Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/January

Adding File:Catwoman.jpg to BLP, Lee Meriwether

Normally, a biography of the living non-retired person must not consist of non-free images. This image is totally different with the Catwoman costume. It was removed from BLP for lack of rationale. Should it be added back with a required fair use rationale? --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the statement that “Meriwether portrayed Catwoman for the 1966 Batman movie” is perfectly understandable without any illustration; the use here did not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use - how many images can we use to represent a modern artist's work?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if all works of a given artists are copyrighted (like with all modern artists), we allow one copy to be used in the article under fair use provisions, right? If so, here are few issues for further investigation that I stumbled upon during a short review. 1) David Hockney has several instances 2) Do we need both File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg and File:Warhol-Campbell Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg? Probably all uploads by this editor to Commons are copyvios; one should be moved to en wiki under fair use. If anybody is so inclined, there is probably much more of this located simply through looking at the biographies of artists featured in the modern art article, many of them have more than one image, some have galleries of non-free art... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no particular number allowed (not even one). Rather each use must significantly increase reader understanding of sourced discussion of the artist’s work. And multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. See WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the soup cans, it is unlikely that both could be used on the same article without violating WP:NFCC#3. But as long as each is used in at least one article, I know of no reason why both couldn't be hosted on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense; Campbell's Soup Cans is an FA on the series, and rightly uses several images, which are necessary to illustrate the development of it. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

TEB728 is absolutely right that there is no set number, and "zero" can be a perfectly acceptable answer. More practically, if a work of art is considered to be a defining element of the artist in question and can be backed up by sources, we will typically allow a handful of examples, in the same manner we allow for song samples for modern musicians and artists, but that number will vary. We can't use galleries, however, if all the works are non-free, so generally the number will be low (1-3 as a guess). --MASEM (t) 00:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So when is zero an acceptable answer? What makes one artist bio acceptable to have several fair use images, and another - zero? I'd think that each artist's style is unique enough to warrant at least one image of his work in their respective article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable rule of thumb: use a picture if you also have sourced commentary about the artist's style in the article. If it's a mere stub with only the basic biographical data but no substantial critical discussion of the artworks, then illustration of the artworks is unnecessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. So if the sourced commentary suggests, for example, that an artist style is of patriotic, military paintings, than we can have one image that illustrates that, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by “illustrate.” Sometimes the word is used to mean “clarify”; other times to mean “decorate.” See wikt:illustrate#verb. It could certainly be used if it is needed for reader understanding of the commentary, but not just decorate a mention of “patriotic, military paintings.” What the policy actually says is, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” —teb728 t c 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

teb—the inclusion of an artist's work should always be considered necessary to an article on a person whose primary notability is that of an artist. You say, "It could certainly be used if it is needed for reader understanding of the commentary, but not just decorate a mention of 'patriotic, military paintings.'" The inclusion of a visual representation of the person's artwork should always be considered to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic".[1] The existence of the article is all the justification you need for the inclusion of the artwork. The artwork is the resin d'être of the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of artwork can serve multiple purposes. The image sheds light on the artist, helping the reader to associate the artwork with the artist, who probably has an article on Wikipedia. The image also helps to construct for the reader a world of art that makes sense, because the images represent points in time, points in place, points in style, points in quality, and points in art movements. The above discussion is only taking into account that an artwork reflects on an artist, but an image of an artwork in our encyclopedia can, and usually does, do more than just provide the reader with a mental association between artwork and artist. This is an argument for more than one image by a given artist. This is also an argument for more than one image of the same artwork. The "Campbells Soup Cans" are not just illustrative of the sort of art that Andy Warhol made. The "Campbells Soup Cans" show the reader what is considered an exceptionally iconic artwork. The image pinpoints a time, place, and art movement. It is found in multiple articles for that reason. An argument can be made for putting images of that artwork into even more articles, for instance articles on Printmaking in general and Screenprinting in particular. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free art is never appropriate in articles like Printmaking or Screenprinting because a free version demonstrating the technique can always been made. The only place where we guarentee that a work of art that is non-free can be used is on an article about that specific work of art. We do allow some cases of examples to show the style of artwork for an artist, but they have to be judged carefully and should be selected based on sources. (There's no question that Warhol's soup can art is one of his well-known art and thus would be appropriate on his page). --MASEM (t) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see that images of specific artworks might not be essential to articles on art techniques. You make a valid point. But styles, movements, genres, descriptive terms—these require examples in the form of artworks. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that for when a free image is available, we should avoid using a non-free one. But in cases of modern artists, where all of their work is non-free, having a sample of their work in the article is, IMHO, crucial to show the reader their style. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, and with visual art, I don't believe any amount of words can be a substitute for a picture. If a person is notable because they are a painter, the article MUST sport a sample of their work to be comprehensive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I should be clear that the place I'm specifically saying that non-free shouldn't be used is in the discussion of a specific method of creating art, since we can always create that by someone being photographed freely doing that. In articles about an artist, about a specific style period for art, and specific works of art, there's no question that non-free would be allowed, the question is more to what degree.

But specifically on the artists themselves, having an image may not be appropriate. Let's say we have an artist that doesn't do many masterpieces but is sufficiently good and does a lot of art, so that he is notable, but his art style isn't critiqued in depth. (see Phil Foglio for one example). Without any critique of his art, only his proficiency, there's no reason to include an example of his artwork on their bio page. On the other hand, when a specific piece of art is critically described as a defining work for an article (Wahrol's soup can), its use on the artist page is fine. That's why one needs to check sources and follow what they suggest are the appropriate examples to include. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I always thought Phil Foglio's art was unique enough to be a good example for an artists that must have a sample in his article. And you say his work hasn't been subject to any critical discussions? This is a bit OT, but few minutes of search found for example this, and I am sure there is more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—visual art is almost entirely nonverbal, but I think you are suggesting that words can suffice. Are you suggesting that we would not learn much about the artwork of Phil Foglio by the inclusion of an image such as this? How would you convey that in words? Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course its non-verbal. But you can't just say "oh, I need a sample of this person's art to talk about the person". If the uniqueness and style of their art is discussed in depth by sources, then yes, there's a likely chance to use the art on the person's page. But there's artists that can be prolific and produce lots of work but without any real discussion of the style, and in that case, we don't include that. Note, of course, that if the art they produce is notable, we can certainly have the art there. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—I am not sure why you are making such a sharp distinction between whether their work is discussed in sources or not. It seems to me that as long as we know that the article is about someone whose primary reason for notability is that they are a visual artist, that it would inevitably follow that an image of their art is required, that being because words cannot convey what an image of visual artwork can convey, in most instances. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very important because you need to meet NFCC#8. If sources discuss an artist but make no mention of his unique style, and simply that they are an artist with certain works, seeing their work does not aid in the article (it would be original research to try to describe his style otherwise), and thus NFCC#8 is failed. Again, Phil Foglio is a great example as it stands: we can understand he does a lot of fantasy-based artwork but as no text presently try to establish his style, we don't need to include any NFC at this point. I do note that there are likely sources that do describe Foglio's style as shown, so when those are added to the article, a representative image would be reasonable too. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—doesn't "fantasy work" describe a style? You just said: "Again, Phil Foglio is a great example as it stands: we can understand he does a lot of fantasy-based artwork but as no text presently try to establish his style, we don't need to include any NFC at this point." There is text in the article referring to his work as "fantasy work". Why would an image not complement the text in the article referring to Foglio's imagery as "fantasy work"? Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because "fantasy work" is a generic term (technically fantasy art) so an image to show that doesn't help the reader. In Foglio's case, as pointed out, there's at least one critique that comments on the cartoon-ish nature he provides to that type of art. There should be more but that type of description at least starts towards what's needed by NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—if "'fantasy work' is a generic term (technically fantasy art)", can you please tell me a term that refers to a style of art that is not a "generic term"? Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't. That's why if sources only describe an artist's work in generic, non-evaluative terms (eg "fantasy art") then an image is not appropriate for the artist's page. When there is critique and in-depth discussion of how the artist's work varies (or perhaps even defines) the generic genre term, then there's a starting point. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you refer to "non-evaluative terms". Can you please give me an example of an "evaluative term"? Are there "evaluative" terms used in describing works of art? If there are any—what would be an example of one? Let us suppose that I accept what you say: that "fantasy art" is a "non-evaluative term". What would be an example of an evaluative term? Are there any? Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation is going to be critique and commentary that makes an artist's work unique in the eyes of one or more secondary sources. There are not going to be categorically explicit terms that you're asking for because the opinion of third parties of their impression of someone's art isn't just going to be that simply put. They will likely be full sentences and paragraphs discussing this from the sources. As an example, which is not necessarily true but just to work with something: "Foglio draws fantasy art" is a factual statement that has no evaluation, simply stating his preferred genre/area of art. "Foglio draws fantasy art with a cartoon-ish flair that brings a sense of humor and parody to his works" is an opinion and would be the start of something that would allow the use of an image of his work to be used in his own article, assuming that actually was part of the sourcing for the work. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say: "As an example, which is not necessarily true but just to work with something: 'Foglio draws fantasy art' is a factual statement that has no evaluation, simply stating his preferred genre/area of art. 'Foglio draws fantasy art with a cartoon-ish flair that brings a sense of humor and parody to his works' is an opinion and would be the start of something that would allow the use of an image of his work to be used in his own article, assuming that actually was part of the sourcing for the work."

Why would you want "evaluation"? From where are deriving the need for "evaluation"? You refer to "factual statement[s]". Why aren't factual statements sufficient to justify the inclusion of an image of the artist's work? You refer to "opinion". Why would we require "opinion" as "the start of something that would allow the use of an image of his work to be used in his own article"? Why wouldn't "factual statement[s]" in the absence of "evaluation" provide justification for the inclusion of a non-free image of the artist's work? You seem to be making an important distinction between facts and opinions. Why would opinions justify the inclusion of an image of an artist's work in an article when facts would not? Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There may be cases were a factual statement may be needed if illustrating the fact is aided by the use of an image. I don't know of any specific current examples, but say an artist works by an obscure mosaic-method of small items to make a larger picture; that may allow for the use of an image to show an example close-up of the mosaic to make it easier for the reader to understand that style. On the other hand, "fantasy art" is a standardize genre. It's broad, but it immediately evokes the general nature of the art, and thus without other commentary, needs no illustration. That's why using images of art based on straight-up factual information and not commentary is likely not going to need illustration: it can be described in the broad, generalized terms that we have other pages that demonstrate that element visually as needed.

We generally require commentary and other opinion from other sources to assure that we are not including images based on the passion of WP editors for a specific topic, and to make sure that NFCC#8 is being met. Note that I've said that the presence of opinion likely justifies the image, but that's not always the case; the opinions and critique of the art would need to be of the sort, that, without the image, it is difficult to understand that opinion, as per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—WP:NFCC#8 says "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you are adding to the above that "We generally require commentary and other opinion from other sources to assure that we are not including images based on the passion of WP editors for a specific topic, and to make sure that NFCC#8 is being met."

Where are you getting this from? Where in policy is it said that "We generally require commentary and other opinion from other sources to assure that we are not including images based on the passion of WP editors for a specific topic..."? Is that written into policy elsewhere? It does not seem to be found at WP:NFCC#8. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See the general terms used at WP:NFCI about "critical commentary". Note that those aren't an inclusive list of where images can be used, but cases that fall outside of it need very explicit rationales and reasoning to be included. "to illustrate an artist's typical style" is not sufficient if there's no sourced commentary to explain why we need the image in the artist article. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—are you referring to WP:NFCI#7 which reads: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."? Is that the wording in policy that you are referring to? I see no mention of "opinion" or "evaluation". Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yes. Opinion and evaluation fall into the broad range of what can be construed as critical commentary. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—yes, critical commentary encompasses a "broad range" of types of material. I think most of that which establishes notability for an artist is actually critical commentary if we broadly construe the term "critical commentary". You certainly haven't shown me wording in policy that restricts critical commentary to "opinion", or to "evaluation". Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was restricted to opinion or evaluation, and besides, this is not a test of being a wikilawyer - I was not saying that those exact words appear in policy/guidelines. The words we do use are "critical commentary" which means it requires a non-obvious, non-factual discussion of the artist's work to be considered "critical commentary". Saying an artist's work falls into a specific art style is a plain statement of fact and not critical commentary. Saying how an artist's work is unique within that style, is a statement of critical commentary, but one that cannot be made by a Wikipedia editor without introducing original research or bias, and thus why we need that to be critical commentary from sources. There is no exact bounds on what exactly is "critical commentary", so I can't provide you exacting examples. Only that in the general trend, the less the sources go into detail about an artist's work, and the generic and factual that information becomes, the less likely that the article on the artist has enough critical commentary to support the artist's work. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—would I be correct in saying that, in the instance of an article on a visual artist, an image would "significantly increase [a] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? We find that language at WP:NFCC#8. Yet you have said "TEB728 is absolutely right that there is no set number, and "zero" can be a perfectly acceptable answer." How would "zero" be an acceptable answer? We would be talking about, for the sake of this discussion, an individual whose primary notability is that of a visual artist. I think that there are more important and less important reasons for the inclusion of imagery in an article which is a biography of a visual artist. You seem to be focussing on less important reasons for the inclusion of an image of an artist's work in an article on that artist. Your argument has largely focussed the inclusion of an image to illustrate "commentary" on the artist's work. But this is not the most important reason that an image would generally be included. Your argument has focussed on the wording in policy found at WP:NFCI#7 which reads: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Your argument has largely dwelt upon defining "critical commentary". But I think the more important concern is not with critical commentary at all. I would submit that the more important concern is providing the reader with a representative example of the artist's work. This allows the reader to see the work, and this "significantly increase[s] [the] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." WP:NFCC#8 reads in full: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that by means of WP:NFCC#8 we have support in policy for the inclusion of an image of the artist's work in just about any biography about an artist whose primary reason for notability is his/her artwork. I am not the only editor in this thread saying this. User:Piotrus expresses this well in several posts in this thread:

"So when is zero an acceptable answer? What makes one artist bio acceptable to have several fair use images, and another - zero? I'd think that each artist's style is unique enough to warrant at least one image of his work in their respective article."

"I agree that for when a free image is available, we should avoid using a non-free one. But in cases of modern artists, where all of their work is non-free, having a sample of their work in the article is, IMHO, crucial to show the reader their style. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, and with visual art, I don't believe any amount of words can be a substitute for a picture. If a person is notable because they are a painter, the article MUST sport a sample of their work to be comprehensive."

The above two posts were posted earlier by User:Piotrus. I just would repeat that there are more and less important reasons for including an image in an article. The illustration of "commentary" is of secondary importance to the need to allow the reader to see the work first-hand and for themselves. You have been arguing that "commentary" must be voluminous and must contain evaluations and opinions and be non-obvious and non-factual but I think this is all besides the point. Policy is not predicating the inclusion of imagery on the illustrating of "commentary". Policy allows for the inclusion of imagery to increase a readers' understanding of a topic, and that policy language provides the justification for the inclusion of an image of an artist's work.

Policy provides justification for the inclusion of images if they can be shown to be illustrative of "critical commentary". But policy also provides justification for the inclusion of imagery on the basis of it significantly increasing the readers' understanding of a subject. Clearly in the case of a visual artist the inclusion of a representative example of the artist's work accomplishes this. An image of the artwork significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy is NFCC#8, followed by NFCC#3a on minimal use of non-free images. To be critical to the reader's understanding, we must be sure that seeing the art or the style is a fundamental part of understanding the article on the artist, and its omission would be harmful -- this second part is often overlooked. Inclusion of non-free nearly always meets the first part of that requirement, but the later is the one most people forget also is required. When an artist's work is not discussed in any manner by the article, then the lack of an image is not harming the reader's understanding; including the non-free image would violate #8. Now, the discussion needs to be more than just passing mention. "John Q Public painted X" does not support the inclusion of X because, again, the lack of image X is not harming the reader's understanding. Similarly "John Q Public paints abstract art" doesn't help because "abstract art" is a genre/style where plenty of image examples already exist, even if they're not JQP's. The reader's understanding is only affected when the article goes into critical commentary about the work itself in relation to the artist, and such commentary can only come from sources, otherwise it falls into WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. If such commentary exists, then both parts of #8 are met; we help the reader understand the commentary better, and that understanding would be hurt without the image. If the artist is truly notable for being an artist, this is a very very low barrier to meet. Again, I brought up the Foglio example because as it stands now the artist lacks discussion of how his art is taken, thus an example bit of work would be inappropriate, but to stress, that's because it's lacking sourcing/content that has been found to establish those points.

