Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/May

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image Copyright

I found an image to add to my Wiki Page from a website. That website gave me permission to add and use that image on the Wiki Page. How do I copyright / license the image so that I can prove I have permission to use it? NeuroCaroline (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not enough. Since Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. See WP:PERMISSION for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Photo with permission

I am planning on uploading some photos I took from the City of Melbourne to the Council House 2 Wikipedia page I have been updating for a research project. I emailed the city of Melbourne asking for permission of use and this is what I received.

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the use of CH2 images and information for your Wikipedia website.

The City of Melbourne gives permission for you to use our photographs and information from our CH2 website www.ch2.com.au under the provision under copyright laws that you reference the photos and information to the City of Melbourne. ie Photographs courtesy of the City of Melbourne; Source, City of Melbourne

I am wondering if this is sufficient enough for use on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdrake25 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems like they are giving permission for use only on Wikipedia, which is not enough. Since Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. (Permission may require attribution.) See WP:PERMISSION for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 23:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:March_Slav.ogg

File:March_Slav.ogg has been nominated at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Slav.ogg. Please come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons seems to be handling it well, but you seem to need an explanation: Tchaikovsky died in 1893; so the original composition is {{PD-old-70}}, and the performance itself is by the United States Coast Guard Band; so it is {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}. But unless the arranger, G. Tarajantz, was an employee of the US Government, his work had a separate copyright. So additional information is needed about him to determine whether his copyright has expired. —teb728 t c 07:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I can find no evidence that this Tarajantz ever existed, which is problematic. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just contact the band. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Easy Stock Photos

File:Typewrtier.png is taken from Easy Stock Photos, which has a statement of "Easy Stock Photos is the best way to find royalty free stock photos, pictures, images & information in the public domain." Do we trust that its images truly are royalty free, or do we say that it's not a trustworthy source? As I understand their conditions page, it seems that they're saying that their images are all PD, but I'm not sure that I understand that correctly; other statements, such as the one I quoted above, make me wonder if some of these are still under copyright and available for royalty-free use but not necessarily reproduction or modification. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, we can treat these images as {{PD-release}}. The description page should mention the source, as normal. I personally take all free images with a grain of salt. On a good day I can look at the day's free uploads and spot four or five that are not really free. On a bad day, it can be upwards of half the day's uploads. Therefore I tend to be cynical and run everything through TinEye, but a random spot check of about 20 of the items from this site all came back clean. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian subway pictures being deleted on Commons

This probably isn't the right place for this, but I'm just giving a heads up that the pictures at Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro), and probably lots of other Russia related pictures, are up for deletion on Commons. There's been an editor nominating a lot of works of recent Russian architecture for deletion, and it looks like a lot of them will get deleted (the right decision, in my non-lawyer opinion). Anyway, I don't know what our copyright standards are on the English Wikipedia, but it looks like some of these photos (like this one) were migrated to Commons, so it might be a good idea to upload them locally (if they are free enough for our copyright guidelines). Buddy431 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Areal view of Osama's compound made by the CIA PD?

Here is an areal view (Luftaufnahme) of Osama bin Laden's compound made by the CIA. So is this image {PD-USGov-CIA}? --Pilettes (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but crop it down so the map doesn't appear in the corner.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, done. Thanks --Pilettes (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Willie Nelson

The article is currently undergoing a GA nomination, and the status of two photographs is doubtful:

  • File:Willie-Nelson-Highschool.jpg: The Willie Nelson museum and general Store has given the authorization to use the image, however I tagged the license of the picture as a "Fair Use" because I was not sure under which other license should I put it. The photograph was taken circa 1950, for a high school portrait. I don't think that the photograph was published for the first time with a copyright notice, which would make it eligible for this license Template:PD-US-no notice
  • File:Kris Will Waylon.jpg: The uploader is not around anymore, and I'm not sure that the picture is self-made given that its notable in the user's discussion page there are many deletion or copyright claim notices. The picture is very useful for the article, and if the author is not the original, could it be placed as an historical image?

I need opinions on this files.--GDuwenTell me! 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the highschool picture is not PD, it needs a non-free use rational, and the use probably fails WP:NFCC#8. Judging from the picture quality of the other, I see no reason to doubt the self-made claim. —teb728 t c 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Judging from File:Album Four 225.jpg, it appears the uploader is Mack Royal, son of Darrell Royal, and so it's very plausible that he would be at Willie's 4th of July Picnic, and would have access backstage. He has the date slightly wrong though - the photo would be 1973. I think we can accept Kris Will Waylon.jpg as PD as stated by the uploader who appears reasonably to be the copyright owner, and as such it should be moved to Commons.
Re:Willie-Nelson-Highschool.jpg. I'm not clear on copyright law of photographs. Isn't the copyright owner the person who took the picture, commissioned it, or bought the rights to it? I'm not sure possession of a print is evidence of copyright ownership. School photographers rely on copyright laws to prevent parents simply making copies of photographs rather than buying them. However, if the school yearbook didn't have a copyright claim, then Template:PD-US-no notice appears to apply. There are more pictures here, and a copyright claim is not visible. Can we reasonably assume that there was no copyright claim as we are not aware of one. SilkTork *YES! 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm positive that the high school portrait should be tagged as PD-US-no notice, since apparently the yearbook has not a copyright notice. When I originally uploaded this picture, I had sent the Willie Nelson Museum and General store an e-mail to receive more information about the picture, and this was their response:
Reply to my first E-mail:
Feel free to use the high school photo of Willie Nelson for the Wikipedia article. We would appreciate a link from it to our site from it if possible.
My Reply:
Thanks for replying so quick, I will link the site as a source to the image. But should I tag it as "copyright free" or do you hold the copyright of the image?, in the case you hold it, I can tag that the permission was given by you.
Second reply from Museum and General store:
We own the physical photograph and it may be reproduced. The original came from his high school yearbook in Abbott, TX.--GDuwenTell me! 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

