Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/May

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official State Portraits of US state Governors etc

The State House in my state has official paintings of nearly every governor who served this US state. I took photos ("faithful reproductions") of the paintings. I'm using the license "PD-Art|PD-old-80-1923" for art older than 1923. (So, first question: is that the right license?) Second question is: What about newer paintings? Can I assume they are public domain, since they were official portraits commissioned by a state government? I know works by the federal govt are public domain, but what about states? If they are OK, then what is the proper license? Finally, same question about official mayoral portraits in my City Hall. Thanks. - Kzirkel (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @Kzirkel:, it varies from state to state, some like California and Florida have decided that works prepared by the state are public domain. Massachusetts, hoever says anyhting appearing on a Commonwealth website (only) is public domain. So it's a pretty mixed bag but safest to say most state's works are not public domain. A way forward would be to ask if they would agree to photos of the individual portraits being licenced under a creative commons licence. Nthep (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep:, thanks, that was good advice. I emailed the state library, and they responded right away; they unequivocally said all the paintings are public domain. I will go ahead and upload with the license "PD-author|State of Rhode Island" - Kzirkel (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kzirkel: It might be a good idea to forward the email and a list of the images, once uploaded, to the OTRS team at permissions-en@wikimedia.org so if there is subsequent debate the details of the permission are to hand. Nthep (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Permission to use photo

Hi, I'm kinda new to to using Wikipedia as an editor. I frequently check-out Wikipedia, but I just started recently when it comes to editing pages, so I apologize if I edited or posted certain pictures that have no copyright as I don't know what I'm doing. I understood that there are many restrictions, but I didn't expect for it to be very rigid since I'm just starting out and expanding on the content. Anyway, the picture that I posted was downloaded from the Internet. Here is the link to my photo: File:ESKAYA.jpeg

Please tell me what to do so that I can fix this immediately. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lim rex christian (talk • contribs) 11:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks like you will try to use this image at Eskaya_people#Beach Resort but the logo is likely copyright to the resort and using it in that article will not be acceptable. Normally copyright logos are only allowed in the infobox of article about the organisation or company per WP:NFCI. Even if it is considered to be freely licenced, which I doubt due to the stylised lettering in the first line, you need to ask yourself will it really add anything encyclopaedic to the one sentence in article in question. In fact IMHO even mentioning that is hardly useful. ww2censor (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Importance of contacting the article subject

I'm relatively new to obtaining free images. I've read the essays and guides on contacting the article subject for getting a picture. I've searched and dug through the archives too. Then I realised about the vast difference between the copyright holder versus the image subject. I've read:

Before, I edit some of those guides, I just want to confirm if I got this right.

Contacting the image subject is futile, right?. I've tried it once and as documented in those guides, I had to do some work on their article for them. Besides that, they can only give images taken by them (selfies?) and those they hire someone else to take, correct? And there's also the chance where their representative will poke their nose. It seems that finding small-time photographers is a much much better alternative than all this. I'm sure they are even more likely to even agree with the free license thing, once they know it's being used here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is true that the subject of an image may not be the best person to contact for permission to use an image but most often it is the subject who knows who the photographer was and without that knowledge you are getting nowhere fast. Sometimes the metadata will record the photographer's name and on occasions the image may be a work for hire where the copyright was transferred as part of the contract: the subject is likely the only person you can contact who will know that. Images that are uploaded here under free licences are not just free to be used here but must also be free for commercial and derivative use. We do not accept images that are allowed on Wikipedia only. Many notable people will have agents or representatives who may be persuaded to release a freely licenced image if they have one when they realise it can only display their client in a good way to provide a decent free image rather than us use a poor unflattering one taken a some crowded event by a bad photographer.
There are several options and you should not exclude any one, just because it may not seem like it will get you the result you want, instead of following the easiest options or those that seems more likely to succeed. Flickr has many decent freely licenced images of well known and lesser known personalities and you can search for specifically for freely licenced Flickr images at https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons selecting only the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses (the last two are being discussed right now at c:Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images). Google also allows searching of images by licence. But watch out for images that are claimed to be freely licenced which are copyright violations or copyright images that, by virtue of being US government work or some other reason, are actually in the public domain. Getting permission can sometimes be difficult and you may need quite some patience. I have waited over a year for a Flickr uses to respond and change a licence so it could be uploaded here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks at lot for your advice, I've made an account at Flickr too. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI, these are the changes I've made to both the essays: Acquire a free image diff and Requesting free content diff. Hope their fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

3 QQ

Where is the tag for photos from before 1923 whose rights have run out, only at Commons? Is it possible to release a photo lacking copyright but only for wikipedia use, not into "Commons"? And does releasing for commercial use mean someone else can copyright or sell the photo itself, or deface it and use it?jzsj 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