The argument "a picture is worth a thousand words" does not fly on WP, because first, we are an encyclopedia, not an art appreciation guide. Second, we would require art to be shrunk down to appropriate resolution, meaning that any "appreciation" is going to be nearly demolished at the lower resolution. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—if the article is a biography of a person whose primary notability is as a visual artist then of course the inclusion of a representative example of the artwork is important. If you doubt that, please tell me. There need be no critical commentary when the article is about an individual artist. WP:NFCC#8 provides all the justification we need: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not; if no source have bothered to discuss the artist's actual work to any degree, then it is not WP's to be doing that job either (nor can we do that job without introducing OR). If no sources have said anything about the works in any detail, omitting the image is not harming the reader's understand per the second half of NFCC#8. I don't disagree that inclusion of the image would help, but NFCC#8 has two requirements that both must be met, and in these cases, only one is. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—the article is on the artist. The artist's reason for having an article is his/her artwork. There is no original research as long as the image is verified as being a product of the artist in the title of the article. Let us look at policy language again: WP:NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Increasing the reader's understanding of the topic and not being detrimental to that understanding are two sides of the same coin. The resin d'être of the article happens to be the artwork. The artwork and the artist are inextricably related to one another. In order to write the article that has the artist's name as the title it is very important to show a representative example of the visual artwork—if it is visual. Of course—if the artwork for some reason cannot be represented in a visual form, then we would probably be exempted from a responsibility to show the reader what the artwork looks like. But in the normal course of things, it is virtually axiomatic that of crucial importance to the well-being of an article on an individual, inclusion of artworks helps. Exclusion of artworks hampers the reader's ability to fully grasp the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to write the article that has the artist's name as the title it is very important to show a representative example of the visual artwork is a false statement, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. An article about an artist is written from the point of being a biography of that person, not an art appreciation service. We cannot be empathetic to inclusion of art because we feel it helps; it must help, and that can only be shown by sourced discussion of the art in the text of the article. The two parts of NFCC#8 are very different statements, they are not different sides of the same coin, as you believe. The first part, helping the reader's understanding, almost always can be justified for potential non-free inclusion, but the demonstration of omission harming the article is where most cases falter, and this is just one of them.

The point I am trying to make is that line for inclusion of an artist's work is very low if the artist is truly notable for being an artist. Someone has bound to describe their style to some degree that, for WP's NFCC purposes, are sufficient to suggest inclusion of an image. But we cannot make a blanket allowance for including an example of that artist's work on their page; we don't do that for musical artists either. The barrier to include an example piece of art should be easy if the artist is as important as you're saying that we need to see their work to understand. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "The first part, helping the reader's understanding, almost always can be justified for potential non-free inclusion, but the demonstration of omission harming the article is where most cases falter, and this is just one of them."

Omission harms the article because of interest to the reader is what the artwork looks like. No, we are not promoting the artwork. This isn't about "art appreciation". At issue is the prime purpose of the article: the communication of information. Contained within the image of the artwork is information integrally related to the subject of the article. Is the subject of the article not a person who is notable for making artwork? Is it possible that the reader may want to be informed of the nature of that artwork? Does visual imagery convey information? Blocking the inclusion of vital information can be construed as something detrimental to an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've explained several times. If all the sources say about an artist is that the person is an artist, has done X number of works, has done art for certain entities, but never talk about the art in any degree, there is zero harm in omitting an image of their art. If the sources don't spent any time discussing it, then Wikipedia shouldn't care either. It would be different if we were an art guide, but we're not. Non-free content policy outweighs the perceived value of a picture of someone's art if there's zero discussion about the art in any depth. The low barrier where the art is actually discussed in some analytical depth is all that is needed to make the inclusion outweigh the restrictions on non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "If the sources don't spent any time discussing it, then Wikipedia shouldn't care either."

But we are not talking about "discussing" the artwork, are we? We are talking about the inclusion of an image of the artwork. At issue is whether or not an image should be included—not whether some particular text should be added to our article. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we are discussing the "discussion of the work", with respect for how it exemplifies or demonstrates the artist's style. If that discussion doesn't exist from sources, then including an example of an artist's work is purely decorative, and does not meet the requirements for NFCC#8. This follows from every other use of non-free media on WP; inclusion without discussion violates NFCC#8 because without that discussion, we cannot show how the article is harmed by the lack of the non-free media. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—do you doubt that the artwork "exemplifies or demonstrates the artist's style"? It is axiomatic that an artist's artwork exemplifies his/her style. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A piece of art will be an example of an artist's style, but no source explains why this is the case, we can't include it because the omission of the art does not harm the reader's understanding of the biographical article on the artist, that is NFCC#8 is failed. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "the omission of the art does not harm the reader's understanding of the biographical article on the artist".

WP:NFCC#8 says: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The above is a reference to "Contextual significance." The art is "significant" in the "context" of the artist. We want to understand the significance of the relationship between artist and artwork. They are inextricably linked. The person who is the subject of the article would not have an article at all if he/she did not meet notability requirements as a visual artist. On what basis does the person meet notability requirements? Answer: on the basis of the artwork. There is a significant relationship between the two, and it is to the detriment of the article as a whole to remove a portion of that relationship. In order to shed light on the person, we introduce the art. Increasing the reader's understanding of the person that is the subject of the article is indeed hampered by omitting the artwork. In order to avoid hampering the reader's understanding of the person, we include the artwork, in accordance with exactly the language spelled out in WP:NFCC#8. We actually are not necessarily interested in the "analytical depth" to which you are attaching great importance. The art is a counterpart to the artist. Just as the text of the article pertains to the artist, so too does the image of the art pertain to the artist. The reader perceives the image of the art in our article experientially. No intermediary is needed. It is not for instance necessary to have an art critic commenting on the art. Therefore no source is required. (Verification is required; reliable sources have to attribute the work of art to the subject of the biography.) No explanations or interpretations or opinions are required. A biography of a visual artist is always closely related to the visual imagery of the artwork itself. It would be to the detriment of such an article to omit imagery that would allow the reader to gain a first hand experience of the artwork. The intermediaries that you have been arguing for are of secondary importance. Of primary importance to the reader is seeing the art. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not correct. If we were an art appreciation guide, then yes, I agree, artist and art are linked. We're an encyclopedia; that link is not required and including it is original research. We can talk about artists without showing their work. Only until the low barrier where sources start describing the artist in terms of their artwork is that link forged well enough to justify the use of an image. This follows throughout the entire encyclopedia's NFCC policy. Again, I'm stressing a point: the barrier is low, and very easy to meet if the artist is truly notable for being an artist. This also is meant to make sure we're talking about indiviudally creative artists as opposed to those that are only notable for doing work on "corporate" art like comics, animated shows, etc. where they're not able to express their own direct creativity. What is being asked for is not that hard to meet, but it just needs to be met. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say "If we were an art appreciation guide, then yes, I agree, artist and art are linked."

In the instance of a biography of a visual artist whose sole notability rests on the visual artworks he/she produces, the visual artist and the visual art are linked.

You are elaborating on policy. The reason we are having this discussion is because you said "TEB728 is absolutely right that there is no set number, and "zero" can be a perfectly acceptable answer." The actual wording in policy would not seem to support such a statement. I think WP:NFCC#8 is fairly clear when it speaks of "WP:NFCC#8". What it says about "contextual significance" is the following: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

If the article is a biography of a visual artist whose sole reason for notability is the visual art that he or she produces, then omitting the visual art would certainly seem to be detrimental to the article. Conversely including imagery representative of the visual art can be understood to increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You are still missing my point. Let me start with this: on any article, "zero" is the minimum necessary non-free images we allow. No article is entitled to using non-free images, period; all non-free use must pass every NFCC policy.

Now, if we are talking about an artist who is notable for his art (this is not all artists, as I will point out in a moment), then there is likely discussion from the sources that lend to the artist's notability to justify the use of an example or represent work of art. Notability requires secondary sources, which tend to be analytic or critical of the person (by definition of secondary sources), and ergo there's a good chance that we can use the art in relation to those sources. This is why I keep calling it a very low barrier to meet. You're making it like I'm rejecting any art, but I'm not. I'm emphasizing that you need to meet certain conditions to have an example work of art, and this is likely the case for artists that are notable for their art. That meets with your statement on "artists known solely for their art".

This is not true of any artist. There are what I would call "corporate artists" that do storyboard or animation work for someone else's creative work. The artist may be notable because they have worked on those works, but that does not make their specific work notable, and thus there's no need for a non-free image. There are people that aren't professional artists but do it as a hobby but are notable for something completely different. In this case, we wouldn't need an image of the art in general.

This is why I'm insistent that we have to start with the assumption that we do not always non-free to illustrate any specify area. "Zero" is always the minimum amount for any article. The second part of NFCC#8, regarding omission being harmful, is a key factor that has to be considered. For artists that are solely notable for their art, that's probably not going to be a problem to meet to allow one image. But it doesn't apply to all artists. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You say "The second part of NFCC#8, regarding omission being harmful, is a key factor that has to be considered. For artists that are solely notable for their art, that's probably not going to be a problem to meet to allow one image."

It is not "probably not going to be a problem". It is never going to be a problem because WP:NFCC#8 allows for the inclusion of non-free images based on "Contextual significance". If we are talking about a visual artist whose sole basis for notability is his or her visual art we have contextual significance. If there is no other reason for notability other than the artworks then it is the artworks that make the artist notable. How could the omission of the artworks be anything other than "harmful"?

You say "This is why I keep calling it a very low barrier to meet".

There is no barrier to meet. The "barrier" is already met simply by meeting the notability requirements already in place. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Notability is not a guarantee for needing an image. An artist can be notable without the user needed to see their work to understand that notability. That's why I keep pointing out the second part of NFCC#8: if the omission of a non-free image does not impair the reader's understanding of the article, a non-free image is not required. This is a required test to consider, in addition to the first part of NFCC#8, which is very easy to show true. All images used for an artist's art must meet all parts of NFCC. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is that the tail wags the dog. You say "Notability is not a guarantee for needing an image." Notability in fact assures that the article should have an image of the artwork—if the artist is solely noted for being an artist. This is because in that circumstance the artwork is contextually significant. The artwork in that circumstance bears an important relationship to the subject of the article. The reverse is not the case—the artwork is not of interest to the reader because of who made it. The artwork, for the purposes of such an article, is of greater importance than the artist. But the article is given the name of the artist as a title because it is the entire output of that artist that is under consideration in such an article. When the artist is noteworthy for nothing else than the output of art it is not incorrect to think of it as an article on the art of the person whose name is in the title. As such it is of obvious importance to provide the reader with some representative examples of that artist's work. Policy applies perfectly here: "WP:NFCC#8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the core point: if an artist is only notable because of the artwork he has done, the likelihood of an image being appropriate is very very high. You still need to show the sources that would both support that notability, as well as the analytic and critical discussion of the art in question. A truly notable artist, this is no barrier to image use. What will happen, and why I'm insistent on exactly what NFCC#8 means here, is that people game notability. We could have a fresh artist out of school that just happened to have their work appear at the Met and listed as part of an exhibit but with no real discussion of their work. Knowing AFD, people will insist this artist is therefore notable, so lets assume that fact can't be changed and the article is kept. That does not guarentee that we can allow that work of art to be included, because there's zero discussion of the art relative to the artist beyond attaching a name to a picture. "Omission would harm the reader's understanding" does not come into play, and ergo there is no loss to the reader if we don't show the image.

90% of the artists who are primarily notable for being artist - this is not the case, and we can use an example of their art with appropriate notability sourcing. But its not universal and that's the point that needs to be clear. Being an artist does not assure that you get a non-free image for an example of your art on WP; there needs to be just cause for that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—from where are you deriving that we would need to show sources relating to "the analytic and critical discussion of the art in question"? Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop the freakin' wikilawyering, you are running around in circles. It is established practice spelled out by "critical commentary" on NFCI, and what is the usual test of NFCC#8 for image review at FAC or at FFD. No, it's not spelling out word for word in any policy, but that's what it's come to mean and is standard practice. No, it doesn't need to be spelled out that way in policy either. End of story. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—it is not a matter of there being exact language—there is no language, relevant to this discussion, that is remotely like the language you are using, found in policy. You have asserted that there needs to be "analytic and critical discussion of the art in question." Of course there does not. No such requirement exists, relative to the case that we are discussing. If we are talking about a visual artist whose sole basis for notability is her/his output of visual art—then there is absolutely no requirement found in policy for "analytic and critical discussion of the art in question." If you are of the opinion that there is such a requirement found in policy, please quote some of the policy language that you feel is relevant and please provide a link to the page that contains that policy. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, I have told you several times. NFCC#8's requirement is used in practical situations (FFD, FAC) by having some sourced text in the article talk about the image in more than a non-passing mention. Try to use any non-free image without discussing it in the body of the text as to why it is necessary, and it will be rejected. This is because, if the image isn't discussed by sources with any detail in the body of the text, then its omission will not harm the reader's experience per the second half of NFCC#8, regardless of how much it can help the reader's understanding to include. And to assure that omission would be harmful, the discussion must have some depth of understanding to it, and not just a simple factual statement with no commentary. NFCC#8 is a two part requirement and both parts must be met, not just one. That's how it is enforced across Wikipedia, and thus may not be spelled out in policy but certainly is the practical current practice.

I'm being extremely clear that the second part of NFCC#8 is what you need to meet, not just the first part (they both must be met). I can appreciate that for a reader coming here for art discussion would consider having an image somewhat necessary, but that's a small fraction of the reader population. Most readers are not going to be students of the arts; presenting a work of art by an artist on the artist's page without any commentary in the text about the art or art style is not going to help the average reader to understand the article, and certainly not going to harm those same readers if it is omitted.

No article of any type is immediately allowed to use non-free media, regardless if the article is on a visual-themed topic like artists. The free content mission must be put at the forefront when creating articles, and that is why the NFCC exist, and thus why we don't just toss images up for any old topic. Stating that an artist works in a visual medium and thus must have an image of their art is an empathetic argument that has no legs at Wikipedia; artist's art can be found through references and external links while maintaining the free content mission of WP. From an encyclopedia's point of view, an artist is simply another person, and we write their article like a biography first and foremost, not as an artist as one would find in an art appreciation guide. If sources go into the person's work as an artist into any detail - which should happen if the artist is notable for being an artist - then we start talking about images, because we can expect sources to talk about the person's art or art style, and omitting an image or so there may be harmful to the reader's understanding. But if the best we can do from sources is a one line sentence talking about their art career, that's not going to cut it; you don't need an image of their art to talk about the person in that case. The statement that "An article on a artist that creates visual art needs to have an image of the art to allow the reader to make the connection between artist and art" has absolutely no strength on Wikipedia. There's lots of other fields on WP that would probably love to use non-free works as examples for their articles based on a similar logic but don't because of the strength of NFCC's requirements.

I agree on the basic statement that if we have an article on a person who's primary notability is being an artist, there's an extremely high chance that we would be able to justify the use of a piece of art from the person based on the same sources that provide notability. But you must understand that that agreement is not because "they're an artist, we need a picture of their art to visually connect the artist to art" , because that statement violates NFCC#8. I agree because sources for notability are nearly always the same ones that confirm discussion of the art of the artists, and thus justify that omitting an image may be harmful to the reader, but it's not a universal statement for all artists, period. But we cannot run WP's non-free content policy based on encompassing, empathetic statements. Everything is about the sources; if the sources don't follow, then we can't follow ourselves as a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—I believe that only two points in policy have been discussed so far in this thread. They can be found at WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC. Let's look at them:

Point in policy # ONE: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Point in policy # TWO: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."

If you wish to bring other excerpts from policy to bear on this discussion I would appreciate it if you posted them here with a link to the page on which they are found.

