sketches were published in Famous Monsters of Filmland issue 39. They were from the same source so maybe that will be sufficent. That particular issue has a section devoted to the project called The 13 Faces of Frankenstein referring to the 13 sketches that O'brien did of the giant Frankenstein monster that King Kong was supposed to fight. Its on pages 58-60. The magazine was published in June of 1966. What's written in the actual article is this "Obie made 13 sketches reproduced here (as with his other drawings) thru the kind courtesy of Darlyne (Mrs. Willis) O'Brien"Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I checked the copyright renewal records at copyright.gov, and it appears that while some issues of Famous Monsters of Filmland from the 1960's had their copyright renewed, most did not. If you can determine in which issue of the Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine the sketch was first published, and the date that issue was published, it won't be too difficult to check if that issue was one of the issues that had its copyright renewed. —RP88 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to track down the issue yet, but the picture also appears in the book Willis O'Brien: Special Effects Genius. There is no credit listed with the picture. Is it possible that this book can be used as a source rather than the FMOF issue?Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sham Mohan Chadha

I am Sham Mohan Chadha S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Chadha Born 29-Sep-1978. Ist School Education From Lala Lazpat Rai School Bassi Kalan, After 4th class I migrate to Govt. Primary School Bassi Kalan. I was helping my Father Business. I Travel UAE, Oman, Iran & UK. I married with Tamanna (Chadha) and I have son Aryan Chadha. Presently now I am working with Sonalika Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smchadha (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't know why you're posting about it here. This is the board for copyright questions about files and media. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread on copyright/ CC license issue

Just in case there are readers here, intensely interested in copyright issues, but not regular readers of ANI, I though the exchange in this thread, discussing whether there are conditions under which a CC license can be revoked, was an interesting read. --SPhilbrickT 11:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan L Daneault

Susan L Daneault <redacted> Also, could I have an e-mail of my October @ November transactions for 2009 account for my7712 visa account? <redacted> thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.140.161 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

<redacted> Also could I have an e-mail copy of my visa account of October and November 2009 account sent to me. I need a copy by Tuesday June 21st. Thankyou----,,,,.

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on 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.--SPhilbrickT 12:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Coastal States Organization

I am new wikipedia member. I can't figure out how to embed a picture/logo on to the wikipedia page. It just doesn't seem to work no matter how I try it. The page is Coastal States Organization.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoastalStatesOrg (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should you come back, you did it correctly with this edit, only you first need to upload the file. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more details about how to upload. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A copyvio question

First, some back history. Wikipedia has flip-flopped several times over the inclusion of an article about the Rolling Stone Magazine issue titled "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of all Time." One of the greatest battle grounds was over the actual wiki-inclusion of Rolling Stone's 100 list entries. The eventual agreement was that it would be OK to show the top ten and then include a link if anyone wanted to know the rest of their list directly from the Rolling Stone Magazine source. Somehow, it was determined, if Wikipedia showed the entire list it would be some sort of copyvio against Rolling Stone and therefore it could not be shown. The article for that issue has since been deleted and its content moved to a section in the Guitarist article. My question is... if someone would take a peek at this article: The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists... Are we somehow in a copyvio situation (similar to the Rolling Stone Magazine list) with this article's inclusion of all 100 entries listed in the book? We couldn't show the 100 people listed at Rolling Stone but, for some reason, it is OK to list the 100 favourites of this non-notable author? Thoughts? Wiki libs (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a creative list, which means it's copyrighted (exactly the same as the Rolling Stone list). I have trimmed it to the top 10 entries accordingly. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this image in the Public Domain?

I was wondering if this image is in the public domain: http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb6b69p2cz/?&brand=oac Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is from 1906, so yes. It should be tagged {{PD-1923}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree with VernoWhitney, there is no evidence that it is {{PD-1923}}, but it may still be in the public domain. Works published before 1923 are PD in the US, but there is no indication that this photo was published before CDL put it online in 2007. This photo is credited to J. D. Givens. That is almost certainly a reference to James Davide Givens, a notable San Francisco photographer. He died in December, 1939. If the CDL was the first to publish this photo when it put it online in 2007, then the copyright for this photo expires 70 years after the death of author, which would be January 1, 2010 (so it would be {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old-70}}). However, if it was first published sometime between 1923 and 2002, then this image may well not be PD (we'll need details about how and when it was published to determine its status). If you upload this image, let me know, I'll help you tag it correctly. —RP88 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for providing incorrect information. I was following the precedent of File:Soldiers looting 1906 fire.jpg and File:San Fransisco Earthquake.jpg from the same source. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But I can't upload it until I determine if it was first published sometime between 1923 and 2002, correct? Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Signatures on a copyrighted image of a document

I found this image of a document signed by various prominent British scientists of the 19th century, among them William Benjamin Carpenter, John Edward Gray, Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, and Thomas Henry Huxley. However, the digital image of the document is apparently copyrighted by the Royal Society. Would it be ok to take the individual signatures from this image and save them as low-resolution, low-colour images (~50x200 px, 16 colour, PNG) and upload them on Wikipedia, or would this violate the copyright? If not, which license would be appropriate?
-- Shinryuu (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the Royal Society CAN hold the copyright on this image - even under UK law. They certainly can't under US law, and I would opine that the image can be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons with an appropriate public domain tag (never been published in the US would be the right one). If the image were copyright, cutting it up into little bits would not negate the copyright as all you would be doing would be producing a derivative work, although you could probably claim it was acceptable use of non free content.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, they put a copyright tag on the image, which of course does not necessarily mean that they actually hold the copyright, but supposed they know what they're doing. I'm not an expert on UK copright law, but although the document was signed more than 150 years ago, I always thought that copyright can be renewed? Anyway, I think I'll just upload the signatures with the tag you proposed.
By the way, any help in identifying some of the more scrawly signatures would be highly appreciated. So far, aside from the ones mentioned above, I have identified the signature of Edward William Brayley, George Busk, Edwin Lankester and, I believe, John Gwyn Jeffreys. -- Shinryuu (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Licensing Issue regarding File:Vassula.jpg

I have been given permission to use File:Vassula.jpg by Vassula herself (its a profile picture) and it is NOT a copyrighted image as its available on other webpages of internet. The admin who deleted it (Explicit) is not responding to my email queries despite me stating that I need to resolve this urgently. I have tried uploading the file again under a different licensing tag but I am not able to since the file has already been uploaded once. Please help resolve this issue by giving me STEP BY STEP instructions on how to make Vassula.jpg available again without it being removed in the future.