  • Template:PD-US is one we use here where US copyright has expired due to date. That page also has a few others named at the bottom which may be appropriate.
  • In certain rare circumstances you can specify that a file is free for use on Wikipedia, but not on commons, by using Template:Do not move to Commons. Apart from that, you can request a file not be copied to commons, but if the file is suitable there, there is nothing preventing its being copied there.
  • When you submit material here (pictures, files, or even the text you type), you are licensing it under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever). The copyright holder always maintains copyright, so a re-user cannot then claim copyright on it, but yes all the other things you say can and do happen to uploaded files. CrowCaw 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Permission to use photo

Hello, I received a message yesterday from an administrator about a photo I used on the page, "The Smallest Penis in Brooklyn pageant." I am new here and the image copyright rules are a bit confusing to me. I have secured permission from the source -- Gothamist.com -- to use the photo, as long as I credit Gothamist and the photographer, which I will do. (I can send a copy of this permission from Gothamist to Wikipedia administrators, if necessary.) But I'm still not sure which category this image falls under -- "fair use" or something else. The administrator said the photo might be removed if I don't address this issue, so I'm trying to avoid that.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. The Grouchy Editor

  • Hello Grouchy Editor, what we need is for the copyright holder of the photo (usually the photographer or their assignee) to follow the procedure outlined at WP:DCM. Essentially they would email a team that handles these sorts of things and agree to donate the photograph to Wikipedia under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever provided they attribute the source). Because we essentially give away all content here, permission to use the photo on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. Once that is all complete, the photo will be categorized as "free", so will be usable anywhere (not just here). CrowCaw 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the photo has been removed, apparently by a bot. It just seems like this permission process is unduly burdensome. I obtained permission to use the photo from the source, Gothamist, but instead of my simply inserting the photo and providing due credit to the source (Gothamist and the photographer), as the source requested, apparently I am supposed to ask the source to do all of the work -- register with Wikipedia, learn its permission process, and insert the photo and permission. Seems like an awful lot to ask of a source when they are kind enough to grant permission, and when I am happy to go through this process myself. But maybe I am attempting to use the photo under the wrong category -- "fair use." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchy Editor (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Grouchy Editor. First of all, your source of the image does not need to register with a Wikipedia account. Once you have uploaded an image, all they need to do is to write an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org wherein they confirm that the image uploaded by you has been released under a free licence. And that was actually your problem with the first upload of your file. You did upload it with a fair use rationale but according to our fair use criteria, fair use content may only be uploaded when it cannot be replaced by a free alternative. Theoretically, anyone could take a photo similar to yours and release it under a free license. That is why your file was deleted in the first place. On that note, please consider also that we do not accept content that is "for Wikipedia only" or something.
You may, however, ask your source to release the image under a free licence that permits derivative works and commercial use of their photo, e.g. using a Creative Commons licence. If your photographer is ok with that, just re-upload your image under a different, free licence and ask the photographer to send the email for confirmation. Once the mail has been sent, please put the following string on the file page: {{OTRS pending}} so other editors may know that a letter of permission has been forwarded. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

frozen action photo show

Not a copyright issue. Please read WP:ARTIST to learn what makes a creative artist notable enough for inclusion in our encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The ,, FROZEN ACTION PHOTO SHOW ,, is created and interpreted by silviu caraba from 2006 at south bank ( London eye )london ? Hi is the real first person in the world who create this type of live frozen action photo show performance in public ? And if hi is not,who is ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wRIojTPCo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio230373 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello, I don't understand what you are asking. I see that you say Silviu Caraba originated that art. Is that being mis-used somewhere on Wikipedia that we need to know about? CrowCaw 21:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
YES !!! I try to find the history of my art i created and named ,and i tape the name of my original show ,, FROZEN ACTION PHOTO SHOW ,,and come up the ,, FROZEN( animation ),, 2013 .........That why i post my video from youtube uploaded in 13 august 2009 , to prove is something missing !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio230373 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC) also i have some other video to prove my show idea,bat this is not from my youtube account https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfLf6QhdBUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os-2xFKaMB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QznCblsqbgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt9_3BVlKaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqZRAO_muoo
Please try to tape this words,in the search location of Wikipedia ,, FROZEN ACTION PHOTO SHOW ,, !!!! And you will see what the search WIKIPEDIA will say !!!......... I am the originator of FROZEN ACTION PHOTO SHOW,bat the wikipedia don't even think about that !!! This is what the google say https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dont&biw=1920&bih=911&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=2GRBVcfvFsTgaKaKgOAE&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAA&dpr=1#q=frozen+action+photo+show
  • We don't have an article for "FROZEN ACTION PHOTO SHOW". When you start to type "Frozen..." the search box starts to narrow down pages that we do have that begin with Frozen, of which there are several. That doesn't mean any of them are claiming ownership of "FROZEN ACTION PHOTO SHOW". CrowCaw 23:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
When i started the first time this show,some people say,i froze in time like ,, Matrix ,, from 1999 !!!! bat is not reall !!! The Matrix from 1999 dedent froze in action !!! The Matrix dede jus slow motion in action !!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPtk7mweahY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbUB2RhWWT4 Bat is ok ,i anderstand now why the Wikipedia don t now nothing about me !!! How can i make the Wikipedia to know ? i want to find some where to post my work,bat i dont no how to do that !!!
I think you are asking why there is no article about you or your show. Well that is probably because you are not considered notable enough for someone to have written an article supported by reliable third party sources even though there are YouTube videos that show you and your show. I'm sorry to tell you that being on YouTube does not make you notable enough for an article in the encyclopaedia. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC) HA,HA,HA,HA....IS OK !!!........NOW KNOW WHAT THE WIKIPEDIA IS !!!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Clarification on upload

