Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photographs of Mexican periodicals

I'm helping somebody who wants to digitize their slide collection & donate it to the Wikimedia Commons. A section of the images are from Mexican periodicals. (Probably in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s) Am I correct that this portion of the images couldn't be donated to Wikimedia due to copyright? Some of these images are probably impossible to find, so I'd like to be able to archive them. Cloveapple (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not positive on the copyright issues for your slides from Mexican periodicals, but I would check and see if any of them can be used on a page with a fair-use rationale. They clearly qualify if they are impossible to replicate and you can find a page to use them on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on the commons licencing page commons:COM:L#Mexico, Mexican images are copyright for 100 years pma, so you are way out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies. It looks like I am indeed way out of luck. They'll probably have to donate those slides to the same library that is going to archive the periodicals. Thousands of other images from the slide collection should be ok to donate to Wikimedia Commons though. Cloveapple (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can Carnildo delete File:Grundemoos.jpg?

Can Carnildo delete File:Grundemoos.jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbol vic (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I tagged File:Grundemoos.jpg with {{db-author}} for you. —teb728 t c 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another ship question

Can I use the image on this page under a fair-use rationale? It isn't a photograph; however, the ship has been sunk and I believe it would qualify under a fair use rationale for a depiction of a historic item. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You really cannot use it because the first non-free policy guideline concerns whether the image is replaceable and, being a drawing, someone could make a line drawing of the ship, so the fair-use rationale would fail. ww2censor (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a question, but a request

Please add two issues to Commons:Template:PD-Sudan:

  • Article 6 of the Sudanese Copyright law, which mentions works not protected by copyrght
  • Article 198 of the Constition of the South Sudan which declares that "All laws of South Sudan shall remain in force [...] unless new action are taken [...]. As there is at the moment no new South Sudanese copyright law, the Sudanese one is still in force there.

I am not a legal expert nor a native speaker of English, a post this request there, to make sure that a correct legal English is used there.--Antemister (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to wider attention. But that template is on Commons. Perhaps you would want to mention it at Commons:Commons:Village pump? Or Commons:Template talk:PD-Sudan? I wish you the best. – Quadell (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know, the issue was discussed on Commons, but there was no one there who updated the template, so I tried here...--Antemister (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Article 6 applies to Wikipedia. This article concerns works that are held under copyright, but explains situations where it is permissible for certain organizations to copy or publish the work anyway, similar to the "fair use" doctrine in the U.S. Since Wikipedia is not legally considered one of "newspapers, magazines, periodicals, radio and television" or "school textbooks" or "a public library", I don't think that article is applicable.

Your point about Article 198 is true and valuable. I have updated the template accordingly. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Quadell: You quoted Article 14 (which in fact describes some kind of fair use), not article 6, which clearly declares "Works Not Covered by the Protection"--Antemister (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I'll see what I can do. – Quadell (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Updated. – Quadell (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible government image

Could I upload the image on this page to Wikipedia commons as an image of the UK government? I cannot find anything to specifically say that it is owned by the government but can also find nothing to say that it is copyrighted by anything other than the UK government. The same image can be found here, here, here, and here. Another option is the image here, but I think I am more concerned about that one. Please leave a talkback template on my talk page as it is easy for me to miss things. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find any information at any of those sites to say when the photo was taken, or who it was taken by. Without that information, we can't determine the copyright status, I'm afraid. I note that the vessel was destroyed in 1940. If we can find an image with information about who holds (or held) the copyright, then we can probably use the image under our non-free content policy. Anybody else have any ideas? – Quadell (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Unhappily there is no substitute for good old fashioned sleuthing. As a first step, email the webmasters and ask where they got it. You only have to get lucky once.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for the replies. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
From my understanding: If it is UK Gov, it is public domain because Crown Copyright expired in 1990 at the latest (50 years after creation). If it is by an unknown author, it has probably been public domain since 2010 at the latest (publication + 70 years). If it is by a known author, 70 years after that person's death. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Testifying before parliament

A screengrab of a notable person testifying before Parliament. Similar images in pretty much every paper and tv in the world. Parliamentary license. Can Wikipedia use it to illustrate the person and the appearance before parliament? See image. Note that the image has been temporarily 'pixelated' out of an ABUNDANCE of copyright caution during discussion, but non pixelated versions exist for use in article. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, as long as it is not fully free, we can't use it. She's a living person, so we can illustrate her article with a free image that could be created, and a photograph of this particular scene of her talking before parliament is not necessary to understand the fact that she appeared there. There's nothing in this particular photo that tells us more about this event than any other free portrait photo of her would. Also, the earlier version of this file was deleted through a regular FFD (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 21#File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011.jpg), because apparently you cited bogus licensing claims on it, so at this stage, procedurally, even if you could make a decent NFCC case for it, the only legitimate way of getting a copy restored would be through a WP:DRV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
For others, Future Perfect is a staunch believer that we can never have pictures of people testifying before parliament. He deletes such images, I think that's crazy, so this is why we ask.
I know his opinion, he knows mine. I'd like to hear a board statement or an office statement that clarifies, to me, why other news & educational organizations can show people testifying in government but we cannot. The conclusion is so absurd that something has gone wrong in the logic somewhere. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ignore this specific image and answer based on the principle-- parliamentary license, historic event, house of commons. Can we use it?
There is no general answer, so don't try insisting on one. Every individual image has to stand the test of WP:NFCC#8 (among other things). If a particular scene before parliament was so striking or of iconic historic value that a visual representation of it would be necessary for understanding the event, then maybe yes, we might use that. This is evidently not the case here. Generally speaking, though, you continue speaking of some "Parliamentary license" without ever having specified what kind of license that's supposed to be; the one you claimed for the previous upload was apparently bogus, so please do explain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If a particular scene before parliament was so striking or of iconic historic value that a visual representation of it would be necessary for understanding the event, then maybe yes, we might use that.
So, it's not really about fair use at all? It's about the notoriety of the event, which in your eyes doesn't merit the coverage, but if it were -really- important, then it'd be cool?
So, basically, three people decided that we're allowed to, just not in this story cause it's not important enough? When are editors "allowed" to use their best judgement???
It's been very clear that you don't look to US law in making this decision, you admit that. And it's also clear you don't look to consensus in making this decision. As best I can tell, you guys are just making up the rules as you go along, and then getting pissed when people call you on it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually try reading the policies and guidelines which govern this site before accusing others of fabricating rules and throwing a childish temper-tantrum when others call you out on your errors. If you need help, use the Wikipedia:Help desk. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a foundation statement or a legal statement to justify that fair use images can't be used in news stories? No? didn't think so. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the OP misunderstands the term "fair use" which is quite understandable, because the meaning is deliberately vague and each usage is determined on a case-by-case basis as to whether it qualifies as fair use or not. You should look at Fair use#Common misunderstandings. For Wikipedia purposes, in cases such as this (i.e., using a non-free image when the image itself is not the subject of the article, but instead depicts an event or something that's described), the general rule for inclusion is such: Is the article text by itself sufficient to give the reader a clear picture (no pun intended) of what's going on? If yes, then you don't need the image. One of the most common violations we find is a magazine cover that accompanies the text "Joe Schmoe appeared on the May 2011 cover of Magazine". We don't need to see the actual cover in that case. Your situation is similar: "Rebekah Brooks testified before Parliament". What part of that needs to be accompanied by a visual aid in order to make sense? If the article was something like, "When Rebekah Brooks testified before Parliament, she wore a bizarre outfit that People magazine described as 'looking like a cross between a zebra and a manatee'", well now you've been given a situation where an image is absolutely justified (I'm thinking of Princess Beatrice of York and her crazy hat during the recent royal wedding). HTH. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple:

  1. People ask for an image.
  2. People work to find an image.
  3. People work to upload and image.
  4. People like the image.
  5. Someone else uninvolved deletes the legal image, potentially rudely.
  6. People get furious and scream and learn not to contribute their time.
  • Repeat this a few thousand times and editors will hate your guts, you will hate them.
  • Wikia and our other for-profit competitors, however, will love you.
  • Your deletions EVICT our volunteers. Either you will stop deleting or they will stop volunteering.
On Wikipedia we operate on several controls. The overall constraint is the law, what is legal where Wikipedia operates from. The next level is the mission of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. At this level we also have the Wikimedia foundation the custodian. Then we get the consensus of editors here. The consensus determines policies and guidelines. Administrators operate at this level to do things in accordance with the policies. Below this we have individual editors who can choose themselves what to do constrained by the higher levels of control. The idea is to talk about it before repeating something a few thousand times! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that there was previously a whole lot of long discussion here. Most of it was removed by the writer, leaving Fastily's comment seeming to come out of nowhere.

I understand that Wikipedia's policy on copyright is difficult for many people to understand, and still more difficult for some to accept. But being a "free content encyclopedia" is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and that means not using non-free content when free content could convey the same encyclopedic information. It's a core value, and it's worth defending. I understand you might be disappointed if you upload someone else's copyrighted image and someone deletes it... but that really is Wikipedia's policy. Be glad you're on the English Wikipedia! Most languages don't allow non-free images at all. At least the English Wikipedia allows them under our non-free content policy, even if that policy is rather strict. – Quadell (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had my druthers, use of a fair use image would require, on the image page, a link to a site (or a cite to an offline publication) discussing that image as an image. Not the scene depicted, the photograph itself. I doubt we'd have more than 100 valid fair use images, and I think that would be a Good Thing. Aside from that rant, I agree entirely with Quadell.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Alecmconroy asks for a “foundation statement … to justify that fair use images can't be used in news stories”. Although it is not exactly true that fair use images can't be used in news stories, undoubtedly what he is looking for is wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which requires that if a Wikimedia project allows any non-free content at all, it may be used only in accord with an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) and that an “EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals”. The EDP for English Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

is there a Wikipedia equivalent of the Commons template {{pd-heirs}}?

Question says it all really. I know any image to which it would apply here means the image could equally well be hosted on Commons but somebody might have a reason why they only want to upload to WP. NtheP (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-author}} here says "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder" so it can be used by the creator of the work or the current copyright holder, whoever that might be (heirs, employer, someone who purchased/was granted the rights, etc). howcheng {chat} 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Solon J. Vlasto.jpg and File:Demetrius J. Vlasto.jpg

I uploaded these photos for the Wikipedia article Atlantis (newspaper). I'm not sure if I tagged the photos correctly. They are from a collection of photos my family inherited from relatives from the Early 1900's etc of which we own the rights. Is there any special code I need to add. I understand they are now "free" use. Would it make it impossible to use on Wikipedia if I could tag it with requiring attribution to the George S. Vlasto Collection? If I can tag it that way, how exactly should it be coded. Thank you in advance. unsigned, by User:Koheli

I would suggest that you put the "attribution required: George S. Vlasto Collection" statement in with the licensing section below the self template, otherwise people are likely to attribute you instead. It would also be good to include an information template to say when the photo was taken, who took it, why you now own the copyright and more about the subject matter. It is also important to know if the pictures were ever published before as that will help determine when they become public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Image Copyrights.

Are any of these images copyrighted?

http://www.lawrenceseastwood.co.uk/walkerstreet/images/Glad_Aylward_1963.jpg

http://bereanbibleheritage.org/extraordinary/artwork/aylward_gladys.jpg

http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2007/43/17915905_117137570493.jpg

http://salvationist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/GladysAylward.jpg

http://bf.5alexandra.free.fr/5gladys.jpg

http://www.sonsofgod.org.uk/images/gladys_aylward.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Gladys_Aylward.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.186.194 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell just by looking at the images. Any photograph first published after 1922 might be copyrighted. It depends on when and where it was first published. Do you have any information on when or where any of these images were first published? – Quadell (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The last of them File:Gladys Aylward.jpg is in the public domain because it's copyright has expired. —teb728 t c 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright status question

Is this image, taken from this webpage a PD-US-GOV image, and therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia? Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this photo was taken by a USAF navigator as part of his official duties. You can upload it and tag it {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. – Quadell (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is kind of messy after I've reviewed the image files. If you look carefully, there's a spot of bright light on some of these image files, which is most likely the flashlight of a camera that another person uses to take a snapshot of the original photo. IMHO, the original photos might be PD-US-GOV but the subsequent action of the uploader might violate some bits of the copyright policy. Thoughts, anyone else? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Taking a photo of a photo does not create a new copyright, unless new creative material is added. See the text of {{PD-art}} for details. – Quadell (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Quadell, that was what I was thinking. Photos would have helped the Board of Inquiry (or whatever the USAF equivalent is) in their investigation. I'm not planning on pulling every photo off that webpage, just one for a list of aircrashes. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I chose a different image from that batch, now uploaded as File:Douglas EC-47Q 42-24304 crashed.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Are we allowed to use common sense? This crashed in the middle of Alaska, who else would have taken it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Having read the description of events, I believe there is essentially no chance that these photographs are copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Imperfect tags by editor who is retired

User:Bobby131313 was kind enough to upload many coin images; unfortunately he got mad and retired (over a bot of all things). He often failed to put a license tag on the image though always putting a tag noting that the coin, as most US coins are, in the public domain. Coin images must be properly licensed for both the image and the object, so there need to be two license tags. There are not on File:Standing Liberty Quarter.jpg. Can we not take it for granted that someone who uploads their own work to Wikipedia intends for it to be used by the community?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fine. Per WP:DUCK, this is obviously similar to the many, many photos of coins that he created and uploaded. And back in 2006, when he contributed this content, the image upload page said "By contributing content to Wikipedia, you agree to release your contribution under the GFDL." (This was later retroactively changed to CC-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL.) The intent and effect are clearly that he released his photos under a free license, I'd say. – Quadell (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Great, because I'm short on images for that article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Settings for uploading your own image and waving all rights

Hi, can anyone tell me what settings i should use uploading my own images so that they can be used on wikipedia. If it means waving any rights I have to the photo, I don't mind. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks DrColePorter (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure! You can place the image in the public domain, if you want, which means you have no copyright over the image at all. To do this, tag the image {{PD-self}}. Or, if you prefer to insist that others attribute you as the creator (but otherwise allow anyone to use it for any reason) you can tag it {{cc-by-3.0}}. There are other choices too, but if you don't much care then I'd recommend using one of these two options. If you don't know how to "tag an image", then tell us which images you've uploaded and we can help you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
And in either case, please upload the images to Commons so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Downloading images

Hello, I am trying to put images in an article and I am having trouble with copyright and license. I got the images from a government website that gives the permission for fair use. Can you please help me how to do this.