I also intend to upload other files which are NOT copyrighted and also contain images of Vassula - please indicate EXACTLY what "licensing" plus additional tags I need to add to make this possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 13:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merely being available on other web pages is no guarantee that an image is not copyright. You need to follow the steps at WP:PERMIT. For the other files - it depends on why they are 'not copyrighted'. If it is because you took them yourself, then you can license them as the creator. If it is for any other reason (eg they have previously been released under a CC-BY-SA licence and are thus in the public domain) you should license accordingly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response, Elen. I will follow your instructions and let you know if I have any further queries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Construction

If a picture of the construction of a building was available via a government website, would it qualify as non-free, considering the building was completed five years ago, and that no picture of the construction is available in the public domain (a case I'm coming across very often... and it's getting annoying, lol)? Thanks, EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific? It depends; What government website? Who took the photo? Does freedom of panorama pertain in the country in question? etc., ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be the New Brunswick School District 01 (which is a branch of the province's educational sector) website. The photo is uncredited, and there is no copyright restriction on buildings in Canada. Sorry, that's all I can think of to be any more specific. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You can actually be more specific by linking to the page the image in question is on. Then we can give you better help based on seeing the image but the New Brunswick School District 01's website clearly claims copyright to its site, so the image is likely copyright. The only way in which you might be able to use the image is under a fair-use claim but only if all 10 non-free content criteria are complied with. ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Page 23 of 24, third image from the top. If WP:NFCC is the only thing separating the upload, I'll likely do so. It will be used in this article. Other thoughts? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
NFCC is not just one thing but 10 criteria, all of which must be complied with. I presume you actually mean the bottom image on page 21 of the booklet. How do you intend that the use of this non-free image will be contextually significant to the article and add to the reader's understanding of the article that cannot be clearly explained in prose? I don't see any real commentary about the construction for the building and no prose that might even be supported by this image. So it will likely fail WP:NFCC#8. How do you know there is no other freely licenced image existing for such a recent construction? IMHO in this case NFCC will be hard to justify. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah shoot, I missed #8. Yeah, I don't really see how it would add to the article. Thanks anyway. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Are images published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the public domain in the United States? Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit of digging on Commons has revealed Commons:Template:PD-USGov-NOAA so it would appear that they are. Presumably the ship image here is PD. Can anyone confirm this? Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the NOAA copyright page all images are public domain unless specifically noted so I think we can assume the use of this image is OK. You will notice that the first image has no attribution while the second image, near the bottom of the page, has an attribution even though that image is also a PD image. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, now uploaded to Commons as File:SS Ringas.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

C'est la Mort Records logo © issue

Hi

I cannot seem to figure out how to edit the © tag for this logo - I have the permission of Woodrow Dumas to upload it here for fair use, but the tagging instructions are confusing.

Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Beeler (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The fair use doctrine is based on not having any permission but such use must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and must also have a fully completed fair-use rationale. If you do get permission to use an image it must be freely licenced, which means it can be used by anyone for anything, you need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

This file, which has been used to notify users that they have been given Reviewer rights, appears very similar to the CBS logo. Is this a copyright violation? Should the image be deleted as such? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the question is whether the shape is simple and geometric (hence qualifies for PD-text or not) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Not a copyright violation at all, it may skirt on the far edges of a trademark infringement if it misleads readers, which I don't think it does. I only think it looks too much like the CBS logo, along with something else. Moreover, I think it's straightforwardly ugly and unsettling (as "eye" graphics can easily be if not handled with care). Then again, given some of the editorial risks PC could bring with its software design and implementation, maybe it's kinda fitting after all... Gwen Gale (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I threw this together. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The yellow eye logo is actually from MediaWiki.[16] It is the icon for the checked version of a page. You could see it anywhere there is a notice that you are reading the checked version of an article. delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posting everywhere I know there's a related conversation: see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg, and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:FlaggedRevs-2-1.svg. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Old map

I'd like to upload some images of vintage maps shown here. The maps I'm interested in were originally published betwee 1919 and 1928, presumably in Italian atlases and publications. Is this suitable for uploading or not? Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Works first published in Italy before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S. (use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}). If the map was published in Italian it would be nice to know the date of the author's death, as the U.S. 9th Circuit has some special rules (these don't apply to Wikipedia as it is in Florida, but reusers might care, see template for details). There are a additional cases where Italian works might be public domain in the US, but applying them generally involves identifying the author, the date of the author's death, determining the presence or absence of copyright notice on the work (these situations required the work to be public domain in Italy as of January 1, 1996, which means the author had to have died prior to 1926). Free free to point out specific works you're interested in using if you want a more specific discussion. —RP88 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply. I'm working on the article about Veliki Brijun island and I was interested in using this map (the site only says its circa 1919 and the image was released to the website by a certain Paolo Bonassi), and this map (which was published in 1912 by cartographers Wagner&Debes from Leipzig). I'm also interesed in using this and this image, which are, according to this site pictures of 1912 postcards showing the island. The site doesn't say so specifically but it is reasonable to assume these were published in what was then Austria-Hungary. Timbouctou (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get an svg artist to throw together something pretty. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Want a pic of Uri Blau

Hey, I'm trying to get an image of Uri Blau for Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair. This image from his facebook page seems to be widely distributed over the net. Can someone tell me if I can can upload it and what I should put in under liscencing? If this image is inappropriate, perhaps someone could suggest another? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that you can upload it as there could almost certainly be a free picture taken of him, which means that one would fail WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Whitney. Thanks for the comment. Suggestions on where to find a free pic? NickCT (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I went looking and couldn't find anything I'm afraid. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

the main pic for the article. HOW?

hello, would anyone explain to me how to upload a picture for this article, but so it has also the general information form under it... like the country, years, genre of the music, etc......please.