I have raised the issue of an artist whose only notability hinges on his artwork. Let us say that this is a visual artist, the subject of a biography. I feel that both of the above points in policy (Point One and Point Two) support the inclusion of a representative example of the artist's artwork—even if that image has to be a non-free image. My contention is that the above policies are allowances under "fair use" provisions that are applicable to the situation I describe (an artist solely notable for their artwork) and that no other restrictions apply.

You have argued that some sort of text must be found in a source relating to the topic of the image as a prerequisite to our including that image in our article—but you have not provided any policy language supporting your assertion in that regard. Furthermore in the situation that I describe, it would seem to me that such a requirement is illogical and even possibly counterproductive. In the situation I describe the purpose of the image is just to provide a representative example of the artist's work. What this means is that there cannot be a "wrong" (or even slightly incorrect) image—provided it is verified as being produced by the subject of the biography. It seems to me totally besides the point to expect text—in the article, and in a source—to accompany such an image. This is, in my opinion, a meaningless and pointless requirement. Such a requirement is not found in any policy language. You have characterized this requirement as a "low barrier". I don't believe any such "barrier" exists at all. That is because of our policies relating to "contextual significance" and "notability". The sort of image we are discussing belongs in the article by dint of the fact that the artist has established credentials for an article based on the sort of artwork represented in the image. You are presenting a requirement for text accompanying imagery as an ironclad and inviolable rule—when in fact that supposed "rule" is not found in any policy language at all. Your other argument concerning Point # One ("Contextual significance") is that the omission of such an image is not "detrimental" to the article. But again—the sole reason for notability is the artist's artwork—anything else in the article I think has to be seen as of secondary importance—year of birth (of the artist), institute of education, career trajectory, city in which artist presently works or resides. Omitting that which is of primary importance I see as "detrimental". An image of the artwork, in the "context" of an artist solely noted for that artwork, would be "detrimental" if omitted.

I think that "Point in policy # Two" (posted above) is also supportive of the inclusion of an image—even a non-free image, in the biography of an artist only notable for being an artist. "Point in policy # Two" though is especially applicable to articles on for instance art movements, periods in art, art techniques, and articles on art terms. These types of subjects often need illustration, but unlike the situation involving the biography of an artist that I have been describing above, there is the real possibility of an "incorrect" image. In cases such as art movements, periods in art, art techniques, and articles on art terms, one can mistakenly "illustrate" with the wrong illustration. Simple verification suffices in the biography of the artist. But a more extensively sourced confirmation of the link between the image and its "identity" has to be established in these other sorts of articles because the "identity" can be of a more nuanced nature. Therefore what I'm saying is that I am more sympathetic to the sourcing requirements that you are asking for in the instance of articles on for instance art movements, periods in art, art techniques, and articles on art terms. But I find a similar requirement in the case of the biographies of individual artists to be pointless. It is even counterproductive: such a requirement in my opinion introduces an unwanted distortion and without any offsetting benefits. Editors at these articles (biographies of individual artist notable for just their artwork) should have at their discretion the option of choosing images of artworks based on their own criteria. Whether or not a source seems to say something that can be "illustrated" by a given image is only a minor consideration in that situation. There is a point beyond which rigid notions of policy requirements become an impediment to article development. Additionally, as I have already pointed out, we do not find in policy a requirement that non-free images be somehow associated with sourced text. Therefore I do not think we should be requiring text to somehow relate to images of artwork in biographies of artists solely notable for their art. Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You simply do not get it. You are trying to wikilaywer out of basic NFCC requirements, even after I agree to your basic point.

Your point 1, referring to NFCC#8, can only be satisfied if the image's relative importance to the topic is discussed in the article. You cannot simply drop in the image, with no textual context, and say it meets NFCC#8, because without any discussion of the image, the second half of NFCC#8 is failed to be met; if the article doesn't discuss the image's relevance, then the reader's understanding will not be harmed with its omission. Period. This is the strict standard for all non-free content use across WP, and is non-negotiable in evaluating whether the standard is met.

Your point 2, which does apply, requires critical commentary, which is taken as sourced discussion of the image's relevance. Yes, you are likely right that it does apply to artist's art on their page, but there's a requirement of critical commentary that must be met before it can be used. "Critical commentary" is a vague term of art, but you should be able to see that the "Critical" aspect means we're looking at secondary information, not straight facts. We can't create secondary information without introducing OR, which means we have to turn to secondary sources to establish that for us. And to that end, I agree with the general statement that an artist that is only notable for being an artist will have sourcing that would support the inclusion of the image. It's not a 100% assurance, but more than likely to be true for a large number of cases. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that an image must be discussed in an article. Where does it say this? You say that an image must be accompanied by critical commentary. Where does it say this? We are fully aware that the phrase "critical commentary" is found in the following policy language:

"Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."

The above can be paraphrased as follows: Images of paintings and other works of art may be included in order to illustrate critical commentary as may be found in an article, or in order to illustrate a particular technique in art, or in order to illustrate a particular "school" of art.

The above does not say that "critical commentary" must accompany the inclusion of all images. I am asking you to show me where in our policy we find the insistence that you are asserting exists that "discussion" aka "critical commentary" must exist in the article in order to justify the inclusion of an image?

You are going on at great length about the meaning of "critical commentary" when I am asking you where we find a requirement for critical commentary in the first place. You say that "'Critical commentary' is a vague term of art". It may be "vague" or it may be "well-defined" but my question is where is it found in policy that the inclusion of an image requires accompanying critical commentary?

Similarly you are saying that an image can only be included in an article if that image is "discussed" in the article. Where are you finding that in policy? "Discussion" and "critical commentary" are related terms. A reference in policy to one would likely encompass the other. But you are failing to point to anyplace in policy that suggests that the inclusion of images is dependent upon the accompaniment of discussion/critical commentary in the article.

You are insisting that these requirements are "non-negotiable". Doesn't this very strongly suggest an articulation in policy? Policy requires a degree of transparency so that it is accessible to all. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of paintings and other works of art may be included in order to illustrate critical commentary as may be found in an article, or in order to illustrate a particular technique in art, or in order to illustrate a particular "school" of art.. No, that is not how that sentence can be paraphrased, it is not or. Art may be included to illustrate critical commentary in an article, period. There are no special cases, though commonly when discussing a technique or school of art, there will likely be critical commentary about it to allow an image to be used. But articles on techniques or schools do not gain any special privilege to use art if there's no critical commentary on those aspects.

I can't point you to any other policy page that explains the need for documentation, but this is how all images are reviewed when it comes to consensus discussions at two primary places: FAC and FFD. I also point to the various unacceptable uses WP:NFC#UUI, particularly numbers 5 and 9. Another point is what the WMF has said in their licensing resolution, that non-frees may be used to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. In how en.wiki has approached that, "complement" has been treated as requiring sourced discussion about the image within the articles as to make the image complement the text. I also point to this dispatch [2] that is commonly used as a starting point for NFCC discussion (see the point about "Pertinent discussion" where NFCC#8 is discussed) If you really insist that because its actually not documented anywhere, then we need to add that language, but I assure you, that is the prevailing way non-free content is handled.

Basically it comes down to this. If there is no discussion at all about an image in an article, its use is decorative, period. If it is a free image, that's okay though we are careful to go overboard on decoration; if it non-free, it is absolutely not allowed per NFCC#8 since removing the image has no impact on the reader's understanding.

I can't explain any further; this is how it is through all FAC and FFD I witness. If you want to prove something different, take an article on an artist where their work is not discussed by reliable sources, include one of their works of art as a image, and then pass it at FAC. You'll see where consensus stands on such image use. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Masem—you say, "Basically it comes down to this. If there is no discussion at all about an image in an article, its use is decorative, period."

There is no policy language saying anything about "discussion…about an image". I fail to see how you are managing to gloss over an absence of any policy language saying anything about discussion of an image. I believe you must point to this in policy. You are purporting that there is an inviolable rule concerning discussion of images in sources when in fact no mention of this is found in policy language.

It is hardly "decoration" to provide a representative example of a visual artist's work, and it escapes me how the inclusion of an example of an artist's work in their biography could be seen as original research. It would be unacceptable to present an image of art if it were not verifiable as the output of that artist. Indeed sourcing is required to link the image to the artist. For those artists that we only have available non-free images, it is non-free images that we should use. The allowance for this in policy is spelled out. For instance allowances for non-free images are found in the following two provisions in policy language, found at WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC:

1. ) "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

2. ) "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."

There can be no doubt that there that there is a "contextual significance" of an image of an artist's artwork to an article which is a biography of an artist, and the point in policy number one above exists for no better purpose than to support that. The argument that the omission of a significant use of an image would not be detrimental to an article cannot be accorded serious weight. We know that the article's raison d'être is the artwork produced by the subject of the article. It is hard to fathom how omitting it would not be detrimental.

Reason number two above is completely supported by requirements that we have at WP:ARTIST. The reason why the subject of the biography has an article is because reliable sources have established for the artist a sufficient level of notability based on the artwork. Obviously it's a good idea to illustrate the artwork. Reason number two above provides an allowance for such inclusion.

All of the above needs to be seen against a backdrop in which no language in policy exists saying anything about a need for discussion in sources for images considered for inclusion. I don't think non-existent policy should serve as an impediment to normal article construction. There is an obvious need for policy language that serves constructive purposes in this area—preventing indiscriminate inclusion of non-free images but also allowing for images that serve constructive purposes.

You have provided an example of Phil Foglio above. I am sorry but that example does not support your contention. We see very obvious references to his artwork in that article. It would be very surprising if we did not see references to artists' artwork in their biographies. They have, after all, passed our requirements for WP:ARTIST. If you have any additional examples of biographies of artists that you feel cannot under policy provisions have imagery representing their artwork, even non-free imagery if no free imagery is available, in their articles, please mention them here. I for one would like to see additional examples. Foglio's artwork is well-defined. It is also visual, meaning it lends itself well to presentation in a visual medium. His sole notability is for being a visual artist. We know therefore that it is only by dint of the artwork for which he is notable that his credentials as an artist worthy of an article have been established. Bus stop (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You're refusing to take the point that because its not published in a WP policy doesn't mean that we practically follow by that. NFCC#8 is practically used as to require discussion of the image in question to make it appropriate for the article. I don't care if you can't find that in policy, but that is how it is treated when image review comes up. I'm sorry if you disagree with that but that is how it is done at FAC and FFD and elsewhere. I've pointed out more than enough times how this is iterated in guidelines and other discussions, just not exactly stated as "discussion is required for non-free images". WP has a free-content mission, first and foremost, before its educational goals. And remember, WP is not the only site on the internet. Provide external links for readers to find examples on websites that aren't burdened with a free content mission. We just can't do that here without good reason.

I used Phil Foglio as an example that presently (permlink) his article has zero text that would support the inclusion of any images of his works to necessitate a non-free image of his art for the reader to understand. The current state, where there is omission of his art, is not harming the present understanding of the article, and thus adding an image without any other changes fails NFCC#8. Period. This is a standard case, having been argued several times before. That said, others have pointed out discussion of Foglio's art style in other places. Were those sources to be added to the article, there's a much stronger argument for inclusion of an image of his art to demonstrate that, satisfying NFCC#8. But that has to be added before the image can be added. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Masem—policy provisions exist for the limited use of non-free images. You are rejecting those provisions for unsound reasons:

"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Applicability of the above: Foglio's image of his graphics artwork is significant in the context of his biography. Can you give me an example in which the policy provision for "contextual significance" would be more applicable than in the relationship between artist and image of artwork?

Our aim should not be the creating of arbitrary requirements. Such requirements should be more properly called "impediments". You have been arguing for a policy requirement that is not even found in policy. As an editor I do not feel bound to policy that does not exist. How can you think that you can tell me that we must find some kind of text in sources relating to an image before we can include that image—when you can't even point to that notion alluded to anywhere in policy? I'm supposed to just take your word for it? Why wouldn't something like that be written down? Is it secret policy? Shouldn't policy be transparently accessible to all? I don't argue that there is no possible applicability to the general notion that you are arguing for. But it's actual application is all-important. The nuts-and-bolts of its application should not be left to a select few who hand down policy to us lowly peons. I oppose the arbitrary requirements that you have been suggesting in relation to the use of images in the visual arts. Nothing constructive is accomplished by requiring some form of text that you have been loosely alluding to in relation to the inclusion of an image in a visual arts article. It is completely murky what sort of text qualifies for meeting your requirements. You have argued for a variety of qualities. You have said (excuse me for paraphrasing you) that text has to express opinions. I think you have called such text "evaluative". Is there some reason that we need opinions? What is wrong with facts? I think you have argued that text in relation to images has to be extensive. What is wrong with succinct text? But the big problem is that the relation between text and image is not necessarily constructive. You are misapplying the concept of original research when you say that (again forgive me for paraphrasing you) the inclusion of an image without text associated with it in the article and consequently in sources is in violation of WP:NOR. There are other policies that apply: WP:V and WP:RS. There are other considerations besides whether this is a non-free image or not. Editors are required to abide by many restrictions. These should be constructive restrictions. I don't believe there is any constructive relationship between the poorly defined sort of text that you are requiring, and the image that editors at visual arts articles are trying to include. That is because the relationship (between text and image) in many if not most instances is an arbitrary relationship, as regards constructive application to article-building. There isn't necessarily a correlation between reliably sourced text associated with imagery, and the imagery itself. The simplest example is the biography of the artist who is notable for nothing other than their artwork. You do not make a cogent argument when you say that a verifiably and reliably sourced image of that artwork cannot be included because sourced text cannot be found relating to that image. That argument is for an arbitrary requirement. As such it should more properly be called an "impediment". Our aim is not merely to "impede" the use of non-free images. Though we want to minimize the deployment of non-free images, we also want to keep an open eye to that which is most constructive in article-building. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WP is first and foremost a free content work. That's the Foundation's mission, they're paying for the server space. If you don't agree with that, you're free to start your own wiki that is more lenient here. We have to start with the restriction on non-free work and balance that with educational purposes. Hence why NFCC#8 is practically executed by looking for discussion of media in the articles that it used on, and not just for illustrative purposes with no textual context. Yes, we allow it for cases to illustrate artists, but there has to be contextual significance. If you're looking for an example which I have no problem with, see Andy Warhol and the use of the Campbell's soup can painting in the section on Fine Art. There's discussion of that art for the artist, so it is completely appropriate there. M. C. Escher is another case (though there may be one too many examples, but the article certainly justifies at least one example image). And again, I never said that Foglio's article can't support it, but it needs better sourcing (which has been identified, so it's not a question of "if" but "when") to include. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are imposing arbitrary requirements. They are more correctly called "impediments". You say, "And again, I never said that Foglio's article can't support it, but it needs better sourcing (which has been identified, so it's not a question of "if" but "when") to include." Editors at articles can use the Talk page at the article to reach consensus after a discussion that includes the relative plusses and minuses of images as might be proposed for consideration for inclusion in the article. Whether or not a source discusses an image may not be of any relevance to a discussion of that sort. You say "Hence why NFCC#8 is practically executed by looking for discussion of media in the articles that it used on, and not just for illustrative purposes with no textual context." We are not restricting images in visual arts-related articles to those used for "illustrative purposes" nor are we barring from inclusion images used for "illustrative purposes". Policy should not be running roughshod over normal areas of editorial latitude. What purpose would "textual context" serve in an article on Foglio? How does the requiring of "textual context" benefit the article? Is this just a hurdle that an editor must clear as a reminder that the use of non-free images must be kept to a minimum? And what is "textual context"? I am tempted to quote from the above thread, your attempts to describe what sorts of text would satisfy this poorly defined requirement. You have argued that description of art should not be "generic" and that "opinions" should be expressed and that we would need "enough" of such text. What would be so terrible about a clear, simple, succinct reference to works of art? You know—like—"so-and-so makes large kinetic steel sculptures"? This is completely "generic" because it describes the work of many sculptors. Furthermore, no "opinions" are expressed. And furthermore, it is not at all clear that it contains "enough" text because it is pretty brief. In my opinion "large kinetic steel sculptures" is way more than enough information to justify inclusion of an image of the artwork. Requiring more text is irrelevant to the purposes of the article. Who cares about what additional text reliable sources have devoted to these artworks? In the case of a biography of an artist, editors are perfectly capable of weighing images on a variety of considerations. We are not in doubt as to the artist's notability—or the correct course of action is to nominate the article for deletion. Arbitrary requirements should not be used to prevent non-free images from being used where—as you seem to concede time and time again—they ultimately can be used anyway. You have said over and over that this is a "low barrier". It may be a low barrier but it is serving a nonconstructive purpose if there is no correlation between images that seem to have text associated with them and images that editors would otherwise choose to use. Nor should editors be writing unwanted text into articles just to comply with arbitrary requirements for text to justify the inclusion of images. Arbitrariness is the problem. Editors are perfectly capable of weighing the many factors applicable to the inclusion of a given image. Policy does not in fact exist tying non-free image inclusion requirements to sourced text. I understand that you are concerned with the potential conflict between "free content" and "non-free" media. I respect that. But you can't impose illogical requirements on article-building in order to contain the use of non-free images. The project can rule out all non-free images and make the project much duller. Or the project can impose some kind of mathematical limitation that could vary by general area. One of the big problems is that the visual arts are heavily dependent on imagery. The visual arts are all about subtle distinctions in the way discrete works of art look. (Many would disagree with me about that.) Lastly we can try to come up with guidelines as to when non-free images can be used in articles on the visual arts. Language in policy now doesn't at all address the circumstances under which non-free images may be justifiable. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you refuse to accept the black and white, non-arbitrary nature of NFCC, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Images that aren't discussed in any detail in articles are prime targets for deletion. Period. If you don't like the non-free content policy, talk to the Foundation to loosen them up. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the "non-free content policy" does not say anything remotely like "Images that aren't discussed in any detail in articles are prime targets for deletion." Nowhere in any "non-free content policy" is there any mention of images being discussed in "detail in articles". If you really feel that policy language to this effect exists in "black and white" would you mind quoting such language? Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Todhills Rest Area

Hi, I'm not sure how to ask the user Johnathan404 on Motorway Services Online if i can use his image for the Page Todhills Rest Area. Can you help? Thanks, --Edandoucho (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother with that. The image originally comes from geograph.co.uk and, like their other images, is already hosted on the commons as File:Travelodge and Cafe - geograph.org.uk - 1173821.jpg, so I have nominated it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is the Artist?