High school yearbooks did not typically have a copyright notice. Students preordered their copy and there was a single printing of the yearbook. The photographers who took the student portraits made the money on immediate sales; there was no way to reorder your third grade photos. Why bother with a copyright and who would get the royalties. The students created a lot of the yearbook content and photos. I have inspected high school and college yearbooks from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. None had a copyright notice. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that is enough information about the high school yearbook. I will upload it to the commons under Template:PD-US-no notice. What's the bottom line in the one with Kris Kristofferson and Waylon Jennings then?--GDuwenTell me! 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded the High school portrait under the same name (File:Willie-Nelson-Highschool.jpg) in the commons, tagged with the PD-US-no notice tag. The old image has to be removed now.--GDuwenTell me! 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another file that could possibly give an answer File:Kris Rita.jpg, taken the same day and uploaded by the same user. Additionally, here is an interesting link with series of pictures taken by the same author--GDuwenTell me! 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of a painting I own

This is a question that has no doubt been asked and answered a couple of hundred times, but I can't find it. I own a painting by an artist who has a biography in Wikipedia. Can I upload a photo of the painting? Do I own the copyright, as the owner of the painting? or does the artist own it? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The artist owns it, unless it has been legally transferred to you (or it is expired; see Wikipedia:Public domain). Purchase of a piece of art gives you ownership of the art, not of the copyright, unfortunately. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
And when you take a photo of a painting, that photo is a derivative work, though you could ask the artist if they would allow release of a photo under a free licence by providing us with their WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale?

I've been asked to provide a fair use rationale for the image File:Bolt1-copy.JPG.jpeg. It's used in an article about character Bolt and I was told that the picture would be deleted if i didn't add such a rationale. I'm still not sure what a Non-free use rationale is and the Non-free use rationale guideline only told me that I should add a "justification" for it's usage in the image description page. Where in the image description page? Should I write why I think the picture can be used in the article under "permission"?

I have no personal permission, of course. Joe Moshier allowed the website AnimatedViews to post one of his many drawings on their website. The picture has already been uploaded on several other websites. Therefore, I assumed that Joe Moshier wouldn't mind having this particular drawing, which has already been spread around the internet, uploaded to a Wikipedia article about the character in question. If this justification doesn't suffice, I could try to contact Joe Moshier and ask him for a personal permission, but that really shouldn't be necessary.

It was also written that "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." What does this mean and how do I provide the image with this?

Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Carlminez (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, copyrighted images cannot be used without explicit permission unless they are uploaded under a claim of fair use. Fair use basically means that an image, sound or video can be used to illustrate the subject. However, when such an image is used, a fair use rationale needs to be provided to show that the image is necessary to illustrate the article and that a free (non-copyrighted) replacement cannot be found. It seems as though you've already the Wikipedia page on fair use, so I would suggest looking at an image that is already being used a claim of fair use to get an idea of what to do. One example is the infobox image on the article entitled Mickey Mouse.-RHM22 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Abbottabad which are said freely to use

Sohaib Athar writes at his twitter site as reallyvirtual, that his pictures taken by his mobile phone can be used freely. Is this enough to upload them at Wikimedia Commons? --Pilettes (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. We have fairly specific licensing requirements, and would need a less vague statement in order to upload here. The photographer would need to state clearly either the name of a specific free license, or say something like "released into the public domain". As it stands, it isn't clear if the copyright holder allows modification or commercial use. That individual may be fairly busy and swamped with requests at the time being, but it wouldn't hurt to ask for a clarifying statement.-Andrew c [talk] 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Product Packaging

Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons seem to be filled with photographs of products, and almost entirely copyrighted with concern for the photograph itself and not the product packaging artwork. I've tried to do the closest to what I think is the right thing here: File:Barratts_sherbet_fountain.jpg

But shouldn't there be a template specifically for photographs of product packaging, given how common it is?--Farry (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly messy area of law. for example per Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc. This image is public domain.©Geni 16:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So if even the courts blow hot and cold on this, it's hard to figure the threshold where a product package is unique and artistic enough for photographs to become derived works. In practice, nobody's likely to care about situations where no money is made from the photos.--Farry (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting image on Commons

File:Zack Heart.jpg

Hello, Our company uploaded an image to wikimedia commons and wish to use it on a wikipedia page. We have been using the wikipedia image wizard but are unable to use the image now on wikimedia commons. We have requested it be deleted and it still remains. Can someone please help us? We wish to have zackheart.jpg deleted from wikimedia commons so we can re-upload to a wikipedia article. Thank you

Outback Zack Productions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.120.50 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to do what you want to do is to click “Upload a new version of this file” near the bottom of Commons:File:Zack Heart.jpg. Then check “Ignore any warnings” near the bottom of the Upload page. (To avoid future problems it would be wise also to send an email as described at WP:IOWN.) —teb728 t c 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I need help

Hello

as a newbie I have made a mistake with the copyright information on an uploaded JPEG called Compressor map.jpg.

It is used in centrifugal compressor

as Figure_3.2 – Example Centrifugal compressor Performance Map.

I have spoken to the website owners and they assured me of the following information.

The JPEG was acquired from: http://www.emspowered.com

it is copywritten by Borg-Warner and is sales literature distributed any interested party. It is free to copy, use and mark up as long as the original map is not modified.

It is the compressor map for their S250 turbocharger compressor.

how do i modify the copyright description so that it satisfies the appropriate criteria?

Thank you for the help Martin koronowski, Mkoronowski (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As you say, it is a copyright image, so if we might be able to use that image it must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines and the first one is that we cannot use an image that is replaceable, which this one is. Someone can make an illustration of the data shown here, without it being a "slavish copy", so you cannot write a valid fair-use rationale. If you can get the copyright holder to give their WP:CONSENT making the image freely licenced, that would means modifications are allowed, then we could use it. Those are your two options. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at all of the compressor maps that wiki has available and none show the technical feature needed as they are from a different specific style hardware. the image is publicly available from any web site selling that turbocharger. no one else would be interested. on the issue of an illustration, this act of illustrating in this case is like saying an illustration of bob hope is equivalent to his picture. the technical features of this graph are important. please help me understand???????? if my first comments might apply under the correct circumstances. i do understand your comment about freely licensed would mean modifiable and will remove the jpg asap.Mkoronowski (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
the performance map has been changed to a free use version i created on a semi rigorous mathematical basis to preserve technical features.Mkoronowski (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

photographs in a book

(Reposted from commons:Help desk) I have a British book, published 1998 and reprinted 2003, that contains photographs of groups of British footballers from 1885 to the present day. Is it acceptable to upload copies of photographs from before a certain year, and if so which license should I use? Thanks! U+003F? 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the photographer died at least 70 years ago, use {{PD-Old}}. If the photograph was first published before 1923, use {{PD-1923-abroad}}. Otherwise we probably can't use them. Sorry. —teb728 t c 22:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
None of the pictures in the book are assigned a photographer nor original source. So, for a photo dated 1900 (say), would publication date be interpreted as 1900 - and so {{PD-1923-abroad}} - or as 1998 with the book? U+003F? 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I've solved it - could you confirm my interpretation is correct please? {{PD-UK}} states:

"This image ... is now in the public domain in the United Kingdom, because ... If author is unknown it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created ... This file may be copyrighted in the United States unless it ... entered the public domain in the United Kingdom prior to 1996."