I am in the process of updating the following article as it is extremely outdated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidential_Enquiry_into_Maternal_Deaths_in_the_UK

I have permission of the copyright holder to use the logo of the current collaboration carrying out the work as well as a couple of infogaphics from the report (which is available freely online here https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/reports)

I have already tried through Wikimedia Commons with little success. I assume there isn't a barrier to submitting these images - and so I just need to know which page/upload system I should be using.

I'm a new user, so not auto-registered.

Any/all help appreciated.

Kind regards,

SAnthonyR

  • Hello SAnthonyR, a couple of things. One: you say the reports are "freely available", when I think you really meant they are "easily and readily available". A small semantic difference which becomes crucial: Commons only allows material "freely published", where "free" means licensed to allow anyone to do with it as they please. The report and logo are copyrighted so they cannot be put on commons. Now secondly: if the copyright holder wishes to release that material under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever), then we can use that content here. The procedure to do so is found at WP:DCM. Wikipedia content is free for anyone to use for any purpose, so all source material must also be so licensed. CrowCaw 20:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on usage

Love Wikipedia but have some trouble understanding how to document the photo inclusions. I have photos given to me by the photo owner for use on Wikipedia. It doesn;t mean that they are free for everyone to use as they wishg, but the company has license to the pics and has allowed me to use them for the articles. How do I notate that? Which option is appropriate? THanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Zenker (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

None. You just can't use them. Sorry, our policy on non-free content specifies that non-free items can only be used by way of exception, in cases where free alternatives would be impossible as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
And permission for use solely on Wikipedia is not acceptable either. Permission must be for all purposes, including commercial reuse.--ukexpat (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Upload of photos of paintings by Adam Bruce Thomson

My wife and I are copyright holders of the work by this artist and we would like to upload examples of his work onto his Wikipedia entry. If possible, we would like this to be non-free content that is copyrighted, and is made available subject to restrictions of 'non-commercial use only' and 'for use on Wikipedia only'. We would be grateful for any guidance about the appropriate tags that we should use. We think that examples of his artwork would significantly improve the quality of this artist's Wikipedia entry. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHall1953 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is published under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever), so all contributed content needs to be released under the same license. We allow anyone to re-use our content any way they want, so a Wikipedia-only or non-commercial-only license is not sufficient. CrowCaw 21:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This question has cropped up numerous times. I take it that you reside in the UK and thus you come under UK copyright laws. So see: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution. This will explain how you can upload images that are not of suitable quality for suitable for commercial use, yet adequate for WP articles. For as editor Crow intimidate above: there no restricted image permitted on WP (with a few exceptions, that in this case is not applicable), (it's for bank notes and stuff) but this will permit you to upload your images. Also, as little bit of background. Clients want to own their panting outright. In the UK, unless you have those little pieces of paper stating that Adam Thomson had his clients to agree that Adam Thomson retained the copyright of the painting once sold. Then you may not actually have the copyright on sole photographs that you think you have. Don't go down the road of many, who put it into the hands of their solicitor and end up with thousands of pounds of legal fees - which more than wipes out any promised gain. We have the internet now and you can easily do your own research on UK copyright law -for no more cost than a few hours of your time.--Aspro (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Permission to use image and tagging properly

Hi-I've posted an image this link for which I have permission of the creator to use. Here is an email where he gives use of the picture:

2015-05-04 10:48 GMT-03:00 Steven Goldstein: Hello Fabio- This is Steven Goldstein here, partner of Rabbi Steve Greenberg. You took some pictures of us last year for an article in O Globo. I wanted to know if it’s ok to use one of Steve for his wikipedia page. We don’t have any other great picture of him, and someone keeps putting up a very unflattering shot of him instead. If it’s ok with you, I’ll have to figure out how to tell Wikipedia it’s ok. Let me know whenever you have a moment. Thanks so much. Steven

From: Fabio Seixo Subject: Re: Steve Greenberg Date: May 4, 2015 at 9:54:19 AM EDT To: Steven Goldstein Hi Steven, no problem at all. You guys can use the picture! Thank you for let me know. Best regards Fábio -- Fábio Seixo www.fabioseixo.com.br

What else do I need to do in the tagging of the image? Thanks so much for your help.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello. We would need the copyright holder of the photo to follow the procedure outlined at WP:DCM. Essentially they would email a team that handles these sorts of things and agree to donate the photograph to Wikipedia under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever provided they attribute the source). Because we essentially give away all content here, permission to use the photo on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. Once that is all complete, the photo will be categorized as "free", so will be usable anywhere (not just Wikipedia), by anyone, for any purpose. CrowCaw 20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sgoldstein29; this is a regular question, and we have a helpful answer at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. In short, it is not enough that we have permission to use on Wikipedia. As Crow noted, we must have the media available to use under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk)
Hello again. So I've spoken with the creator, and he said that the newspaper in Brazil, O Globo, actually owns the photo as he did the photo shoot for them. Does this mean that it can't be up on WP now? If so, I'll take it down and find another picture. Thanks.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That may well be true or not. Normally the photographer owns the copyright. You should ask again if he sold the copyright with the contact to the commissioning organisation. He may well be correct that they own the copyright and in that case we cannot use the image here without them freely licencing the image. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of images of signatures of dead persons

I've been advised to take my question here, I'm currently working on the biography of Sir Frederick Page (1917-2005). I have a nice image of his signature from

"Yates, I. R. (2006). "Sir Frederick William Page CBE FREng. 20 February 1917 -- 29 May 2005: Elected FRS 1978". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 52: 231–210"

But I am unsure of the copyright status of the signature and if it falls into the category of fair use.

Regards KreyszigB (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While this link does not address the exact situation you are asking about, there is guidance in Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. ww2censor (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Tagging (→‎License tagging for File:2015-05-02 0835 Edward Mellon Architect.png)

How should I tag File:2015-05-02 0835 Edward Mellon Architect.png ? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please direct me to correct tagging of license status for File:2015-05-02 0912 William Burke Belknap the elder 1840.png. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like both of these images are old enough to have fallen into the public domain, but you need to tell us exactly where they came from and who is the author, so we can determine the copyright status. On one of the images you say it is from the internet, so please provide the url of the page it is displayed on and the other says ancestry, so explain what that really means or show a url or book link. Without this information they are likely to be deleted. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, ww2censor (talk). I will try to locate that information soon.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo of developers

There is a photo, which can be found via Google image (First image https://www.google.de/search?q=Ian+Bell+(programmer)&newwindow=1&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=r8FMVcyNDIunsgHym4GIBA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1017#newwindow=1&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=Scan+of+low+grade+print+of+Bell+Braben+1984&spell=1) search and tagged as allowed for commercial use with modifications. The photo has been published on the homepage of one of the people in the photo (Scan of lowgrade print of Bell Braben 1984 launch photo http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/archive/). Link to photo at Google search labeled for reuse. The Telegraph used the photo without specific author info as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/games/11051122/Elite-the-game-that-changed-the-world.html Though, no idea what copyright exactly applies, can someone help? Commons? Free usage? Nooo? Thanks, for helping to figure this one out. prokaryotes (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ISIS photos copyright

Is it allowed to use the photos published by the islamic state in iraq and levant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr Mostafa (talk • contribs) 11:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Assume that these are copyrighted like any other material you may find published. The laws of Iraq, and the other countries involved (Syria?) will be relevant. If they do grant a suitable free license then images can be used here. If not then fair use may apply in some circumstances. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Also consider that even if the US doesn't share a reciprocal copyright with the country (like Iraq, etc.) and that it would be considered PD in the States, Jimmy Wales has asked us to respect those copyrights and treat them as non-free (unless it fails standard PD tests like age or threshold of originality) , --MASEM (t) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Any purported copyright claim by ISIS is unenforceable. I don't see any reason to avoid using relevant photos from ISIS on that basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R5452 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

"Minimal Use"?