Where can I find out who the artist is of a lovely ship painting, but signature is too messy to make out? It looks like Bea then something unreadable, the looks like maybe Ra then perhaps K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.154 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Try asking at the Humanities Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help attributing license.

This image has a creative commons license but I'm not sure how to tag it. The original photo is here and the licensing info is in the lower right hand corner under "photo reuse" - the words "Some rights reserved" link to this creative commons license page. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't accept the non-commercial restricted Creative Commons licence. The source really does not show who the original author is but the 1957 date for an unpublished work by an unknown author is still in copyright for 120 years after it was created. I doubt you can use this image unless you can determine who actually hold the copyright, which may or may not be the picasaweb uploader, and get them to release it under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ken Barlow (1960).jpg

Is this in the PD or still under copyright? Duration of copyright explains this. I don't know if it is a publicity still or a screenshot of a show. this is Copyright Act 1988. --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be in the public domain? If it wasn't in the public domain in the UK in 1998, it's not in the public domain in the US now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploading 1889 cartoon

I have a cartoon from an 1889 newspaper I'd like to use. The newspaper it's from Scottish Referee ceased publication in 1914. Is it ok to use it and if so what rationale should be used? Thanks. yorkshiresky (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on your information it appears that {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies per commons:Commons:L#Ordinary copyright. ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Year Missing in 1937 Film Poster

I noticed that this poster for Kid Galahad is lacking a year. Would the copyright notice be considered incomplete, and thus PD, or...? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note to self Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Per [3], the requirements are "formal notice of copyright be included in the work; registration, renewal, and deposit of copies in the Copyright Office; and the manufacture of the work in the US." Having a year missing doesn't disqualify it. I would check the 1966 Copyright Catalog to see if it was renewed. If it's missing, you can go {{PD-US-not renewed}}. howcheng {chat} 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Al Piechota photo

Is this file copyrighted or not? It was published in The Sporting News in 1933 according to the user. The text at the bottom left of the photo says "Fromader, Davenport 1933". On the back there's a "Property of The Sporting News" stamp, but nothing else in regards to copyright. Could Template:PD-US-not renewed apply? Albacore (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-US-no notice}}. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"one of these templates"

I got an automatic message on my Talk page, directing me here. The message says:

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:MSL Serie EN Global IB RWT NoGIA Adjust.gif. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what is being requested. What are "these templates?"

As I noted on the discussion page for the image, the site from which I downloaded it gives permission for use as follows:

Figures marked "Aviso", are copyright Cnes/CLS, but please feel free to use them, conditional on the figures not being altered, and their source being acknowledged, and with a link to this site where possible.

So, what do I need to do? NCdave (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates are those listed at WP:ICT and its subpages. I’ll leave the bot owner a note that the bot didn’t make that clear. Permission to use without modification is not acceptable to Wikipedia: Wikipedia requires a free license, which allows derivative works. So the image could be used only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content policy. One of the restrictions is that non-free content may be used only if the use significantly increases reader understanding. This image would be nice to have, but it is not necessary for reader understanding. BTW, the page at the source link that you provide does not contain the image. Sorry —teb728 t c 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; btw, I subsequently got another automatic message, about a similar graph (from the same source, for another satellite). It was much clearer. NCdave (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If this image was created from commonly found information, not copyright information, then someone can make an image based on that data and release it freely but without permission, under a free licence we cannot use this image. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see that Aviso's permission statement doesn't exactly conform to Wikipedia's, so I've contacted Aviso by email, requesting permission to use it under Wikipedia's CopyrightedFreeUse-Link template. No reply so far, but since it's the holidays that's unsurprising. How quickly does this need to be resolved?

TEB728, the source link does point to the page where the image can be found. Simply go to the source page, and select the following options: Time serie, Envisat, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment / Not Applied. (Leave the other options as the defaults.) The graph appears at the top of the page. (You can also click on "download the image" to get a higher-resolution version of the graph.)

I believe the graphs are generated "on the fly" from the latest data, so they'll change as time goes by. NCdave (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then without those selection instructions (and perhaps a note that it may change from time-to-time), the given source is not adequate to verify that the image does come from the source. —teb728 t c 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads on shots of otherwise public domain coins shouldn't be copyrightable

Can we apply some WP:COMMON sense to the current policy? Coins are, first off, barely 3-dimensional. Most paintings, when you take into account all the layers of paint, are just as 3-dimensional as a typical coin, yet pictures of public domain art never-the-less get a pass, last I checked. Furthermore, a straight heads-on (or even tails-on) picture of a coin is hardly unique in such a way that artisan-ship attaches under any common sense approach to copyright law. While I've long since forgotten where I got these pictures of the 19th century half-dime some 5 years ago, this wasn't at all contentious back in the day. I know WP:BUROs gonna BURO but this is getting rather absurd. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the situation is set by IP law. An object may be PD, but taking a photo of it creates a new copyright to the photographer. If the photographer hasn't set it into PD, then it is copyrighted to him. Since it is also reasonable that while these are historical coins, we should be able to expect to be able to take free (CC-BY) photos of them, relieving any copyright issues on those factors. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more an issue of Bridgeman v. Corel (under U.S. law, there's no separate copyright in a photograph that is a slavish reproduction of an original work already in the public domain), plus the idea (whether correct or not) that a photographer inherently applies creative expression to the composition of a 3-D object? (Note that the mere labour involved in photography is not sufficient—creatitivity matters instead, per Feist v. Rural.) The interpretation surrounding coins seems to be based on the points raised at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25#Photographs of ancient coins, including a brief statement by Mike Godwin (as WMF general counsel). I'd say that our policy is based on a practical bright line that usually avoids contravening the law (exposing WMF and contributors to a minimal level of risk), rather than actually following the limits of what's theoretically legal.

Besides, you'll note that the Bridgeman decision talks about a photographer's creativity in setting a number of parameters (e.g. "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved"). I think there's a fair discussion to be had (and maybe it's been had elsewhere recently) about what we should automatically assume about those parameters in a given photograph. Is there anything about a particular image that would suggest to us that these were creative choices and not defaults or coincidences (or automatic choices by the camera, which can't be creative)? How far should our presumption of creativity go in this respect? I think Kendrick is saying that being completely deferential to these possibilities for any 3-D work (as we do now) is not reasonable in specific cases.

Perhaps the rule should be as it is now—but with a specific exception for instances where talk page consensus is reached that the creativity that was likely (by preponderance of the evidence?) involved in a particular photograph was insufficient for an independent copyright. (Some might say WP:IAR is that exception; is that an effective way to do things?) TheFeds 07:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me be blunt - the issue is at commons. The deletion is happening there, so any pervasive arguments needs to be taken there. At a first blush, IP says that the photographer has the copyright on the work, but if there's cases for specific reproduction photos, commons needs to be aware of that, not us at en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 07:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop in to Commons:Deletion requests/File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG and leave them a note. A couple related things:

Firstly, speaking of Commons, see Commons:Template:PD-Art, and contrast to Commons:Template:PD-scan. In PD-Art, the template calls out the WMF's official position, which applies to so-called 2-D works (presumably including paintings with textural detail in 3-D). Would we want to assert that the coins are a natural extension of the PD-Art rationale, because they're "barely 3-dimensional" like a painting? Or would we follow the lead of PD-scan and say that "no copyright protection can be expected to arise" due to lack of originality (e.g. per Feist v. Rural, and without the benefit of an official WMF statement backing it).

Secondly, is this an instance where it might be valuable to distinguish the scope of en.Wikipedia from Commons? Even if, after discussion, the coin images are not accepted at Commons, we're entitled to form a separate consensus at en.WP and enact policy accordingly (the non-free content rules come to mind as a parallel situation). Would this strike anyone as a good idea? TheFeds 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And that is why we at the Commons have no issues if the images are moved here if the discussion goes toward delete at the Commons. I am an admin there so if there needs to be an image move, let me know on my talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We certain can consider some of the images here if they are determined to be non-free, but of course NFCC becomes involved and we'd have to apply careful use of them. I also do know there are limited cases of free media works that can be redistributed within the US but because they don't have international redistribution properties, can't be used at Commons; that said, I don't think these coin images would apply for that type of consideration. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to anyone here who takes up the cause. As I've said elsewhere, not since my youth have I been a Numismatics guy and I only uploaded these images on a lark. To me User:TheFeds makes a lot of sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

how to add photo in article in sand box

I AM ALREADY HAVING WIKIPEDIA SAND BOX PAGE AND WANT TO ADD MY PICTURE IN IT BUT HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahid jamil ahmad (talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

you can use the upload file link that should appear on the left hand side. If your picture has educational value, add it to commons:upload . Ps you should not be writing about yourself in an article. Leave that for someone else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

More generally see Help:Files for how to upload and use pictures. —teb728 t c 18:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb Blondes

Hi I have a message from you thus:

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Dumb blondes 008.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images. If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

I am not quite sure as to what to do so if you can do it for me then please feel free. Thanks Wolfywiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfywiki (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Uploading images has some information on how to properly identify and tag images when you upload them. --Jayron32 03:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The “templates” that the bot refers to are those at WP:TAG and its subpages. The tag identifies what right Wikipedia has to use File:Dumb blondes 008.jpg. For example, if the photo is licensed under a free license, the tag identifies the specific free license. If the photo is not free licensed, it needs a non-free use rationale in addition to a non-free tag. In any case you need to identify the source where you got it from. —teb728 t c 16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Which license applies to a PDF I have generated for a booklet used in RAF Upavon Closure Ceremony

File:RAF Upavon Closure Ceremony.pdf

I have scanned and generated a PDF file of the booklet that was produced for the RAF Upavon Closure Ceremony held in 1993 which I wanted to add as a reference to the article on RAF Upavon e.g. it is the source for the list of station commanders that I added. The booklet has an introduction by the last station commander, sections on the history and buildings of the station and the order for the closing ceremony. There is no copyright notice in the booklet. I uploaded the booklet but it has been deleted so I cannot give a reference for this question although I could upload again for someone to see the media. Am I allowed to upload this kind of material to Wikimedia Commons, which license applies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin K James (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I can tell you that we would delete this pretty much immediately as a copyright violation. I would think it would be under crown copyright or something, so will be at least 2043 before it's public domain. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to upload the book anywhere to use it as a source. Just use the {{Cite book}} template, completing as many of the parameters as possible. Sources do not have to be online, they just have to be verifiable and using the citation template will provide the information for users to verify the source if they so wish. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:BadLieutenantPronunciation.ogg

Could someone please check for me whether the non-free use rationale that I've just added for File:BadLieutenantPronunciation.ogg is appropriate? The file has been proposed for deletion and I would like to avoid that occurrence if possible. Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it fails WP:NFCC#1 because it could be replaced by free text and/or a free sound clip as in "/ljuːˈtɛnənt/ lew-TEN-ənt." Note that the file cannot be used for verification, for Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But insofar as the the source of the file may be a reliable source, that source could be used for verification. —teb728 t c 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied on the file's talk page about this. To clarify, the article needs to demonstrate that the band's name is pronounced in the US English manner and not, as might be expected from a British band, in the British English manner. I have yet to find a written source for Bernard Sumner's band name origin story. Longwayround (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

General Olmsted photo

"It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images. If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you. Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"

I added the PD-Pre1978 tag to the description, so not sure what else is needed. The photo is from a defunct organization, published in 1952. If this tag was not correct, or placed in the wrong spot, please let me know how to correct it. Tony Fleming 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyfleming (talk • contribs)

Normally, non-free images are used in the infobox of the subject as identification of the person in question. This image File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg is being used to decorate a section of the article about an organisation he was a member of, and to use the {{PD-pre1978}} template, the image must have been published and we have no information about this, so it is likely non-free. If you cannot confirm this then we can't use it. More info needed. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) You uploaded File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg as a non-free file with a {{non-free use rationale}} and you placed the {{PD-Pre1978}} tag inside the rationale as a “tag” parameter, so it didn't show. I changed the rationale to an {{information}} block and the unrecognized name of the tag parameter to the recognized “permission”. It still needs a better source parameter so that we can verify that it was published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. Where was it published? And who was the photographer?

Thanks for your help. The photo has stamped on the back of it the name and address of the organization and the date June 28, 1952. I've confirmed there was a meeting of the organization at which Olmsted was the keynote speaker. I believe this picture was taken there. There is no copyright mark or indication of copyright or who the photographer was. I do not know if it was ever published or used outside the organization, which is now defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyfleming (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the problem but beside which it is not a very useful image for the article. ww2censor (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The George H. Olmsted article has a worse problem, for it doesn’t indicate why General Olmsted is important or significant and it has almost no references. —teb728 t c 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does not fit free use rationale

I got a message off the ImageTaggingBot.

"Hello, Astrel!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:EVE splash.png. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"

---

I still don't understand what it exactly wants me to do, plus there is a notice on the image's page that I should upload a smaller one, that is its default size and I think it is adequately small, I can make it smaller but I like it when I click on a thumbnail that I get a bigger picture makes it convenient if you want to look at something you cant see in the thumbnail.

User:We hope has done what was needed. —teb728 t c 09:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Long quote or copying and pasting?

Hi, I want to add an edit to an article Ben Breedlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and am unsure of the rules on this part- The long quote that describes the HEARTs act...Is that considered cutting and pasting because it is so long? If I did not have quotation marks around it, would that be considered plagiarism? The article edit is in my sandbox User:Petersontinam/sandbox.Petersontinam (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say for sure. We need to consider the size of that quote relative to the bulk of the original work. If the whole work is, like, 10,000 words, then this quote is fine. If the original work is only 1000 words, this might be too much. Exactly the bounds, we don't have set limits. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Sorry, but when you say original work, do you mean the article it is quoted from or the article on Wikipedia?Petersontinam (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The work it's quoted from. As a quick note, in terms of the size of the quote relative to the WP article, that's seems ok, maybe near the largest we'd reasonably accept as long as, compared to the original work it is taken from, it is not too large. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably PD, but website disallows copying

On this website, (http://www.cchockeyhistory.org/CCIceRinks.htm) is an image, (http://www.cchockeyhistory.org/hockeyimages/AmphidromeFromPL%20s.jpg) which is claimed to be a "Photo from postcard mailed 1909."