So a photo with unknown author enters the public domain in the UK prior to 1996 (and hence the US) if published created on or before 1925? U+003F? 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind "unknown" does not mean "I can't find it in a google search, sitting comfortably at my desk". It means "after a good faith effort, including offline sources and archives, and actually talking to knowledgeable people, the consensus is that no one knows who took it". This seems a common error around here, would not want you to fall into the same trap. Have you contacted football museums, or the historians for the clubs whose players are depicted?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No offense, but I find it difficult to believe that a British book published in 1998 has no photographer credits or permissions information anywhere in the book! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Quite. What's the book? It should contain some reference to the source of the photo andfrom whom the author has permission to publish the photograph if permission was required. I've just pulled out a few picture books in my collection, and they all feature this information in one form or another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Images of Maps Created Using GMT

May I use the Generic Mapping Tool, which is a free, open-source program, to create topographic and color shaded maps to insert onto Wikipedia?

The address for GMT is http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/ Schlitzer90 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You can use this toolset, however make sure that the inputs to this process are free. But the output format .eps is not the right format for Wikipedia, can you convert it to .svg format? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I tag this correctly?

Resolved
 – – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I had two questions somewhat related to each other:

  1. I was curious if I tagged File:Oosisoak_Frederic_Edwin_Church.jpg correctly. The painting was completed around 1861 by an American painter who died in 1900. A few days ago, I was reading a copyright page on Wikipedia (now I can't find it) that explained that all images published (I believe that was the key word) in the US before Jan. 1, 1923 was in the public domain. However, I have no clue when the painting in question was first published. For all I know, it could have been published for the first time in the 2002 book (see image description > source).
  2. A little more esoteric: If Church (the painter in question) would advertise his works for display in newspapers and brochures/pamphlets, is this considered publishing? Or would the artwork have to be for sale as a, say, postcard or poster or on a mug, etc. to be published?

The second question is out of curiosity. The first question is more important. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag looks fine to me. Since the author died in 1900, you could use {{PD-old}}. As for the other question, I think that a brochure or something like that would be considered publication, but I'm not certain what the exact law is.-RHM22 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I found the page I'd read earlier too, located at WP:Public domain—mentioning it here more to ingrain it into memory than anything. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover

At the GA review of Steve Davis the question was raised whether the non-free rational for the File:How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover.jpg image is adequate. I think it is, but I need a second opinion. Thanks, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment on the GA review. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

picture of James McNeish which has been deleted

Dear Wikipedia James McNeish supplied me a with a photograph of himself taken by a friend. He asked me to upload to his page on Wikipedia, which I did. I notice that the image has now been deleted because it did not have the appropriate tag. I have no idea what the appropriate tag is and find the information provided in Wikipedia very confusing and sleep inducing. Can you please advise me as to what the appropriate tag is for this type of image. Regards David Colls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscolls (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to get permission from the copyright holder. If the friend took the photo, he/she is almost certainly the copyright holder. As such, it is necessary to recieve proof that the person has given you permission and e-mail that proof to the Wikipedia OTRS team.-RHM22 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not very difficult. I did it for someone I know, recently. If you find it difficult, come to my talk page and we'll discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The easiest way is to click on --> this link right here <-- and follow those instructions. That page (Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries) is the boilerplate release message, and is incredibly simple to use. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

copyright violation

I've noticed that some of the text in John Slade (field hockey) is actually taken from this book here. What's the protocol in that case? Aviados (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Text copyright violations can be listed at WP:Copyright problems per the instructions here for review by an administrator. January (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the obvious copyright violations from the article, leaving only the lead. If you'd like, you can use that book as a reference to rebuild the article. Of course you would have to reword it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?

http://www.spur.org/files/urb-0411-7.png

It's located on SPUR's website and doesn't appear to be copywritten. I'd like to add it to a wiki article. Scfavrot (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you not notice the copyright notice at the bottom of their webpages? So unless you can get them to release the image under a free licence we can't use it. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use images

en:User:MaxWyss asks for help with "his" fair-use images. If I'm right, the images are owned by Wapmeer (World Agency for Planetary Monitoring and Earthquake Risk Reduction www.wapmerr.org) that he manages. These professors never have time. I'd love to see some help on these matter. Sometimes professors upload images of their educational bodies and get problems with Commons copyvio. Exact science welcomes very much images and expert review. The Foundation is looking for expert review for Wikipedia articles as well. We should make life easier for this group of people. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the law demands that a license is granted in writing, If the uploader made the definite statement that they owned the copyright, or that they were acting on behalf of Wapmeer, it may survive better. Fair Use images cannot be uploaded to comons, and the chances are that the image could be replaced by a free one, so could not comply with the fair use criteria here. So we really need a free license with proof if it was published elsewhere before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Image tag for entry: 'T.P. McKenna'

Can you please indicate the most appropriate tag for the image on the entry on T.P.McKenna. The image is a publicity head shot that was commissioned by the subject for his exclusive use. The identity of the photographer is unknown. The original is the property of the estate of the subject.

Stephen McKenna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonoftp (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The image File:Tpmckenna.jpg states: "Artist commissioned headshot reproduced by kind permission of tpmckenna.com", so we need to know what sort of permission is being granted. The image must be freely licenced so get the copyright holder to give their permission to us by emailing the completed WP:CONSENT form to the WP:OTRS team and it will be added to the image. I doubt the fair-use claim can be justified as he was publicly active for more then 50 years. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Carnivalbreeze.jpg

Can someone more familiar with licensing requirements take a look at File:Carnivalbreeze.jpg? Normally, a corporate image of a ship would fail free-use as anyone at a port where the ship visits would be able to take an image of the ship. However, in this case, the uploader is stating on the image talk page that the ship is still under construction - the image that was uploaded is an artistic rendering of the completed ship. The image is created and owned by Carnival Corp; but the uploader claims in the existing licensing tag that it was part of a press-kit or marketing materials.