SillyLorenzo (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:Zero in on.jpg, which you claim to be your own work when the source page on MySpace clearly shows this is attributed to a person named "Alex Solca"? There is a second image commons:File:Zeroinon3.jpg in the article Zero In On (that has been uploaded to the commons) which makes the same claim and is found here but is also attributed to "Alex Solca". If you are the photographer and hold the coyright for the images you should make that clear and the best way to do that is to give your permission by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. As to adding extra information to the image, you just need to hit the edit button and add that information in the various fields, probably the description field, of the information template in each image. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-free image for non-english wikipedia

Hello, I found images that are currently used in english wikipedia but it seems that due to copyright is permitted only for the English version. I am not sure why.

The image in question is File:DistinguishedFlyingMedalUKRev.jpg

I would like to translate and include the images for the Spanish version.

I would like some advice. Thanks. --Barri (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it appear that because this medal was instituted in 1918, per this webpage, the crown copyright, which last for 50-years, no longer applies. So the image is in the public domain and does not require a fair-use rationale that the image currently has. If the information and licence are updated it could be moved to the commons and become available to all wikis. ww2censor (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

W3C Software Notice and License

Can we upload pictures under the W3C Software Notice and License? I'd like to upload several figures from Dave Raggett's web world presentation.Smallman12q (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this one. After reading the rather short license, it appears to be similar to a CC-BY-SA license, and so it should be allowable, although the licensing tag would need some custom work (or a new template). I am not the most expert in this area though, so hopefully someone else will confirm or deny my reading of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, nor especially am I the Foundation's lawyer, but the advertising clause in the "Disclaimers" section looks like bad news to me - it appears that merely by distributing or accepting a copy of covered material, you lose the right to use "the name and trademarks of copyright holders [...] in advertising or publicity pertaining to the software without specific, written prior permission". While CC-BY-SA does have a similar prohibition against suggesting that the original author of a work has endorsed you in any way, it's much narrower than that prohibition. Since any use could conceivably be construed as use for "publicity" by an author who wanted to construe it that way, I'm not sure the license counts as free content for our purposes, let alone compatibility with CC-BY-SA. But if you want a real opinion, you should try to trick Mike Godwin into giving you one. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
-.-...still need some kind of yes/no answer....Smallman12q (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Functionally, this license is identical to the BSD license, it is a GPL compatible license and it meets the two requirements of "free-content" on wikipedia in that it allows commercial use and derivative works. Infact there is even an image copyright tag Template:W3C_software_license that you could use on wikipedia already. Given that that is in the category of templates specifically allowed for image copyrights and has been since 2008 the answer to your question is "yes". Ajbpearce (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh, that's news. And it's apparently been unused until now... VernoWhitney (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
=D. Apparently its been completely unused except for this discussion as what links here shows. Perhaps the license picture should be changed?Smallman12q (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

permisson to wear the willy wonka aporn to my children beauity pagaents

I am a vender at Children Beauity pagaents. I only do High End Pagaents. The Pagaents consist of 150 to 200 children. I do these eight times a year. I sell Hair bows and my home made lollipops. I would like to wear the purple willy wonka aporn, that I recieved in my willy wonka demo package for Walmart. I could also sell Willy Wonka Candy if I have your permission. I think the gummy candies would be great.

Janice Wesley

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on 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.--SPhilbrickT 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a question in there? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:NickyH&SJan10.jpg

Hi. I asked Nicky Morgan (politician) for the email of a photographer willing to give up the copyright, intending to send the full text to the photographer and hence to permissions@wikimedia.org. She replied with this photo saying it could be used as she owns the copyright with her husband. The photo is also shown on the Conservative website and at theyworkforyou.com This isn't what I had intended but will it suffice to send her email + photo to permissions@wikimedia.org? Regards JRPG (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this won't really suffice because the source website states that images are copyright, either of the conservative party or a third party, per its terms of use webpage and that permission is needed for their use, so we need to have their written permission. Then no one will question the permission if they look at the source page on the conservative party's website. Just ask again for them to send their consent per WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making it clear. If only politicians would do as they're asked! JRPG (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Bulls copyrighted logo on user generated image?

Resolved
 – All speedily deleted as copyvios. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Jerry Sloan.jpg

File:Bob Love.jpg

File:Michael Jordan retired jersey.JPG

File:Scottie Pippen.JPG

File:Phil Jackson.JPG

File:Jerry krause.JPG


Replicating a copyright logo infringes copyright, does it not? -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. See derivative work. I don't suggest replacing the license with a fair use rationale though, since it looks like all of them fail WP:NFCC#1 and #8. Theleftorium (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see.. Then it should be deleted. Is this the right place to nominate an image for deletion? -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you can either nominate them at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, or you can explain the situation to the uploader and ask them to submit the images for deletion with Template:Db-g7. Theleftorium (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems clear-cut copyvio to me. I have tagged them all for F9 speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Music produced from MIDIfile or an out-of-copyright work.

Suppose there is a piece of music that's LONG out of copyright - something composed in 1800 let's say.

If someone published a music score on paper then I understand that the score itself could still be copyrighted - so I can't (for example) photocopy it. I'm told that a MIDI file that someone put together of the same music could also be copyrighted because it's just like a paper score...but digital.

If someone were to perform the music from the printed sheet music - their performance wouldn't be covered by the copyright on the score they happen to use...right? A pianist can play music from a printed score - then sell the recordings without giving the sheet music publisher a cut...right?