For the "minimal use" field, I've been putting "Used only on [article title] article" for the various logos I've uploaded (like this one). Is this acceptable? Is there a more preferred phrasing for logo usage? Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As most logos have very similar rationales, I'd just use Template:Non-free use rationale logo - it provides standard text for most of the criteria (I don't like similar templates for more complex non-free use rationales, but for simple logos they are really useful imo). In special cases you can still specify your own reasons in more detail (see template documentation). GermanJoe (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: would simply putting "Minimal extent of use." in that field be sufficient? Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Faceless Enemy: "Minimal extent of use." is OK too. You don't have to use the template's elaborate text or even that specific template. It just makes life a bit easier, when you want to upload many logos and don't have to fill each parameter manually. GermanJoe (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been using the upload wizard...is there a better way to do it en masse? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I do only single occasional uploads, sorry. But maybe someone else can answer your question about mass uploads. GermanJoe (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Boobpedia license

Can I copy the text of articles of Boobpedia on Wikipedia mention that it copy of Boobpedia? I have found that the license is Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-NC-SA). --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 18:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically, no, the noncommercial part of that license makes it not free enough for Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Okey. Thanks. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Image query

The images I have uploaded are simply taken from IMDB which is a free website. Are these okay for me to use? And what should I use for valid copyright licensing tag?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDeplae (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • IMDB is "free" in the sense that you don't have to pay for it, but everything on the site is copyrighted per This. CrowCaw 23:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maya hieroglyphs font based on drawings by scholar Thompson: Can I produce images from the font and upload them to Maya script WP article?

Hello. I have a question about copyright law for a specific font. I've scanned through the Wikipedia article Intellectual property protection of typefaces but it's all pretty confusing with the technical difference between fonts, typefaces, etc. and what can be copyrighted and what can't.

Anyways, the creator of the font "Maya 4.14" here makes the following claim at the bottom of his page: "In lieu of a licence, fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or merchandise items; they carry no trademark, copyright, license or other market tags; they are free for any use. George Douros."

Basically, George Duoros based himself on "A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs by J. Eric S. Thompson" to make his font. The Catalog is composed of drawings made by Thompson and the use of his drawings is limited to scholarly use (see here) (Copyright © 1962 University of Oklahoma Press. All rights reserved.).

My question is, however, if I can use this font freely for whatever purpose, commercial or not, as George Duoros states/implies (say, use his font to produce images which I can upload to the Maya script Wikipedia article). I had understood that his drawings were copyrighted, but that fonts can't be copyrighted, and when George Duoros created this font he specifically stated that it is free for any use.

If there is a better place to ask this wikipedia copyright question, please tell me so.

--190.192.233.38 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you can use the font freely. Any image of text you create from the font can be assigned a license of yuour choice, and you can make it free for use here. If the font is packaged as a file for use on a computer, there will be extra copyright involved in that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale for File:Bj-league logo.jpg

Stefan2, I have added a fair use rationale template for the logo File:Bj-league logo.jpg. Are the contents of the template sufficient to avoid the file being deleted? If not, any other advice would be appreciated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks OK. You could also have used {{Template:Non-free use rationale logo}} to get standard text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme, I will use that in future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

photo question

I replaced an outdated photo by uploading a new photo that we took of Dr. Rodney Markin for the page about him. I uploaded it as fair use because we (the University of Nebraska Medical Center) own the rights to it, but we don't want it used in any commercial way. I received a message that it wasn't an example of non-free, fair use. I think I must have just chosen the wrong option, but I'm not sure what I should choose. Plain-language help, please? Here's a link to the page: Rod Markin Hamelsmt (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)hamelsmt

  • @Hamelsmt: Hi Hamelsmt! Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. This does not mean free as in gratis, but free as in libre. There's an enormous difference. In the latter case, it means we will accept non-free images only if it is impossible to obtain free imagery that meets the same encyclopedic purpose. As directed by the Wikimedia Foundation (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy), the use of non-free images for the only purpose of depicting living people is not acceptable. We therefore must use an image (or no image at all) that is free licensed. As you note, you do not want this image used for commercial purposes. This means, for our purposes, that this image is not free (as in libre). We therefore can not accept it to depict Rod Markin, as it violates our goals here. See WP:NFCC #1 for the local guiding policy on this issue. I am removing the image from the article, restoring the prior free license alternative. I hope this clarifies things. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wikipedia does not accept licenses like "For Wikipedia only" – what we need are either freely useable media, or non-free images within a very strict frameset of fair use criteria. While we do allow the use of non-free images with a fair use claim, non-free photos of living persons may usually not be used by our non-free content criteria. This is because there is always the possibility of someone taking a photo of the person and publishing it under a free licence. So I'm afraid unless you agree to publish your image under a free licence we cannot host it here. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Short form IPTA REE-Szocs.pdf

I uploaded the public version of an Intellectual Property Transfer Agreement as evidence of the patent ownership of my company: File:Short form IPTA REE-Szocs.pdf. I have got a notice of file permission problem. Please advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpont (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello, most likely that is because we can't be sure that you are the owner of that file. Nothing accusatory intended: as the property holder, I'm sure you'd want us to take precautions if someone else were to do the same. The fix for that immediate problem is to email the address in the alert on your talk page. That will privately and discreetly resolve that issue. This does raise an issue dealing with our guidelines on Conflict of Interest, which I would ask you to read to understand what to expect as someone closely connected to the topic. But for purposes of this page, emailing the address in that alert is the next step. CrowCaw 22:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

outright ownership.