I'm not familiar enough with the copyright requirements to be able to respond on if this is acceptable for Wikipedia use, so would like to ask those more familiar with copyright requirements to take a look and to help clarify the usability of the rendering. Is the existing image allowed under fair-use until such time that the ship launches and alternate sources of images become available? That seems risky to me, as the fair-use would essentially have an expiration date and there's no flag in the licensing tag to notify when it's time to re-review if it's still fair-use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1 requires that no free image could be created. An image can be created when the ship is built, so it clearly fails the very first requirement and must be deleted. We don't use non-free until a free image becomes available; it either complies with the criteria or not. Press-kits or marketing materials are usually copyright and can be used by journalists but we have strict criteria so cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: the same user has also uploaded File:Carnival Magic.jpg. Initially, this was also a press-kit image. But they provided a replacement image and changed the license info to show "I am at this point unsure as to the licensing of the photo is. I would appreciate any help. This photo was posted on John Heald, Senior Cruise Director and Executive Brand Ambassador, Facebook with the download feature enable and was taken by Mr Andy Newman." ... but they then removed the {{di-no license}} tag and the license info to "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License", and stating on the image talk page that it's from a Facebook page (and provided a link). I'm uncertain as to the copyright restrictions, and not finding where it states it is released under CC BY 2.0 - but they reversed me when I undid the change, and I don't want to edit-war over this as I'm not certain as to which copyright rules apply to Facebook images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I just revised it back to when it had no liscensing. However I still would appreciate to know its licensing.--Curlytop999 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I replied on the image talk page. The source page does not clearly show the image to be freely licenced and no evidence the CC-2.0 would be valid. ww2censor (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

clarification of speedy deletion & copyright issues with File:RonnMoss2.jpg

File:RonnMoss2.jpg is identical to the most recent deletion of File:RonnMoss.jpg, I don't know what the earlier deleted images by that name were. ABOUT this image and why I believe it is appropriate for use on Wikipedia: 1) Ronn Moss provided the image and asked me to use it; 2) the copyright holder is CBS/The Bold and The Beautiful and the photo is specifically for promotional purposes - identifying the actor falls well within that scope.

I cannot give permission for the file to be modified or for derivative works to be made from the file, so *if I'm reading the various copyright and licensing agreements correctly*, there weren't any "free" use licenses which would be appropriate. I am putting the image back in the website and I'll check back over the next few days to see if there's discussion. LynnMaudlin (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the Foundation and WP:NFCC, if the person is still alive, we can always expect to replace it with a free photograph. Thus, we do not allow, except in rare circumstances, non-free photographs of living people to illustrate articles about them. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ukraine 085.jpg

This image was never given a license by the author, though other photos from the same set were tagged PD-self; another user added PD-self. Should we consider it PD-self, then? I nominated this image for deletion (Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_April_21#File:Ukraine_085.jpg), but the nomination was closed as keep. —innotata 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I am in the process of transferring the image to Commons right now. Logan Talk Contributions 21:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done transferring to Commons. Logan Talk Contributions 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Upload at Commons possible?

This image at flickr.com is licensed under CC-BY, but I am wondering, if they are really the copyright holder. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilettes (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks like Flickr washing to me. I wouldn't upload it to Commons. Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

screen shot of google maps what licence

hi i just wanted to know if i can upload the screen shot of any place using google maps if so under which licence?

regards kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladiatorkp (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

short answer is you can't. Google maps images are under copyright.©Geni 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hound d'artois3.jpg

File:Hound d'artois3.jpg is tagged as {{PD-self}}. Unless the uploader of this work is more than 130 years old, he/she cannot be the copyright holder of this work (unless, of course, the copyright was passed down within the family). Should this be {{PD-Art}} instead? Logan Talk Contributions 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

PD-self is probably wrong, but we do not know were it was published, or who the artist was. It may be a PD-1923. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives

Are the videos uploaded at http://www.youtube.com/user/usnationalarchives allowed to be uploaded to Wikipedia for use? I am assuming yes, based on this article: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. There is a video uploaded there (a very long one) that I would like to take an excerpt from (a few minutes). Is this possible? And if so, what would be the license tag? --Dara (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would confirm, most likely via the credits that it was actually shot by US government employees and not by a contracting firm. Othewise you seem quite right. As for the tag, {{PD-USGov}}, unless you are hinting you think that inappropriate for some reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Released Bin Laden videotapes from CIA

Would we be able to upload screenshots from videos released by the CIA showing images of Bin Laden? See VOA Bin Laden pics. The videos were seized by the US Government, would they not be similar to ones taken by the US and administered by the Alien Property Custodian in the World Wars? If not, would the copyright be held by Bin Laden? Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In all probability the copyright is now technicaly held by the osama bin laden estate or by one of his followers.©Geni 03:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
CIA published that. I believe the copyrights belong to U.S. . --Damiens.rf 06:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Copyright belongs to the first person to put it in a fixed form. Which in this case would be whoever was filming. I'm sure the CIA will be very happy indeed if they try and sue for violation of copyright.©Geni 08:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It's a little bit of a weird discussion, in a way, but these are copyright the photographer, most likely deceased, therefore his heirs under Pakistani law. If we assume the US "acquired" the copyrights, of which I'm dubious, then the US still holds the copyright for the same term the presumably late photographer would have. They are not in the public domain, despite being "released".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. There's a common misconception that every single image owned by the U.S. government, or any agency thereof, is instantly and automatically in the public domain. This is not true. The U.S. Government has voluntarily passed laws which release large classes of works and images into the public domain, but to qualify the work or image in question must meet certain criteria, and the public domain status is not an inherent property of the image merely because it is owned by the U.S. government. Copyright status of work by the U.S. government has more on this, but it clearly states "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties" The relevent words here are "prepared by...the U.S. government", so it would not apply to works that the U.S. government came into ownership of through other means, and "official duties", so it would not apply to works created by government employees outside of their official duties. --Jayron32 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia content in a mobile application?