This is the website that I got the images from.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/photos-eng.htm#n2

The images are provided below

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/multimedia/fig37.jpg

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/multimedia/fig5.jpg

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/ref/images/millbrook_4.jpg

Thank you Zoicad (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately our fair-use criteria is not a lenient as the usual legal use and anyway fair-use is for images for which no permission is granted. The source page, clearly shows a non-commercial prohibition, so we cannot use them because Canadian government copyright lasts for 50 years pma per commons:COM:L#Canada. If you did claim fair use, under Wikipedia policy, then such images must comply with all 10 of our non-free content criteria policy guidelines and while these images are nice they all these image appear to be replaceable. ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Avro Arrow

Would I be correct in thinking that the Image:AvroArrow1.jpg on the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow has finally passed out of copyright (50 years for a Govt image would have expired in 2009). Or am I misinterpreting Copyright Act of Canada & List of countries' copyright length. It would not have been possible to photo the aircraft after 1959 as all 5 prototypes were destroyed ? the picture is pulled from [1] which has a copyright notice of [2]. If that IS the case is there a proper method for changing the license on that image? (I am limiting my question to this one particular image, but the outcome could affect others also). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If the photo was taken by the Canadian Government, then it was held under Crown Copyright. (If it was taken by a private individual, then different rules would apply.) If it was under Crown Copyright, then the copyright has expired in Canada, and in Canada it would be considered PD. The question is: would it be PD in the U.S.?
It is true that some Canadian works whose copyright has expired in Canada may still be considered copyrighted in the U.S. (For instance, if my father published a photo in Canada in 1948, then the copyright on the photo would have expired in Canada, and anyone could reproduce the photo in Canada without my permission. However, assuming it had not been published in the U.S. prior to 1978, the copyright would still be honored in the U.S. due to the damned URAA, and I could sue you for copying the photo in the U.S. We could not publish such a photo on Wikipedia.)
So Crown Copyright is a little different. This is a case where the Canadian Government owned the copyright to the photo, and the Canadian Government makes the rules about copyright, and they claim the copyright is expired. Canada could, perhaps, sue in U.S. court to block someone from copying or publishing Image:AvroArrow1.jpg, even though they have decided not to consider it copyrighted in Canada, and the U.S. could honor that copyright. So far as I know, no country's government has ever done anything like that. But who knows, it's uncharted territory.
For UK Crown Copyright, the British Office of Public Sector Information has written to Wikimedia to explicitly decree that UK Crown copyright expires world-wide, not just in the UK. But the Canadian government hasn't written such a letter. That's why {{PD-BritishGov}} allows photos published before mid-1957, while {{PD-Canada}} only allows photos published up to 1948, even though the Crown holds the copyright in both cases.
If I had my druthers, then the letter that the UK OPSI wrote would be assumed in all cases: if a country's government does not consider its own works copyrighted, and has shown no inclination to claim foreign copyright on these works, then we should consider them PD worldwide. But I'm not the only Wikipedian with opinions. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
As it (the aircraft) was commissioned by the RCAF, I am assuming all images on a Govt website are their property. Might be about time to fire off an email asking their position of what the copyright status is. Any ideas about the 'proper process' of changing the license on the Commons hosted images ? Should they be deleted & re-uploaded with any new license if they have indeed moved out of copyright? Or can they simply be edited to their new status. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you talk to User:Bzuk, who is IRL an expert on the subject?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If they are Crown Copyright, then they are PD in Canada. However I don't think Commons will host the images, since there is suspicion they are not PD in the US. – Quadell (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost certainly not. I've used PD Canada images, but I'm certain Commons won't have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats what I am hoping to head off by only aquiring images from a Govt server. Shouldn't that head off any suspicion of non-PD problems below the 49th ?? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. Goverment websites frequently republish photographs whose copyright is held by private individuals or organizations, I'm sorry to say. They don't make it easy to tell what's Crown Copyright and what's not. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want to upload that photo to Commons, the only real problem is to provide evidence (or a compelling reason to believe) that it was published more than 50 years ago (not only that it was created then). Cf. sections 2.2 and 12 of the Canadian Copyright Act. As for the other objections raised above, they may be a problem on Wikipedia but I do not think that they would be a problem on Commons. The source website of the Canadian Air Force identifies the photo as a Canadian Forces photo. I don't know why we should suspect that it was not "prepared by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department". Commons should normally accept their word about it, unless there is some conflicting evidence somewhere. I think that Commons also has a practice of accepting government images that are not copyrighted in the country in question, under the general assumption that a government would not claim a copyright it might have in other countries on works that are not copyrighted at home. It may not be an official Commons policy or a constant practice, but it has been applied in several occasions. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have already sent a Email to Canadian Heritage Dept, which within 24hr they forwarded to the correct IP dept. asking what the current copyright status is of all the Avro images on the aforementioned gov't www page. We will see what they have say. Cross your fingers :> Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Got a reply back today, Its kinna funny in a legal mumbo-jumbo way. Basically, they didnt give an direct awnser, but the implication is that "the duration of copyright is perpetual for Crown works where the work has not been published", and the internet does not count as published. So I gather from that, if it can be pointed to in a published source prior to 50yr ago, we could get the ones from their site (as long as DND is identified as the source & and its not claimed to be an Official version). I will forward the email to anyone that wishes it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help.

I want to share an image, a picture I took, that really captures the look and feel of the place. I have been going there for over 20 years and just got the picture I have always wanted! I want to share, but it is my picture, I do not care if other people use it? I just do not want them taking my original picture and stating it was theirs. Took me 20 years plus to get this picture.

If any one can help me that would be great. Not sure really what do.

Also, this image would be about a state park, of a light house in FL, that is famous around the world, and connects to one of best places to fish or Tarpon.

Hope this is right area for this? If not I am sorry, and if so, could please help get to the right place? I would really like this image to be up on the web to be seen.

Thank you,

Rdbbwsc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdbbwsc (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can license your image on the condition you be given credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
But note that per WP:CREDITS, the credit is given on the image information page, not in captions in articles where the image is used. – ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To put it in practical terms, if you go to the Special:Upload page, or, preferably, commons:Special:Upload, and then, in the field at the bottom under "licensing", choose one of the options that say "own work, attribution required", that will add a statement of the kind you want, giving other users the right to use your file but with the obligation of acknowledging you as the author. – BTW, since you say it's a good picture of a certain place, if you like, and if you upload it through the "commons" upload form, I could then show you the little trick necessary to make your image appear also on Googlemaps and similar geographical sites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are these recent "fair use" images ok?

Hey everybody! I've recently uploaded a couple "fair use" images for use in the Wiki American Pickers and would like an admin or an editor with more experience uploading photos, logos, etc. to check and make sure I filled out all the documentation stuff correctly. Basically I used the "monkey see, monkey do" method -- imitating how other, presumably ok, fair use logos/pics were done. If I've not done them correctly any helpful advice much appreciated. Sorting out all the various licensing mumbo jumbo really makes my head spin sometimes. lol. Thanks, and have a great Wiki kinda day. Sector001 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

kevin moody

Are newspaper articles allowed as a public domain picture? I'm trying to build this Wicki page but am not the most sophisticated Wiki donater! Please advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorothyParkertoo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unless it is specifically licenced as public domain or has fallen into the public domain due to age. However, you can use a newspaper article as a reference. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of references. I'd suggest checking out WP:REFSTART. Back to the picture question... you could see if the subject of the article would donate a picture to the Wikimedia Commons or if somebody else could take a picture and donate it there. (Donating it to Commons would mean that the copyright holder would have to agree that the picture could be used by anybody for any use.) Cloveapple (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY?

Is it safe to assume that a document is under CC BY if it states that "The material in this publication may be reproduced if [publisher and authors] is acknowledged as the source"? How much attribution do I need to give? Is it then safe for me to copy and paste? Thanks in advance. --Σ talkcontribs 02:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To the extent of my knowledge it is safe. To be safe I would include in-text attribution as well as a reference. I would also provide attribution in the edit summary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Not in my opinion because the statement is not clear enough. The statement does not confirm that commercial use or modifications are permitted, so one could interpret it as being one of several free or unfree CC licences. If a specific CC licence is not specified we should not assume anything not specifically stated. Try to contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the image under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Not only is it not safe to assume, it is certain that this wording is not a CC-by license. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not CC. Possibly (and I mean very possibly) {{Attribution}}. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
While this is not a CC license, I think using it should be fine. The copyright holder is clearly intending to allow the material to be used with a single condition (acknowledgement). I don't see a hidden "...if used non-commercially" any more than a hidden "...if you pay me a million bucks" in there. I think {{Copyrighted free use provided that|([publisher and authors] is acknowledged)}} would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
So if the aforementioned footnote were placed on a text document, are the attribution templates usable if I copied or closely paraphrased it? --Σ talkcontribs 22:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If the text is released under a free license, then there are no legal problems with reusing the text, so long as it's properly attributed. However, we usually don't reuse text word-for-word on Wikipedia (or even a close paraphrase), because it almost always has problems with bias or an unencyclopedic tone. – Quadell (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Is an inline citation sufficient attribution, or do I need to use something like {{country study}}? --Σ talkcontribs 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with ww2censor; our license requires that modification be permitted, and this statement doesn't say anything about it. :/ I don't think we can regard that as compatible. Certainly, it's not CC-By, which specifically permits "remixing" the work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

poppy tea article

Your entry draws a lot from my widely available and seminal work "confessions of an ebay opium addict" I dont mind if you use my work, but at least give me credit for it. thanks, DELETED

Thanks for telling us about this. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, occasionally we run into problems with plagiarism or copyright violation. I'll submit this issue to the appropriate committee to review. – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this on MRG's talk page. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, and Page 7 look fine. Considering our article is written in the third person and his is in the first, a copy and paste is quite unlikely. However, if we have similar information it may be wise to cite his article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree. :) Mr. Thompson, could you identify some of the specific passages in our article that you feel are drawn from your essay? Your essay was much more fun to read than the article, so it's possible that I've missed something. We want to be sure you're properly attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

University logo claimed to be licensed under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

File:Univoflondon crest.png

The logo at the top of the infobox at University of London was changed in this edit from a non-free logo with a valid rationale to the one (linked to above) that is claimed to be the own work of User:FPN by User:82.22.255.158. I question whether that user is permitted to claim the logo as licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. Can someone take a look at this, as I suspect this might be a copyright violation. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not hesitate to revert the change. Similar uploads from an account with the same username on Wikipedia were deleted after being listed on WP:PUI [3]. The upload logs of the two accounts on Wikipedia [4] (2007-2008) and on Commons [5] (2008-2011) show that they are into the bad habit of claiming own work about images taken from the net. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted to the logo that was well discussed on the article talk page a few days ago and nominated his last two commons images for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How to change an image license

I created and uploaded the following image (some time ago), but I accidentally used the wrong license - I wish no copyright claim or license, and meant for it to be released, so it could be used everywhere.

How do I change the license from non-free, to free?

File:Anim-jswilly.gif

a_man_alone (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though you created the animated gif, the underlying figure is (presumably) copyrighted by Bug-Byte / Software Projects. Since you didn't create the character, you can't actually release the image under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Image posting

I'm trying to upload some images that I created and then were published in a series of articles which I was an author in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. They have been taken down twice now, and I would like to know correct way to tag or site them so they will not be removed in future. I was given permission by the journal, provided that I indicate the copyright is held by The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. The journal guidelines for permission can be found here.

http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.doc

Please let me know the proper way to upload the images

Than you Cmpierce2 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you created the images yourself it depends on what arrangement you made with the publication. Did you retain copyright of the images or give up your copyright? If the former, then you can release the images under whatever free licence you want but if you are no longer the copyright holder you may be able to get them to release the images you want under a freely licenced copyright by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. On reading the link above the publication's permissions it specifically does not allow commercial use, so it depends on who owns the copyright now. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Explaining further: It might seem that since Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, a commercial use license would not be needed. But Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content; so Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only in Wikipedia. Except in extraordinary circumstances Wikipedia requires a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything including adaptation and commercial use. —teb728 t c 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Radio show clarification?

Music clips are mentioned repeatedly, but not clips from radio shows, non-CC podcasts, audiobooks, etc. Is there a specific Wikimedia statement about their fair use? My thought is that a fair use clip would have utility for WP:Verifiability of claims in articles, where ephemera like radio shows would have no other archival verifiable source. Seems like fair use should apply straightforwardly, with clips of, say 20-30 seconds or less, given that shows vary from 30 minutes to several hours. The show has been published (or broadcast), no free replacement is usually available, and such a clip could have no effect on the author's ability to profit. --Lexein (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We generally don't host non-free material on Wikipedia servers for the purpose of verification. For instance, if someone uploads a photo of a small section of a (non-free) newspaper article, this is routinely deleted as failing NFCC#1, since text would serve the same purpose. I suspect that a text transcript of a section of an audio interview (or whatever) would serve the same purpose. – Quadell (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If verification is improper use, well, then there are a lot of articles with improperly used images. I should state that the news photograph counterexample isn't the right one: newspapers (and their photographs) are not ephemeral, and are verifiable in other ways; they're also archived regularly in a variety of for-profit and non-profit entities.
Closer to the issue at hand, television shows are ephemeral (like radio), but they have an archival life, in the form of free and paid downloads, and official releases on DVD (formerly VHS). As a result, at Wikipedia, individual television episodes (and movies) are exhaustively documented with extreme text detail (examination of credits frames for production numbers, and so on) and fair-use screenshots based solely on DVR, DVD, and legal (and illegal) downloads, _not_ independent reliable sources. Ok, so TV and film have WP:OR latitude, as primary sources.
However, based on your assertions above, audio media does not appear to have the same documentary leniency at Wikipedia, and this resembles undue bias for television and against radio articles. If fair-use screenshots are permitted to "illustrate" articles about TV shows and movies, then fair-use (small, non-commercially impacting) audio samples should also be permitted for non-music audio articles. The primary medium determines the form of the fair use "illustration": text quotes for news, images for visual medium articles, and, by the same logic, audio samples for audio-medium articles. The understandable assertion that "text description should be good enough", should be applied evenly for all media articles, not solely against fair use of non-music audio content. Seems like enforcement of this dictum would result in a large number of imageless and musicless articles, a huge backlash, and a reminder that Wikipedia is not intended to be text only (WP:RICHMEDIA).
Back on point, Wikipedia already stores fair-use media (images, music) under the rubric of "illustration", when it really is used for verification: X musician plays hip-hop, here's a cite, and here's a sample. The Y show is animated, and here's a screenshot. The Z radio show host said "Q", (claim only partially supported by independent RS), and here's the (very short) audio quote.(claim fully supported by primary source). Help me understand what the real problem is, if I'm just not getting it yet.
Just saying. --Lexein (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Television shows and radio shows are not treated any differently. If a (non-free) screenshot of a television show were uploaded and hosted on Wikipedia only to provide verification for a claim (e.g. "Starring Kate Winslet"), the image would be deleted. To be kept, a non-free image has to provide information that words alone cannot convey. Audio files are treated in the exact same way. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, a brief clip from an audio program can be included in an article on the subject, if that clip fulfills all our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Brief music samples are often included in articles about albums, and there's so reason this couldn't be done for audio shows in an article about that particular show. But keep in mind: the purpose of this is to give the reader information about what the show sounds like, not to verify assertions made in the article. (Perhaps WP:V is a red herring here?) – Quadell (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I appreciate your wading through my verbiage. For me, verification isn't a red herring, because verifiability of ephemeral media is a nightmare. I can listen to a radio show (or a bootleg of it, or a rebroadcast of it, or an anthologization of it), glean some relevant fact related to an article, then quote (or paraphrase) and inline cite it in that article. But since other Wikipedia readers might not be able to verify my claim and citation, some eager editor will delete that cited content as a violation of WP:V - this is the nightmare scenario. It is a substantial chilling effect against the use of ephemeral media as reliable sources. I blathered on about OR in TV articles because verifiability is relatively easier, since DVR (VCR), legal download, and physical media are frequently available, whereas _none_ of the above are typical for radio broadcasts. There, bootlegs are frequently the only evidence that a broadcast took place at all; it's uncommon for broadcasters to make available full archives of their shows, even on a paid basis.
In my opinion, that chilling effect is an inherent Wikipedia bias against radio as (even primary) source. This impedes the Wikipedia goal of including content that is reliably sourced by all potential reliable, notable sources. A policy shift towards archiving of specific fair-use audio samples for the purpose of verification would go far in addressing this inherent bias. Of course, the argument can be made, "Who cares? Who's on radio that anybody cares about?" But that's another bias against potential reliable, notable sources. To me, it's an open question, and I'm not at all sure this is the right place to discuss it, "Should Wikipedia's sourcing policies be biased towards easy verifiability, or accommodate all possible verifiability?" --Lexein (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploading an academic institution's logo - Unsure about its copyright status

Hi, I would like to upload the logo of the American University, Washington College of Law to the Washington College of Law page and I am not sure about the image's copyright status. I have seen logos for almost every other school displayed on the information box for the schools on their wikipedia pages and would like the Washington College of Law to have that same honor. I have attempted to upload an image but am new to Wikimedia editing and have no idea how to do so in a manner that will comport with copyright laws. I have clicked on other logos I have seen and notice that they contain a disclaimer about a non-free media use rationale for using the photo because they are logos of an academic institution. I would like to be advised about how I can do the same for the Washington College of Law logo, which can be found at the top of the main page for the school's website: http://www.wcl.american.edu/ The specific image I am discussing is file:logo_white_blue.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyartemis133 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You uploaded it to Commons, which was probably a mistake because it is probably free enough for Commons. I recommend you upload it to Wikipedia, tagged with {{non-free logo}} and using {{logo fur}} for the non-free use rationale. (It’s not a copyright issue, but it would look better if you had a version with a margin.)—teb728 t c 04:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
However, I think TEB728 means "not free enough for commons", but before you can upload it here you have to be an autoconfirmed user which requires you are registered for more than 4 days and have made at least 10 edits. ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, you're right: it's not free enough. As another note, when you upload it, give it a more descriptive name than logo_white_blue.png. —teb728 t c 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

USS Thomas passengers manifest

Hello there gentlemen: One of our streets in my hometown of Ivana, Batanes, Philippines is named after a Thoamsite who was assigned here sometime in 1902. His name is William Edmonds. My father, who died in 1964, had told me as a child about Edmonds. I want to write about Edmonds, but first, I want to know which trip of the ship was he on board for the Philippines. Also, I would like to find out from where in the USA did he come from. Thank you! --- Commnader Jack E. Castano III (Ret), Philippine Navy (email removed for privacy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.23.210 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a media copyright question. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related media copyright issues. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 08:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload the school logo onto the user page set up by madabucharest on the International British School of Bucharest? If so, how can I do this?