I own many paintings and the artist died over 80 years ago. can I upload the photo's I took of the paintings i own. and If yes what license do I use. The painting are owned outright by me and are shown on my website and there fore are already in the public domain.

thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor1887 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • What artist are we talking about? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If the artist died more than 80 years ago, the paintings are likely to be in the public domain, though this depends on the laws of the country in question. If this is the case, you can use {{PD-old-70}}. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Judging from the uploads by Victor1887, we're talking about Victor Noble Rainbird [1] (d. 1938). {{PD-old}} applies here unless any of his works were separately copyrighted in the US. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I forgot the retrospectrive nature of the URAA: VN Rainbird's works are in the public domain in the EU, but we would require them being out of copyright in the US too. This depends on the year of the first publication of any individual painting. @Victor1887:, do you know if the paintings you own have ever been published before in any sort of exhibition or catalogue? As a general rule, all works first published solely outside the US after 1 January 1978 or first published anywhere before 1923 are free to upload (see this chart). De728631 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted photos

Hi, The photos for 2 articles Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101 and Loganair Flight 670A have been deleted. These photos were of the actual planes that the articles depict. I did major research and never found any free photos of THE planes that crashed w/loss of life. I contacted both photo owners and got permission to use them. I've read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. There is no free equivalent for these photos. Thanks for your consideration. Samf4u (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to start off by talking to the admin who deleted to see if they will restore them on the basis you've explained. If you don't get agreement there then you can take them to WP:Deletion review. Nthep (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Nthep Samf4u (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I re-use this pic on another website

Hi, Is it ok to re-use this image File:Spicker_trinkflasche.jpg on another website? Thanks for your help. Hazel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.238.32.160 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

All the images hosted on the commons can be used elsewhere so long as you comply with its licence, such as requirements for attribution. More more information on re-use of commons images can be found at Reusing content outside Wikimedia and First steps/Reuse. ww2censor (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Logo Infobox HypoVereinsbank

Hello, I have a problem with the infobox and the display of the logo. Why the logo is not displayed in the infobox? Where is the error? Best wishes from Germany --Sommer1986 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. The infobox code is all lowercase. @Sommer1986:, you had "Logo" instead of "logo" in the infobox and you do not need the usual image code just the full file name. However, the image is a non-free logo that is certainly not your own work, so is likely to be deleted. As I previously responded to you back in April you need to upload it here as a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:The end of Anarchism ?.jpg

Book cover, published in 1925. The author of the book has died more than 70 years ago, which doesn't really matter (it makes the *text* of the book to be in public domain). The book cover might be an anonymous work, in which case it would be only protected for 70 years and now in public domain. {{PD-URAA}} might also be relevant. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the file per WP:F4. You're right that the book's author is most likely not the illustrator of the cover artwork. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Release to Wikipedia Only

Could someone tell me a little bit about the possibilities of using non-free art work released specifically for wikipedia use only? I understand we prefer fully free licenses, but what are the restrictions on accepting this kind of image donations? And what is needed for an artist or publisher to demonstrate that they have released it in this way? What other copyright options would an artist have if they would like their images on wikipedia, but would prefer to avoid that they are commercialized or modified?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Maunus. Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only in Wikipedia. It is slightly worse than no permission at all. For unless the artwork has a rationale for use under Wikipedia's highly restrictive non-free content policy, permission for use only in Wikipedia is in itself grounds for speedy deletion. (See WP:F3) —teb728 t c 04:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: One option might be for the artist to release a low-resolution copy of the artwork under a free license. The low-resolution would restrict commercialization. —teb728 t c 05:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Which of the different free licenses are most restrictive?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • None, really. For our purposes, any free license would allow a person using the image to use it for whatever purpose they like, including derivative works, commercial uses, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CC-BY-SA may be slightly more restrictive: BY requires attribution, and SA requires that derivative works be licensed under the same license. —teb728 t c 22:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Writer dcw2003----Please Help

Dcw2003 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC) I am currently in dire need of learning more about copyright statuses of sports photos from the 1920-1940 period. I was forwarded an online copyright listing for this period, but it is of little use, since photos are not listed by subject, and no link to the photo itself is included.