I am working on an education mobile application to assist people in identifying and providing information on various things found in nature. For example, the user will be able to search through a listing of various trees based on a search criteria (location, leaf type, etc.) and when they finally get to the tree they want, they can display a "details" page on the tree they interested in. On this details page I would like to include an image of the tree and a description of the tree.

As an example, say the user would like more information on the eastern cottonwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populus_deltoides). There are two ways that I'm looking at using the data provided on the above linked page:

1. A line-for-line copy of a paragraph from the "Ecology" section, as follows "It needs bare soil and full sun for successful germination and establishment; in natural conditions, it usually grows near rivers, with mud banks left after floods providing ideal conditions for seedling germination; human soil cultivation has allowed it to increase its range away from such habitats."

2. Re-working the content, for example, having a heading of "Age" and then just listing "70 to 100 years (potentially 200 to 400 years)" rather than using the entire "Age" section paragraph of "Eastern cottonwoods typically live 70 to 100 years, but they have the potential to live 200 to 400 years if they have good genetics, and if they have a good growing environment."

As long as the content I'm using is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, and as long as I follow the procedure for properly displaying the CC and attribution information for what I'm using, am I OK using the content in my app as I propose above?

I am also wondering — since the content I will be including in my app will be a combination of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licenses materials and non-CC copyright materials (content provided to me from other sources), with regards to the ShareAlike licensing, does that mean my entire application has to be made available under the CC ShareAlike license, or just the specific material I'm using that has been provided to me under the CC ShareAlike license?

Any insight into this would be much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyk (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:REUSE? – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read that (a few times now) and I assume that I am OK in using the content in both ways I want to use that data (as I'm using it sometimes verbatim and sometimes modified), but I'm just hoping for a confirmation on this before I begin to compile all the data.

As well, I am still unsure (after reading documents here and on the Creative Commons site) as to whether or not the complete application I'm working on that needs to be released under the CC Share Alike license, or just that the content that was previously CC Share Alike need to be displayed as CC Share Alike for continued use by others?

Again, I have made assumptions that I'm OK to use that data as I stated and that I don't need to release the entire app under CC Share Alike (since it would conflict with the copyright of other data used in the app), but before I go through all the work of compiling and organizing the data and copyright information for everything, and actually building the app based on this data, I'm just hoping for something a little more solid beyond my own assumptions and understanding of all these rules from someone with more knowledge of it all that what I have. Theboyk (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem: we can't tell you that it's okay. :/ We're not authorized to give legal advice. (As it says at the page to which you were linked: "Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the authors of material on Wikimedia sites provide legal advice. It is the responsibility of the reuser to determine how a license applies to the intended reuse.") If you want to be sure, you should consult an attorney with some familiarity with intellectual property law. I understand that may be disappointing, as far as responses go, but part of the problem here is that if we tell you that you can use it that way and we're wrong, you're the one holding the bag. Contrarily, if we incorrectly tell you that you can't use it and you don't, you may be missing an opportunity. It's best to consult somebody who is authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag for Work of a Public University?

I'm trying to include this picture, but I'm not sure about the copyright and how to tag it. It should be public domain because it is a work of public university.

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6269.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictien (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The work of a public university is not automatically in the public domain. Under U.S. copyright law, anything recently produced is always assumed to be under copyright without specific statements by the rightful copyright holder to the contrary. In other words, unless the copyright holder (in this case, since it is a work-for-hire, probably the University themselves) has made a statement releasing its works into the public domain, then the University still owns the copyright. --Jayron32 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The owner of the image is Dr. Prasad at the Univerity of Buffalo, he alone can only release the rights to the image. Universities do not automatically give public domain status to created images. — Moe ε 20:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted Dr. Prasad to ask him about the rights to the image. — Moe ε 20:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures recently added

Hi,

I am a professional aviation photographer and have added a number of pictures but I got a warning on a few of them. I have now added the information that I photographed them myself. Could you check this out? Is it OK now?

Will the warnings disappear now? Have I avoided the deletion?

Pls come back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brorsson (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, here is a list of images you have uploaded to Wikipedia. Make sure to go through and properly tag all the images you upload to make sure they have the appropriate tags. You received notifications on your talk page about the following images:
You said you took these images yourself, and you tagged them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. If you tag all your pictures that you have taken yourself under the Creative Commons license, they are now free for use on Wikipedia and you will no longer receive notifications about deletion of them. Make sure to go through the pictures you uploaded and check to see if you have released your rights to them as you have with the pictures you got messaged about. You received notification for your images because the copyright status had not been determined. Please see our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline, as we do not accept copyrighted images unless they meet the fair use criteria. Editors on Wikipedia go through images and tag images with uncertain copyright status for deletion unless we know where it came from and what license it should be labeled as. If you have any questions, let me know. — Moe ε 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these look fine now. At the time I tagged them it wasn't clear from the description that you took them yourself, and unfortunately we've often had cases where people uploaded just these types of images under false licensing claims, so we have to be a bit cautious about them. Thank you very much for your contributions; these are great and valuable images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

President pictures

Hello experts,

I am simultaneously working on two articles that could benefit from illustrations. They're at WP:SDA/PUCPresidents and WP:SDA/LSUPresidents. I notice that File:UF00031408.jpg has permissions for use based on being published before a certain date (1923). Could the first picture from this and the first ten or so pictures from this be used under a similar permission? I realize the date of publishing isn't on them, but it seems like a fair assumption that those pictures from the 1800s were published before 1923. If someone could take a look and let me know, that would be great! BelloWello (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, here are a few scenarios where works are Public Domain for future reference. They are:
  1. Works published in the U.S. before 1923.
  2. Works first published in 2003 or later by authors who died before 1937.
  3. Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. See Template:PD-Pre1978.
  4. Works published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered. See Template:PD-US-1989
  5. Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice but without later copyright renewal. See Template:PD-US-not renewed.
  6. Works published outside the U.S. before 1923, except possibly in the 9th Circuit, then before July 1, 1909. See Template:PD-US-1923-abroad.
  7. Works published outside the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 which were in the public domain in their home countries on January 1, 1996. See Template:PD-US-1996
Anything in the United States that was created prior to 1923 is in the Public Domain, so if you know for fact that something was created prior to 1923, you can use that licensing. If you are unsure, you might want to research the images a little to make sure when they were created. Just because they are of people in the 1800s doesn't necessarily mean the images were created then. — Moe ε 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, works published (not just created) in the US prior to 1923 are PD. See WP:PD#Unpublished works for more details. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying :) yes, if it was not published prior to 1923, it doesn't count towards that date. — Moe ε 19:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature of India Politician

I have some doubt about Signature of popular living people. Are signature is public domain material or can any one upload signature of any popular living people like politician claming that his work??

see the list of Signature of India Politician by User:GaneshBhakt. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Signatures are usually considered public domain, as they normally are a name or shrotend form of a name, too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Another issue the user upload all signature, without any reliable and verifiable source.How we treat this images? --- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 20:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Duh!