I would also like to upload some photos relating to what has been written, such as the Planet BSB logo and a photo of the British Ambassador with the school debating team. We have the permission from the British Embassy to do this and the students in the photo.

I would the like to post the user page to the following link pages:

Categories: Education in Bucharest | International schools in Romania | High schools in Bucharest | Educational institutions established in 2000

How can I do this?

Username: Madabucharest User ID: 15099488

Thank you for your help.

Mada 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)mada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madabucharest (talk • contribs)

Since the logo is not free licensed, you can't upload it until you move your draft, User:Madabucharest, to article space. You also can't upload it until your account is 4 days old. Then you can upload it at Special:Upload, tagging it with {{non-free logo}} and using {{logo fur}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As for a photo: If you took the photo yourself or if the photographer has licensed it under a free license (one which allows reuse by anyone for anything), you can upload it at Commons:Special:Upload, tagging it with the specific free license. (See Help:Files for details on uploading and using images.)
As for categories: Wait till you move the draft to article space before you add categories. —teb728 t c 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

copyright

can you copyright images created by someone else27.32.170.71 (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

no—teb728 t c 05:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Image Upload

I have a picture of my college which is taken by my friend. He put those photose in net. I downloaded and added in wikipedia to add it in my college wiki site ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gec_logo.jpg#Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gecskp.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gecskp_frontview.jpg ).

Now some copyright issues are coming. In which category I can put those photos?

please replay. thanks Sujith G sujithmannarkkad@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithmannarkkad (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Gec logo.jpg is fine as is. In order to keep File:Gecskp frontview.jpg the photographer needs to license it under a free license like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}; see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the license. I frankly can’t think of an encyclopedic use for File:Gecskp.jpg. —teb728 t c 05:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo Usage

I have been asked to help put together a wiki page for a certain notable person. This person would like me to add a certain photo. I have permission from the photographer and the subject of the photo as I know them both personally. How do I make sure that the use of any of the images, be it of the subject or the subject's work, don't get taken down. Last time I attempted to do the photos, they all were taken down, I am unsure of how to remedy this to make sure it is proven correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikkisixx (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:IOWN. --Jayron32 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The copyright owner of the photograph (probably the photographer) needs to license the photograph under a free license (one that allows reuse by anyone for anything; permission for use only on Wikipedia is not enough). Your previous deletions were for images that were not free-licensed. A photo of a living person must be free-licensed. —teb728 t c 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(I've started a discussion with the user on his talk page. Hopefully we can clear this up.) – Quadell (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

How is it determined, if an image meets the Threshold of originality needed for copyright protection? For example, why does File:Deutsche Börse.svg meet the threshold, but File:Dresdner-Bank-Logo.svg does not? What is the difference between these two images leading to this differing classification? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Deutsche Börse.svg looks as though it may be too simple for copyright. The rule is basicly simple shapes and short pieces of text are not eligible for copyright. However if you have enough of either then it will become eligible and whether this is the case is determined by courts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Cropping Bundesarchiv multisubject images to create single subject images

Over the last couple of years a large number of images from the German federal archive have been uploaded. Many are fascinating images and the quality is good. Very generous and thank you. And example attached. My question:

What is the copyright position if one wants to crop a picture so as to show just a portion of it? The attached example shows a former boss of Volkswagen with the previous King of Jordan. From it one could easily fashion a face shot just of (in the case of the entry I am looking at) Hr. Schmücker. It would not be a brilliantly flattering image, but it would be a whole lot better than what we have.

The Bundesarchiv images are often clear, and in the past I have sometimes wondered about fashioning a picture of an individual car by cropping savagely round it in a more generalised street scene. Same question. Probably same answer...?.

I know this wiki-expert-help-desk is likely to be staffed by persons of a legal inclination and I am happy (if you wish) for an "on the one hand ... on the other..." reply. That would almost certainly be interesting. However, if someone were able to conclude with a "yes" or a "no" .... that would be nice too.

And many thanks for thinking on it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The CC license [6] seems pretty clear - you can adapt the work, which would include cropping. Smallbones (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Smallbones is correct. Crop all you want. You may want to include links from one image to the others. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I fixed some of the licensing at File:Toni Schmücker extracted from Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F054865-0013, Wolfsburg, Staatsbesuch König von Jordanien.jpg. Were there other crops made? – Quadell (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1 Thank you
2 Were there other crops made?. No. But I've thought about it before and may do more in the future and
3 If I will, I will try and replicate the stuff you did with this one.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a procedure for creating a "derivative work", and uploading it separately, so that its licensing is inherited from the original, rather than "uploading a new version" over the original - I'm not sure exactly how that's done. Anyone? --Lexein (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You will upload a separate work and will keep the same licensing from the old. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The way Charles01 did it with File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F054865-0013, Wolfsburg, Staatsbesuch König von Jordanien.jpg (original) and File:Toni Schmücker extracted from Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F054865-0013, Wolfsburg, Staatsbesuch König von Jordanien.jpg (cropped) looks right. The original has the cropped version listed in the "other_versions" parameter of the {{Information}} template, and the cropped version uses the {{extracted from}} template to credit the original. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

silloutte version of non-free for ID

If one has an appropriate non-free image, is a version of that image that reduces identifiable outlines and/or shapes (black/white image with numbers or letters to identify each shape), purely for uses of identifying the elements of the image that cannot be done in going to carry the copyright of the original work or would be a free image? The one example I know exists is File:Raising the Flag outline.svg for the non-free photograph; the silloutte version is on commons. Does it matter if it is from a photograph, screenshot, or non-live artistic work? Does it matter how the image is created ( eg a "edge enhanced" version of the original media acceptable?) --MASEM (t) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this would be a derivative work of the copyrighted image, and derivative works can't be published without the consent of the copyright holder. – Quadell (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's what I figured, but how do we explain, then, the silloutte version of the Raising of the Flag? --MASEM (t) 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It should have two tags. The new, original content (color, outlines, etc.) should be licensed under a free license, which it is. But there should also be a non-free media rationale for the underlying copyrighted content. It really shouldn't be hosted on Commons, but it should pass our NFCC here. That will rather leave the Catalan and Spanish Wikipedias in a lurch, but that's unavoidable. – Quadell (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian-Army images

I have some questions regarding File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif. The original description site states "Created using File:Australian-Army-MAJGEN.gif as a model". I think the first question should be:

1) Is the original still under copyright, or has it gone to public domain by now (if PD, the rest becomes more or less moot, though I'd still be interested in the answer). For more info, other images of this type are displayed here.

If the original is still under copyright, then the sentence "Created using File:Australian-Army-MAJGEN.gif as a model" sounds like the created image is a derivative work. I don't think that there is significant added/removed in that image which would make it original enough for a new copyright. Note, the uploader (User:Pdfpdf) now states that "It was used based on a combination of Official Australian Army images and Australian War Memorial images." To me, the former seems more true, it is practically the same as the MAJGEN image, but with one object less on it.

In any case, the image File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif was tagged as copyrighted, but without any rationales for use, and hence tagged for deletion. The uploader re-tagged the image as public domain (diff), an edit that I reverted. It is now unclear how this image should be tagged. Question:

2) If the original is still copyrighted, is this derivative work still falling under that same copyright, even though it is not the same as the others?

Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

May have been solved per comment from the uploader - If I see it correctly, the images mentioned here should all be re-tagged to {{PD-Australia}}. Still interested in the second question, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is 1929, then it looks clean. We run into problems in Australia, as I recall, once the fifty year rule clashes with the Hague convention date. 1946 and later, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
All Australian photos taken or published before 1955 are public domain in Australia. The free trade agreement between USA and Australia makes USA recognise this public domain, overriding some earlier American laws. Army material would also be Crown copyright, lasting for 50 years in Australia. So Australian Army pictures from 1960 or before are public domain in AU and USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
So the other images (now all tagged as non-free) should be re-tagged as well if I understand this correctly? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The best analysis is given succinctly at {{PD-Australia}}; read that template to tell just which photos can be tagged with this template and which ones can't. – Quadell (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fast Five Trailer

Hello. I had wanted to include this trailer (http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2265750041/) on the page as it won an award and I thought it would be interesting for readers and useful to enable them to see what kind of matter was winning a marketing award. It's 30 seconds long so I was just wondering what the situation would be here as I imagine it would just not be allowed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You're correct, it wouldn't be. There are already multiple links on the article that link to sites that host the trailer. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons

Hi, an editor (innocently and inadvertently) uploaded the image File:Albert Schlechten.jpg to Commons, but it is a copyrighted image. I reuploaded it here as File:Albert Schlechten1.jpg and put a fair use tag on it. Can you straighten out the commons version? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it copyrighted? Was it not published before 1923? —teb728 t c 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This image may have been copyrighted at some point, but it is certainly not copyrighted anymore. All photos published in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain worldwide. – Quadell (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there evidence that this particular photo was published back then? The source webpage does not seem to cite any publication from that era for this photo. It says that the museum used the negative to make the webpage's photo. The museum does claim a copyright on this photo, which would normally imply that it was not published before 1923. One might question if the museum acquired the copyright at the same time they bought the photo collection, but I suppose we should assume good faith about their copyright claim, or at least we should gather some solid evidence to the contrary if we want to challenge it, and anyway if the photo was not published in a year and manner that would have made it enter the public domain, then the copyright would be held by someone. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking through their website, they claim copyright on every single photograph they display, even ones that were clearly published before 1923. It's obviously boilerplate, and it's frequently clearly inaccurate. It's true that the law applies to date of publication rather than of creation, and it's true that if this was unpublished until recently it would still be copyrighted... but in practice, we on Wikipedia almost never have the ability to prove when a work was first published. Almost none of the PD-US photographs in out historical featured pictures, for instance, have information about when they were first published, because that would set the bar impossibly high. In this case, the Schlechtens were professional photographers whose works were well-known and published in postcards around the country. They created photos in order to publish them, and all indications are that their photos were published before 1923. The only contrary evidence is a boilerplate notice from the purchaser of the photographs. (...but perhaps not of the rights -- they frequently explain how they own a negative but do not know who the photographer was, and in these cases they could not have purchased the copyrights. But they still claim copyright on those photos, e.g. this anonymous 1863 photograph.) – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this particular image IS copyrighted. See [7] I really wish it wasn't, but I'm afraid it is. And the museum putting a blanket copyright on everything doesn't alter matters, I fear. Given that it is a self-portrait, I doubt it was ever published as a postcard, and if not published prior to 1923, it probably falls under the life + 70 years portion of copyright law. See this [8] The up side is that WP can still use the image as fair use, just not at Commons, which I did do in an abundance of caution (but you guys deleted that version, unfortunately). I certainly would love this to be a PD image, but the museum DID purchase these images from the Schlechten family, who presumably owned all copyrights. I'm not really going to push this too much, but I know that I just had to survive a FA run on an article with some historic and untrackable images, in doing so, talked to a magazine editor who was pretty much a fan of fair use. It's an extra hassle on WP, but I guess I lean toward caution. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you're seeing the same facts I am (a blanket copyright claim, often clearly incorrect; an image created in 1905 by a professional and widely-published photographer; etc.) But you seem to come to the opposite conclusion. Can others weigh in? It might help resolve this. – Quadell (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, no dispute as to age of image and credit is to "Schlechten" (though probably Alfred tripped the shutter, given that I doubt there were timers yet and crawling across those rocks would have taken a bit! =:-O ). I do think that it is unlikely the image was ever "published," though that is probably trying to prove a negative. FYI, I also raised the issue over at Commons, though, so a parallel conversation might be starting there. Sorry that I'm being a pain in the butt on this, but here's the commons link. [9]. I guess my view is that a copyright claim is a copyright claim. Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It is my view that the uploader or proponent should have to show pre-1923 publication or other facts to show PD, when that is dispute. It's asking a lot of people guarding against copyvios to have to prove a negative.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Is that a general thing? Do you think all pre-1923 photographs should be deleted if we can't show that they were published before 1923? Because that's a lot of photographs... including more than half of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History. – Quadell (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is what we should aspire to. I would say that photographs taken before 1880 would not need it as the photographer almost certainly died at least 70 years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The "rights" line in the museum's description of this photo seems to assert a specific copyright on this photo. It is not the wording they use as boilerplate. For comparison, the Edgar photo (to which I'm guessing your link referred), and the three other photos by unknown photographers the museum's website seems to have from the period 1860-1870, all have a line that reads "Copyright restrictions available from the Museum of the Rockies Photo Archive". That seems to be their boilerplate (which is indeed quite meaningless and which I interpret as meaning "dear visitor, we did not write a status line about this image, but if you are unsure of its status, you can contact us and we will tell you if we are aware of any copyright restrictions"). But the boilerplate is not used for the Schlechten photo. Instead, for the Schlechten photo they specifically assert a copyright with the line "Copyright Museum of the Rockies". We really don't know if this photo was published. It certainly can not be assumed that professional photographers publish every shot they take. It is more likely that only a variable proportion of their takes make it to publication, although they keep the negatives and/or prints of the unpublished ones in their files and those may be interesting to see a century later. We really should not place public domain tags on works if we can not document the facts to support that statement and if there is doubt. This photo would be a perfect example of real fair use in the context of an article on the Schlechtens, as it illustrates the work of one of the photographers. So it would probably not be a problem for Wikipedia to keep it in fair use. But inciting outside reusers to believe that a work is in the public domain, when actually it may well not be, and when there is a plausible copyright claim, would be causing potential trouble without reason. As for the featured historical pictures gallery, it seems that the status of the works can be sufficiently verified from known facts, either their publication, creation date or years p.m.a., as the case may be. Anyway, "other files are incorrectly tagged" would not be a convincing argument, and if someone finds any works in that gallery whose status is in serious doubt, then the solution is to retag them for fair use, provided they meet the conditions for it. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone for your replies. The image is nominated for deletion at Commons, and there's a good chance it will be deleted there, for many of the reasons mentioned above. I think we all agree that this photo will pass our NFCC regardless, so I'll restore the en.wiki version that relies on NFCC, which should work in our article at least. I still don't feel that, in general, a pre-1923 photo should be deleted simply because we can't show it's publication history. However in this case, as Asclepias points out, the museum does seem to be making a specific copyright claim on this collection only, which is different from their similar but vague statements on other photographs. And after reading one of the comment at Comments, I have to admit that the claim is plausible. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel rather bad about being the pain in the butt who started this, so I hope no hard feelings. I have just survived too many of these disputes and prefer to err on the side of caution. Quadell, thank you so very much for your willingness to work on this issue and for making the fix. It is restoring my faith in the general overall goodwill of wikipedians! Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

designer of record jacket

I have recently updated Herb Kawainui Kane who was, among other things, an illustrator. He created one record jacket which can be seen at http://amykstillman.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/playlist-for-mus-478b-fall-2010-himeni/ where it is #3 on the list. I would like to add the image from that blog to the Wikipedia entry for Kane under a fair use rationale. The copyright may belong to Kane's estate (he is dead) or to the record company or someone else for all I know. The entry is not about the record, but does list the jacket as his design, which is sourced. If I can use the image I will expand the discussion of the scene depicted in the jacket design, what it meant for him as a person and artist, for which I have a good source, but which would not make any sense without seeing the image. I feel this would balance the discussion of this eclectic artist's range of subject matter, and show his commercial side which is not illustrated otherwise. That is the key to the rationale. It is also a quite small image, so doubtful it has any commercial importance as a reproduction. IMO. Does this seem appropriate? While I am at it, why does the template for records not include the jacket designer? After all, that is the person whose art is being reproduced. Does anyone else share my concern that virtually all images of album covers in Wikipedia fail to credit their authors, and such information is not required as a matter of routine? Alawa (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You bring up some interesting questions, Alawa. No, I believe that including this work of art in the Herb Kawainui Kane article would not pass our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically #8. In an article about the album itself, seeing the album would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", but in an article on the artist (or in an article on "Eddie Kamae and the Sons of Hawaii", for that matter) it would not. A good parallel would be an article on a contemporary artist, e.g. Bronwyn Bancroft, whose work is all copyrighted and non-free. None of the artist's non-free works are acceptable in an article on the artist, and this is a long-standing interpretation of policy. I believe this situation is similar.
In your other question, you ask why {{Non-free album cover}} doesn't include the album artist. It merely states that "the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question", without requiring specifics. It's actually more important for the copyright holder to be credited, rather than the creator, in non-free works. And you said yourself, you don't know who actually holds the copyright. It's often very difficult to tell. Our NFCC#10 only requires that "artist, publisher and copyright holder" be listed "where possible". It would certainly be an improvement to add that information to an image description page, but it's not a requirement to prevent an image from being deleted.
I hope this answers your questions. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As usual, I have only imagined that I had an original thought (about the template). Thank you for showing where in the archive others have raised the issue of credit for graphic designers. For the record (ahem) I disagree with the consensus, but in the spirit of choosing one's battles, I will let it pass. Thank you for helping me understand the context and reasoning at work in the discussion. I appreciate your taking the time. Alawa (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free content on WP:GLAM/TNA

User:Mr impossible left a message on my talk page [10] regarding a non free image on WP:GLAM/TNA. My bot (DASHBot) had been removing a non-free image (example) from the page under WP:NFCC#9. Is this appropriate? Or should the image be allowed to stay? Tim1357 talk 01:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Is there some reason this logo can't be marked {{PD-text}}? That would solve the problem. If for some reason it needs to be treated as non-free, there's no exception that could apply to allow it to stay on Wikipedia:GLAM/TNA. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur that {{PD-text}} would be appropriate, and will resolve the problem. – Quadell (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

?

recpected sir,my name is ashok.am i indian.daily i ran reverse rnning,minum 5km,maximum 10km,i ran time many more pepoles watching and take phots sir.your company using me,your company T-shirt,and shoe advicement T-shirt,i will ready to wear your T-shirt and i will running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.84.1.24 (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Your question is unclear. Can you explain? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking media copyright questions related to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. —teb728 t c 20:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Text-only logo?