So what about a (computer-generated) performance from the MIDI-file? Is a sound file made by a computer from the MIDI file covered by copyright that the author of the MIDI-file has? Concretely: If I make a '.ogg' using TiMidity++ - is the .ogg copyright-free?

Does it make a difference whether the MIDI file is an 'arrangement' of the original music or merely a note-for-note verbatim transcription of the out-of-copyright original?

SteveBaker (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If the MIDI file carries a new arrangement of PD music it would very likely be copyrighted unless the author noted that the MIDI file was being released as either PD or under some kind of open licence. This aside, a sound file made from a wholly PD MIDI file could be copyrighted by whoever made the soundfile, however they made it. This, however, would not stop someone else from making a soundfile from the MIDI themselves and releasing the latter as free. Mostly, one shouldn't think of any MIDI data or sound data as free software or music unless it has been released as such by the author. Otherwise, the safest way to get PD MIDI is grab some PD sheetmusic and transcribe it into MIDI oneself, likewise then render that MIDI data into a soundfile oneself and release it as free. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The main "problem" here is the arrangement. There are plenty of editors here who could sing a version of God Save the Queen or The Star-Spangled Banner, and both of them are PD works. However, the precise instrumental arrangements that are used in (for example) the World Cup in South Africa could be copyrighted (they would be derivative works under U.S. copyright law). So the only free solution is to ensure that the score that you're working from is PD. BTW, the release of a MIDI file under a free license does not mean that the underlying arrangement is free. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Moreover, lots of MIDI files released as PD (or otherwise free) are likely tainted by the copyrighted arrangements transcribed within them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Licensing question

Where can I find the licensing for this image? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You would need to verify somehow that the drawing was first published before 1923 or has an otherwise lapsed copyright (also giving the name of the artist) and if this is indeed the background, that the image in the book is a faithful copy. Otherwise there is no way the image would be taken as free on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Upload question

Hi, I'm not an expert at Wikipedia, but I started a page for girlfriend, Dana Immanuel, who is a popular musician in the London area. A friend of ours took a picture of Dana and gave it to us to use as we wish. I have used this image for the Wikipedia page and added the photographer's name as the source under the file in the file page and stated the relationship and situation. Do I need to do anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy1239 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You will most likely need to name the photographer or send an email to WP:OTRS, where you can get help in verifying that the image is indeed free and has been released by the photographer under an open licence. So far, the information you've given on the image page is not enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture deleted?

Hello. Can i find out why the following picture was deleted? [[17]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.3.106 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No such file appears to have ever existed on Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It was on commons and was deleted as a copyright violation. [18] VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

License

Anybody know what license the illustrations at http://www.w3.org/History/1993/WWW/Illustrations/ (W3C history) are under?Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If this page doesn't help, try their contact page here. Or possibly their FAQ? I think asking them directly is probably best, because the content is from 1993(?), and I'm not sure their current copyright notice applies to content that old. -Andrew c [talk] 02:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Image from a newspaper

Not an expert Wikipedian, just someone who wants to spread the wealth of knowledge. Cut this out from a newspaper a while back and have no idea how to cite it under free use. I have all the required info but apparently that still wasn't enough. Please help. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Veteransdaytornado.jpg Triberocker (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Under free use, or under non-free use? And image from a newspaper is not going to be licensed freely. The only way we could use it would be under our strict non-free content policy WP:NFC. Images being used under a claim of "fair use" must meet all 10 WP:NFCC. This also means the image description page needs to have a copyright tag, and a fair use rationale (WP:FURG). I think this image is not acceptable, generally speaking, because it fails WP:NFCC #1. A user could easily make a free illustration which illustrates the same concept. Additionally, it probably fails WP:NFCC #2 as well, as newspapers are often commercial ventures, and their images often come from places like the AP or Getty Images (which charge royalty/licensing fees). Specifically speaking, the reason why your image is tagged as problematic is because illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone. is is basically a speedy deletion tag for images failing WP:NFCC #1. Also, the fair use rationale template you used has an error due to the title of the article being Tornado toll: 35 dead From lakes to Gulf, a trail of destruction instead of 2002 Veterans Day Weekend tornado outbreak (but that is really a minor quibble). Hope this isn't too much all at once. I'd be glad to answer any more of your concerns, and I hope this helped. -Andrew c [talk] 02:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Faivre jardiniere 2.jpg

I really do not know why this template has appeared on my page, except that it is the work of a machine. I filled in everything that was asked on the form, including the source of the image, and pointed out that it says on the site where I found it that the copyright of an artistic work belongs to the artist (who died in 1937) or his asignees and that therefore the copyright had lapsed. Can you reassure me that this is another instance of a bot intervening where it need not? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The bot left the message because there is no licencing template on the page. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't really follow this answer. What page are you referring to? I've revisited the site where I found the image and it is clearly stated below the image "Artwork images are copyright of the artist or assignee" (I've copied and pasted). What can that mean but that (since the artist in question died in 1937) fair use is granted? If I've not misread the situation, what is it I should do to retain the upload? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cover of the Chicago Manual of Style: Copyrightable or not?

This image, File:The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style.jpg, was disputed at the FAC nomination page for Sentence spacing [19] because of wp:nfcc. However, another editor thought that the image was OK, stating that, "It consists of fragments of text in a common font. It is thus ineligible for copyright as it does not cross the threshold of originality." Another editor then re-uploaded the image under {{PD-font}} at File:The Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition.png.