I am familiar with the use of library of congress photos, and have access to their website, but they seem to have little on file, except for their newspaper listings, which I also have access to but I am rarely able to capture them, although I have used a few. Photos of boxers in LOC are not frequent in their newspaper listings, since photos in newspapers were not common prior to 1923 anyway. After 1923, how does one know for sure if a newspaper photograph can be used. For instance, you might be able to tell is a copyright was renewed, but how can your research to find that a copyright was NOT RENEWED?

Any suggestions would be enormously appreciated. I would love to find online repositories. Large papers like the New York Times or Los Angeles Times are available to me, though not easy to get to. (Of course they are digitally captured with search capabilities and reside in only a few select libraries which I have used). A person cannot subscribe to these services as an individual, however. I would of course prefer for convenience online digital repositories where copyright information is available to obtain newspaper photos. I do know the names of most of these services but after 1923, how does a person know if the photos are usable?

How does one search for an expired copyright of a single photo from a newspaper, book, or magazine? Thanks.

Any ideas? I know this is a broad topic.

Previous section was entered by dcw2003


Dcw2003 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about any specific online image repositories (Have you checked Wikimedia Commons?). But I can tell you a bit about copyrighted works in the US. You might already know that any works published in the US before 1923 are out copyright anyway, so very early sports photos from the US can readily be used. For your period of interest, ie 1920-40, photos needed to be published with an explicit copyright notice to be effectively copyrighted. See this chart for details. If you know the name of the photographer and the year of publication of a photo, you can check the relevant copyright catalogue here, to see if it was ever registered for copyright. With all the required provisions and the need to publish a copyright notice, chances are high that many of your photos are actually out of copyright. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
However, be careful because unpublished photos by unknown photographers, which your images may well be from looking at your uploads, are copyright for 120 years from creation in the US or 70 years pma where the photographer is known. You may want to carefully read the United States section of Copyright rules by territory on the commons. Other countries have different rules and commons images must be freely licenced in both the US and the source country. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have published a new article on Wikipedia using a Chart also published at the hemodynamicsociety.org, which I am also the author and Chairman. I have removed all copyright references from the hemodynamicsociety.org. Is that sufficient for the Chart, which was uploaded as Commons, now to be published at Wikipedia? Bbosramek (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

deleted images

Hello.

I have uploaded three images to be included in the article "Stanley Pranin".

The images were kindly given to me by Mr Pranin to be included in the article. Unfortunately, in the uploading process the copyright and permissions became very confusing and I think I filled out the wrong section. The long and short of it is the images were deleted.

I have been trying to get the problem sorted out for months now but no one has yet taken it up.

I would be very grateful if someone would.

Rob

File:stanley-pranin.jpg File:Stanley-pranin-with-kisshomaru-ueshiba-1978-tokyo-sec.1-2.jpg File:stanley-pranin-morihiro-saito-1988-san-diego.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trowbridge Aikikai (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Trowbridge Aikikai: Before you start to upload an image, you first need to determine who the copyright owner is and what license that person grants for use of the image. For a photograph the copyright owner is almost always the photographer; so unless the image is a selfie, Stanley Pranin is probably not the owner. The license must allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 07:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

jelly belly candy company gift shop image

Shows the Gift Shop sample bar at the Jelly Belly Candy Company in Fairfield, CA

This image is posted on the Jelly Belly Candy Company website image gallery to be used as needed for non-commerical reasons. I am not sure what tag should be added to the image so it can be posted on the wiki page.

Source: http://news.jellybelly.com/image_gallery.php?tag=California Tours

Date

Author

Jelly Belly Candy Company

Permission 

(Reusing this file)

http://news.jellybelly.com/image_gallery_categories.php

mnighbor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnighbor (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly which image are you referring to on the two pages you linked to? Some appear to be Flickr images but we don't know which one so we can try to find the source and see if it is freely licenced. If not then we cannot use it. We do not accept images with non-commercial restrictions. ww2censor (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Images

I've been working -- possibly to the point of distraction -- on the Norman Dike page. I want to use one or two images:

The first is this one of Dike and his English girlfriend at Littlecote House in 1943. (If the book doesn't open to the right page, search for Norman Dike.) The photographer was John Reeder, who was serving as a lieutenant at the time. Reeder, if I have the right guy, died in 2010. I think that the picture is in the public domain 1) by now based on the old rules or 2) from day one if Reeder was on duty when he took it (I can't tell from the context). I couldn't find the image on line so I did a screencap and cropped it; it's resting "comfortably" on my local machine. If I can use it as public domain or fair use, am I ethically obligated to mask the girlfriend (Dike was married at the time)?