This logo is tagged as non-free, should it be PD text-only? It's basically made up of text characters but there is some degree of design in the overlapping characters. January (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a gray area. A simple text-only logo is sure to be judged ineligible for copyright if challenged in court. A complex logo with a detailed image is almost certain to be copyrighted. In between these extremes, there is simply no way to know for sure how a judge would rule in any particular situation. Unless there's a clear reason to use a logo in a way that our NFCC would not allow, we should be very cautious about which logos we affix this to. In my opinion, this logo may be artistic enough to qualify for copyright. – Quadell (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with Quadell. I'd like to add on here, that whether we mark it as free or non-free, it really doesn't change anything. Unless we want to use the image in ways the NFCC would not permit, how it is marked has no effect. Our downstream users are just as encumbered regardless of how it is tagged. Internally, we're just as encumbered if its marked free or non-free. We gain nothing from it being marked as free that we don't already have with it being tagged non-free and judiciously used under NFCC requirements. In gray areas cases such as this, it is safest to assume it is non-free, and treat it as such. We're not a court of law, and we have no power to rule something ineligible or not. What we are is a re-user of material, with internal judgments on how that material is to be used. Our decisions on the copyrightability of something has no effect whatsoever on the real world status of the material. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OS Open Data Licence

Would maps prepared using data subject to the OS Open Data Licence be acceptable in a Wikipedia article? If so, what should the copyright tag be? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, upload to Commons and and tag with Commons:Template:OS OpenData. —teb728 t c 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then this image File:Great_Britain_Vice_Counties.png needs to be re-tagged as Commons:Template:OS OpenData. It was generated by an editor from the boundaries from the National Biodiversity Network digital data, as he explains at User_talk:Owain#Map_of_vice-counties_of_Britain. These boundaries are not open-source but subject to the OS Open Data Licence, as stated at [11]. Can someone do this please? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

claire hooper (artist) image problem

Hi I am writing the wiki page Claire Hooper (artist) and have received the image File:Nyx nemesis.jpg directly from claire hooper for use on Wikipedia

now I do not understand how to change the copyright information of the file??

I have been warned that I must provide a rationale but I cannot see any place to do this --- please can you help?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralstaircasespiralstaircase (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't use non-free images of living people on Wikipedia. (An image is "free" if the copyright holder has released the image under a free license, such as {{cc-by}}, that allows anyone to reuse it, make modifications, and even sell it. All other images are non-free.) Even if the copyright holder says "You can use this image on Wikipedia", Wikipedia won't accept it unless it's released under a free license. Since this particular image is non-free, we'll have to delete it.
However, if the copyright holder is willing to release the image under a free license, then we can restore the image. But, like I said, they would have to allow anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use it for any purpose (including derivatives and commercial reuse). If you think the copyright holder would be willing to do this, let me know and I'll help you get that verified so that the image can be restored. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed copyright removal until resolved

Hi - please comment - IMO - disputed copyright files should be removed and only replaced to article space on resolution - What policy/guidelines are the objections to this position? Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, anyone can dispute an image by taking it to WP:PUF or WP:FFD or whatever. There is currently a bot that places a notice in pages of articles where the disputed image is, saying that it's nominated for deletion. And then there's a bot that removes the images from articles once they have been deleted. The process has been refined over the years, and it seems to work pretty well as is, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we need a bit more updating of the guidelines in regard to disputed media copyrights - currently any policy violator uploads a copyright violation and it stays in wikipedia articles for sometimes for more than a week, disputed files should be removed until verified - as per BLP - if its in doubt take it out and if later its supported via consensus and policy then it can be replaced - we should have such a similar remove from en wikipedia publication and err on the side of caution until verification or resolution - I can do it right now, a picture that is not mine , I can upload it to wikipedia to a high view page - 25 thousand views a day and that picture that I have no right to upload at all will be republished through the project for over a week - we should take a more cautious approach with other peoples property -if in doubt take it out. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, we already err on the side of caution. The question is whether it's a problem to keep them there for the 2-7 days while it's being discussed. This would be a widespread change, and would involve reprogramming a couple different bots. I don't think you'll find consensus that this change is necessary, but you're welcome to try. You'd have to start an RFC, and link to it from all the places where people might care about the issue; I'd suggest here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media, the bot approval group, PUF, and FFD, for a start. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Another option would be to change the active working position, if users start to remove the clear violating copyright violating uploads we could set a precedent without ant PUF OR FFD or bot discussion - considering all those pointers active editing in opposition to the stated guideline might be preferential. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the bots could assess how many copyright violating media files are being hosted in wikipedia articles and for how long and what the related page views of those media files is. In my mind it seems cleanly the preferable position as per copyright to remove disputed pictures and files from article space untill the files receive verification of consensus agreement as to their status.Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Barry Nelson.jpg

This image has been uploaded for two years, and no copyright status has been known. Also, it advises the administrators to delete this image permanently for one week, and I don't know how well to simply notify to the uploader this news. --Gh87 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. But it looks like the problem has been resolved now. – Quadell (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Image permission grant to Wikipedia

Is it possible for the author to give specific permission to Wikipedia for use of his photo even though he wishes to retain commercial rights with respect to users other than Wikipedia? Thank you. Steve Harnish (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • No, not really. I mean, they can, but it has no real effect on how we use an image here. In fact, it's a speedy deletion criteria (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). If they wish to retain commercial rights, we'd have to treat the image as non-free, and it would have to comply with WP:NFCC in all respects. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
To add to what Hammersoft said, if you want for Wikipedia to use an image that you hold the copyright to, you'll have to license that image under a "free license" that allows anyone (not just Wikipedia) to reuse the image for any reason (including modifications and commercial reuse). The reason is, Wikipedia is founded on free content, and we want to encourage material to be licensed so that it can be freely used by anyone. By holding to this principle, we've helped bring many thousands of images into free use that would otherwise be restricted.
But there is an option that authors use. If you release your photograph under the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, you still retain the copyright. You give anyone the right to use the image, but only under certain restrictions. For one thing, they have to credit you as the author. For another, any work they make using your image, they have to release under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license as well. So, for instance, if I wanted to use your photo in a book I publish, I would have to release my book under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license in order to do so, or else I would have to negotiate a separate agreement with you. Most publishers are not willing to do this, of course, so they prefer to purchase a separate license from the photographer. See this for more information. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the CC-BY-SA option, I believe re-users do not have to release their entire work under the same license if it is just a collection of independent works (e.g. a photo gallery, or a compendium of encyclopedia articles). It is only when their work is an adaptation of a CC-BY-SA work that the share-alike clause takes effect. See definitions 1(a) and 1(b) and clauses 3(a) and 4(a) here for more details. --Avenue (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Alicia Keys Piano solo cover copyright infringement?

Ok so my issue is I have an MP3 file up on 4shared of Kyle Landry's Piano solo cover of Alicia Key's "Empire State of Mind". With this It was moved from public access and download because "antipiracy@riaa.com" reported it. With this I wonder if this is allowed? The MP3 is of the piano cover which is still up on youtube and Kyle Landry (The pianist of the cover) has given the ok to keep the MP3's up... so is this type of report allowed? I argued with the 4shared support and they settled on "Unfortunately we can not react on this matter unless RIAA confirm in a written form to us that they agree to have these files back online.".... So is this all allowed? Can I do anything about this? Do I have anything to argue on to get the file back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.119.118 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. —teb728 t c 09:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Images for Blog

Is it ok if i use pictures from major websites like people.com or instyle.com on my blog? Do i need to credit the site? will i get sued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.20.155 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. —teb728 t c 07:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Without giving legal advice: Everything on People.com and InStyle.com (like almost everything else you find on the web) is copyrighted – all rights reserved; so no, it's not OK to reuse it. For details see the People.com Terms of Service and the InStyle.com Terms of Service. —teb728 t c 09:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Make a file free?

I'm looking to make the File:Kisc old campsite.jpg free. Any idea what to add to the file? Thanks ~ Ablaze (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot make a picture, which is under copyright, magically free. However, you may be able to use non-free pictures in Wikipedia articles, so long as they conform to EVERY criteria at WP:NFCC and you can clearly demonstrate using a fair use rationale how it meets those criteria. --Jayron32 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo of sign

As I was leaving the Beardsley zoo I saw a sign with a history of the zoo. I took a photo of the sign. What is the copyright status of the photo? RJFJR (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you describe it as "a history of the zoo", I'd presume the text of the sign is complex enough to be covered by copyright, making your photo a derivative work. There may be other aspects of the the sign that would also attract copyright, such as layout, designs or logos, but the text alone would probably be enough to mean you do not hold exclusive copyright over the photo. --Avenue (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspiciuous uploads

Resolved
 – All at PUF, strong consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know quite where to put this.

Over the course of about a year, user Christian Adrian uploaded images from (in reverse chronological order): Sony CYBERSHOT, Canon PowerShot A430, Canon PowerShot A530, Panasonic DMC-FX8, NIKON D70, and Canon PowerShot A95 cameras. Half of his images had those in their metadata, the other half had no metadara.

I find the whole affair suspicious, but I wanted to double check with everyone else before going any further. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what? After reading through User talk:Cristian Adrian, I think that it might just be best to delete all of this user's uploads as copyright violations. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated them all for PUF here. – Quadell (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Quadell. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nanoarchaeum image

I'm worried that File:Urzwerg.jpg may be mistakenly labelled as public domain. The description page says it is public domain due to its age, but the organism depicted was only discovered in 2002. I found a higher resolution version of the picture in this article, so I'm afraid it may be the likely non-free source. My German is not good enough to tell for sure. I hope the picture can still be used under a non-free license because it is a superb illustration of the subject. --CyHawk (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, the article actually claims the image to be public domain. If that is true we could grab the higher resolution version. --CyHawk (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it needs to have the correct PD tag. Does the source say why it's in the public domain? – Quadell (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. But it identifies the source as Karl Stetter, its discoverer: "Es wurde von dem Mikrobiologen Karl O. Stetter entdeckt. Bildrechte: Public domain." So it may be from his 2002 Nature article. Access to the article costs $32 but the author may have released the image separately as well... --CyHawk (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the image description page on Commons. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg

I was notitifed that File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg does not indicate its source, but the page does in fact do so -- John W. Robbins (Clark's literary executor). I have an email (which I think I may have submitted way back when) granting use with attribution of the source, which it has here. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Yes, the image description page does say where the image comes from, and that it can be reproduced if the source is attributed. Since you are not the copyright holder, we at Wikipedia will need evidence that the copyright holder allows anyone to reuse the image (not just Wikipedia) for any purpose, including modifications and commercial reuse. Do you have an e-mail from the copyright-holder asserting this? – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Where should I send it? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Great! Forward that e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Mention the image's location here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg and on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg
Meanwhile, I'll tag them as pending confirmation, so they shouldn't get deleted until the permission folks review. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If an illustration is 100+ years old is it Public Domain?

I want to help illustrate the Wiki page on Alcott House with an image found on the internet.

http://www.ivu.org/history/england19a/alcott_house.jpg

I believe that it's been used in various places in magazines and on the internet without it being attributed. Is it OK to upload it and use it on Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Fray (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the image was first published (not just created, but published) before 1923, then it is public domain in the United States, and it is safe to upload here at the English language Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The image is credited to the Wilderspin Papers. Since Samuel Wilderspin died in 1866 (over 100 years ago), you can upload it to Commons and tag it {{PD-Old}}. —teb728 t c 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unable to determine copyright information on my photograph.

I have a photograph, showing my late uncle Dr. Paul V. Yoder conducting a Japanese orchestra. I would like to upload it to be included on his page. This photo has been in my family for years. I am unable to determine copyright information on the photo since most of the writing at the bottom of the picture is in Japanese. This writing appears to be a title and date. This text was either on the negative, or added to the photograph when it was printed. How do I determine the copyright so that I can upload it?

File:X:\Data\Temp\Japanese Text.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldanver (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a few questions that may help figure that out. What is the date on the photograph? Was the photograph taken in Japan? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Template copying fair-use media

I've noticed that Template:Vector version available is showing the SVG version of File:CFC logo.jpg at that file's page. Should fair-use images not be transcluded in the template? How could that be fixed? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It needs an (undocumented) nofree=yes parameter. Fixed here. —teb728 t c 10:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Better yet use {{non-free vector version available}} —teb728 t c 10:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Why would we actually need to tag such situations? If they're non-free, only one of the two files should be in use anyway, and the other be marked as orphaned and deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No idea. I didn't add the tag. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point, Fut.Perf. Perhaps the template should be nominated for deletion? – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:non-free vector version available? Sounds like an idea. Is it even used? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It's used by the image under discussion, which will soon be deleted. Every image that uses it gets deleted before long. – Quadell (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I nominated the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Non-free_vector_version_available. Feel free to comment there, if you wish. – Quadell (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Images for Liverpool Athenaeum

I should like to use File:Athdining.jpg and File:Athlibrary.jpg in an expanded version of the article, but am not sure about their copyright status. They have been downloaded from the Athenaeum's webside here. They were downloaded by User:Whitewig24 who states he is a trainee barrister (so should know ore about copyright law than I do). However I am not convinced that the Fair Use argument (which is not spelled out) is valid. Advice please. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The uploader, Whitewig, has tagged the images as GFDL and CC-BY-SA. In doing so, he is claiming that he holds the copyright to these photographs, but this is very unlikely. The images are at http://www.theathenaeum.org.uk/ as you point out, and there's no indication there that the images are free. Whitewig has uploaded images from the websites of lots of different clubs, and many have been deleted as copyright violations. He has not edited on Wikipedia since February. I'm going to nominate all his uploads for deletion, since I'm pretty sure they are all copyright violations. (Since these images are non-free, we cannot use them here on Wikipedia. Even if a fair use claim were legally valid, which is doubtful, the images certainly don't pass our criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content.) – Quadell (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I thought that would be the case. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

attribution of 3D art

i see here "description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." [12], and here [13]
however there is a "non free 3D" license and link to sculpture article that names the sculptor.
how can the copyright status be unclear, when the rationale links to the sculpture article?
how can it matter who is the copyright holder, if you assert fair use? Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The image description page at File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg does say that the photographer releases the photograph under a free license, and that the underlying artwork was created by Korczak Ziółkowski. That's all correct. There is a cc-by license tag for the photograph itself, and a non-free tag for the sculpture, and this is also correct. There is an adequate rationale, and it is used only in an article about this particular work of art. I don't see any problems with this image. – Quadell (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
the article picture was deleted once, and threatened with deletion, because the sculptor was unidentified in the picture description. i went and added the name. however, that will be the last time. i will instead upload "non free 3D art" without the artist's name, because it is not necessary to establish "fair use". Slowking4: 7@1|x 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on Frenchman'sTower1910.jpg

I got the photo from the University of California Archive, and it clearly said Rights:public domain

Material in the public domain. No restrictions on use.