This seems to be a plausible rationale. However, it was recommended that I seek a second opinion here. Is the cover of the Chicago Manual of Style non-copyrightable and its image usable on Wikipedia? --Airborne84 (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. A book cover is artwork which falls under copyright if the book is copyrighted. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Then explain the licensing for this well-known cover. A book's copyright does not automatically extend to its cover artwork, which may well be created by someone who hasn't even read the book. Even cover artwork that depicts scenes from the book is a separate copyright. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggested at the FAC that this image was {{pd-text}}, and I stand by that. The copyright for the cover art can be entirely different to the copyright for the contents. See File:Hard-fi - Once Upon a Time in the West.PNG for example. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a gray area. The two examples pointed to are examples of simple text centered on a page. This is a bit more complex, involving overlapping elements and more specific placement. We had a conversation related to ineligibility of logos for copyright over here that I don't think resulted in anything. They were trying to get a tighter definition for the concept of "threshold of originality" so we would have Wikipedia guidelines to follow, instead of these gray areas that come up time to time here. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure whether or not that cover image is ineligible for copyright or not (and we may never know for certain unless challenged in court). Just wanted to point that out :) -Andrew c [talk] 02:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of logos where the text overlaps other text, or the geometric shapes included. None of them pass the threshold. It's usually far more important in a logo that it be trademarked rather than copyrighted. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this image be in the public domain?

I am currently writing an article on John Marshall, a British surgeon who lived from 1818 - 1891. I would like to use this image of a portrait of him in the article. The original painting was created in 1879 by Alphonse Legros, who died in 1911. Technically that would lead me to assume that the copyright on the painting has expired, however the terms and conditions of the Victoria and Albert Museum website, where the image is hosted, list some limitations on how the images may be used, e.g. not for commercial purposes. I always thought digital images of works in the PD will automatically also be in the PD? -- Shinryuu (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I've looked around a bit, and the statements on dealing with such cases on Wikipedia seem to be somewhat contradictory. On the on hand, on Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it has been stated that "[the tag] {{PD-Art}} may be used by the uploader of a photograph taken by somebody else to assert that the photograph can have no independent copyright as it is simply a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art. The tag can be used on any such photograph regardless of the source country" (emphasis added), implying that using the image would be OK, regardless of what the V&A terms and conditions state. On the other hand, on Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#UK, it says that treating the image as being in the PD would NOT be OK with UK copyright laws.

Those pages are not contradictory. Look at the top of the latter link: Note that this page discusses re-use of Commons images in different jurisdictions. It does not address whether an image is allowed to be hosted here in the first place. The first page says we can host the file and claim it is PD because our servers are in the US. The latter link says if you are in the UK, you may not be able to reuse the content under UK law. -Andrew c [talk] 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I've overlooked that. So what you're saying is that I, not living in the UK and thus not being bound by its laws, could upload the image to the commons without violating copyright law? Are you sure? -- Shinryuu (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No I am not sure. I also cannot offer legal advise. I can say that the Commons accepts images that are slavish reproductions of art that is in the public domain (even if you did not take that photograph yourself). Whether this is entirely legal, or leaves you open to being sued, is another matter, which we can't really answer sufficiently. But I know the Commons does accept such images, so you should be good there in terms of not having your image deleted. Also, there was a case involving the National Portrait Gallery that you could research. -Andrew c [talk] 02:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I suppose the case involving the National Portrait Gallery is the one described here. As it is said in the article that the V&A gallery, which are hosting the image I would like to use, are "fantastically helpful and lovely people, who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.", I suppose that uploading a low-resolution version of the image to the Commons and providing a link to the high-resolution version on the V&A site in the description would probably be OK. However, I'll send them and e-mail first and post the reply here. -- Shinryuu (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Images of Letters

I assist in operation of the Festiniog Railway Letter Service. A number of images of past covers were uploaded to complement the article aforementioned. These were transferred to Wikimedia, and now they are being nominated for deletion.

I refer you to files [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]] [[25]]

I contend that all material, with exceotion of the Royal Mail stamps, contained on these images, are copyright of FRLS and the appearance on this site is with permission of the current FRLS Postmaster. These images are not "full size", and therefore reduced quality. The RM stamps account for less than 10 percent of the overall image, and so cannot be classed as the subject material. Please don't ask why images 4-6 are not used, I don't know.

I need help, in form of legality direction, to restore these to main wikipedia, where I beleive a "fair use" policy is operated, unlike Wikimedia. I can upload technically, but need to know the right form to be using.

Thanks in advance. --Keith 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe these can be uploaded to en.WP as Wikipedia:Non-free content (fair use) in philately topics. Help from WP:OTRS may be needed, to verify the permission. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Gwen Gale is correct. Also, please note that permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. It either must be free licensed, or used under terms of fair use here in accordance with WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I mis-spoke, by verify the permission I was carrying forward manstaruk's wording and I meant verify the free licence. I see there already seems to be an OTRS ticket on the free licence for the covers, but the stamps would still need a fair use rationale. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already advised this editor about these images that are all hosted on the commons where I nominated them for deletion. I also posted advise on the article talk page that one image might be acceptable under a fair-use claim here, however, use of more than one image would fail minimal use. AFAIK the OTRS ticket would be fine on any image moved from the commons to here but a fair-use rationale would still be needed for the stamp though the editor does not appear to believe Royal Mail stamps are covered by crown copyright because he is making enquiries from Royal Mail per a post on this page. ww2censor (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Correction to "the editor does not appear to believe Royal Mail stamps are covered by crown copyright". My enquiry is based on the fact the item is of reduced size and quality. I did not infer what you state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manstaruk (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 June 2010
Sorry, but that was not the way I read the enquiry. ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you have not seen the enquiry letter, (I have not published it on the web!) how can you possibly make such a comment??? --Keith 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a suggestion would it not be easier just to blank out that part of the image that includes the stamp, the purpose of the image is to illustrate the cover and having the stamp blanked out would not reduce the value to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An easy answer - to blur the required areas is easy enough. However, I am still at a loss, having read WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. It may just be easier to remove all 6 files altogether, and the 3 used within the article will be removed. --Keith 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How to get document copyright permissions

I contributed to a Wikipedia entry (see my history) and was found to have violated copyright requirements. Since the copyright is held by the company I work for, and the company is willing to give permissions to use the information, how do I document that permission in a fashion that satisfies Wikipedia needs? Are there forms? Is there a template of a permissions letter or some other document to guide me? Kennfrank (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:PERMISSIONS which should help. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Legrand page: Fair Use in Quotations?