If I post a BRITISH photo from the 1930's, with no authorship, then that is OK, for by law it is out of copyright, being over 70 years ago. The wikipedia has a tag allowing for that. I know this will come as a surprise to a number of editors (some of which use idiotbots) but Britain is NOT a colony of America. If something is out of copyright in Britain it is nothing at all to do with America. Not a thing. British copyright means British copyright. If they mean American copyright, they will say American copyright and not British copyright. If you do not understand the long words I have used here, leave me a note on my "Talk" and I will try to simplify it even further. Meanwhile, please stop vandalising my work.(Cyberia3 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Normally it is 70 years after the photographer's death. Have you made an effort to find out where the image was published, or who the photographer was? {{PD-UK}} is the tag. But please consider uploading to commons if it has an encyclopedic or educational use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the artist still own the copyright?

An artist composed a portrait of my grandfather in 1956. The portrait was given to my family and I am now the sole owner. Does the artist still own the copyright or do I? Also, if the artist still owns the copyright, am I allowed to reproduce the portrait electronically for non commercial purposes (i.e. on Wikipedia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottoconnor (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not own the copyright unless it was granted to the family in writing. Even if you could reproduce it for non-commercial use, Wikipedia does not want this sort of material, as it wants items that are free for everyone for every use. In some places you may be able to legally digitize the image for your own use only, eg Australia. But that does not give you a license to hand out further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Was the artist hired to do that, or she did it on her own and gave to your family as a gift? --Damiens.rf 14:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The artist was hired to make the portrait for my family. Does that make a difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.208.77 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I think so. If I'm not wrong, whoever hired holds the copyrights. --Damiens.rf 19:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Political party logos

Is it fair use to use the logo of a political party outside of wikipedia article specifically about the political party itself, e.g. for an article about an election the party participated in? For example, using File:Miljöpartiet.svg on Swedish general election, 2014? — VikingViolinist | Talk 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is the same issue with sports clubs logos (and I don't know the answer). --Damiens.rf 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That is essentially what I was wondering. So that is not fair use? — VikingViolinist | Talk 21:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

PIB

Does this copyright statement mean we can use the images on Wikipedia? GaneshBhakt (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No. While it allows the reproduction of the material, they do not mention the creation of derivative works, which is necessary for a work to be considered free. Material from that site can only be used in accordance to our non-free content policy. --Damiens.rf 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper-based vectors

Can we make vector graphics with newspaper diagrams/maps as the source? GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because that is a derivative work. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've received the following message from Magog the Ogre(talk):

White House's Flickr account

Images from the official White House's Flickr account use the Flickr license Work of the U.S. Government, that links to http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml, that, to my understanding, states the images are in the public domain.

However, the image's captions on Flickr include the shivering statement:


While I understand that the second part, the only beginning with "and may not be used in commercial or..." is restricted by "in any way suggests approval", and thus is not a copyright issue, the first part, seems to prohibit the image to be manipulated. This clashes with http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml explicitly allowing to "create derivative works".

Should we care about what is said on the images captions at Flickr? --Damiens.rf 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Once we know it's a government work – and they have confirmed it is one – they couldn't enforce additional copyright reservations on it even if they wanted to. Whatever that sentence is meant to signify legally, it can't really be a valid copyright restriction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Abstractly speaking, such images do not qualify for copyright status under United States copyright law, as they are works of a federal employee as part of that person's official duties. Any caption they wish to place on an image that creates special conditions (such as no derivatives) is invalid on the face of it. U.S. law prohibits these works from attracting copyright. I saw a news article discussing a U.S. newspaper creating a derivative work that eliminated the women in the picture which commented on the no derivatives clause in the caption of this image. I had to chuckle as the reporter writing the article didn't seem to understand the public domain nature of the photo in the first place. No, I wouldn't worry about questioning the PD status of images from the WH flickr stream unless the images are sourced to a non-federal employee/organization. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As a work of the U.S. Government, images from The White House flickr site would fall under the licensing of Template:PD-USGov. I believe the caption at the end was saying that we shouldn't modify or manipulate the image to suggest that the U.S. Government, Barack Obama, etc. endorses a message with a derivative work. Even so, I would have a hard time believing that such a message wouldn't be allowed with a Public Domain image, so it's fine to upload as US Gov PD. — Moe ε 19:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That's was exactly what brought my attention to the issue: some journalist explaining it was not permitted to alter the photo to remove Ms. Clinton. --Damiens.rf 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Lol. Why did anybody remove Ms Clinton? Link? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ha, they removed the girl in the background too, funny. — Moe ε 19:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, perhaps by taking the image from the website, downloaders bind themselves to terms and conditions. None of which binds Wikipedia, or course, as that would be a contract, not a copyright matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • No, the work is public domain by U.S. copyright law. The caption has no effect on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually the caption still affects Wikipedia, as the government can object any use that appears as endorsement. The key point is "suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House", not "may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials..." But in any case, this would be in the scope of NPOV (and possibly WP:BIO, but not copyright. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It would fall under the same situation as the FBI attempted with Wikipedia in regards to the use of their logo. In short, any use within the article space of such an image would not be something they can legally prevent. The exception within copyright law regarding these works they are operating under is "You cannot use a U.S. government work in a way that implies endorsement by a U.S. government agency, official, or employee. For example, you cannot use a photo of a government official wearing your product in an advertisement." Since we'd never do anything like that in article space, there's no restriction that applies to us that we don't already apply to ourselves in article space. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lobatus costatus


The image in question was given to me by a friend, who has a Lobatus costatus in her aquarium. She gave me permition to use it as I see fit, and It's clearly not professional work. What is necessary to regularize this picture? Thanks in advance and best wishes. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "Professional Work" is irrelevant. Since someone else took it, they legally own the copyright to it. The fact that you told us all this information leads me to believe you are telling the truth and that information simply needs to be updated. WP:OTRS will give you advice on how to document it. — BQZip01 — talk 02:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Just get your friend to email us their permission by filling the sample consent form found at WP:CONSENT and send it to us, then an OTRS ticket, confirming the permission, will be added to the image and all will be well. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Derivative works of sometimes PD works

Wikipedia (but not Commons) allows works to be included here whenever they are in the public domain in the USA (e.g. {{PD-US}}), even in cases where the work isn't free in it's country of origin (see: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).