The url is http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt238nd17d/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4

Apparently UC got it from the San Jose Public Library. I am not sure I choose the correct tags. For one thing it is old, and of unknown origin. For another thing it is of a historic building. I have seen this photo used on several TV news programs and other web sites. Most likely it was created before 1923, but it is hard to be absolutely certain.

I would like to use this photo for an article I am creating on Frenchman's Tower.

Would someone please check my tags?

Thanks.Wikfr (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you're referring to File:Frenchman'sTower1910.jpg. I think the {{PD-US}} is correct. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} probably is not correct, but it doesn't matter: the image if from the US, so US copyright law applies. I've adjusted the tags. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you gave me the help I needed. I had felt very uncomfortable about my tags. I am new.Wikfr (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Does taking figures and diagrams from academic papers count as fair use?

Are you allowed to take figures from academic papers (as long as you cite them)? Most of the most reputable figures for science articles come from academic journal articles. I know that this definitely counts as fair use in the publishing world. Academic papers routinely take figures from other papers. Can you do this on Wikipedia?Rppeabody (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it isn't considered fair use even. No one is entitled to ownership of facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can copy facts. Just be careful that you don't copy the way those facts are presented. What I mean is, all the data in a chart would be factual and not subject to copyright, but some aspects of the chart itself might be subject to copyright. For instance, the colors and thicknesses of the lines, the way sections of a pie chart are labeled, the background color, etc., could all be "creative" choices subject to copyright. Very simple charts, such as chemical diagrams, are probably fine. But for anything more complicated, it's necessary to create new charts based on the underlying data to make sure we don't violate copyright on these details. – Quadell (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I work on articles on long-extinct plants. It's useful to have an illustration of a reconstruction of the form of the plant. As Rppeabody says, scientific papers simply copy these illustrations from one another. Where the images are complex, I have uploaded low resolution versions to Wikipedia, claiming "fair use" – see e.g. the image in Psilophyton. This approach was agreed in an earlier discussion here. Where the images are 'diagrammatic', I have redrawn them – see e.g. the image in Aarabia. So my answer would be:
  • Figures and diagrams which can be re-drawn from the original data or verbal description should be handled in this way, being careful not to copy the original figure, but to create a new one from the data/description.
  • A low resolution version of an image which cannot be re-drawn from the original data or description (generally because in effect the image is the description) has in the past been agreed to be fair use, with a rationale of the form "Very difficult to correctly reproduce a scientifically valid [insert type of image] other than by copying." Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone. So basically, in this case, as long as it's fair use under the law, it's acceptable. Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the situations in which you can't use images, even when they qualify as fair use under the law (i.e. ESA images)?Rppeabody (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For Wikipedia use have you read WP:NFCC which lists the criteria for use here? Wikipedia is much more restrictive than the law. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem with File:Israeli Telephone White.jpg

Hi, I received notification of a potential copyright problem with File:Israeli Telephone White.jpg. I based it upon File:Israeli_telephon_token.jpg uploaded by Jay Hurvitz who uploaded it under GFDL and Share Alike 3.0 allowing for modification. The one change I made was to eliminate the colored background. The original website from which he uploaded does not seem to exist any longer. {{money-IL}} from the commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Money-IL) definitely seems to apply here but I don't know if you can migrate templates. The image in question is of Israeli telephone tokens which have been out of circulation for about 20 years. Please advise on how to proceed.

Thanks, Valley2city‽ 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have helped if you had noted in the file description that your file was a derivative of a GFDL/CC-BY-SA file on Commons. If the Commons file is free then yours would be too. —teb728 t c 07:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The Commons file is File:Israeli telephon token.jpg, and I'd question the licensing on it, also. Owning a token does not give permission to license an image of it under a free license. I'm not familiar with {{Money-IL}}, however, so that may be applicable. I think more input is needed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! I have permission but dont know how to show that

I have permission from the copyright holder of a photo to use it on a wiki page. I am unsure as to how to get the picture uploaded....it was deleted. Kim Alley said it can be filed under the free license and anyone can use it, but i dont know how to set that up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxiemom (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia has no meaning to us. We accept images that are released under a free license, such as cc-by-sa. If a given image is not available under a free license (or public domain via some vehicle, such as age), we treat the image as non-free and it must conform to all aspects of our WP:NFCC policy. Permission to use on Wikipedia is in fact a speedy deletion criteria for images (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). I note that you uploaded File:Kimalley.jpg, and it was deleted under that very same criterion for speedy deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Old family photo

I have an old family photo from 1909 that I would like to upload for inclusion in a new wikipedia article. Is it OK to do this and if so how should the copyright be described? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Cyprus (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • First, you should be aware of potential conflict of interest issues. Writing about a topic that you are part of is generally frowned upon. Second, if you own the rights to the image (different than owning the image), you can release those rights under a free license. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses for some possibilities. {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} would probably serve you well. If the image was published before 1923, then {{PD-US}} would apply. Note that the date an image was published is not the same as the date the image was created. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I don't think it could be said that I would be part of the topic; essentially it would be about a person now deceased, who was politically very active 100 years ago and about whom I know something. I have photos and information that others might not have access to because the person was related to my late father. The article would be in the form of a biography and photos might add interest. There would be no reference to anyone living today.

The photographs were taken in the United Kingdom; I don't know if that is relevant to the rules that apply to copyright issues on Wikipedia.--Johnny Cyprus (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The template for this situation is {{Template:PD-UK-unknown}}. But you do have to make an effort to determine who the copyright owner would be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of other pictures claimed as PD-self

I stumbled across User:Dc76/Pictures and Templates a few minutes ago.

It would seem that most if not all of those are cases of the uploader photographing someone else's work and then releasing it PD-self without a) giving the original source, or b) explaining why the images the uploader photographed are themselves out of copyright.

I'd advocate toasting the lot of them as copyvios, but I wanted additional opinions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there's no real information about any of them, and the uploader has been absent since 2009. I hate to say it, but I think all of them should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. – Quadell (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of the files I have been able to locate Commons replacements, but that should be done before sending anything to PUF. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Roulado (Gônaïves)

The Page should have been called ROULADO GONAVE , NOT "GONAIVES". GONAIVES IS THE 3RD HAITIAN CITY. BUT LA GONAVE IS THE MAIN HAITIAN ADJACENT ISLAND. HOW DO WE DELETE THIS MISTAKE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joneselunico80 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Does this pertain to images? --Σ talkcontribs 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Please advise on how to tag (or how to create the tag) for this license.

Specifics of the license can be seen here; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Essentially the license allows freedom to;

-share (copy, distribute and transmit) and adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

-Work must be attributed in the manner specified by the author -Work may not be used for commercial purposes -If work is altered, transformed or built-upon it can be distributed only under the same or similar license to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbridecharlesryan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  • CC BY-NC-SA is not compatable with Wikipedia's license, which is CC BY-SA. That is, Wikipedia's license allows commercial reuse, so licenses which do NOT allow it aren't compatable with Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully you can persuade photographer John Gollings to release some or all the photos you uploaded under a free license (including permission for commercial use) like CC-BY-SA. WP:COPYREQ describes the kind of permission required and how he can communicate it to Wikipedia. I am sorry to say that without a free license images can be hosted and used on Wikipedia only under the highly restrictive non-free content policy. —teb728 t c 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And if the photographer is not happy about releasing images for commercial use, it may be possible for the photographer to release a smaller sized image, say 400 pixels wide, with the cc-by-sa license. This size of image is good for web use by no good for printing. The high quality photo can still be sold for commercial use as only the smaller is released freely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Derivative Work issues in photos of AAC aids.

I have nominated Augmentative and alternative communication to be a Featured Article candidate, and there are some concerns about four of the images of AAC aids. They are all freely-licensed photos hosted on Commons, but concern is whether they are derivative works of the copyrights held by the creators of the aids. (For reference, an image like File:Videogameretaildisplay.jpg is not problematic, since the original copyrighted content is not reproduced in any meaningful way; but if this poster had been under copyright, the photo would be a derivative work.)

I'm looking for outside opinions. The images under question are these: File:Communication book.jpg, File:Minimo.jpg, File:Gotalk.jpg, and File:VMax.jpg. What should be done? Are they tagged adequately? Should they be copied locally and given an addition non-free tag and rationale? (And what tag would best apply?) Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple PD-textlogo question

If File:The Beatles Rockband Logo.png qualifies, does File:Rock Band logo.svg? Note the latter is an SVG... do vector formats of fonts have different copyright applications from raster formats, or is that just for the actual font file? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference whether it's a vector format or not. Basically, if creative work of sufficient complexity then it will qualify for copyright protection. Case law has shown that simple typefaces do not qualify. But for one specific logo or another, we're just guessing. The {{PD-ineligible}} or {{Non-free logo}} tags often just represent our best guesses. In my opinion, neither image qualifies for copyright protection. But if there's no good reason to tag them as free, it's probably safer to treat them as non-free logos, just in case. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
P.S., font files are considered small computer programs, and are eligible for patent protection. But that's not related to this case, and it's rather a red herring in most discussions of typefaces and copyright. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I actually want to use the image in List of songs in Lego Rock Band, but no FUR would be applicable. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free contents in lists

I have read WP:NFLISTS and I believe that I could not include non-free images of specific Nobel laureates in List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. Am I correct or is it allowed in this situation? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Government Building

Can the picture of a government building, posted on the official site can be used as a free content or the one under fair use rationale? Will the photographs of historic monuments or public places, posted on their official website under the gallery section be considered in Public Domain or not? Can we use them?

I have uploaded File:Rajya Sabha.jpg and File:Lok Sabha.jpg, these are the pictures of the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament of India respectively published on their official sites under the gallery section. Do these pictures violate any terms of usage? Alokagrawal8 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

These two images are copyright and you have uploaded them as non-free images, in which case they must comply with all 10 non-free criteria policy guidelines, however, these images fail #1 because it is possible for someone to take a free image, so they are replaceable. Indian government images are copyright for 60 years per commons:COM:L#India and even though you have not provided a source URL nor a copyright tag either I very much doubt you can prove the images are over 60 years old. ww2censor (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

logo file deleted (CSD F5: Orphaned non-free media)

My article, "San Francisco Choral Society" has been deleted, apparently because there was some problem with the .jpg file containing the logo (File:San_Francisco_Choral_Society_2011_copyrighted_logo_jpeg.jpg. The logo was created specifically for the chorus. On the upload form I defined the logo as non-free, and I provided the copyright information. What more do I need to have done?

If this is not the appropriate place to seek help, please let me know how to do so, assuming you can respond to this query based on my logon. I find Wikipedia's help difficult to use, at best. Thanks very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctalbeck (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot contain unused media that is copyrighted. The only time it can be used is when the image is low-resolution, used in one and only one article (with a non-free use rationale), and cannot be replaced by a free equivalent. If the article ever comes back, you can reupload it. --Σ talkcontribs 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article was not deleted because of the logo file. The article was deleted because the tone and style of writing was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:NOTADVERTISING (especially #5) and WP:CSD#G11. What you created at San Francisco Choral Society was not an encyclopedia article, it was a press release advertising an organization (or, it was worded identically to what one would expect a press release to read like, and bore no resemblance to an encyclopedia article). Since all copyrighted images being used under a claim of fair use MUST be part of a valid article, after the article was deleted, the image was deleted as well. Since it appears you have a conflict of interest with the organization in question, it would be better for you to request that the article be created for you at Wikipedia:Requested articles rather than try to create it yourself... --Jayron32 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:BronxMap_1868.jpg

File:BronxMap_1868.jpg is slotted for deletion on Aug 22, 2011. I think I labeled it incorrectly. It is a scanned portion of a map from the East Bronx from 1868. I purchased it from http://www.historicmapsrestored.com back in 2005. The map is copyrighted 2005 and is a reproduction. However, it is linked to an article. The confusion on my part is that the word non-free is unclear. To me non-free means that yes, I paid for the map. However, after further reading non-free means that and please correct me it has a copyright. Screams of the novice Wikipedian, HELP!TheBronxNYC (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBronxNYC (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content that you scanned is from 1868 then it would be eligible for {{PD-US-1923}} template:PD-US-1923 and would not need to say fair use. Can you tell what the 2005 copyright applies to or is it copyfraud? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if the image appears on the source website, you should add a full url to the page the image appears on as the bare url is no good to see the image, even if not at the resolution you uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for File:Giorgio-a-tsoukalos.jpg?

I think that there's an invalid copyright claim for this image:

Image:Giorgio-a-tsoukalos.jpg

I find it suspicious that the user who uploaded it can claim to own the copyright, when it's obviously an image captured from a History channel show. The image has been showin' up all over the web as some sort of meme (e.g., here). Perhaps, there's a "fair use" argument for the image, but I think it's current status should be evaluated. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 04:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it's on Commons, we have to rid it from there. Nominated for speedy there. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Source & Copyright re. "File:Colonerl Payne Jennings.jpg"

Dear Wikipedia, I recently uploaded my first photo onto wikipedia and received a message regarding my photo's source and copyright. I do understand the importance of copyright and source; however, I am not sure how I should deal with the fact that my father's portrait photo has been in my family's possession for over 60 years and I am not sure we will ever know who took the photo or if there are any copyright restrictions. I suspect there are none, but I can't prove it. Possibly this photo can be considered to be an "image of unknown an unverifiable origin". If this satisfies the copyright and source issue, is this all I need to say? If not, can you provide some direction or language that will be acceptable to wikipedia. shawmjennings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawmjennings (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I have a couple questions that may help us clear this up. When was the photo made? In what country was the photo made? And has it ever been published (reproduced for the public)? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: It appears the uploader is referring to File:Colonerl Payne Jennings.jpg and File:19th Bomb Group B-29 BUB.jpg. Can anyone tell whether these were created by the U.S. military or not? If so, then there is no problem... – Quadell (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quadell - the photos were taken late 1950 early 1951. I believe the portrait was taken either on March AFB in Riverside, California or on the Kadena AFB in Okinawa, Japan. The airplane was taken on the Kadena AFB. The portrait photo was used in the newspapers in April 1951. I don't know if the airplane photo was ever used. shawmjennings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawmjennings (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone here with military-photo experience tell me if these photos were created by the U.S. military or not? – Quadell (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Will anyone be responding to the last question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawmjennings (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ray Charles Here We Go Again.jpg seems to just be letters can it be copyrighted

At WT:NFCC there has been discussion as to whether a FUR is necessary for File:Ray Charles Here We Go Again.jpg. It seems to be just a bunch of letters which can not be copyrighted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's {{PD-ineligible}}. – Quadell (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't be the one to place that tag on that image, however I wouldn't really argue it either, since neither of the logos on the cover are especially eligible either. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Still holding out hope for some sort of consensus. P.S. I am surprised that this is not already a well-resolved issue, since I don't think that this is a very unusual image for cover art.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There are trademarks there, but nothing copyrightable, so far as I can tell. – Quadell (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I have relicensed it as {{PD-ineligible}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Vector-Images.com