For the postcard to be mailed, it must have been published (as copies were undoubtedly made, see this scan of a 1913 identical card), and prior to 1909. Since 1909 is prior to the 1923 cutoff, and it was almost surely published in the US, the postcard should be public domain. According to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works, the slavish copying of a scan is not original enough to gain different copyright.

So, this image should be PD. However, the website has a notice to "not copy pictures or content". Does the image status overrule this disclaimer? Chris857 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Correct: they cannot claim copyright over their photo of the postcard if it's an identical copy. howcheng {chat} 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, many websites commit copyfraud, often out of pure ignorance of the issue or the law, by claiming copyright over images that are in the public domain or otherwise freely licenced, as this pre-1923 postcard is. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies. ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded it as File:Amphidrome Postcard.jpg. Chris857 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

using image

Hello, Gentlemen

I working on a book now and i need some pics from Wikipedia about countries to include it in my book legal way to get it ?

my mail : (email address removed by Buffs (talk))

My Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrf el-den (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Each image on Wikipedia has an image description page. If you click on any image, it will take you to the image description page which will include licensing information. You need to follow all requirements of the license indicated on the image description page. Most images are available under some form of a free license, but not all. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also all images on the commons are freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited use of WP material in a website

Apologies, since this is almost certainly the wrong place for this. This website copies almost verbatim from the WP article Sandfly Bay (definitely them copying us, not the other way round) with no citation of Wikipedia or of the CC-by-SA licence. Seems a bit OTT to list one webpage on the Mirrors and Forks page, though... where should it be listed? Grutness...wha? 03:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process says that you have to do it on your own... Regards, mabdul 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

mukhtar ahmad sani live chitral

I need Information mukhtar ahmad S/o mohamad zahir khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.179.86.205 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

For a mugshot

How should I upload a mugshot photo? Glock17gen4 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what license was granted by the agency taking the mugshot. What agency took it? —teb728 t c 08:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Clackamas County Sheriff's Office in Oregon, is that OK to upload or do I have to do something special? Glock17gen4 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Can you prove that the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office released it with a free licence? Probably not. If you were to claim fair-use, under Wikipedia policy the image must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines and, unless the subject is dead, it will immediately fail WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Template issue ?

I was asked to add a template to the following image I uploaded: File:The Fast and the Furious blu-ray box set.jpg - the issue is I'm not sure what I did wrong? This template is already added to it: {{Non-free video cover}}. Can someone help me understand, please? -- Harish (Talk) - 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time it was tagged the template {{Non-free video cover}} had not been added to the image file. User:Salavat added it with this edit. It looks fine now. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for also refinining it! -- Harish (Talk) - 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tina Lord

What about images in this article? I know: gallery is not allowed; I will immediately tag the gallery with "di-disputed..." --George Ho (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Karen Wolek and Larry Wolek

There are so many non-free images of these fictional characters in this article. I wonder if any of them are very helpful to provide commentary of these topics. --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno if the situation changed in the last hour(s), but the Larry Wolek article is ok, but the Karen Wolek article has major issues. I already removed two images from that article which didn't/don't have a fair use rationale for the article 'Karen Wolek'. mabdul 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Karentrial.png is added back to the Karen Wolek article with different rationale. Is this good or bad? --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Karen Wolek has non-free images in a gallery which is not permitted under WP:NFG. If you want to use these they need to integrated into the prose with some critical commentary to justify their inclusion I think File:Karentrial.png clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as does File:Larry Karen 1977.png in Larry Wolek. ww2censor (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I swear, I did not add them; I just browsed through. By the way, I will go ahead to add "di-disputed fair use rationale". --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not saying you added them, just stating what is there because you asked for comments about the images on these articles. Your decision is the right one. ww2censor (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lately, there has been changes. Can you check the images for me, please? I couldn't tell whether images are providing commentary or not. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo from Flickr

This is like my 100th time I here, I swear... :) Anyway, Hi all.

I have a question. I decided last week that I would create my own Flickr account, and ask certain users if they would be willing to release their photo's to Wikipedia. So far one has worked out - on the Westfield Southland article - the user just so happened to be an editor here! which is great.

Now, I have been working on the Ben Breedlove article for a while. For those who don't know, Breedlove was an 18yr old internet personality, who died on Christmas. Anyway, there is no pictures of him whatsover released to the public domain. I went to flickr - and thankfully found a few photo's of Breedlove - taken by what looks to me as a professional photographer. I asked her, if she would be willing to release photo's for Wikipedia's use. There is one photo in mind: [4]

Anyway, I asked the photographer if we could use the photo. They replied with this: "Sure, i'd be happy to let y'all use that photo. Just make sure full credit is given and I have no problem with it. Thanks so much, Jamie"

Can I upload it? Oh and I have both messages if you need to see them.

Regards, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

From what you say here it sounds like he may have given permission for use only on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not accept such permission: Acceptable permission on Wikipedia must allow reuse by anyone for anything. Many flickr photos do have acceptable permission (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA); which flickr photo is it? If it doesn't have acceptable permission already, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 06:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

TEB728, I'm only 15 - most of the things said in COPYREQ I don't even understand. That's actually why I'm even on MCQ ~ Images and me don't mix too well! :) are you able in assisting me in requesting this photo? Or helping me getting this photo on WP? this is the image... hope that helps. Sorry if I'm being difficult. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, the flickr page says "all rights reserved"; so it doesn't already have a free license. The short version of COPYREQ is: Have him fill out the form in the box at WP:CONSENT and email it to

permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org

OR maybe easier: ask if he is willing to change the permission on his flickr page to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. —teb728 t c 07:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I have asked her, (gave her both options) - she should reply in a day or so. Again, thank you for the assistance. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An extra piece of advise for you. Some photographers won't agree to give a free licence for their highest resolution image but may allow a lower resolution to be freely licenced. This may be an option to consider if the Flickr user does not want to cooperate with a high quality image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, The photographer has changed the licensing to something else, I don't really understand too well...see here. Am I able to upload it? if so, can someone please assist me with uploading, and adding appropriate credits to the photographer? Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been uploaded to the commons as File:Ben Breedlove.jpg and is already in the article. That's a classic situation where we find cooperative Flickr users who help us. Good work. ww2censor (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you to the both of you! :) I really appreciate it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

---

testing n learning

hello i m learning that how i can upload on wiki..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.171.136 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:Files gives an overview on how to upload files and use them on Wikipedia. Is that what you want? —teb728 t c 16:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Images claiming to be own work, but reference is from a non-free source

These files File:C11 Target Rifle.jpg and File:C12A1 Target Rifle.jpg appear to be the same as those found at the non-free website pages http://www.eme421.com/c11.html and http://www.eme421.com/c12a1_target.html. The uploader of the Wikipedia files claims they are his own work, but gave one of the external pages as a reference (broken since there is no reflist on the page; take a look at the source). In a case like this, what is the right thing to do? a) assume good faith, or b) request that the uploader present more evidence on the file page or c) request deletion?--Arg342 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask the editor to comment and join this thread - it's good practice (may even be required) to notify them if you posted here anyway. They might be the website owner, in which case it's a trivial bit of WP:OTRS work to record this. Otherwise (and sadly, this is most common) it's a copyvio by another uploader who didn't read the warning, "Random crap you find on the web isn't free use". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page User talk:Taylorj8. Thanks, --Arg342 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The source website may or may not even own the copyright to these photos and the uploader may or may not have any connection with the website but we have no verification. The main page shows a copyright notice at the bottom, so we need permission to be verified. Such images should be tagged as having no permission. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Photos of plaques

Can someone check into these? I once took a picture of a plaque, and learned it was a copyvio.

Files in question:

• File:HornsbyWaterClock Plaque1.jpg
• File:HornsbyWaterClock Plaque2.jpg
• File:HornsbyWaterClock Plaque3.jpg
• File:HornsbyWaterClock Plaque4.jpg

The location is Australia. The photos were taken by an Australian who now lived in Virginia. I think the photos were taken on this trip [5] although I don't see the specific pictures on that page.

I assume Copyright law of Australia applies; I'm not familiar with it, but based upon my quick perusal, I would think the plaque qualifies as a "work".

The author releases the work into public domain, but I believe the author is releasing the photograph, and isn't the creator of the underlying work, so I don't believe this is acceptable. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are ok under Freedom of panorama, see the Australian section. Otherwise the text is copyright, but here I think not the very basic design/typography. It would not be so in the US. The only issue is whether literary works are not covered by the Oz FOP, see the definition bit. If erected by the council etc, the text might be PD anyway, or they might release permission, if you can get through to the right person. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is 3D, you will be OK, Australia laws are based on UK. It would also depend on how those plaques were made - if cast then I would assume 3D. Anyway, the first one can have a {{PD-text}}. Maybe they can all have that - the designs are probably only simple geometric shapes. 2D work is not allowed - but it needs to be "artistic" - http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf - I'm not sure that there is much artistic work in these plaques. Maybe move to commons and add {{FoP-Australia}}  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Which tag to use and how to tag it

For photo at File:Weidhorn-b&w.jpg it was originally uploaded from my computer, with a link to original source inserted in description box. Permission info is also on page. Which use tag do you want and how do I attach it? Thank you. paul Ilie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilie (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the permission email attached to the image does not say what sort of release it is giving. Please have the copyright holder email out OTRS Team directly with their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Image of Scots-brewed Fraoch Leanne (Heather beer) in a bottle

I uploaded the image when I was in "sandbox". If there are ways to upload images in sandbox that do not appear in Wikipedia at large once saved, I have obviously missed that shortcut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Websterwebfoot (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image is File:FROACH LEANNE.jpg. You did not provide an "image copyright tag," explaining what right Wikipedia has to host the image, or a source; so we verify that right. Without these the image will be deleted. See Help:File for info on how to upload and use images. —teb728 t c 06:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The image is a copyvio taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/websterwebfoot/4758066954/ which is marked as "All rights reserved". – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

uploading of image(photo)

Kindly put the appropriate tag for my recent image munigala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.166.213 (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you really own the copyright to this photo? Did you take it yourself? You should explain how you come to own the copyright. Eg self taken photo, work for hire. Then we need you to release a free copyright license such as {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} Also can you check the information template I added and fill in a description of what we are seeing in this photo? Also it is a good idea to log on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright tag

I was given permission from a webpage to use an image of someone they have on a wikipedia article. I am not sure which copyright tag to use. Kbrettmurphy (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't accept a permission that is only for use in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Alexander Street Baptist Church.jpg - Canadian copyright

The photographer of File:Alexander Street Baptist Church.jpg was J. V. Salmon (1911 - 1958). The image was taken in Toronto by a Canadian photographer. According to the WP article Copyright Act of Canada the photographer's copyright currently extends only 50 years after their death. Is it OK to use {{PD-US}} as the license? (Note: I was not the original uploader). Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So why not using {{PD-Canada}}? (since it seems that this is not at enwp, transfer the image to commons and change the license to commons:Template:PD-Canada) mabdul 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes the {{PD-Canada}} template would be more apt (I didn't realize there was one). But on reading it, it says "This file is only in the public domain in the United States if it entered the public domain in Canada prior to 1996." Since the photo only entered the PD in Canada in 2007, it seems that this image cannot be kept either on En Wikipedia or on Commons and should be nominated for deletion. Is my interpretation correct? Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After reading commons:Template Talk:PD-Canada and checking some images, e.g.: File:Arthur Sifton.jpg, and File:Alexander Rutherford.jpg, so I think it should be ok - similar as described at the talkpage - since it seems so that it wasn't published in the US. (but I can be wrong!) mabdul 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Both those examples entered the Canadian PD before 1996, i.e. in 1988. This one did not. According to Wikipedia:PD#Canadian images: Yousuf Karsh, it would not be PD in the US. Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a case where the image is PD in Canada, its country of origin, but may not be PD in the U.S. due to the 1996 URAA? If so, you can tag it {{PD-Canada}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. (Commons might be a better home for it.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case here. The author died in 1958, so it won't be in the US PD until 2028. Thanks for the advice. I'll use the two tags you mentioned and see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to {{Possibly non-free in US}} because, under URAA requirements, photos that were released for more than 30 days after first Canadian publication may receive copyright protection. There is no proof of US publication yet. It may not qualify if the photo was released in US within 30 days. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was ever published in the US, but can't be sure. It's an image of a small church (now demolished) which would have been only of local interest in Toronto. The article about the building (Alexander Street Baptist Church) already has a clearly PD image. This one would have been of interest as it showed the church shortly before it was demolished, but if someone feels this one should be nominated for deletion, I don't mind. I wasn't the original uploader. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Avclub logo.png

Is this eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, per commons:COM:TOO, this is {{PD-textlogo}} with {{Trademark}}. mabdul 14:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Can anyone do the SVG version of this image? --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a picture from the Seattle Weekly okay to use?

Hello,

I'm an intern for the Feral House publishing company. I'm updating Adam Parfrey, the head of the company's, photo but am unsure how to do so since I've never uploaded an image to wikipedia before.

The image was taken by the Seattle Weekly. Here's a link:

How would I go about updating Adam Parfrey's current photo with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidw9 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

a) you missed to give us the link

b) in most cases: no, not ok

Regards, mabdul 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Generally any image you want to provide must be freely licenced, but a newspaper image is likely copyright to the newspaper unless they are not the copyright holder. Either way we cannot use such an image unless the copyright holder send us their permission. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've warned David about spamming us (he was dumping his company's entire catalogs into the article) and about COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with an image

Hi, I got a message from a bot telling me to add a copyright tag to my image. I do not know which one to add or where it is. Here is the image I uploaded. File:First Principles of Thesophy 066.jpg if any can help that would be great, thanks. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading it. It is now correctly tagged {{PD-US}}. —teb728 t c 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with copyright of photograph of painting

Dear wikipedia community,

I am creating a website for an artist, and made photographs in his studio of paintings. He agreed that I can put the pictures on wikipedia orally. Now I have been told that he needs to confirm by email, that he agrees. I am not sure whether he is aware of all the licenses available for wikipedia and also I don't want to give away all his rights to the public. So my question is, what is a suitable copyright tag???

Thanks for your help,

E.zgraggen — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.zgraggen (talk • contribs) 09:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing discussion already started on the user's talk page. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

no copyright question

File:bulow.jpg This has no copyright, was given permission by owner. What can I do to keep it from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccopartners (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• You need to provide proof the image is not copyrighted. Also, permission? What sort of permission? Permission to use on Wikipedia? That's not useful to us. Permission as in a free license? That would be useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That image is so simple being composed of text and simple geometric shapes so clearly does not attach any copyright and should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}. I should probably also be tagged {{trademark}}. ww2censor (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You still need to add details of its source, author, etc, in the {{information}} template I added. ww2censor (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I filled it in. —teb728 t c 08:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Issue

Hello,

I recently added a population pyramid for Ukraine, and it was flagged for copyright issues. In the meantime, I believe that I have followed procedure to receive a copyright tag, but I haven't gotten any response.

Here's the image URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukaine_Population_Pyramid_2012.jpg

The image is set to be removed by Friday, January 13th, and I was hoping to receive permission for the image before then. Could someone check the page and make sure that it's pending and that I've followed correct protocol? Much appreciation. (Shredder2012 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

According to the {{OTRS pending}} tag you added, the Pardee Center has granted permission. Which specific free license did they grant? —teb728 t c 18:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Yes, that's correct; I've been given permission from the Pardee Center. I believe that the license is the "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License." I'm just confused as to whether that's reflected on the image page, and what the next step for me to take is.