I see that the exchange about this page has been squeezed off, but I wanted to assure the respondants that I've heard from Princeton UP about the use of longish quotations, and they (it?) approve. I'll add a note to the Legrand page indicating that fact. Beebuk 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that you should forward the response to WP:OTRS. I gave you more detailed advice on your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 14:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat

I have added 3 music files to the article on Harel Skaat, but I received a message that they had been tagged for possible deletion because of copyright problems. The message said they needed to determine the license and source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. I don't know how to add a copyright tag and I don't know what an image description page is. I have found Wikipedia's explanations to be not a lot of help. Can someone explain to me what I need to do? I know the copyright information and it's included in the file history for each file. Hjquazimoto (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hotel Kenmore Hall

I created a wikipedia page called "hotel kenmore hall". I included an image on the page of the hotel that is a reproduction of an old postcard from the 1940's. The image has been targeted for deletion becuase I did not include copyright information, but there is no copywright information on the postcard and it is at least 60 years old. Please advise.

Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartoaks (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the postcard published in the United States without a copyright notice? If so there is a special tag for this if you can show it is old enough. Template:PD-Pre1978 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The picture was actually deleted because the source was not stated. If you can confirm there is no copyright notice on the back of the card, you can upload with more complete information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Unknown author, fair use rationale.

Hi, I would like to upload this image for use on Grangegorman killings, as I believe that it complies with fair use guidelines. However, I don't know who the original author is or what the copyright status is of the image. The image is used on the RTÉ website on two articles: [26] and [27]. I have contacted RTÉ by email, but have had no response for almost a week. Would it be possible to upload it without an author, or does anyone know how I might find out who the author is. Thanks, Quasihuman (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

While the subject of this image is dead there is no author info or date, so even a well formed fair-use rationale may be questioned with or without that information as the article is not about the subject of the photo. You may want to try contacting the show producer or director (Pat Butler or Irene McCormick) at RTÉ rather than making a general enquiry though large organisations are not good at replying. It looks like a family photo, so a polite enquiry to the family by mail, such as one of these, may get you an answer and even permission to use it. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Bedfordshire

I would like to upload this(found on this page) for use on the Bedfordshire article. The disclaimer allows use on Wikipedia, aslo specifying a template I found on commons -Template:nwg2-. However, I am not sure what license to upload it under, and who the author should be.Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer allowing use on Wikipedia isn't a lot of help, as Wikipedia requires that uploads are licensed on a CC-BY-SA license - ie Wikipedia will not upload items on a license that limits use to Wikipedia (see the post on the British Museum above). Coats of arms are not copyright (the copyright would lie with the blazon - the text description - and the College of Arms [28] has said that it does not consider the blazons copyright. This means that you could perfectly well create another image like this one (there's someone around who does this regularly)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for your reply.You said 'there's somone around here who does this regularly', would you be able to tell me the user who does :). Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's somewhere in the archives of this page...sorry, I remember a previous discussion and someone saying they could do this stuff, but I can't remember who the guy was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll have a look.Acather96 (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

When is a photograph "published"?

I want to use an 1896 photo by an anonymous photographer whose death-date is therefore unknown (i.e., I don't know if he died before 1940, seventy years ago). Is the photo considered "published" at the time of its development from negative to positive? Or only (like a painting) when it is published in a book of some sort? If it's the former, then the photo is PD. But if the latter, I can't be sure: the book where it first appeared is post-1923. I've searched Wikipedia for an answer, but apparently in all the wrong places. Thanks for any help with this. Beebuk 09:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the country. See [[29]]. In the U.S.A. a photograph published in 1896 has long gone in to the public domain. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean 1896???? I guess so. In any case, more info is required. According to the US government [30] a photo is not published until copies are distributed. I recommend checking here [31] for more guidance eg was the book ever published in the US? When? Was it at a time when copyright needed to be registered and renewed? Was it renewed?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I said "published" ... of course 1996 was a typo. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Figured it had to be.....although it is not impossible to imagine a situation in which a photograph is first published 100 years after it was taken. Our Industrial Museum has inherited around half a million photographs, some of which come from the turn of the last century, and will only be published later this year when they are made available online. Whatever, they key issue here is whether the photo was first published in the book that Beebuk has, and whether that book was published in the US. If it was, chances are the photo is now in the public domain as you say, because up until the last few years the US legislation has historically preferred to limit copyright wherever possible.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So I gather that a photo is "published" only when it is reproduced. Which creates a difficulty in my case, since the book in which it's reproduced is French, not American, and appeared in 1929. (And yet I've seen the image in several sites on the 'net.) Beebuk 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. In French law, proprietory rights in anonymous works last for 70 years from the date of publication, so it would appear to be pd in its own country. If the photo is not credited in the book, then it does not comply with the somewhat onerous US requirements for publication, so (provided the book was not also published in the US at any time) the work falls into the category Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 In which case, it is copyright in the US until 95 years after the date of publication. Could you provide the title and author of the book? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The book (and hence the photograph) would have been PD in France on 1 January 1996, as the French copyright term was not extended to 70 years (from 50 years) until 1997. My line would be that the image seems to be PD in both France and the U.S. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, EOTR's proviso ("the book was not also published in the US at any time") is too strict: the book would have had to have been published in the U.S. with all formalities (including copyright renewal) complied with for it still to be under U.S. copyright. If the book was published in the U.S. but without renewal, we are back onto the hypothesis of copyright restoration, which fails because of the French copyright term on the relevant date. Physchim62 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I bow to your greater knowledge on French law - I had not realised that the French change to 70 years was not retrospective, as changes in copyright law of this kind usually acts retrospectively (look at what happened with the Uruguay round). And yes, if there was a US publisher, it would have had to have continued to comply with all the formalities to hang onto the copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The change in French law was retroactive, but the restoration of U.S. copyright was a one-off thing: to check for restored U.S. copyrights, you have to check what the copyright term was on January 1, 1996, not what it is now. As the book was out of copyright on 1 January, 1996, its U.S. copyright could not have been restored, even though it later gained an extra 18 months or so of French copyright. Physchim62 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I stand in awe of my fellow Wikipedian' erudition. And give many thanks for it. Beebuk 22:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, that was the easy bit! Now we have to figure out what copyright tags to use! ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
commons:User:Physchim62/Sandbox. Physchim62 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos of tablet packets