The second is this one of Dike in a group on page 99; he is second from the right in the first row. I couldn't find a copyright or masthead in the magazine, although I'm sure there must have been one. This picture's primary value to me was to verify Dike's identity in the first image. I'd crop this one. Is this one out of copyright under the old rules or can I claim fair use? I haven't done the screencap yet.

If I've been overly fuzzy, let me know.

Thanks in advance,

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Under US copyright rules, a picture dating from 1941 would be out of copyright only if it was published and the copyright was not renewed. If it was never published, or if the copyright was proeprly renewed, it would still be protected. A picture taken by a soldier would be PD only if taken as a part of his assigned duties, a personal photo would still be under copyright even if he was on duty. If UK rules apply, then i'm not sure, but I suspect a similar outcome. DES (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I decided to crop the first image and upload it as File:Lieutenant Norman Dike (1943).jpg, claiming WP:Fair use. Comments on that one are welcome.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fair use" from third party as opposed to official sources

(Discussion moved from Village Pump)

Given that a truly free image to illustrate the John Menzies retail outlets can't be found after a reasonable amount of searching, is there any preference in the "fair use" policy to using a non-free image from the company's own official material ([2]) as opposed to one presumably taken by an unrelated a third party (e.g. this person's website).

My gut instinct would be that the former is preferable, but I've no idea if that has a basis in legal fact and/or WP policy...? Can any one clarify this?

(I should make clear that while Menzies still exists as a newspaper distribution and aviation business, the retail side- which was widespread and very well-known (particularly in Scotland)- was sold off in the late 1990s, and any accurate representations of them intact would by necessity be archive images. I've been unable to find free photographs of Menzies shops in their original state.)

Ubcule (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubcule: I would say the preference would be for no illustration. The policy is, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I can't imagine how an image of a retail outlet would significantly increase readers' understanding. —teb728 t c 06:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that Menzies was a significant retail presence in its day, and the photo illustrates an example of that in a way that words couldn't entirely... I'd have to say that if this falls below the level deemed "significant" (and it can be argued that according to the strict wording of the policy it does), then I'd guess the vast majority of fair use images also fall below it.
Not saying that this excuses it, but if so, I'd like to see that policy applied consistently.
At any rate, I'd also appreciate an answer to my original question, as it's something I'd already wondered previously- is it acceptable to use a third party image in preference to a first party one if neither are free? Ubcule (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, as long as you can properly attribute the copyright owner, I don't think it matters which non-free source you use. It would probably come down to quality of the image for the intended purpose. I suppose (broadly speaking) a random internet photo could itself have been pirated from the true owner, so by using the "official" one, at least there is no question as to ownership. CrowCaw 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be preferable to use an image from the company? While we aim to be as strict as we can with WP:NFCC, we ultimately can never know how a court will rule (not that it is likely to get to that). It seems that it would be far more difficult for a company to claim any loss (or effect on their ability to exploit the value) when we are just using the image to show what their shops looked like in an encyclopaedic article and licencing images of their shops to people who just want to show what they looked like in an article probably isn't a business focus (although I guess there could be cases where it is). If the image found on a random website really belongs to someone else, and what's being depicted is rare, the person's primary interest in that image could very well be licencing it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil Perez.jpg and June Macasaet[...].jpg

I proposed the File:Neil Perez.jpg and the File:June Macasaet Winning at the Manhunt International 2012.jpg to save the images to my own work it is related to the images of the article thanks.MarkHerson (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarkHerson: Don't just start a new subject at the end of a Talk (or other) page. That made your paragraph part of the discussion on my post "Google n-gram chart". This is how it looked; look down at the bottom.
I've inserted a section header to separate it, but the easiest way to start a new topic is to click the "New section" button at the top of a regular Talk page, or the link "Click here to ask your question" in the header of this or any other "Wikipedia:(blah blah)" question page. --Thnidu (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So what exactly is your question? Are you asking why the images are likely to be deleted? Neither of them have a filled in {{information}} (click to see the full details you will use) template with all it necessary details such as the description, source, author and date, so we don't know who took the photo and where it came from. Also, there is no copyright tag so we don't know how it has been licenced by the copyright holder even if that is you. If they are your own images you must freely licence them by adding a tag such as {{Attribution}}, {{PD-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or similar appropriate free ones found at WP:TAGS and WP:ICT/FL. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

add poster viva film

it is matter to uploaded proposed of making the poster File:BoyGoldenShoottoKilltheArturoPorcunaStoryPoster.jpg said Philippine ip watching Boy Golden: Shoot to Kill, the Arturo Porcuna Story in official metro manila film festival 2013 happened? Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Oripaypaykim: This is incomprehensible (NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT). --Thnidu (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2015/May&oldid=1138542445"