Additionally, I'd like to post more from this source, but I wasn't granted a specific tag to do so. Thanks so much for your help -- I'm a relatively new user and I want to make sure that I respect the process. Cheers! (Shredder2012 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

Based on what you said, I added the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} tag on the file page. That's what the next step was. The next step after that is to wait for OTRS volunteers to process the email, which could take several days. —teb728 t c 23:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

DESIGN

is it still copyright if you take someone's logo and add your own design to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.24.187 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly: If you add something to a copyrighted work, it doesn't abrogate the copyright; rather it creates a derivative work, and you have an additional copyright on the combined work. —teb728 t c 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Public domain template for File:Raoul Barré - Pour un diner de Noel.jpg

I couldn't find the appropriate template for the copyright info for File:Raoul Barré - Pour un diner de Noel.jpg, so I just wrote it all manually. All the info is on the page, but I guess not in the way a bot was able to recognize. Could someone show me an appropriate template, or how to format the information so a bot will recognize it? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Once the bot has added the {{untagged}} template, it doesn't come back to remove it; you were supposed to do that when you add the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag. I did that for you and also formatted your text into an {{information}} block. —teb728 t c 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Source information needed?!

Hello!
I uploaded an image of an Indian Ghazal singer Jagjit Singh. The image is File:Jagjit-singh portrait.jpg. I also added the source from which i had taken the image. But i have now received this message which says that source information should be added. What do i do? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

mmh, seems like a bug. I will notify the bot operator. mabdul 18:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Could be! Thanks! :) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the image file description has much more room for improvements (a hardcoded template - although it seems to be derived from the other hardcoded Template:Filmbiorationale) should always be changed. But still, you did all right since the image seems not to violate our Fair Use policy and you added all information we need ;) mabdul 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Will these images be deleted? There are three more. (I will just stop adding images of this type.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No - at least what I can say for the actual linked one. You added all information we need and the bot didn't recognized it because it was expecting another presentation of the data. So not your fault - the bots fault. mabdul 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

While the subject is dead this really should not be using the historic photo template. What is historic about it? It just shows the deceased person, so you should probably use {{Non-free use rationale}} instead. Regarding the tagging it may be because the bot does not fully recognise the historic template as it does the non-free FUR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 January 2012‎

The file has another problem: The article has a free photo of the subject; so this non-free photo is replaceable. —teb728 t c 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You used a navbox template to format the information. ImageTaggingBot does not and will never try to figure out if a navbox contains meaningful content rather than navigation links; if you want to avoid the bot bugging you, use something like an {{Information}} or {{Non-free image data}} template. --Carnildo (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confusing! Could anyone give an example of any file of a dead person's photo? I will just imitate it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Jagjit Singh performing at Symphony Hall, Birmingham, 12 September 2008.jpg —teb728 t c 08:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant for other dead people's photos whose copyrights i dont own. If i own the copyright, it doesnt matter if the person is dead or alive. Can anyone give an example of a photo whose subject is dead and the image is not free for use. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit err useless. Normally the subjects don't own the copyrights. As an example search on some news paper sites after Michel Jackson and you will find many copyrighted images which are copyrighted - we can't use them if there are free variants out there! mabdul 14:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Oskar Schindler.jpg is an example of a dead person's photo that has a good non-free use rationale. But this example is not applicable to a non-free photo of Jagjit Singh, which is replaceable by a free photo of Jagjit Singh. —teb728 t c 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

File:1932 Indian Test Cricket team.jpg

I recently uploaded an old photo of 1932 Indian Circket team File:1932 Indian Test Cricket team.jpg I was asked in my talk page to put a tag but I am unable to decide which tag should I put. Can anyone please help ????Jethwarp (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As per me the photo is in Public Domain in India but what is the template for such images?Jethwarp (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The changes you made to the image file description page look really good so I already moved the image to commons. Regards, mabdul 09:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Navy Source

I dont understand why this file is not allowed: File:UH-15_Super_Cougar.jpg

It came from the same source of those:

• File:AF1_da_Marinha_do_Brasil_2.jpg
• File:SH-3_Sea_King_Força_Aeronaval,_Esquadrão_HS-1.jpg
• File:Bell_206_JetRanger_Força_Aeronaval,_Esquadrão_HI-1.jpg

Dafranca (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added an interwiki link to the appropriate Commons licensing template to support a request to move the file to Commons. When it has been moved, it can be tagged with that template and all should be well. – ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also contacted the Brazilian air force, please also create a Brazilian Air Force Template for this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FAB_-_Mirrage_2000.jpg

It follows the email where it says: "We inform that all material are Public Domain. We only request to informe/credit the source of the material"

Prezado(a) Sr(a),

Agradecemos seu contato com a Força Aérea Brasileira (FAB) por meio deste Centro de Comunicação Social.

Informamos que as matérias são de domínio público. Solicitamos apenas que seja citada a fonte.

Informamos, ainda, que no portal da FAB no link "Organizações" podem ser obtidos os telefones e endereço de todas as Unidades da FAB no país.

Sigam a Fab nas mídias sociais: Twitter @portalfab e no Facebook. Ouça também as notícias da Força Aérea na Rádio Força Aérea.

Respeitosamente,

Divisão de Relações Públicas

FORÇA AÉREA BRASILEIRA "ASAS QUE PROTEGEM O PAÍS"

---

Mensagem encaminhada ----------

Remetente: "Diogo Franca" <***@yahoo.com> Data: 11/01/2012 10:51 Assunto: Agência Força Aérea Para: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Caro Senhor(a),

As publicações da Agência Força Aérea feitas no domínio fab.mil.br são de domínio público?

Sds,

Diogo França — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

License information

When I uploaded the file File:whoareyou&hadenough.jpg, I got a message from a bot;

"Hello, Middle Eye 512!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Whoareyou&hadenough.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)"

I've uploaded images previously in a similar manner to what I did for this one, and I didn't recieved a message like this. What does it mean, what have I done wrong this time and how can I correct it? Middle Eye 512 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)\

See the edits I just made. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?

This is a notification rather than a question directly but is definitely related to media copyright so thought I'd post here to try to get more input as the RfC is on a reasonably obscure page for the subject of it. Feel free to remove if this post is inappropriate. Anyway there's an RfC on the above issue here. Dpmuk (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Film

The rather obscure Norwegian documentary film Det grodde fram was published in 1947 by Lyder Selvig (died 1956). The film notably features WWII resistance member Erik Gjems-Onstad doing historically accurate reconstructions of his various wartime activities. I wonder if it would be okay to add screenshots of one or more of these settings in the article about Erik Gjems-Onstad (I got the idea since he has used pictures from the film in his own books). —Filippusson (t.) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian works are copyright for 70-years pma, so any screen shot you make for this work is still in copyright per commons:COM:L#Norway. ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Iranian copyright law?

I have made a photo from a picture of the artist in a museum (Republic Daghestan/Russia). The picture has been drawn and exposed in Iran in 1935. The artist was the citizen of Iran and has died in 1946 in the USA. Please, what is a suitable copyright tag?--Gorgan Aparshahr (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Iran is neither a Berne nor WTO country; therefore, no US federal copyright implied for Iranian works. How about state laws possibly or city laws? These rules may exist. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The rules of Daghestan (Including the Capital City Makhachkala) are the rulers of Russia.But this artist was Daghestanian and the political emigrant and ran from this country. It had no attitude to Soviet Union. And it has not left children. Its spouse under the will to the husband has transferred pictures of the artist in gift to the Daghestan people in the beginning of 90th years that all Daghestanians could see them. In gift to Daghestanians, and not to Russia, or not to a museum.Whether is the status of PD the most suitable in this case?--Gorgan Aparshahr (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The only real question is where and when was it published? When you say exposed in Iran, what do you mean? Nothing else really matters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1935 in Tehran. Halil Beg Mussayassul.So it is written, -in Tehran 1935. Also iwas non-russian and not-american artist and died in 1949! In this case not PD-ART (PD-70)? Matters? See Official in En.:http://www.askart.com/askart/artist.aspx?artist=11119581 --Gorgan Aparshahr (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F Buffs (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about PD-UK tag

The PD-UK template states that "According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), a reformation of the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74), images fall into public domain 70 years from the death of the author. If author is unknown it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created.[6]" - however, what it omits is that the relevant act also states that for a work with unknown author, copyright only expires 70 years after production IF THE image etc is UNPUBLISHED - otherwise it expires 70 years after publishing - see Template:PD-UK-unknown which states this and also the equivalent tag in commons. This may mean that images that were taken before 1942 but only published after 1942 will still be in copyright in the UK and shouldn't be tagged as PD. Any comments?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth making sure we rephrase the template and ensure the files are appropriately marked. We may have to review images and remove some of them. Buffs (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of family photo

I find the various copyright/copyleft options confusing! I have a photo of my late father that was sent to me by one of his daughters who died a few years ago. I am not in touch with either of her sons. I assume I am free to upload the photo, even though I didn't take it (I don't know who did). However, is it "free" or should it have some other copyright designation? Thanks in advance. Jpaulm (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the situation in which the photograph was taken and who the photographer was. If the photo was taken for a commercial purpose and you just have a copy of the image (such as if it was a picture for/in a newspaper), then no you can't uploaded it. If the photo was taken by a family member or friend, and you've would up with the original, then it can be reasonably assumed to have been commissioned by your father, and therfore copyright would be his. It would have passed to the daughter, then to you, though inheritance, even if it never made the official legal documents. I'd say you can upload it, although I'm not a lawyer, I'm just working off of what little I know about inheritance. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like he owns the copyright and can do with it (and license it) as he sees fit. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, people, that's rather what I thought! I will go ahead! Jpaulm (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1909 diary of a federal government employee

Diary entry

Hullo. Just making sure since all reproductions of this I've seen on the web has a ©Smithsonian Institution mark. It's a page from the diary of Charles D. Walcott written in 1909. It is part of this collection in the archives of the Smithsonian Institution. Considering the age of the work and the fact that Walcott was a USGS employee, am I correct in assuming that it is indeed public domain? I'm currently using it for an article I'm expanding - Waptia. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. For a US Government employee's thing to be PD by dint of being USGov, it has to be made as part of the performance of his duties. A personal diary would not qualify for that. If however the person died more than 70 years ago, it should be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Walcott died in 1927. 85 years ago, so I guess it's all good. Thanks.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless it was first published between 1989 and 2002? Btw, how does one reach the source image and its specific context from the link you provided? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Picture is from the Royal Ontario Museum here: here. The page for the diary is present in Stephen J. Gould's 1989 book Wonderful Life, as figure 2.6 on page 73. He credits the work as "2.4, 2.5, 2.6 Smithsonian Institution Archives, Charles D. Walcott Papers, 1851-1940 and undated. Archive numbers SA-692, 89-6273, and 85-1592." It also appears in The Fossils of the Burgess Shale (1994) by Briggs et al. in fig. 1.6. The latter book is published by the Smithsonian Institution. So how does that work?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, things become PD 70 years after author's death or 70 years after publication, though Paul McCartney is trying to change that. If it's 70 years pm, you're fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From what you say, it seems that it was first published in Gould's book, which the publisher's website mentions as published in September, 1990 [7]. Therefore, that part of the notebook, as a pre-1978 work published between 1989 and 2002, would be copyrighted in the United States until 2048, if it is copyrightable. However, your argument to consider it as a work of an employee of the U.S. government, thus not copyrightable in the U.S., could save it, although that is assuming that going on that field trip, and the taking of notes in that notebook, were part of the duties of the Secretary of the Smithsonian. (If the source for the file was actually the webpage of the Ontario Museum, please mention it as the source in the source field.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that he published a geological paper on the area first (A Geologist's Paradise (1911), with only a brief mention of the Burgess Shales), before he published paleontological work on the actual fossils (Cambrian Geology and Paleontology (1912)), it's pretty clear that his being in the Canadian Rockies during that time (reported as "the end of the field season") was part of his Smithsonian duties. Guidelines for the Curation of Geological Materials also classifies field notebooks as documentation, and are a requirement for keeping track of data and specimens recovered. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That picture is clearly from a field notebook such as is kept by any field geologist to record their daily activities (I have a pile of them, even though I rarely work in the field these days), so not a private diary and something that in my opinion falls within as part of the performance of his duties. Note that he wasn't a USGS employee at the time but as the Smithsonian is still a government organization it doesn't change anything regarding any license. Mikenorton (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my bad for mistaking it for a diary. I have revised the license to reflect that it is work done by a Smithsonian Institution employee as part of his duties ({{PD-USGov-SI}}) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Media upload instructions

Hi, I must say the media upload instructions do seem much better presented than last time I looked (which would have been a long time ago). Thanks to all responsible. However, there is one circumstance, the one that applied to me, where it is not very clear how to proceed. This is when a graphic is one's own work but incorporates public-domain material created by someone else. In my case this material was a map. When you get to the first screen, none of the options actually apply. In the end I chose "It is entirely my own work" (not actually true) and noted the source of the map in the description. I hope that was right. Perhaps the instructions could be clarified in this respect? 86.160.210.251 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

so if it is a copyrighted material and a map, then we can't upload it since it violates our fair use policy since it would be easily replaced by a free variant. mabdul 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said it was "copyrighted material and a map"? I think you misread something. 86.181.172.222 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah seems so. It is always easier if we get a link to the uploaded image, but as it sounds, you did all right. mabdul 11:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

PHoto by family friend

How do I verify the ownership of a photo that isn't copyrighted? I want to post a photo by a family friend on my mother's page.Literarypiano (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the family friend took the picture, they almost certainly own the copyright. So, you must ask them to provide a release as set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you....but, perhaps I'm slow. I read a bunch of these pages, but I haven't seen a good example of a simple release form I can use. There is no problem about the photo between me and my friend; we just need to know how to present it so that it's approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literarypiano (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(Parenthesis added) No problem: go to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and let the copyright owner send that text to the mail given on that page! mabdul 12:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

book cover

Hi, I want to upload the cover of my book to the article I'm writing about the book. For some reason I don't seem to have the clearance necessary to upload images. The cover was created by the publisher but is found in many places on the internet. Please advise. Ps3063 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Before you worry about the cover, please take a good look at the notability guidelines for books. If the book doesn't meet them, the article will be deleted. Also, because of your conflict of interest as author of the book, you probably shouldn't be creating the article in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait with uploading of the image until your draft is moved to the mainspace ("live", "published") - then request the uplaod at WP:FFU. At the moment you simply don't have the rights to upload images at the English Wikipedia because you didn't make enough edits! mabdul 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Image of a Burmese political prisoner

I just had an image of Min Ko Naing--File:Min Ko Naing.jpg--speedy deleted without discussion under F7 criterion 1. While the situation in Burma seems to be thawing, it remains a crime to upload information that can be construed as anti-government to the Internet; Min Ko Naing's companion Zaw Htet Ko Ko was recently pardoned from a twenty-year sentence for such a crime. in addition, Min Ko Naing's only been out of jail for two days, and it remains unclear whether the released prisoners will be allowed to resume a role in public politics.

Obviously, we can hope that Wikipedia activist working in Burma will manage to seek him out, and then either fly to another country or risk her freedom to upload a free equivalent to this image. But in the meantime, would it be fair to say that no free equivalent is available? I hate to see an article on a such an important figure--his 1/13 release made the front pages of newspapers around the world, including the BBC--go unillustrated.

Thanks all! -- Khazar (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is so blatantly inappropriate that I have undeleted it. We require a waiting period for replaceability to be discussed, and per the criteria for speedy deletion, nothing may be deleted that doesn't meet the criteria but in exceptional situations. This is obviously not an exceptional situation. Please note that I've tagged it as replaceable, purely because Fastily obviously thinks it replaceable — you will need to explain on the talk page why it's not replaceable, or it will undeniably be deleted in two days. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Formally the deletion was absolutely okay. The file had been automatically tagged as potentially replaceable on uploading (because of him being a living person); the standard waiting period (48hrs) was kept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the fault may be mine for not better articulating the rationale initially. I've appended my comment above to the image's talk page now. Thanks everybody for your help-- Khazar (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Seinfeld logo.svg

Is this title too simple or original enough to be copyrighted? --George Ho (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say this qualifies for the {{PD-textlogo}} tag. However, the name itself may well be a trademark and so {{Trademark}} should be added as well thus:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

HTH. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done changing. Any objections? --George Ho (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture for referencing.