Some years ago, a lot of coats of arms copied from Vector-Images.com were deleted on Commons. COuld someone explain why? If the COA is PD (which is the fact in most country, as their local copyright laws explicitly exclude official publications from copyright protection), then Vector-Images.com can not claim copyright on the vectorisation (which is an example for copyfraud), and the COAs can the kept on Commons. If the COA is not PD (like in some former british colonies), it is in general not possible to have such COAs on Commons, those have to be deleted. At the moment, I am doing some research on the question if a COA is PD or not by checking the local copyright laws. Can someone explain the Vector-Images.com issue?--Antemister (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A coat of arms is based on a description. It can be realised in different representations. So when someone creates an image of a coat of arms they then hold copyright on that new creation. Some of the deleted pictures may well have been images copied from other web sites (such as vector-images.com) rather than created by the uploader. The other alternative is old coat of arms images, which may be used if copyright has expired. Most countries do not exclude official publications from copyright either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the discussion you want to read at Commons is here. Anyway, concur with Graeme. Yes, there is variance in local laws, but that by definition means there's no blanket clause available under which to declare coats of arms to be PD. It's a case by case basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, if we want to have a VI.com SVG-COA on Commons, the picture has to be PD and it is exact vectorisation of the "offical" one used by the government (and not "improved" in any way by the VI.com graphists). Is this correct?--Antemister (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, if I create an image of a country's coat of arms (in an imaging program), then I can release my image under a free license if I want to. (I.e., my work would not be a derivative work of a government's text description of the coat of arms.) The only coats of arms we should use are (a) those created by people who release them under free licenses, or (b) those officially created by governments that do not cover official insignia under copyright. – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of film posters in Dutch East Indies

While writing Cinta Pertama I noticed that one of the posters at Tabloid Bintang's website] comes from a 1932 movie, Zuster Theresia, which was produced in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). Would said poster fall under Indonesian copyright law or Dutch? If Indonesian, it would definitely be PD, if Dutch it might not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I asked the question here, since sometimes the regulars there are more up-to-date with international copyright issues. Does anyone know, by the way? – Quadell (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Over at Commons, Carl Lindberg makes a very convincing case that Indonesian law would apply, making these works Public Domain. – Quadell (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Shame I can't find much of anything else online about the film. It will be good to know for the future. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Cezanne - Study for Card Players

I have found what I think is a copy of this sketch. It is framed and has a catalogue strip on the back that says DX 136 Cezanne Study for Card Players Providence, Rhode Island, Rhode Island School of Design, Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Murray S. Danforth

Does this mean it is a numbered print. If you don't answer these kind of questions where can I find out. Terri Moffat Chapin tmchapin@telus.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.110.79 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it a copy of this image? I have no idea if it's a numbered print or not. This page here is for questions about copyright, and Cezanne's works are all out of copyright. If you want to know answers to general questions like this, try Wikipedia:Reference desk. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot of sources for non-free files

The non-free use rationale for a non-free file requires to specify the source of the image. If this source is a website, this source may be threatened by linkrot. What should be done (theoretically speaking) if the source of the non-free file goes dead? I ask this because I want to know if it would make sense to provide a link to an archived copy of the source (just like we have an archiveurl parameter for citations). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If the image was first published on a website, then a link is the appropriate source. But most of the time, a link is just a shorthand for "where I found this image". It's usually not necessary. Simply saying "Press photograph by John Smith, 2009" or "From the book A History of Botany by John Smith" or "scan of a painting by Matisse" is fine. If a web source really is accurate, then it's still accurate to list the url where it was first published, even if the link is now dead. What I'm saying is, it's very rarely important to provide a URL that shows the image. So I wouldn't bother. Instead, work on having the most accurate source you can, rather than linking to a republisher. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jumbotron images

Pretty sure I already know the answer to this one, but I just want some confirmation. I was at a non-televised sporting event recently. I was in the upper deck and it was difficult to get clear pictures, but certain interesting people with no image currently on Wikipedia were in attendance and shown live on the Jumbotron in the arena. If I photographed the Jumbotron while these people were being displayed, can I release that image under a free license, or does the copyright belong to someone else? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a very interesting question. In the U.S. (and most other countries as well), copyright only covers creative works in fixed expression. If you record a man playing an improvised sax solo, or you write down and publish the words of an impromptu speech, you're not violating the copyright of the sax player or speaker. Works are not copyrighted until they are fixed in permanent form. I don't know how this applies to Jumbotrons though. Are they recorded as they are displayed? Is there a 5-second delay or something? If there's a delay, then I would bet you are watching a previously recorded (and therefore "fixed") event. But I don't know. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm reasonably sure this was a truly live feed straight from the video camera to the Jumbotron (no delays or anything). As I said, the game wasn't televised as far as I'm aware, so I don't know if the images were recorded or not. They may have just gone straight to the Jumbotron for the benefit of those in the arena (particularly folks who were as high up as me.) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a really tough case, and I don't believe there is any case law on the matter. I just don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing someone else's view on the matter. – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Licensing agreements

Since my question above was more complicated than I thought, let me ask this one as well. I contacted a local historical society about some portraits displayed on their web site. Many clearly identified authors who had been dead for more than 100 years and publication dates before 1923, yet all of them said they were under copyright. I contacted them to ask about this, and got, in part, this response:

All of our pieces are covered by licensing restrictions related to the associated digital images. Although BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ruled that faithful reproductions of public domain pieces are in the public domain, the decision upheld the rights of the holders to protect the use of the reproductions with licensing agreements.

So what the heck does this mean? Can something be in the public domain and still not be free to use? Are images that are subject to the licensing agreements referenced in the email forbidden for use on Wikipedia? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Short version: It means they know the works are free to use, but they don't want to admit it. The works are not copyrighted. Licensing terms could hypothetically apply, but don't in this case.
Long version: If I hold a physical copy of a PD work, I could make you sign a license agreement before I let you look at it, and that agreement could have terms saying that you won't copy the images or show them to anyone. That's a license agreement, but it doesn't have anything to do with copyright. If I did that, and you copied the images anyway and uploaded them to Wikipedia, I could sue you for violating the license. (I couldn't sue Wikipedia, since they never signed an agreement with me.) I also couldn't sue you if you obtained a copy of the work without agreeing to the license. But I could sue you personally if you agreed (as a condition of seeing the work) to not copy it, and you did anyway. Bridgeman allows that.
But they're not making you sign an agreement before you see the works; they're putting them up on a website. And courts have ruled over and over again that unless you agree to be bound by a license in some way, it doesn't apply to you. I can make a website and have words at the bottom that say "By viewing this website you agree to the terms of blah blah blah", but that's not enforceable unless you actually agreed to the terms by clicking "I agree" somewhere. And maybe not even then, it's not clear. Anyway, this organization is saying "We claim you entered a contract with us" when you did no such thing, because they want to control things they have no legal right to control. – Quadell (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I guess this is the long version of the scenario, then. They show a preview of the image on the web site. It isn't watermarked or anything, and it's of sufficient size and resolution to be usable. If the original work is PD, that image is fair game, period, right? There is a request form so that you can request a digital copy of the image, which I presume might be bigger and/or higher resolution. That image could be protected by a license agreement, and I could personally get sued if I request the (presumably) higher quality image, agree to its license, then distribute it on Wikipedia in violation of the license? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. If there's any PD image that you can access without signing a license agreement, then you can use that image with no problems whatsoever. If you ever sign an actual agreement saying you won't copy/share/upload a file, then it's possible they can sue you for that if you violate that contract. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent explanation. I'm trying to convince them to make the digital copies available as Creative Commons, but it's good to have a backup plan. Not sure why libraries and historical societies seem to be so restrictive about this stuff, especially stuff that's so old. You'd think they'd want to disperse the knowledge and generate interest in it like we do here. Oh well. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

don't know how to indicate source/copyright to prevent speedy deletion

Hi, I work at Fuller Craft Museum and I'm trying to upload 2 image to the museum's wiki article but I keep getting a notice that says speedy deletion may happen. The 2 images are phtos that a museum employee took of the museum building exterior and of a sculpture in the museum's permanent collection. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. Please help. Fuller Craft Museum 508-588-6000 x100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullercraft (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This role account with a spamusername has been blocked; the article itself may be salvaged. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You might want to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials but the images you uploaded had no copyright tag attached which is a requirement. If they are museum copyright images, we must get the permission directly from the museum. Have them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT if you really need the images, though, to me, some were rather poor quality and the duck sculpture copyright is probably owned by the author and not the museum, even though it is located there. ww2censor (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Image use permissible?

Hello MCQ Gang! Quick question before I pose to other editors the suitability (article-wise) of an image. The article Eddie the Head is recently lacking a decent image - much less one of his most famous incarnations (the Derek Riggs era). I've taken the following picture[14] of an "Action Doll" (Art Asylum's term, not mine) of their representation of Riggs' Number of the Beast version of Eddie. This is not the exact picture I'm considering using (I'd take him out of the box and take a better one), but it's pretty representative of it (sans box really being the only difference). Thus, my questions are:

  1. Would such a picture be suitable for use on Wikipedia? (if no, skip the rest of the questions)
  2. Would Commons or here be better suited for upload location?
  3. How would/should I license it?
  4. Does the creator information (Art Asylum based off an incarnation of Eddie by Derek Riggs) go in the description? I'm presuming it does not go in the creator field, as that's for who took the picture?
  5. Are there size constraints I should use? Such as thumbnail? Or does it not matter?

Thanks for your input! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It would violate Art Asylum's copyright in the doll, I'm thinking. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Such a picture would be suitable on Wikipedia, but not on the Commons. That's because even though you are willing to license the photograph under a free license, the underlying artwork is still copyrighted by Derek Riggs (or whoever). Create the photo and upload it here on the English Wikipedia, and then the photo will need two licensing tags: one for the photo, and one for the underlying content. For the photo, tag it with whatever license you choose to use. (I prefer cc-by-3.0, but it's up to you.) For the underlying content, you will have to make sure it adheres to our non-free content policy. I can help with this, once you upload the image. Just let me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Much thanks to you both. Will follow up once I've unpacked it and photo'd it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention: yes, there are size constraints. Try to upload the smallest size and resolution that will work in the article in which the image appears. So if it's going to be shown as a 220px X 220px image, only upload an image of about that size, at web resolution. – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) That much I already figured you implied above (due to underlying content, second copyright notice and NFCC). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

upload of painting

Hello- I wish to upload a jpg of a painting that I purchased at a gallery and own all the rights to. The painting is a self-portrait of Anders Stone and I wish to put it to the artist's page on Wiki. What would be the appropriate tag to use ("free use" etc) to not have it pulled/removed? Thanks in advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Schlemmer (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you want to help by including this image. Unfortunately, if you did not paint the painting, and the artist did not sign over the copyright to you in writing, the you do not legally own the copyright and can not release it under a free license. The artist could do that, but unless he does so, I'm afraid we can't use the image. – Quadell (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The OP may have put it in error, but he does say "and own all the rights to" which would imply he owns the copyright to it as well. If that's the case, and he does own the copyright, then he can release it. Needs clarification though. a_man_alone (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia article on H2Ax

I wish to use the image at the top of the wikipedia article on H2Ax showing the molecule and DNA. I cannot trace the origianl figure, so need to use this one as a opening illustration for my review entitled "gH2Ax: biomarker of damage or functional participant in DNA repair 'All that glitters is not gold!' ” in the scientific journal Photochemistry and photobiology. Acknowledgement will be given to wikipedia as the source.

James Cleaver. e-mail address (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.158.170 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Official information on how to reuse Wikipedia content can be found at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. In this case, I think you're referring to File:Protein H2AFX PDB 1aoi.png. You will need to credit the Wikipedian who created it, who goes by the name Emw. – Quadell (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:NancyMedina-LEM.jpg

Would you guys mind deleting the file for me? It's File:NancyMedina-LEM.jpg Thank you so much. <3

LizzieBeth (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Museum of Modern Art

On the article Museum of Modern Art there is a list of paintings at the bottom which are displayed in the article. Some of them are accompanied by a depiction of the painting. As this museum has both works for which free images are available and works for which no free images are available, a selection of both is being displayed to show the range of work. However, arguably, the non-free images are replaceable by links to the pages about the work here on Wikipedia, and therefore would fail WP:NFCC#1. The counter argument taken is that these images convey to the readers what words, lists and other device can not convey. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the range of time spans covered by the museum's collections that is aimed for, in certain considerations. Good quality works are preferable to poorer quality works. Free images may not always coincide with better quality works. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Showing the painting does not say anything about the Museum that cannot be said in words - "the museum holds X painting by Y artist." One needs to see the painting to have a complete understanding of the painting, not of the museum. Photos illustrating the article on the museum should include things like the exterior of the building, the interior of the building - with particular reference to the use of space, natural light etc. That tells you about the museum. Even a picture of the tea room tells you about the museum. Pictures of the paintings don't tell you anything about the museum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This is quite the silliest argument I have seen for a long time, and not followed by any of our longer museum articles, or coverage of museums in other media. Articles specifically about the architecture of the museum are a different story, but people are interested in museums for their contents, not their containers. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue made, Elen, is that a representative display of the paintings in a museum does tell about the museum .. what type of works does it hold. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The images depict important highlights of the museum's collection and reason for being as Dirk says...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think few people would visit a museum for other reasons than the content of their collections; obviously I have the museum of modern art in NYC in mind when I say that. This is not to say that we are "advertising" the museum. We are highlighting its attractions. An art museum can be famous for one or two works yet contain dozens of works. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec with Bus stop) Yes, to a certain extent. It allows one to see whether it is a museum of clocks or steam traction engines. But not to the extent that one would be justified in using non-free images - or even using a lot of images. Imagine if one tried to convey by image what the British Museum is all about! Can't do it - text is actually a better medium here than images. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