I noticed the following pictures... File:Propecia (finasteride).jpg File:Generic Propecia.jpg File:Sertraline 50mg.JPG File:Zoloft 100 mg tablets.jpg File:Temazepam10mg.JPG File:Temaze (temazepam) 10 mg tablets.jpg Is uploading photographs of boxes with logos etc., allowed or a breach of Pharmaceutical manufacturer's copyright?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The copyright is a right to the expression, not to the content. If you take pictures of products, the copyright to the picture is yours. If you use the picture to sell the product, you may possibly (note disclaimers) collide with the trademark, but not with the copyright. Taking someone else's picture of the Temazepam pills would be a copyright violation, unless a license has been granted. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. It all makes sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense, but not quite correct (outcome was correct, reasoning is wrong). The US Copyright code at s113 [32] specifically excludes photographing 'useful articles that have been offered for sale' from the category of copies that would create a breach of copyright. So you can photograph the packaging to your hearts content. Normally, copyright is a right to the image, so it is possible to copyright works of art, logos and similar, and to breach copyright if you make a copy. US law is very strong on not affording protection to the useful, utilitarian and functional - I believe this is a philosophical stance as it is not echoed in most European and Commonwealth copyright law. s102(b)[ http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102] is quite clear that one cannot copyright an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,although one could in some circumstances patent same.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Elen, sometimes the finer points of often contrived law should be left unmentioned, so as not to upset the natives ... It is quite telling that Paragraph 113 had to say (in a complicated way) that it is ok to take a picture of a building with a statue... Anyway, no copyright law stops me from taking a picture of a pill package. If it would, camera use would be disallowed in most parts of the world, as it is very hard to find a place that is free of advertising. As far as the U.S. law goes, it doesn't prevent anybody from suing you, and then you have to spend a lot of money to defend your rights. Also, we should keep in mind that we have an international audience, and that U.S. law commonly stops at U.S. borders (they are trying hard to change this.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs, the purpose of this board is not to give random opinions based on what you think the law ought to be. You will often see the experts here cite the law - because we are not copyright lawyers, the safest option is to put the uploader and the legislation together, and let them form their own opinion. It's quite significant that US law does not confer a right relating to packaging and other useful items - this is not necessarily true in other countries. Normally, if an image does turn out to be PD, the OP is advised to upload it to Commons, but Commons won't accept images that are copyright in other countries, so at the very least the person offering the advice has to be aware of the difference. You might also note (regarding the building with a statue) that Freedom of Panorama is a frequent issue. Each country's laws are different, and this does make a difference. You might also note that since the US recently became a full (more or less) signatory to the Berne Convention, recent images uploaded to Wikipedia must comply with that also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Key history.jpg

I came across this file, which is linked on The Flying Keys. User:Jimwilliams57 uploaded the file in 2004, claiming it was in the public domain. I don't see anywhere on the site to which he linked, (http://www.meridianairport.com/history.html) that would suggest the image is in the public domain, and it definitely wasn't taken before 1923. The flight depicted occurred in 1935. Would someone with more experience look into this further? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. I can see nothing that leads me to believe the photographs are public domain. I believe copyright possibly rests with Stephen Owen, who published a book about the brothers in 1985 (there may have been earlier editions - this one is listed as the "Golden Anniversary Edition"), or it may rest with the Meridian Airport authority - who appear to be the only people using these images on the web. They probably ought to be tagged for deletion, unless someone wants to contact Meridian and ask for further details.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it; that's what I thought too. I've actually never listed a file for deletion before, so I'm not sure how to do it.. Would it be possible for one of you guys to delete the file, or could one of you explain to me how to do it? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done Nominated for deletion here. ww2censor (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore deleted File: Solar EclipseBinnaguri.jpg

Ref : 09:17, 25 April 2010 Melesse (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Solar EclipseBinnaguri.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD F4, was a file lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days. using TW)

Dear Sir, Please restore my above image file. I am the owner of this image file, I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions.

Thanks & Regards, Santosh Kumar Mahato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshkumarmahato (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more than two months ago since this was deleted and if you are not online often you won't see the seven days notice that we allow for such matters. The image can be restored but the first thing you can do is discuss it with the deleting editor Melesse and if you cannot come to an agreement you can then bring the matter up at the deletion review page. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
And in any event, if you are prepared to release it as you state, it meets Commons' licensing requirements so should be uploaded there. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONRD maps and infobox