That's all well and good. Now for the complicated part. How do we tag / identify / process / etc. a work that is a derivative work of something that is public domain in the USA but not elsewhere. For example, suppose I've made a photographic comparison of a street in 1913 Berlin to the same street in modern day. The old image is PD in the US (published pre-1923), but in Germany because the photographer died less than 70 years ago it would still be under copyright. Suppose further that the new image is original, and I would want to license the whole thing CC-BY-SA.

Under US law it would seem that I am entitled to do that. Under German law, it would seem that I would need permission to do that. Since Wikipedia follows US law, it would seem that I am allowed to use the composite work here.

However, how would one tag such an image, and how would one go about warning reusers that it might not be free outside the US? Dragons flight (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe you could just tag the image as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and add a {{Do not move to commons}} tag as well. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 23:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lute Image

Is the Renaissance Lute image in use in Lute from Britannica? Query on the talk page. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 11:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tracing the attributions back it was "MAde by Cezar Mateus" both the lute and the photo. File:Rl1.jpg was where it was originally uploaded with a GFDL. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly wrong copyright expiration tag

File:Earsdon 1910.jpg was, as you might guess, taken in 1910, so I think it's out of copyright in the U.S. But it has a more expansive tag that says it is out of copyright even in countries that specify Life-of-author+100, which isn't true. I'm a novice on image tagging. Matchups 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag has been fixed. For future reference, Wikipedia:File copyright tags is a good place to start to find additional copyright tags. — BQZip01 — talk 02:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-ad

Just wanted to note that I've created a new copyright template at Template:PD-ad based on this conversation. Before it becomes widely used, I thought I'd best get feedback in case there is some nuance I am missing, and you guys seem like the best people to approach about it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem you are going to get hit by is that a lot of adverts use stock images so you have no idea if they actualy are a first publication.©Geni 17:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think, however, that the presumption shifts sufficiently that this is a reasonable way of doing things unless and until challenged. It's unlikely that stock photography would be of sufficient encyclopedic interest that ads that only featuring them end up scanned in, I'd wager, and photographic subjects of interest would most likely include products or personalities directly associated with the announcer. — Coren (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're giving proper weight to the concern raised by Geni. An ad of a brand of milk could include a stock picture of a happy family. How can we know where the picture really came from?
The template is wrong in stating that something is in the public domain due to being "part of an advertisement published in a collective work in the United States prior to 1978 without copyright notice". --Damiens.rf 17:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure that's a valid objection. If the publisher of the ad used a previously published stock photo, where the latter had originally been published with a copyright notice elsewhere, and the original owner of the stock photo wished to maintain their separate copyright on it, would it not have been incumbent on the second publisher to point this out through a proper credit/citation? In the absence of such a citation, would it not be fair to assume that everything contained in the ad was in fact a single work? IANAL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The failure of a reuser (i.e., the ad publisher) to acknowledge the copyright holder does not negate or otherwise impact the copyright. We can certainly make assumptions (or rather, presumptions as Coren said), but what was or was not incumbent upon the publisher is entirely up to their agreement with the stock photo copyright holder, and copyrights aren't like trademarks where the owners have to constantly enforce their rights or lose them. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, but it's reasonable to presume that everything is as it appears absent indication otherwise. There's nothing that protects us from someone placing any erroneous copyright notice on any work, or from giving us permission that are not theirs to give, or from simple error by the person uploading the image. What this template says is that "the argument put forth that this image is in the public domain is legally sound and we have no reason to believe that it is factually incorrect". That's no more, really, than we can say about any image. — Coren (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, I was just pointing out a flaw in Fut.Perf.'s objection to Damiens.rf's objection to your previous comment. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Another problem I foresee is cropped images of advertisements, such that any copyright notices (say on the bottom of the page) have been removed. Unless the uploader has identified and scanned from the original source such that it's obvious it's the entirety of the page in the source, we have no way of verifying just by looking at the image that it was in fact published without a copyright notice. The burden lies with the uploader, and presumptions of a copyright notice missing are just that. This is a highly problematic arena, attempting to declare something free based on speculation. Sure, we could verify an advertisement from the February 1973 edition of LIFE magazine had no copyright notice on it, but how many of us conveniently have access to that edition? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Also please make it clear on the template that the ad is published in the United States. Other countries will have had different rules, eg in Australia an ad published before 1955 will be in public domain, but so are newspapers and other corporate material not attributed to a person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, good point, Graeme! I knew you guys were good people to approach. :D Clarified. Hammersoft, I see your issue and wondered myself how we would verify, but I'm not sure the best way to address that bridging good faith and the lack-of-stupidity that comes of knowing that people will falsify copyright status. :/ Similar problems exist with {{PD-Pre1978}}. Is there a good, balanced way to address that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be traveling for the rest of the week, guys, and will almost certainly not be able to keep up with this. If people decide that the template needs to be modified, I would of course be grateful if you could help out. If you (collectively) decide it may not be usable at all, please do the needful (whether that's deleting it directly or TfDing it). You don't have to wait for me to return, if you were minded to as a courtesy. This is really not my strong point, and I trust your (collective) judgments. :) Do be mindful, though, that there are evidently already a fair number of images uploaded under this presumption; that'll need to be looked into if it should be determined that this advertisement exception to collective works is not reliable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the use of this justification is not new to WP. What brought it to my attention was a question I'd asked here in February and the reply. The file in question was changed as a result of it. Checking just a bit further, I see that the editor who provided it had been using it since at least 2009: File:SWTPC 6800 Computer Oct 1977.jpg File:MITS Calculator 908DM 1974.jpg Have no idea how many others have also used it. We hope (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rank image copyright question