I understand that you want the article on Museum of Modern Art to be as good as possible. However, our official Non-free content policy will not allow non-free images in galleries, or in articles that are about a museum that holds these paintings. Wikipedia:Non-free content states "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries... fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." The specific examples of unacceptable use of nonfree content include "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" Under these circumstances, non-free images of paintings cannot be included in the Museum of Modern Art article without violating our policies. – Quadell (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - I had those images outside the gallery until an hour ago - and I can do that, take them out of the gallery...Modernist (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Even outside the gallery, the works themselves have their own articles that include the non-free images. According to the "unacceptable use" example above, the images cannot be included in the article whether they are in a gallery or not, I'm sorry to say. – Quadell (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflicted with me saying same thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That interpretation of guidelines does not make sense - are you suggesting that I use non-free images that don't have their own articles because they have less explanation and less information and thus are only pictures - I can do that - common sense says let it be though...Modernist (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The MoMA article does not - use An image to illustrate an article passage about the image as the policy states...Modernist (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that our policy won't allow us to use a non-free image of a painting in an article on the museum that contains the painting. You may disagree with our policy -- you wouldn't be the first to do so -- but it's still our policy. It's why featured articles on painters never include non-free images of their works. It's why non-free images are routinely deleted when they are only used in articles about ancillary subjects. You're welcome to try to change policy through one of the proper channels, but none of us is welcome to violate policy simply because we think it'll make a particular article look better. This really isn't just my interpretation of policy here. – Quadell (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This is also wrong; as far as I can see we only have 5 FA bios of painters still in copyright, four of which include an example of their work, though only one. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Until this discussion is decided one way or the other and in keeping with WP:AGF it is a sign of 'bad faith' not to let the imagery remain...Modernist (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not what good faith means. – Quadell (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The policy does not say it won't allow us to use a non-free image of a painting in an article on the museum that contains the painting...Modernist (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If you mention the image, the above applies. If you don't mention the image, it fails anyway because without reference in the text the image fails as 'purely decorative' (WP:NFCI item 7). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That is open to interpretation because the context is highlights of the collection, which does not mention the imagery by name but uses the paintings to convey vital and informative content to the viewer, certainly not as decorative fluff but as content central to the context...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Modernist, you're just going round and round on like 4 different discussion pages with the same mute (correct word?) argument. Legal copyright law is legal copyright law. CTJF83 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it that cut-and-dried? The article on the museum is an article on the paintings in the museum. Showing the paintings, or in this instance some of the paintings, serves an end irrespective the different purpose that the painting serves when discussed in for instance an article on the artist or on this particular painting. The museum's identity is closely tied to the identity of its most famous works, and this needn't entail talking about the paintings. It is the museum that is being "illustrated" in presenting images of the highlights of its collection. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of great works that are free to show. As I've said numerous times to Modernist, if someone wants to know that badly what a work looks like, they will go to the works page. There is really no reason to showcase the museums copyrighted works on the museums page. That's what the work's page is for. Like Ellen says above, you don't need an image of the paintings to know about the museum, words convey it more then well. CTJF83 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
On an article about the museum, what do you gain from works in the museum over words listing the works? Again, that's what the work's page is for. CTJF83 17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
These (and Elen's) silly arguments don't strengthen your case, which depends on WP policy (not in fact the law, but WP's very cautious interpretation of what the law might mean). Make your stand on that, but please don't pretend that the removal of such images doesn't seriously diminish the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't, it would seriously diminish the paintings article, but not the museums. And I don't much care for the patronizing. CTJF83 18:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
These are famous works. In many cases the reader is already familiar with them. But it is the refreshing of the memory and the re-experience of the works that enhances the reader's grasp of what the museum "stands for". The artwork that creates the aura for the museum is what we are trying to illustrate. The museum purchases the artwork, thereby creating its own image. We are presenting the "image" of the museum when we selectively display their most influential paintings, for instance. Removing the paintings from the article is a way of weakening the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess we disagree then...who is to say X painting is more influential/important/more notable then Y painting. CTJF83 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Certain people have more influence than others. They are given this influence by other influential people. They may be critics, scholars, academicians, curators, or collectors. It doesn't happen overnight. A handful of people emerge that other people pay attention to. There are obviously disagreements even at the top. Chances are the general public disagrees with most of what the "art community" thinks is "good". But an article on the Museum of Modern Art should be reflecting the generally held opinions of the "art community", which in turn is probably influenced considerably by those writers and commentators who have emerged as the well-respected voices at the present time concerning the visual arts. Their opinions may fall into disfavor, eclipsed by more trenchant opinion-makers at some future time. But it is unrealistic to just say that the present opinion is wrong. When most of those people who are most respected agree on a handful of 20th century works of art as most definitive, I don't think we can just turn our back on that opinion. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
For instance, if Leo Castelli, toward the end of his life, indicated that a certain work of art was good, who would disagree with him?
A little bit about Leo Castelli by Annie Cohen-Solal. The Museum of Modern Art is briefly mentioned too. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of him, so what he says means nothing to me....either way, I'm in this convo far more then I wanted to be, cause I really don't care anymore, so backing out (least for the most part) CTJF83 01:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been my pleasure. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To answer Ctjf83's question, there certainly are in this instance reliable sources which document that "X painting is more influential/important/more notable then Y painting", and I think these may be of some value here.--Pharos (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That's all interesting, but it doesn't affect how our non-free content policy applies in this case. If some sources claim that some paintings are more notable than others, perhaps that should be described in the article. Nonetheless, a non-free image of a painting can't be used in an article about the museum that hosts it; instead such an image should be used in the article on the painting. – Quadell (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This really is the bottom line. Pictures of the walls may convey more information than text could, but a picture of a hung painting doesn't, because all you need to do is say "holds painting X", with a link to the article we will undoubtedly have on painting X. Yes, I know it's annoying that the article on the Louvre has lots of pictures of Renaissance paintings, but they are out of copyright. If you want to get the policy changed because this is the result, then you need to work on that. In the meantime, copyright images need to be taken out of the article. If the museum has a copyright logo that identifies it, you can include that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:People-posing-with-potbelly-stove.tiff

Not quite sure why the rationale as provided is not sufficient. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The article already uses one non-free image, so what is so special about the image of the same person with a potbelly stove that add to the reader's understanding of the article that is not already be explained in the prose? It certainly fails WP:NFCC#8 and also WP:NFCC#3a. You have added more verbose wordage to the rationale but IMHO it really does not help the justification for use. ww2censor (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I think the word "verbose" is insulting. I await your apology. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk)
Oh, alright if you are so sensitive to a simple descriptive word, sorry, but verbose is not an insulting word it simply means the use of many or too many words. Long-winded might be a better description. ww2censor (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure the picture adds any significant understanding to the article. We already have a picture of what McCloskey looks like. Do we need an unfree picture to demonstrate what a pot-bellied stove looks like? --Jayron32 03:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Ww2censor's messages above left me feeling cheapened and demoralized. Abruptness like that, I feel, is one reason people do not like to write or do editing for Wikipedia. Simple good manners and pleasantness seem to be in short supply in Wikipedia, and I don't intend to add to the dearth, if you can do such a thing. I find Ww2censor's "apology" a bit on the soft side — as Shakespeare said, "assent with civil leer" — but I do accept it in the spirit of good-neighborliness, and I urge all concerned to ponder the effects of words before hitting the "send" key. (I try to do so myself, but I have not always succeeded. especially in my early days as an editor here.) As for the photo, I am perfectly willing to delete it (even though I think it really adds a lot of interest to the article), and I will do so. Have a good day to all, and I hope the rest of your life is happy and productive. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this copyrighted?

A webcomic was taken down after a lawsuit was filed by a company. Someone then put it in a Wikipedia article. If the company sued to keep it off the original site, I'm sure they'll sue to keep it off here. Also, can you legally show a webcomic without permission of the owners? File:Tart_as_a_double_entendre.png Dream Focus 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The image in question seems to meet all criteria of WP:NFCC, it is the specific source of extensive commentary in the Penny Arcade (webcomic) article. The WMF has lawyers who would deal with any problems; if there was a takedown notice for Wikipedia, it would come through the Foundation and they would take care of it. --Jayron32 05:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this meets all NFC criteria, and I agree that the WMF employs lawyers. But this really seems to be begging for a lawsuit. Another popular website was given legal notice that they must take down this same image or face a lawsuit, and they complied. Wikipedia gets much more notice than Penny Arcade, and this looks like as clear a "please sue us" invitation as it gets. I believe that the article would make the same points just as well without showing the image, so I don't think it's worth fighting. – Quadell (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell. We should not cost WMF money to prove a point. Additionally, I think we should notify the Foundation and its lawyers. If someone will link to something indicating there was a lawsuit?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:25pzgra.jpg - non-free or PD?

Recently came across File:25pzgra.jpg while working through this list, and I'm not sure what the copyright status of the file is. It has a FUR, but is tagged with both {{Non-free historic image}} and {{PD-GermanGov}}. Any ideas? Acather96 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment", so I don't believe it's PD for that reason. I'd say "non-free historic image" is correct. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we use this image of actor Jerry Trainor? [15]

He is a notable actor for the popular sitcom iCarly, and the photo will help identify the actor, since he is most notable for iCarly, which is currently airing. — Tinton5 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Since he's still alive, someone can take a photo of the actor and release that photo under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Could i use an image and request for copyright permission? — Tinton5 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You could request it, but I doubt that the copyright owner of iCarly would grant it, so don't hold your breath waiting. – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed fair usage, Carly Foulkes image

Requesting assistance in coming to consensus on use of an image of Carly Foulkes. I uploaded a screen shot of the ubiquitous commercial to the T-Mobile myTouch 4G article under the fair use criteria. Another editor wants to use it on Carly Foulkes, but that seems to be a stretch of the fair use policy. Is this the correct place to raise the issue? Gerardw (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Clear NFCC violation in both articles.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO both uses fail WP:NFCC#1: In the bio it could be replaced by a free photo. In the phone article it could be replaced by the free text already in the article, "an attractive young woman ... in a pink and white dress"; that text needs no illustration for reader understanding. —teb728 t c 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
That's like saying the Mona Lisa is a "woman in front of a bush." The image has become iconic is the year or so the commercials have been running. There are lots of models in lots of commercials, but as the references on T-Mobile myTouch 4G indicate, the campaign, commercials, and Foulkes have made an impact on American pop culture. The picture illustrates that in a manner a textual description can not, and otherwise meets NFCC criteria (low-res, no free pic available, et. al.) Gerardw (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The article isn't about the commercial; it's about the phone. Seeing the woman in an add is not necessary to fully understand the phone. – Quadell (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
So if the article is split, the image would be fair use? Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"Fair use" is a legal defense, and it's not relevant. The question is, would it pass our criteria at WP:NFCC. And I doubt it would. Besides, I suspect an article about this commercial would be deleted as non-notable. – Quadell (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's not relevant, what is it doing in the "nutshell" box on WP:NFC, which WP:NFCC says to use? Gerardw (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's one of the factors we used to create our NFCC. But at this point, the image has to pass our NFCC, regardless of any fair use claim. I get the feeling you're just being argumentative here. – Quadell (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:Consensus "Consensus discussion has a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." If you want to call that argumentative, I'm proud to be guilty. Thus far the only reasons given for removal have been shallow and not only haven't made reference to policy, but made the ridiculous claim that phrases in policy -- i.e. "fair use," isn't relevant. Using the logic presented in this thread there would be no non-free images on WP, and that's not what the policy says. Gerardw (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What you are looking for is WP:DRV. Let me know if you open a discussion there. As the other main editor of the Foulkes article, I support you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"Not relevant" is too strong, but "insufficient" would nail it. Images can pass all fair-use laws and still fail NFCC. This particular image fails WP:NFCC#1 for use in Carly Foulkes and WP:NFCC#8 for use in either article. Since NFCC is a list of 10 criteria and images have to simultaneously pass all ten, there's no policy-compliant way to use this image.—Kww(talk) 12:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a DRV is still relevant. NFCC 1 would be relevant if the purpose of the FU was to depict Ms. Foulkes in general. If that were the case, you could simply snap a photo of her any time that you are able to be where she is. In this case, the picture represents a uniform that she only wears on the sets of her commercials. One can not freely take pictures of her in this uniform, and this uniform is highly topical in the text of the article since she is not only known for it, but caricatured by competing companies due to her association with this uniform.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The claim the picture uploaded fails NFCC#1 implies a free use pic is available. I was unable to find one -- can you provide information on where it is? Gerardw (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
She is alive and still performing, and fairly recent, so the ability to take or obtain a free photo is very possible. Due to that, that is why it fails NFCC #1, even if such free picture does not exist now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A picture of her can be created because she is alive. However, a picture of her does not replace the picture that describes all the text about her pink dresses, IMO. The amount of content related to her pink dress supports having an image of it, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There are several images of her pink dress on Flickr; try and ask for permission. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two that might be usable:

  1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54579420@N08/6073635372/
  2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/conductormike/5539052942/
The latter is probably some sort of violation as a billboard on a building, but I am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. If the source could be confirmed for the first one (mentions something about the Social Magazine). and get permission, that will be good to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a less professional image than I think a magazine would be using. Nonetheless, I have never been successful at getting a publication to release copyrights. The flickr poster said he just googled a bunch of things and posted them (without regard to copyrights apparently). This sort of reaffirms my thoughts that no one is going to be able to get a picture of her in a pink dress unless you work a job where you can come to her commercial shoots. Can you explain to me your thinking on replaceability of this image. Yes, I know someone will get an image of Foulkes in the future if she remains notable. The point at issue here is an image depicting her in this highly topical fashion of pink dresses. It seems to me that since we have established that she only wears these at her commercials, we can not replace a FU image of her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
P.S. this search came up empty in terms of finding the original source (and thus the copyright holder).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How do I properly cite an image from Wikipedia?

Hello

I found an image that has been used on various pages on Wikipedia, but I am unclear as to how I would cite it for scholarly purposes. The image is the following:

File:ESMA 3.JPG

please help, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeromestiza (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "cite it for scholarly purposes". Are you hoping to reprint it in a scholarly article? Or use the image as evidence to back up a claim in a scholarly paper? Or what? – Quadell (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For now, I am completing a prospectus for my M.A. master's thesis and need to include proper captions for images I am submitting with my proposal, but the information on the wiki page for File:ESMA 3.JPG is confusing. It states that use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License, but it looks like it was originally posted by user: Roblespepe (Pepe Robles?), so I am unclear as to how it should be properly credited... once I am done with the thesis (next spring-summer), I may submit it for publication and include the image, so for future reference, I will need to know how to credit it properly and obtain permission. Thanks for your help. Aeromestiza (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The license the image is under states that you must attribute the image to commons:User:Roblespepe. --Σ talkcontribs 02:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. So long as you don't modify the image, all you have to do is credit the author, Roblspepe. By releasing the image under a free license, he has already given permission for anyone to use it (so long as the terms of the license are followed), so you don't need to obtain further permission. – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
The proper credit is determined by the terms of the applicable license. For this particular image, you have an option that lets you choose between the GFD license and the CC-by-sa-3.0 license. For the intented use in a thesis, you almost certainly want to choose the CC license (unless you want to reproduce the whole text of the terms of the GFD license in your thesis). You should read the CC license to determine what is required in the credit line. For the reproduction of an unmodified image, you will find the relevant dispositions in paragraphs 4(a) and 4(c) of that license. An example of how I would personally word a relatively standard credit line for this unmodified image used under the CC license in a paper publication might look somewhat like this:
Photo by Roblespepe, ''ESMA 3.JPG''. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ESMA_3.JPG. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode.
That is only an example. You can word the credit line the way you want, as long as you include all the elements required by section 4 of the license (according to your own best understanding of what elements are required by the license. For what it's worth, my personal understanding is that to be entirely safe, the elements to include are: author, title, url of associated page, identification of license, url of license) and you do not modify the wording of the attribution, if any, specified by the author. (In this case, although the author wrote "ownwork" in the author field on the description page, it is quite obvious from his other images that he identifies himself as "Roblespepe". So I think it is safe to assume that he actually wants a credit to the author name "Roblespepe", not to the author name "ownwork".) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How to address a copyright concern

I uploaded this image a few days ago. It is the photo of a politician. His riding association provided the photo to me via email. They specifically told me that they own the picture and they use it for dissemination to the media. What procedure do I follow to ensure the file is not deleted. Any help pointing me in the right direction would be highly appreciated. Poyani (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Many politicians and celebrities release photos to the media, and want them reprinted as much as possible. However, these images are still copyrighted, and the copyright holders could still sue someone if they used the image in a way they didn't approve of. On Wikipedia, we pride ourselves on being a free content encyclopedia, meaning that anyone can reprint any part of Wikipedia (including images) without getting permission from anyone. Because of this, we can't accept an image of a living politicians unless that image is released under a free license. (A free license is one that allows anyone to reuse the image for any purpose, even modifications and commercial uses.)
If you'd like us to use this image, you'll need to find out who the legal copyright-holder is. Presumably this is Richmond Hill NDP. If so, they will need to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying that they release it under a free license. The e-mail should link to the image in question, and specify the license. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, and I can help with this if you like. However, if the copyright holder is not willing to release the image under a free license, then we cannot accept it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. This is very doable. I will email them about this ASAP.Poyani (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not your usual copyright question

I uploaded the photo on Commons File:Wm H Taft smiling 1908.jpg. There are no copyright problems re uploading or using on Wikipedia, but I'm curious about the copyright date (unclear mark on photo, either 1908 or 1909). The photo of William Howard Taft was taken in June 1908, during the Republican National Convention and presumably publish soon thereafter. But the copyright date looks a bit more like 1909 than 1908. I'm wondering whether there was a "partial year exclusion" or something similar, so that a photo taken in 1908 could be copyrighted in 1909?

Similarly, I used to notice books, printed and sold in the last half of one year with the copyright notice dated the following year. Does anybody know how that worked? Smallbones (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like 09 to me as well. Copyright on photographs is from the year it is first published, not when it was created. It's quite possible that the photo was created in 1908 but not published until 1909. I suspect that's what happens with those books as well. – Quadell (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
After a little searching it seems that post dating copyright notices is a practice that goes way back. See [16] and [17] "Publishers have been post-dating publication dates and copyright dates for as long as they've been putting them in books." Smallbones (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Before 1978, that could have gotten U.S. publishers into trouble. I'm surprised they would do that. (Before the 1976 copyright act went into effect, a copyright had to be renewed 28 years after it was first published -- not 29 years. There are cases where a publisher renewed copyright 28 years after they thought it was published, but it turned out it was renewed too late, and courts held the copyright had expired.) – Quadell (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have information leading to a murderer who do i contact?

I have information leading to a murder suspect who do i contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.71.62 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to contact your local authorities, i.e. the police. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
If interstate flight, drugs, or kidnapping is involved, the FBI might be better. Smallbones (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The local police likely have a phone book and can call the FBI themselves if they can't handle it. --Jayron32 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dewey decimal classification :- India pakistan war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.98.170 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Meyer Abovitz

Please see Meyer Abovitz: his photograph, and that of his wife, appear to be on Geni [18] - any ideas as to how these may be incorporated? Thanks. Fintor (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

These images have been scanned and uploaded into Geni, but there is no information about the copyright status of the images. They may be in the public domain, or they may still be copyrighted. Since the subject is deceased, we may be able to use these images, but it would be best if we had more information about where they came from. You might want to ask Omri Maimon, who uploaded the images to Geni. – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

General Questions

Two questions:

1. If I own an image, is it already considered copy-righted or do I have to fill up some government paperwork or something?