According to Wikipedia talk:CRWP#Proposal involving infobox road and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Ontario/Archive 1#Maps, WP:ONRD has decided to replicate, with a change, the colors MapArt uses to denote highway classifications on their maps. As stated in those links, the colors MapArt uses for their maps include blue for freeways, orange for provincial highways, yellow for secondary/county roads and grey for others. The scheme developed and put into use for ONRD is the same, except that green was substituted in place of orange. Since this discussion in April, maps have been made for the project and their proprietary infobox is using the same conventions. I'm curious to know if this sort of usage runs afoul of copyright (or trademark) protections. If so, should the maps be remade using other colors and the infobox color scheme removed? Imzadi 1979 → 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that under US law you couldn't copyright a colour scheme, as (a) it would be an idea (which is not copyrightable) and (b) it would be inseperable from its utilitarian function. US legislation offers pretty minimal copyright protection to maps anyway (see [33] which excludes maps from the definition of visual art, which has more rights). It's not something I would worry about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful, careful. For centuries, maps have been the object of copyright litigation. In general, you can't copyright a map of America, but you can assert copyright to YOUR map of America. Whether you will prevail or not is another question. I would not want to be sued by Rand McNally and found that I simply recolored the interstate. Distinct color schemes can be protected by design patents, and copying color schemes can create a "likelihood-of-confusion" situation. Things to consider if you don't have the money to pay your lawyer $500 an hour for five years. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The colours chosen are the same as those used by the Ordnance Survey [34]. They would be a much better subject for a lawsuit. They're not copying the maps you realise - that would be a serious copyright issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a clarification, but isn't that survey in the UK, but MapArt publishes road atlases of Canada, and Ontario in specific. I'm more curious if using the same colour=road type scheme with a minor change infringes on copyright or trademark protections that MapArt might enjoy. No, the maps being created aren't direct copies, since anyone can use GIS data to make a new map, but when it is done in the same styles with the same colors, would the similarities be infringing? Imzadi 1979 → 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Or even patent protections. --Rschen7754 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what I was thinking of was if the Ordnance Survey (which you're right, is in the UK) used the same colours as the Canadian company, I wondered if there was some kind of international standard for them. In which case, you wouldn't be violating anyone's copyright. All roadmaps in the UK, whoever publishes them, seem to use the same colour coding for the type of roads. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Blue for motorways (freeways) is fairly standard in Europe (except Germany, which uses green I seem to remember): it is perfectly logical because the signs on motorways are blue as well. A similar argument goes for green for other major roads – I checked with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation website, and it seems that most Ontario road signs are green, so again, the choice of colour is perfectly logical. Where the choice of an element in a work is straightforward logic, it is very difficult to claim that that choice is original, and hence protected by copyright. Physchim62 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the 400-series freeways have a white sign with black letters that matches the non-freeway primary provincial highways. County and regional road markers are blue with white in a few places, but mostly white with black. Other provincial and state highways in the US and Canada have various color schemes for primary provincial or state highways, with meaning denoted primarily by shape, not color.
If you mean the big guide signage that's mounted above or next to the roadway to indicate exit numbers, green is standard in the US and Canada, and is used on non-freeways for distances, junctions and other usages. Blue signage is used in the US for information signs like gas, food and lodging, tourist destinations as well as rest areas and welcome centers. Brown guide signage is used for historical routes, scenic byways and state or national parks. In other words, the prevailing color scheme in the US and Canada does NOT correspond to the ONRD usage. Imzadi 1979 → 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that I would consult a few other map publishers. The MTO map I have uses yellow with red outlines for divided highways or freeways and either red or grey for other provincial highways based on classification. MDOT here in Michigan uses blue for freeways, red for state highways, black for County-Designated highways and grey for all other roads. Rand McNally uses blue for freeways, yellow and red for divided highways and red for two-lane state highways, grey for all other roads. AAA's atlas has all highways in red, other roads in grey. From my survey of map publishers, there is no real "standard" at work. ONRD though is copying not only the assignments of colours to road type classification, but exact shades for other elements. The road type=color classifications are not based on actual signage in Ontario, but instead used a commercial map maker's unique scheme, save a single change. By project members' own admission, that scheme extends to exact colour shade assignments on other map elements. Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Images from British Museum

I am interested in obtaining the image flesh-hook to go along with the new page, currently in my user space at Little Thetford flesh hook. Does anyone know if wikipedia qualifies for the free non-commercial use of British Museum images? --Senra (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia would, but you couldn't license it under a share alike license. That would have to be done by the copyright holder, and we can't accept licenses that restrict usage to non-commercial (both because it violates the philosophical ideas of the founders and, more practically, how the hell would we police it). You can't use it as fair use, because the BM would let you commission your own photo - or in many cases, just come and take a photo, as you can photograph anything that's actually on display.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Erm, ok. In that case, would anyone living in London be kind enough to go and photograph this object, then upload it to wikimedia commons please? I live north of Cambridge and it is hard (and expensive) for me to get down to London. My mother always told me you get nothing if you do not ask. --Senra (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a really frustrating one. If anyone has any way this can be uploaded as non-commercial, I'd be really glad to hear it. Next time my daughter heads down to the BM I'll tell her to take a picture, but it could be next year before she's down there. As a stopgap, you are welcome in the article (I assume you want to use it in an article) to say in External Links that an image of one of these objects held by the BM can be seen at the relevant link.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Some flickr images with suitable license may exist already, like [35] but this is a different object
Indeed it is a different object. In fact, it is the Dunaverney_flesh-hook (British museum id=185612-221)! --Senra (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone point me in the right direction to upload and correctly attribute a flickr image onto wikimedia commons and I will gladly modify Dunaverney_flesh-hook to include this image. I will also add an appropriate infobox and bronze-age hat too. --Senra (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Infobox and bronze age templates  Done --Senra (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The easiest way is to use the Flickr upload bot which checks the licence and directly transfers all the info from Flickr for you, though you do get a chance to edit everything, even the name of the file, beforehand. Make sure to use the largest version of any image you are uploading. However, be cautious with Flickr images because some people commit copyfraud by claiming copyright over images they don't actually own, or claim images to be free when they are still copyright as sometimes happens when people scan images from books and elsewhere. I am sure this is just due to their ignorance about copyright. ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Image uploaded from Flickr - Dunaverney flesh-hook  Done --Senra (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The Little Thetford flesh-hook is currently at the British Museum, East London warehouse. Arrangements can be made to see (and therefore photograph) the item by emailing the collections enquiries (see BM website) and marking it for the attention of the curator Bronze age collections. Quote object reference: 1929,0415.1; id: 814326. --Senra (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2010/June&oldid=1147982071"