I've added a few paragraphs from a piece in a magazine to an article, that magazine as a source has been questioned and disputed on the article's talkpage. I wish to upload an image or possibly two, made with a webcam, showing part of the page from the magazine. Rather blurry images, of no use except as a reference. Penyulap _talk 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how we do references - someone could argue that the image has been doctored. Just use {{Cite magazine}} with as much detail as possible so that other users can verify the source by finding it in a library etc. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree; Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. If this is about Harry Houdini reported as first flight in australia by some sources, is the web page a relable source? (The fact that it is blacklisted suggests that it may not be.) If it is a reliable source, you can cite it: Either get it whitelisted for the article or evade the blacklisting by omitting the http:// part of the URL. —teb728 t c 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Where on earth have I said anything about using wikipedia as a reference, I know how it works, and I know it's not a reference. I have a magazine in front of me, Recreational Aviation Australia it's called. Thats a reference. I quoted a very small portion of a large multi-page spread, and said where I got it from. The {{Cite magazine}} idea is a good idea, I forgot about that, however, the text was deleted from an article by someone who found similar text on a blacklist site. I can't see the problem there, because anything can be on some blacklist site out there on the internet, and if the original source can no longer be quoted because it's been copied onto some blacklist site, wouldn't that be a great way to censor whatever you want. So I figure, show them the original to help them come to the understanding that it's not from some blacklist site. So I wanted to just take a pic of the magazine using the webcam and upload that. I'm not very good with copyright issues, I have uploaded a bunch of pictures to commons, but I haven't ever had one of them deleted and I don't want to start, so I figured asking was prudent. Penyulap _talk 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that you're going about this backwards. There is not and never will be a requirement that a citation to a printed source include a weblink. If the text appears in a reliable source, that's all that's needed. A page scan taken by a webcam is less than worthless in this age of Photoshop. The fact that similar information is on a blacklisted site is, as somebody else already pointed out, completely irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike ! Thanks Ukexpat ! Penyulap _talk 20:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This probably concerns a discussion here where I have compared two paragraphs (one from an external site and one added to the article) and concluded that a copyvio was involved. The single paragraph was just an example—I had reverted the addition of a couple more. I am having trouble convincing others that copying external material is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free image -- suitable for use?

I'm working on the article on the Japanese House and Garden (Shofuso) -- it's a traditional Japanese house now located in Philadelphia, but originally built in the courtyard of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in the 1950s. I have an aerial photo of the original installation, and the copyright-holder (Esco) has given permission to use the image on Wikipedia, provided we attribute copyright to them.

Is this image suitable for upload to Wikipedia and inclusion in the article? If not, what do we need to get from the copyright holder to use the image? I have been unable to find an image that gives the same historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnavasky (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If the copyright holder is prepared to release the image under a free licence, such as {{Attribution}}, so long as it is not just for Wikipedia use, then we can use it. Have them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT which requires them to verify their permission by emailing our OTRS Team. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How to Insert Public Domain Images in Pending AfC

I have 3 images of maps taken from the US Library of Congress website that I wish to insert in an AfC I am working on (review pending). How do I begin the process of integrating these images into the AfC and/or where should I go within Wikipedia's website to get this done? what sort of technical help will I need?

I have created an account under name: Navigator42. Thanks.

Navigator42

Navigator42 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

See Help:Files for an overview of how to upload and use images. If they are in the public domain, you upload them to Commons. —teb728 t c 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation for File:Solidremote-antenna-design-b.png

I don't have a lot of experience with images and the copyright policies on Wikipedia so I thought I'd bring this up here rather than do it wrong while being bold. I was working on this page: Rf module and noticed the picture added says it is 'own work'. But in a link given in the article[8], I saw the same picture. Is that a copyright violation and if so what are the steps to take in fixing/deleting it? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. HotshotCleaner (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Other or winxpn's uploads are from that same web site, so I suggest that you ask him about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Many images were already deleted as copyvios, some are tagged or in the process of an deletion discussion, some (~7) are untouched. Maybe because they are rather new... mabdul 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Will & Grace title card.jpg

This title is too simple to be copyrighted, yet it is registered as a trademark and a captured screenshot from the copyrighted television series. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it should be marked PD-ineligible but labelled with a trademark template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done changing. You can revert the changes if anyone objects. --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing on the uncopyright-ability of that, but I do strongly recommend not changing screengrabs to the PD-ineligible aspect for that. While what the screengrab has stated is certainly not copyrightable, the fact that is a screenshot means that its use falls to the person that took it, whether the original uploader or another site. There's just enough ifs-and-buts in copyright law that we can't be 100% sure that it is a free image.

That said, since it's PD-ineligible, what should happen is that an SVG image should be made to recreate the logo and purposely uploaded here under the PD-ineligible license. That way, we're sure we've got a 100% free image to work from. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend doesn't agree. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

use of photo

To Whom it may concern; I am asking for permission to use the photo of garments ( as ticket #2006113010018241) in a book that I am writing about Mormons. My book is very respectful and invites Mormons into a relationship with Jesus Christ. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.103.2 (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed your name and telephone number because this is a highly public location. Do you mean File:Garment.jpg? If so, that's not how permissions work here. With a comparatively few exceptions (and this isn't one of them), copyrights for images are owned by the people who created them, and those people have given permission to use images without asking and without paying a royalty as long as you follow certain stipulations. In this case, you may use the image under the terms of a Creative Commons license, the Attribution Sharealike 3.0 — while there are legal details involved, the basic principle is that you may copy, use, modify, sell, etc. the image as long as you (1) consistently provide the names of the authors (in this case, they're "Richard Packham" and "Alanyst") and (2) permit other people to use modified versions of the image under the same license. On a totally unrelated note, this specific image has a convoluted history (many people have claimed that displaying it is very disrespectful, somewhat similar to how many people see as very disrespectful the highly publicised Muhammad cartoons), so you may want to reconsider using it in a book that you want others to see as highly respectful. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:What next for Labour Cover 2011.jpg

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:What next for Labour Cover 2011.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images. If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you."

How do I go about doing this??

Thanks

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonlees82 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Non free art?

Does the "Onion Gazebo" in this photo, which I would like to upload, make the image non-free? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The United States has freedom of panorama for photographs of buildings. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States. —teb728 t c 06:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Using {{Copied}} after a history merge

Resolved

The Shivers (Austin, Texas) was created some time ago, but someone recently wrote an entirely new article at this title (overwriting the original) with information about a totally different band of the same name. Beyond My Ken copy/pasted the new content (with proper edit summary attribution) to The Shivers (New York City) and placed {{Copied}} onto both talk pages. To simplify things, I've performed a series of history splits and merges; unless I overlooked something, the entire edit history of the Texas page is now about the Texas band, and the entire edit history of the New York page is now about the New York band. As a result, the links in the {{copied}} templates all go to revisions that are now in the edit history of the New York pages. Do we still need to have {{copied}} on the talk pages? Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is: no, you can remove the templates.

The long answer is: Good job! That was a tricky case! (I checked the history and the related pages and all merges/splits seems to be correct now). Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Merging and splitting and Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure explain that this isn't any longer needed since the original authors are attributed in the history of the page and thus I removed the templates from the talkpages.

You should also add your changes at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. mabdul 13:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Talk:Jayne Mansfield/GA1 has the following issue:

• File:Kissthemformetrailer.JPG needs an image review. I question the claimed PD status.

Can someone help me with it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a few notes. The file does not have a source, which makes it somewhat suspect. And it does not have a reference for the claim about the absence of notice, which makes it doubly suspect. It has a PD-author tag, which is inconsistent with the other PD reason claimed, which makes it triply suspect. I suggest you contact the uploader and ask him to provide both the source of the file and the reference about the notice. Then verify if the source confirms that the screenshot comes from the trailer and if the reference confirms that the trailer did not have a notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Okies. But, looking at File:Jayne Mansfield.jpg, it looks like a missunderstanding of process. This other image has the right notices, and is uploaded to commons. May be File:Kissthemformetrailer.JPG from needs to have the same. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

how do I purchase a movie

I would like to purchase the movie, Honey Suckle Rose. Can you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debm1952 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, as it says at the top of the page, this forum is for questions about image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions. They might be able to help you at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. —teb728 t c 09:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Drawing of concentration camp experience

There is a piece of artwork that is very strong, done by an artist who was imprisoned at Kemna concentration camp. I intend to write about the artist soon, but in the meantime, would love to use the artwork, either on that page or on the Kemna page. It is a very visceral view of what the place was like and is almost like a political cartoon. The artist, Günther Strupp, died in 1996. The artwork can be seen on page 385 of this PDF file. Is this something I can upload as historically significant fair use? Marrante (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While your desire is laudable and your purpose is good, I don't think it would be appropriate fair use. I agree it would be great to have, but I think WP:NFCC would not permit it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and especially the link because I just read through it and come to the opposite conclusion. Reading through the list of criteria, I think the drawing well qualifies. In fact, had I read it before, I wouldn't have posted here. I'm going to go ahead and the worst that can happen is that someone marks it and then it will be discussed by more people. I just didn't want to go ahead of it was a clear violation, but I now think it is clearly not a violation. Thanks again for that link. Marrante (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that maybe the difference is uploading it to Commons vs. the English Wikipedia. I'm definitely talking about uploading it to the English WP. Marrante (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot upload fair use to Commons, or at any rate should not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I know. That was my assumption in writing. I was talking about the English WP. In trying to understand why it wouldn't qualify, it dawned on me maybe you meant Commons. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we use the NHS eatwell plate image for the NHS eatwell plate article.

Can we use the eatwell plate from here: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eatwell-plate.aspx

Alternatively, we could create our own version, or get one from another source. Lionfish0 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a copyright image. Someone could draw a image based on the idea of this image but it may not be so similar as to not attract a new copyright. Perhaps there is a US government image that would suit and it would be freely licenced. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: an experienced IP editor already requested a few months ago at WP:FFU uploads of many plates which were uploaded and then again deleted. Check the archives and 5 a day history. (and related articles) Regards, mabdul 15:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The NHS page says that only non-commercial use is permitted, so it could only be used as a non-free image according to Wikipedia's policies, and I'm not sure that it would meet the non-free content criteria as text could be used instead. However the Food Standards Agency and [http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Nutrition/DH_126493 Department of Health say that the Open Government Licence can be used (I don't know if the version on the NHS website is copyrighted separately). Peter E. James (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Add multiple file upload option

Resolved

Please add a multi-file upload, that way things can be less time-consuming. An expert of the world known as WebTV3! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

Do you have a media copyright related question? ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We have multiple tools, mostly for uploading images at commons, including Commons:Commons:Commonist, Commons:User:Nichalp/Upload script‎ and the new uploader at commons! (and maybe more tools) mabdul 15:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Images of Hamilton Camp

I have recently added two images into this article: File:Hamilton Camp Mary Tyler Moore.jpg and File:Hamilton Camp Sweet Joy Cropped.jpg. Have they met all criteria of WP:NFCC? If so, have I picked the right licenses? --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The infobox image seems fine under WP:NFCC as we often accept one non-free image to identify a deceased subject but a second non-free image without critical commentary fails both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The fact that he appeared as a guest on a specific show is already explained in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the second image, which depicts an earlier appearance of Hamilton Camp, and tagged it for speedy deletion. How can I find a suitable non-free image of a younger Hamilton Camp? --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can, really, unless you can meet the criteria of NFCC. The reader will just have to accept that there are limits on how far we can impose on people's copyrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Image published in 1934 magazine = now free?

I want to clarify something. This image of a teenage Katharine Hepburn was published in Liberty magazine in 1934. The PDF can be seen here, with the specific image on the second page. It is clearly not marked with a copyright notice, but Liberty magazine was distributed all across America, with one of the highest circulations of any magazine at that time. Does that mean the image has entered the public domain (ie, publication without copyright notice prior to 1977)? --Lobo512 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It may have been licensed to appear in that periodical. If it was taken for purposes of that periodical, say by a staff photographer, then you are fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. But the image clearly doesn't contain a copyright notice, which was required for protection, so I would've thought that no-one can claim copyright on it? It definitely wasn't taken by the magazine. I have no idea who took it. It is also reproduced in Hepburn's autobiography, and she doesn't give any author credit for it (even though she does for other images). She includes it under the Bryn Mawr section, so perhaps it was a year book photo. --Lobo512 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that you may want to enquire at Commons as well. I can't cite you a specific rule, but I was warned to be careful of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And yearbooks are just the sort of things that are gold mines. Most lack copyright notices. If you think it is from one, you might want to contact the library at Bryn Mawr; no doubt, they field inquiries about such things regularly. They may even have that page scanned, and be able to tell you if there is a copyright page. I see three images on the page you link; doubtless it is one of the portraits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I found a website with scans of yearbooks, and looking at Hepburn's I can see that her photo was actually this image. I also noticed the caption in Liberty (for the original image I mentioned) - "As she looked just before entering college." So it must've been a portrait comissioned by her family, or something. I will ask on Commons if it is PD. Thanks. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be a high school yearbook image then!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, she was privately tutored from about age 14-18. I've left a message on the commons, let's see what they think. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Image marked for deletion - what do I do?

Resolved

Hi

I added an image which has been marked for deletion. I understand that you have to be strict about copyright. I have permission from the photographer to use it and I have proof in the form of an e-mail from him. But in the pages and pages I've been referred to I can't find anything that tells me clearly and concisely what you want me to do to register the proof.

Regards Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huasen (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the image? If you tell us, we can look at it and advise you on that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about File:Portrait(low res).jpg‎ and I already helped the user in our IRC chat at #wikipedia-en-help ^connect. Regards, mabdul 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

When the permission issue has been resolved, the file should be moved to a more informative title, maybe File:Carole Morin.jpg. – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Di canio.jpg

Image has been uploaded with the rationale that it is free to use as it comes from a free (i.e. you don't pay for it) newspaper. Is this not still the copyright of the paper or its parent company regardless of the price of the paper to the public.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes a free newspaper does not mean the content is copyright free, and we don't accept non-free images of living people. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Carolina Cobras logo

File:Carolinacobras.jpg (original) File:Cobra Logo.jpg (altered)

The Carolina Cobras of the Arena Football League are a dead franchise that played from 2000 to 2004. Their logo is on Wikipedia, the first image. Somewhere along the line, Cactus High School in Glendale, Arizona picked up the logo, recolored the tan to electric blue, and produced the second image! I'm not sure of the licensing. The franchise is seven years deceased, but we know that the AFL owns the logo rights (it does for all but one dead AFL franchise).

What is the licensing for Cobra Logo.jpg, the electric blue cobra? Is the licensing currently on that image correct or incorrect? Note: I have a request with the Graphics Lab to have both redrawn as non-JPG files. Eventually, Cobra Logo.jpg will be moved as well. Raymie (t • c) 17:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Since File:Cobra Logo.jpg is a derivative work of File:Carolinacobras.jpg, which is non-free, the blue logo is non-free as well. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I read an article that high schools have been pretty free and easy about appropriating pro and college logos. I doubt if there's any licensing. It is possible that the school is unaware of an infringement.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the commons file for speedy deletion. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Paulo D Canio.jpg

User, who has already had one copyright image deleted today, has uploaded this file which is a copyright violation from [9] - can this be deleted or marked for deletion?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it has been. I would delete it, but it is at Commons, and I'm not an admin there.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

non-free content criteria question

I uploaded a cropped image for the band Boyce Avenue and it may be copyrighted by Universal Republic Records. I get a non-free content criteria notification for it.

This is in regard to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boyce_Avenue.jpg The only two images of Boyce Avenue I found that had free commons were too small and blurry http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Boyceavenueperform.jpg The other one was blurry and was already marked for delation on Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alejandro_Manzano_(Boyce_Avenue)_%26_Tyler_Ward.jpg

Could you suggest what I should do next or will the image I posted be acceptable since I gave credit for the image.

Thanks.