2. If I take an image, do I own its copyright? Does it matter what the image is (i.e. does it matter if it is a road, an animal, a car, or a person)?

Any help would be appreciated. Poyani (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoever creates an image holds the copyright. This happens automatically, without any paperwork. So if you take a photograph, you automatically hold the copyright, and can release it under a free license if you choose. However, if you simply own a photo that someone else created, you don't hold the copyright; the photographer does. (The subject of the photo doesn't matter.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
1. (Generation of copyright) An image is automatically copyrighted from the moment it is created, provided that it is above the threshold of originality. The copyright is owned by the person who is determined to be the copyright owner by the law of the country of reference.
2a. (Copyright ownership) It depends on the country of reference. One must refer to the text of the copyright law of that country. From your user page, I see that you are in Canada. And your expression "take an image" sort of suggests that the type of image you are thinking of is a photograph. In Canada, the authorship of a photograph, and consequently the ownership of its copyright, is attributed by the Copyright Act to the person who owns the material on which the photograph was first fixated. Thus, the person who owns the original film negative or the initial photograph (or, perhaps, by extrapolation, the person who owns the digital material on which the photograph is initially created), is the author of the photograph (see section 10 paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act) and owns the copyright on it. Who took the photo is immaterial. Also, if the photograph was ordered and made for payment, the person by whom it was ordered owns the copyright. And if an employee takes a photograph in the course of his employment, then the copyright on the photograph is owned by his employer. (See section 13 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Copyright Act). So, let's say you took a photograph yourself, with your own material and for yourself. Then, you are the author of the photograph. In Canada, it is not because you took it, but because you are the owner of the material or of the physical initial photograph. But in some other countries, it would be because you took the photograph. And you own the copyright and you can publish the photograph where you want, including on Wikipedia. Things might get somewhat more complex if person "T" takes the photograph and person "O" owns the material and if one of them wants to publish the photograph on Wikipedia. Since the copyright in Canada is owned by "O", "O" is the only person who can authorize a first publication in Canada. If "O" publishes the photograph in Canada and it is not published in any other country inside of 30 days, then it would probably be considered that Canada is the country of origin of the photo and that "O" is the only person who can authorize a publication on Wikipedia. But if the photo was unpublished and someone wants to publish it for the first time on Wikipedia, I'm not sure if it is "O" or "T" who can authorize the publication on Wikipedia. I'd like to know the answer.
2b. (Subject of the image) Some details of this also depend on the country and on the subject of the image. As a principle, the subject doesn't matter for determining who owns the copyright on an image. However, if the image shows another work that itself is copyrighted, for example a sculpture, then the image can be considered a derivative of the other work and then the owner of the copyright on the image cannot publish his image without the authorization of the owner of the copyright on the other work, unless the situation is covered by some exception of the law. (For example, the Canadian Copyright Act allows free publication of photographs of sculptures and of buildings. The U.S. Coopyright Act allows free publication of photographs of buildings but not of copyrighted sculptures. Despite its normal policy and the U.S. law, Wikimedia Commons has a somewhat strange practice of tolerating the hosting of photographs of sculptures if they were taken in Canada.) See Commons:Derivative works for more details.
-- Asclepias (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo of me

If I hand my camera to a friend and ask him to take a picture of me, do I own the copyright or does he? Is he implicitly giving me the rights to the photo by agreeing to my request? Gnome de plume (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the photographer holds the copyright. A photographer can sign away copyrights to his works when commissioned, but it has to be in writing. (That's called a work for hire.) But in the case you're talking about, your friend holds the copyright and could forbid you from making copies if he/she wanted to. – Quadell (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

tagging a image

k i'm new to this whole photo thing on wikipedia but i'm having a hard time tagging a photo i uploaded to the haven episode audrey parker's day off. how do i find a correct tag to the photo i uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S hannon434 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're new to uploading images, it's best if you only upload images that you created yourself (photos you took). Uploading non-free photos, such as TV screenshots, is very complicated and fraught with peril. – Quadell (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Second Division Memorial

Does anyone have an idea of what license tag to use for images of this memorial? Is is a federal government work for hire? {{PD-pre1978}}? {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Or {{non-free 3D art}}? Kelly hi! 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not in the public domain. I would say the last one. Public works of art post 1923 are death plus seventy years in the US if they were created by a non Federal employee. I have no information that Fraser was ever a Federal employee, he certainly was not when he created the Buffalo nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely not a government work. I don't know when sculptures are first considered "published" in the U.S., so I can't speak to whether the sculpture was published in accordance with US copyright law or not. {{non-free 3D art}} would certainly be the safest option. – Quadell (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I did some research on this in connection with the Union Soldiers and Sailors' Monument in Baltimore, which was erected in 1909 and may have been the basis for the Mercury dime. If it is erected in a public space before 1923, it's published.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Elsie Paroubek: one more question

At the end of the Elsie Paroubek article, I'd like to add Henry Darger's picture of his character Annie Aronburg, who stands in for Elsie in his book. Do I contact the Lerner estate about this one? Thanks, --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, never mind, I'm supposed to contact Artists Rights for anything to do with his work. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How to tag works with permission granted for non-commercial informational or reference purpose

How should works be tagged where the copyright holder has granted explicit permission for non-commercial informational or reference purpose.
For example, the terms and conditions attached to the South African Government Information website, explicitly grants the permission as stated above.
Similar permissions are granted from the American Red Cross Society.
And I'm sure upon searching around many instances of this form of permission would be found.
However, these sources often do not subscribe to a specific licence such as Creative Commons.
I have created a template [Template:PD-Non-Commercial-Reference], for this purpose, which is distinct from template {{PD-author|name}} which grants any use.
Is this an acceptable approach for inclusion in wikipedia articles?
Crowne (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Works with that kind of permission can't be uploaded to our servers; we can only use works that are licensed for any use, including commercial. For this same reason, another editor has nominated the template you made for deletion. Images of this nature can be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content under fair use. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:World Youth Day 2013 Rio logo.jpg

File:World Youth Day 2013 Rio logo.jpg claims public domain, because it allegedly "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" - however, this is not true, the image clearly has graphics beyond simple geometric shapes. Elizium23 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I retagged it {{non-free logo}}. Now someone needs to add a rationale. – Quadell (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a valid rationale?

WP:NFCC Policy 10c requires "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline". Now my question is, does the information on File:Planet of the Apes (2001) poster.jpg in section "Licensing" count as a proper rationale for 22nd Golden Raspberry Awards? I would guess not since it does not address all 10 criteria at WP:NFCC#Policy, but I want to be sure. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother too much about the formality of ticking off all 10 criteria (in my understanding, explicitly listing all criteria has never been an obligatory feature of rationales, and shouldn't be – we shouldn't be teaching uploaders that they must state the obvious and the trivial in each rationale). But it's invalid on its merits, as it's a use in a mere list and as such purely decorative. I've removed the image from the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the user will just undo your edit as happened with mine, though. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Aditya College

File:Aditya College.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunnivja (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an image on the Commons. Do you have some question about it? – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Now deleted from Commons as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg

Please see File_talk:Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg. Talk is a bit old, but still relevant. It is quite well known here in Oz that the flag is copyright. I believe there is now a free trade agreement which upholds this copyright in the US. --Surturz (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no way that flag is eligible for copyright protection in the United States. It's true, Australian case law held the flag to be copyrighted, and it's also true that Australia and the U.S. have mutual copyright treaties. But that does not mean that the U.S. will honor any copyright claimed in Australia. If a work is not eligible for copyright in the U.S., then you cannot sue in U.S. courts for protection of that copyright. In this case, the design is far too simple to pass the "creativity" threshold under U.S. law. I agree that the image should not be hosted on Commons, where there is a requirement that the work be PD both in the U.S. and in the country of origin -- but here on the English Wikipedia, it's fine. The summary and tags on the image description page are correct. – Quadell (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that argument does not hold up. There are several individual colours that have been copyrighted in the US. It stands to reason that an assembly of three colours is more complex than a single colour. --Surturz (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You can't copyright a color. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Colors have never been copyrighted in the U.S. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Pepsi did apply for a trademark on a specific shade of blue, but that was declined by the USPTO. And that's trademark law, not copyright law. (I'd hate to live in a world where colors could be copyrighted.) – Quadell (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

How to create own kit for my favourite fotball team ?

How to create own kit (wikipedia) for my favourite football team ? For example, make it look like Lokomotiv Moscow.

Take a look at Template:Football kit and Template:Football kit/pattern list and then use Template:Infobox football club. This is not a copyright question! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploading photos of stamps

Is uploading scanned images or photographs of stamps, postcards, souvenir sheets, first day covers & stamped envelopes to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons ok? It won't violate copyright laws? If it's possible, can I upload them as my own work? Or as derivative works? What should be put as original source and Author? Gregorvitch (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Scans of stamps of that are ok, but they are not your work, they will be derivative works of the original copyright holder of the stamp. In some countries, these are public domain if issued by the government, while others will be copyright to the government or mail authority. You should attribute these to the original publisher, though you can note that you scanned these in on the image file page. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Gregorvitch (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to US stamps, before 1971, they were generally created by in-house people at the Post Office Department and so are PD by virtue of having been created by government employees. Even were they not (and this goes up until the last 1977 issue, the 1 through 4 cent stamps in the Americana series of December 1977) they are PD for failure to provide a copyright notice. Beginning with the Carl Sandburg issue in January 1978, the USPS puts copyright notices on the selvage of stamp panes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Many stamps are copyright but those freely licenced are noted on these commons pages commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain and commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. In some countries all stamp are public domain and in some no stamps are free and can only be uploaded here under the non-free content policy guidelines generally only when used in stamp articles per WP:NFCI #3. ww2censor (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you are asking about stamps of Sri Lanka but there is no specific commons stamps information. According to commons:COM:L#Sri Lanka their copyright extends for 70 years PMA and there does not appear to be any exception for government works like stamps. ww2censor (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy eulogy of Robert Kennedy

Does a sitting United States Senator eulogizing another United States Senator count as a PD-GOV act even if they are brothers. I ask because I want to know if I am limited to 30 seconds of FU time on File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Who made the recording?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that I am working from a CBS news copy, but I have no reason to believe that their is not an official government recording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If CBS made a recording of the 2011 State of the Union Address, wouldn't it still be PD-GOV?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. CBS would have rights to the recording. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My thinking is that the speech is PD both in authorship and performance. Unless CBS presents it as part of a broadcast with commentary by Walter Cronkite or whoever, it is an exact copy of a PD performance with no original input. What kind of production copyright does CBS have of an edited version that has not original broadcast content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, could you expand on your reasoning? I'm curious myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the eulogy part of his official duties? Because PD-GOV (and the underlying law) only covers government employees doing their jobs. If a senator takes pictures of his family opening their presents at home on Christmas morning, then those are copyrighted images even if he is a senator. Likewise, speaking at a funeral is not what I would consider part of his job; though it may be if the eulogy were delivered during the course of normal business on the floor of the Senate. I don't know enough of the background here, but it bears reminder that merely because a U.S. government official or employee or representative did something doesn't make it automatically PD. It needs to have been government work as well, and not just something they did. --Jayron32 03:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It was probably more of a family responsibility. It was not a Senator eulogizing a Senator on the Senate floor, but at St. Patrick's Cathedral. O.K. I will be happy with my FU sample.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

CSS copyrights?

Is it copyright infringement if I replaced the following string in my .css: 

#p-logo  a
{ background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Wikipedia-logo-bolder2.svg/135px-Wikipedia-logo-bolder2.svg.png') !important;
}

With the link to the Wikipedia logo changed to an external image? As I have tested with the preview button, it works, but is it copyright infringement? --Σ talkcontribs 03:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the external image? If the external image is copyrighted, it may be copyright infringement. But removing the Wikipedia logo would be a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. – Quadell (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What if I used a derivative of the Wikipedia logo? Why is it a copyright violation if I'm the only user who can see it? --Σ talkcontribs 02:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Anything that stays on your own computer is not a matter of copyright, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Well technically it's a copyright violation to duplicate copyrighted content in a way that the copyright holder has not authorized, whether anyone else can see it or not, unless your use falls into some category of exceptions in your jurisdiction (such as fair use in U.S. law or Fair dealing in United Kingdom law). As a practical matter, I don't think there's an actionable legal issue so far as copyright is concerned. However if other people see your browser window and associate Wikipedia with something unrelated, it could be a significant trademark issue. – Quadell (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Image of a film prop: 3D art?

Could you please provide some direction regarding the image File:Tracy Bond gravestone.jpg as it appears on the page For Your Eyes Only (film). We are in the midst of a GA Review for the article and the reviewer has raised a question as to whether this is a 'free' image, or whether it would be constituted as a statue / 3D art. Thanks for any input you could provide on this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is nothing copyrightable in the statue. The flourish on the side is not well displayed, but appears standard and unoriginal. The typeface is not copyrightable. And the text is so short, simple, and direct, that I don't think there's an issue there either. I would say it's no more copyrightable than a garbage can or door frame. But if someone has more experience with the copyrights on sculpture in the U.S., I'll yield to their insights. – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously ignore the script. If the face were blank with no script, would the remaining physical object constitute a sculpture? From my understanding, that is the remaining issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Normally I agree 100% with Quadell, but on this one I'm only about 80% there. I think there's enough here to certainly raise the possibility of it being copyright eligible. For example, the patina of age that is on the stone could be part and parcel of the artwork. Given that this is a prop, I think it very likely this was intentional. That speaks to artistic intent and creativity, making it copyright eligible. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    It's definitely a gray area. I'll ask around. – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    Lupo is a well-respected Wikimedian who knows a lot about international copyright issues. I asked him his opinion about this case, and his answer at commons:User talk:Lupo#Lupo.21 is instructive. I think I can summarize it accurately by saying "That's a close call, I can't be sure, so we should assume it's copyrighted. Better safe than sorry." – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've removed it from the article as it's not noteworthy enough to include as a non-free image and I'll try and ensure it stays off. Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

University of Johannesburg

Would the following images of the University of Johannesburg be permitted: [19]; [20]? Thanks. Fintor (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. These are non-free images of a campus. Someone could take a photo of the campus and release that photo under a free license; therefore we cannot use a non-free photo to show what the campus looks like. – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for File:McConico.jpg and File:McConico2.jpg

The original image File:McConico.jpg was properly licensed by the image publisher, by email and using the appropriate form and sent to the email provided for the form, by John Garrett, Publisher of of Community Impact News,\ who holds the copyright, approximately, last July. I know he sent in the proper form in the proper manner because he sent me a CC. (If I had known there would be a problem I would have saved the email). Neverthless the image was deleted because of no license (which I assume never got connected with the image). I have no ticket number. Nevertheless it was deleted because of "no license."

After much discussion, I re-submitted the same image as File:McConimo2.jpg and again had the publisher re-submit a properly filled-out CC-SA-3.0 license just this last week (mid August). About that time the image was also removed. It seems as if the image deletions and the licensing forms are not being matched. Can you look into this? I'm sure you have thousands to go through, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience, but this is an important image for the Round Rock, Texas article. Or should I have Mr. Garrett submit a third license form (again!) and direct it to someone in particular? He's not at all familiar with Wikipedia and getting him to do that a third time as a busy businessman, is not an easy task. Austex • Talk 14:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As you have uploaded File:McConico2.jpg to Commons (log), you should contact the Commons OTRS team on the page Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (or, if you prefer, you can contact one of the members individually on his or her discussion page) and ask them to look if the ticket reached its destination and if it contained the required elements. (It may help if you mention details like the date and to which address it was sent, like permission at commons or permissions at en.wikipedia.) If the ticket exist, they should find it, and if it is ok, you can ask them to restore the file. If there is no ticket or if there's a problem with it, they should tell you. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mayor Scott Smith.jpg

Someone needs to check the licensing of File:Mayor Scott Smith.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No hint of that licence at the source. File tagged for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/August&oldid=1143537452"