Soren0 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As the artists are living, they can be photographed. A free substitute is therefore available, though it may take some effort to get. So it isn't going to get past NFCC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Woodcut

I am trying to find an image of four Irish mercenaries. It is a woodcut. It is on a page relevant to the Thirty Year's War, or perhaps Gustavus Adolphus, or perhaps Christina, queen of Sweden. It might be relevant to the Polish Swedish War. These mercenaries are called Gallowglass. On that page, there is mention of them fighting for Gustavus Adolphus. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.214.152 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

High Resolution image question

I'm copying this from a user's talk page. It was part of an adminhelp request, but I think the user would get a clearer response from the experts. So here you go. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that the image titled "The Apple - 1970 - 76x92cm.jpeg" - which I contributed the other day - be deleted, due to the fact that it is high-resolution, as I suspect that in its current format, would vioate copyright regulations. Having said that, I would still like to contribute (with the artist's permission) lo-resolution versions of the images. Having looked at the Wiki-page for Australian artist Sidney Nolan (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sidney_Nolan_-Kelly-the_trial.jpg) and the discussion about fair-use that is outlined underneath the image "The Trial", I would like to clarify whether simply posting lo-res images constitutes "Fair Use" within United States copyright law, OR is it still necessary to get a declaration from the artist? He is happy to supply that information if required. Yours, Quasiquasi111 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two kinds of images on Wikipedia: Free - where the copyright owner has granted a free license allowing reuse by anyone for anything (not just Wikipedia); and Non-Free. By policy the use of non-free content is much more restricted than US fair use law; use of non-free content must satisfy the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, use of a low-resolution version of an artwork to illustrate sourced commentary on an artist's technique and work would satisfy the most difficult restrictions. —teb728 t c 20:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My own screen capture of an open source softweare File:Open Sankore Screen shot.png

Hi,

ImageTaggingBot tell me I have to add a description of the source... I made this catpure by myself . Personally I want to put it in public domain but It's ok with GPL/LGPL? They is no trademark... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagarine (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think I get it and I transfer it on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Sankore_Screen_shot.png too. --Gagarine (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Inserted the CC zero copyright tag but logo doesn't show

I tried inserting the { { cc zero } } tag for the logo file of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Bangalore_restaurant_week. But the logo still doesn't show. Can someone help, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunr (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a copyright issue — you made a coding error. If you look at the documentation for {{Infobox recurring event}} (look below the "Usage" header), you'll see the following statement:

| logo = <!--INCLUDE "[[File:Filename]]" when entering file name-->

This means that the logo requires different coding from what's required for the other image that you added. I've fixed it. Please don't think that you're stupid — I would have made the same error if I'd been trying to create this infobox. I can't imagine why the infobox is set up to require different coding for the two image sections. Please note that the infobox won't work if you put the [[File: and ]] characters around it: rather, this happens, with the extra characters appearing where they definitely don't belong. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Really appreciate your help and advice. Varunr (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a copyright issue! This image should be uploaded under fair use since it is (likely) a copyrighted image - I highly doubt that the organization (or whoever created that event) released all the logos so that everybody is able to use them... mabdul 15:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright is not a concern of the system: the uploader was questioning why the image didn't appear, and the sole reason it didn't appear was that the image coding was wrong. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

question about upload of William_Stone_attorney.jpg

File:William Stone attorney.jpg

I uploaded this file and am unsure how to add an image tag, or which one it should be. This image is part of the Stone Family archives, and is over 125 years old. I have permission from one of the Stone Family (Suzanne Stone Johnson). Can you help me to add the right image tag? I'm fairly new to editing, and want to make sure I understand the best way to document and add an image. Thanks for your help. Cajohnson56 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is US, right? The best ways to assure public domain is to show publication (or copyright) before 1923, or that the photographer died before 1942. The photograph is too late for a presumption that the photographer must have died before 1942 (125 years ago is 1887, the photographer could have been 20 in 1887 and only 75 in 1942). The whole Stone family thing is something I hesitate to opine on, while we have family members putting up their forebears' shots, this involves several generations. You might want to ask on Commons, if you have not already.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy regarding an image of a contract?

I'm not 100% if I'd use it but I wanted to know the policy about including an image of Eddie Murphy's Saturday Night Live contract, found here. It's just a piece of paper with text on so I'm not sure what the policy is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no originality in the image, thus whoever took the image has no claim. I think the content would be at least arguably copyright the law firm that prepared it. However, speaking in my legal capacity, lawyers steal back and forth good ideas from each other's forms all the time. I'm not certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Wehwalt. TBH it'll be a pretty sad world if you can copyright something like that but the laws are that bad I wouldn't be surprised. I would have believed it would fall under the same issue as not being able to copyright simple shapes and text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is no copyright issue, I can't think of an encyclopedic use of such an image, and I doubt that any use could be verified from reliable sources. So WP:NOTIMAGE may apply. —teb728 t c 23:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:HolodomorEdmonton.jpg invalid license?

Image File:HolodomorEdmonton.jpg is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, but the file uploader lists the source as http://www.maidan.org.ua/holodomor/pamjatnyky/pamjatnyky.html Doesn't use of that GNU license mean that the uploader created the original image? Is this a copyright violation (or at least an incorrectly licensed image) that has been here for more than 5 years? Meters (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The website's licensing terms : a copyleft license entirely consistent with GFDL 1.2. According to Google Translate : « (CopyLeft) maidan.org.ua, 2000-2011 !!! Copyleft provides free distribution of preserving Avtury and hyperlinks! site is distributed under license GNU documentation - license Ukrainian translation ». I don't know why Orangemike speedily deleted it, perhaps he could provide an explanation, because I am not seeing an obvious copyright violation here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File pre-deletion on Wikipedia looks fine. If the file has a use and there is no reason for deletion then it can be undeleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The file was used on at least 2 main pages, and one of them certainly made sense- holodomor. That page is fully protected and the pic has been deleted, but I can ask for an admin to undo the edit if it's agreed the file is OK. Thanks. Meters (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take CET's word for it on the copyleft; restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Christ in the Temple.jpeg

I have the copyrights to the image,":" File Christ in the Temple.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annig1943 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean File:Christ in the Temple.jpeg? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Onward State.png

Would File:Onward State.png qualify as {{PD-ineligible}}? I kinda think so--the ribbon is pretty basic and might not satisfy the threshold of originality.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

no, although it is really a simple art, it is somehow a 3D-art and thus eligible! mabdul 00:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What? 3D-art? --GrapedApe (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

After further research, I think that this is probably too complex for PD-ineligible.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:University_of_Mannheim.svg

I uploaded the university logo File:University_of_Mannheim.svg and set the license to "no license" because its not (entirely) my work. I asked the university team to grant the license and they changed it to the "PD-Seal-Germany" license. The top of the page still says "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added: (22 January 2012)." -- What do I do to make that disappear? -- Tartaroz (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You would have to remove the 'no license' template at the top of the page when you edit it. Also, {{PD-textlogo}} could probably apply. Chris857 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I added/modified some cats and added other version to this and the two related images. Regards, mabdul 13:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for photo from my photo album of my grandfather

Hi, I added a scanned photo from my personal photo album to "Joseph Michael Manarkattu". How can i provide copyright information for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephmichael99 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and read and follow the steps there. You have to send a mail to our OTRS team. mabdul 13:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Licensing tag question

I recently uploaded File:Paul E. Patton.jpg after learning – via an email from the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives – that works of the Kentucky Finance Cabinet's Creative Services Divison are considered public domain. None of the licensing tags available in the Commons Uploader seemed appropriate, however. Could someone please ensure that I have used the proper tag and that I have sufficiently documented why the image is in the public domain? I'd like to upload some more CFS photos, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right first. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to forward that confirmation to permissions as set out at WP:IOWN because http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/ bears a clear copyright notice that, on its face, conflicts with what you have been told. – ukexpat (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://dspace.kdla.ky.gov:8080/jspui/handle/10602/149 there is the image in the search - also stated as copyrighted. mabdul 03:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this copyright statement apply perhaps only to the DSpace software? —teb728 t c 08:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, very likely not since the software is licensed under CC-BY-SA - so that can only the content or whatever... mabdul 13:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get someone at KDLA to contact the Foundation. Last time I contacted them about something that was marked copyrighted, they said something along the lines of "Oh, that would be more accurate if it said this may be copyrighted." I think they just slap it on every page regardless. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

License labeling for images of art

I would like to upload images of art pieces but this appears to be missing from the options under Non-free / Fair use. Am I being a bit blind. Thanks Fbell74 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you figured out that the answer is {{Non-free 2D art}}. —teb728 t c 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: The Admiral Was a Lady Poster, Resolution & Copyright Status

File:The Admiral Was A Lady (Movie Poster).jpg

I have two questions about the poster for The Admiral Was a Lady.

A lower resolution was uploaded; but, it was too low to read the text, which is cited in the article, The Admiral Was a Lady. Isn't that too low?

Also, the film is in the Public Domain, available for free, at the Internet Archive.

How can the copyright status for the poster be determined? Maybe Roxbury Productions, or United Artists, didn't renew the copyright there, either.

It seems a bit confusing. Laboris Dulcedo (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I cropped white border and reduced image size to 110,000 pixels. I then saved image with no additional compression. Adobe Photoshop Elements allows you to manually set the image quality to 12 on a 1 to 10 scale, this eliminates jpeg compression. I reduce all of my non-free images from a 300 dpi tiff files to the low pixel count resolution jpg with no compression. It seem that the focus of NFC enforcement on Wikipedia is pixel count not image compression. Text readability holds up with this method. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Was this image taken for a magazine, the original has a page number (25) in the lower right corner? If an advertisement was published in a magazine or a newspaper without a copyright notice in the ad before 1978, it is public domain.

From the US Copyright Office Circular 3. Page 3, Contributions to Collective Works. (A magazine is a "collective work.")

A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement.

--SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting permission to use screenshot

I've been asked to add some images to a page I contributed about Fitocracy, an online fitness game/social network.

As I understand, the Wikipedia policies, I am okay to use the logo of the site without permission but I'm not sure what the policy is on screenshots of the site (I want to use a screenshot to illustrate the game aspect)

I am happy to email the site owners to ask for permission but I'm not sure exactly what I need to ask for - is there a best practice for this?

Thanks for any help anyone can offer with this. Syzgyz (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the process described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Authorizing image

I uploaded an image of mine (cropped from the original to suite smaller pixel) from my computer. What should i do to make it authorize here— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremegeorge (talk • contribs) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This relates to File:Xtremegeorge.jpg? – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I formatted the information you added on File:Xtremegeorge.jpg into an {{information}} block. You still need to decide what free license to grant; I recommend {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. —teb728 t c 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status?

There were several pictures that I did not find copyright info on the file page. Please let me know if these following pictures are common use or not

http://www.felipedia.org/~felipedi/wiki/index.php?title=File:Herpes01.jpg

http://www.felipedia.org/~felipedi/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fhv07.jpg

http://www.felipedia.org/~felipedi/wiki/index.php?title=File:For5.jpg

http://www.felipedia.org/~felipedi/wiki/index.php?title=File:Egc2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swjdvm (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a copyright release, we have to assume that they are copyright and therefore cannot be uploaded to Commons, nor can I see how they would meet Wikipedia's non-free use criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This gets close to a release and I think that's their intention, although I wouldn't be confident that's usable as, in my opinion, although it states the wiki asserts no copyright it is less clear about the user's copyright. The comment "All information uploaded to this site is open-content and editable by any users worldwide" doesn't give any idea of any possible license and their plagiarism policy is equally unhelpful suggesting things having to be copyleft but not mentioning and possible licenses. In short it appears to be a mindfield and I'd look elsewhere. Dpmuk (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

License

Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save. If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia.

How to do this for File:Example.jpg . This is cropped from the original size. That is me on this photo taken from my dell xps laptop's camera. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremegeorge (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered above, see #Authorizing image. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

North Ireland Murals

The article on Murals in Northern Ireland, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murals_in_Northern_Ireland, understandably contains many photographs of murals. The photographs all have appropriate licenses as far as I am aware. However, no license to reproduce or depict the murals themselves are cited. From my reading it appears that one ordinarily needs a license from the artist who made the murals to be allowed to reproduce them. I am however of the opinion that fair use probably permits Wikipedia to reproduce the images, as Wikipedia is a non-profit site and it is difficult to imagine how our publication would hurt the interests of the original artist.

Am I correct? Should this fair use rationale be included somewhere in the article? MathHisSci (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of Art Work

I am working on an article about an American artist and plan to use images of his art (prints, pastels, aquatints, etc.). I have permission from the estate of the artist to include the images.

I would like to know if I need permission from the photographer who took the pictures of the art or is the copyright permission held solely by the estate?

Can you also point me in the right direction to a list of different types of copyright permission. Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Flat (2D) images - I believe you'd just have to get the estate's permission via the OTRS system. A flat picture adds no originality to the work. Sculptures are a different matter. OTRS is quite important. Smallbones (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As for different types of copyright permission see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. Unless they prefer some different license, I recommend {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 06:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! LoreMariano (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

place images from other languages

is it possible to get the link and place the exact image from one language on wikipedia to another language without uploading it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirpasha.vzfdst (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If image is uploaded to Commons, yes, you can access it on Commons the same as if it were on English Wikipedia; if not, no. —teb728 t c 03:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Roseanne Sitcom Title Card.png

Does this screenshot qualify for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like {{PD-text}} or {{PD-simple}} to me. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA

How to provide {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license toan image( Xtremegeorge.jpg ) ?

Do i need to upload same photo to facebook or picasa and get a link for my image Xtremegeorge.jpg . I have already a link to its original photo ( photo before i cropped ) in picasa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremegeorge (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You already did provide that tag. File:Xtremegeorge.jpg is OK now, and I have removed the warning message. —teb728 t c 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Howard.cole.jpg.jpeg

ImageTaggingBot has told me that the file description needs source information: The photo is an original from Howard Cole's collection, taken around 1970. I have permission from Howard to use it and have proof in the form of an e-mail from him. If I add this information to the file description will that be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterh7 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is the photographer? Presumably the photographer owns the copyright. Did Howard Cole take it of himself? If not, how can he give permission to use it? —teb728 t c 08:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The photo was taken by Howard's sister, Mrs Janet Bond, on Saturday the 11th July, 1970 at King's Lynn. She has given her permission for the photo to be used in Wikipedia. This permission is in the form of an email from her. Is this ok? - peterh7 —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required and how to submit that permission. —teb728 t c 10:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. The creator of the image has filled in the permission letter and it has been emailed to permissions-enwikimedia.org Do I need to do anything else? —peterh7 30 January 2012

• The image has been deleted by Skier Dude today. What happens now? Will it be reinstated when the permission letter is received? —peterh7 31 January —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

Breaking Bad infobox image

Should this NON-FREE image be used instead of this FREE image from Commons? I recently replaced this non-free image with the free one from Commons, but a certain user kept reverting my edit to his liking. The duplicates of this non-free image have been deleted twice already. --URunICon (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to my liking, to the preferance of the infobox. If there is a intertitle image for the show, i feel we should use it, rather than promo art. No one else has a problem with the intertitle except a certain editor. RAP (talk) 21:28 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think File:Breakingbadopening.jpg may even be {{PD-textlogo}}. —teb728 t c 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; most of the text is not a plain font but has been creatively modified and the background is a mottled image that required a creative process to achieve it. Plain text on a plain background would pass as free but not this one. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just the low resolution, but I don’t see any of the features you mention. As I see it, the text is all the same font with the first two letters of each word bolded; any irregularity of the font appears to be an artifact of reduced resolution. The text in the corners of the squares is blurred at this resolution. (Is that the mottling you see?) The only thing I see that is the least bit original is a slight gradient on the squares, giving a 3D effect. —teb728 t c 21:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload of Alan_Kazdin_wiki.gif

I am having a hard time figuring out which copyright tags would be appropriate to use for this image. The picture is a headshot of Alan Kazdin for his biography wikipedia page; it was not my own work, but the image was given to me by Kazdin with permission to use. Is that permissible, or do I need more information? The photograph was taken by someone hired by Yale University with the intention of the work being used for promotional purposes. I tried to tag as non-free promotional but was told that a free image might be reasonably found and without any changes this image would be deleted. I think I should still be able to use this image but just with more appropriate copyright tags. Thanks for your help.

Sfurtak (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If the photographer has licensed the photo under a free license, you use the tag corresponding to the specific free license. If (s)he has not licensed it under a free license, i.e. one allows reuse by anyone (not just Wikipedia) for anything (including commercial use and derivative works), I'm sorry, but we can't use it. Note: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. If there is no free license and if you know Kazdin, you could take a photo of him yourself and release it under a free license. —teb728 t c 08:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfurtak (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)