Hey, we've had a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Removing of rank images from rank pages, and we need the expertise of somebody well-versed in the copyright laws of the UK and Sri Lanka. Essentially, we want to make free versions of military rank insignia to avoid concerns of overuse of the fair-use portion of the NFCC. However, we aren't sure if we can redraw them and release them into the PD, or if we would simply be making derivative works that are still copywritten. Since the discussion petered out a couple days ago, I was hoping some experts could visit there and weigh in if we can do this. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Ready for a fun answer? :) It depends. Some of these images probably can't enjoy the protection of copyright anyway. Consider File:SL-Navy-OR7 Fleet Chief Petty Officer.PNG and File:SL-Army-OR5n6 Sergeant.PNG. Chevrons and lines on a background basically. The same or very similar arrangement in rank insignias around the world exist, making any copyright infringement claim that could be made highly dubious to begin with. However, when you start to get into creations such as File:SL-Army-OR9 Warrant Officer Class I.PNG and File:SL-Navy-OR8 Vice Admiral.PNG, they aren't so simple as to be devoid of creativity, and thus are copyrightable. For the ones that are copyrightable, recreation or close copy isn't going to clear the derivative of copyright burdens from the copyright holder of the original. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I am not an expert in U.K. or Sri Lanka copyright laws, but from what I can tell, it definitely is a case of overuse to include the military insignia as a gallery in the cases I saw in that discussion. Like Hammersoft said, an image like File:SL-Army-OF9 General.PNG would be fairly hard to duplicate into a free public domain image. If it contained simple geometric shapes that cannot be copyrighted, then this would be easier, but your image would contain swords and various emblems, which removing would almost serve no purpose. If you can replicate the rank symbols using geometric shapes like circles, cylinders, squares, etc to re-create these rank insignia without the detail, they will most certainly fit Public Domain and you could use them any way you like. However, for images like the one I linked, if you re-create it with the detail in tack, it would be a derivative work. Key here is to create these with as little detail as possible. — Moe ε 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And you'd still run into the problem that if you take an image like File:SL-Army-OF9 General.PNG and somehow create a version that is free, it wouldn't look like the original, thus making its inclusion in an article about Sri Lankan ranks improper as it wouldn't be a rank insignia in that military organization. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's very true. If it looks nothing like the actual emblem then it really doesn't make for a good inclusion into an article about their insignia. As long as you got one or two images like File:SL-Navy-OR7 Fleet Chief Petty Officer.PNG, then you could at least have some images on the article(s) about the insignia. It's better than nothing I suppose. — Moe ε 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, we appear to have a serious case of the red links. — Moe ε 02:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia logo in an image

I'd like for someone to weigh in on File:Moebiusband wikipedia animation.ogg, which uses the Wikipedia logo as the texture of the surface in the animation. Does this mean that the image has to be changed or is this a licensing issue? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Giraffe and the Pelly and Me

how is giraffe pelli and me the same as other roald darl books and how is it different ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.185.216 (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. —teb728 t c 11:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright License

What is a copyright license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJMP617 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A copyright license is permission from a copyright owner to use his or her creative work. —teb728 t c 11:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Company logo sent to me on inquiry

For a article about MATIS Group I wrote an inquiry to the company whether I could use one of their logos for a wikipedia article. They sent me the one I uploaded under File:MATIS_Groupe.jpg per mail and told me that it is OK to be published. So now there is no Internet source I could cite nor can it be found elsewhere in the Internet and the file is tagged for deletion. What to do? Many thanks in advance.

BarbecueAndPanacotta (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I put what you said here in the source parameter. —teb728 t c 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
However, because the logo is composed only of simple graphic shapes and text it is ineligible for copyright and should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}} with the addition of the {{trademark}} tag. Also remove the FUR and instate a normal {{information}} template. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How 2 get my copyright and license in uploading files or photos?

Actually, i've been editing Wikipedia 4 almost 2 ms. In fact, I've already edited more than 15 articles, yet I haven't contributed even 1 photo for editing some articles because of lack of copyright 2 tag a photo. How could I acquire my copyright so I could tag a photo 2 editing an article? Marco Bisnar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco bisnar (talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking how you can upload a picture while still retaining your copyright the general answer is you can't. If you wish to relinquish your copyright on your work you can select an appropriate license when you upload. See Wikipedia:ICTIC#For_image_creators. --NeilN talk to me 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to give away your copyright. If it is a photograph that you yourself have taken then you can use a Creative Commons copyright tag {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. You still keep the copyright but allow other to use it providing they give you a credit.--Aspro (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Aspro is completely correct. I'd just like to add that under this license, you cannot prevent other people/companies from using your image for whatever purpose as long as they give you credit. I've seen some confusion on this point in the past. --NeilN talk to me 13:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
First please tell us Marco: Who took the photograph or where did you find it. Then we can advise you exactly what to do. --Aspro (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears you are referring to File:Davaocity.jpg that you uploaded recently. I found the exact same image on this website but, as with most images found on the internet, that image is copyright and you cannot apply a free copyright licence to any image owned by someone else without their specific permission. If you live in Davao City, you could go out and take a photo yourself or search through the 42 million freely licenced Flickr images here and here. If this is not the image you want information about please let us know. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DOTM Megatron Image

Hi I recently uploaded File:Megatron in Dark of the Moon.png and I can't seem to find the right lisence for it, can someone please put a lisence on the image please as I don't know which would suit it best. Thanks. Dr Eggman12 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The article you're using it on already contains an excessive amount of non-free images. I'd recommend removing it, and tagging it for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi i added the logo of LogicalDOC File:Ldoc_logo.png. Please can you write me what i have to do now to get this file accepted by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I retagged it as non-free logo. Without proof it's free, we have to assume it's non-free. Other than that, the rationale needs to be pointed towards whatever article you're intending on using it on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    That is the worst assessment and statement I've seen in quite some time. First of all (and I've said this before), your claim "Without proof it's free, we have to assume it's non-free." is your opinion, not policy, no matter how much you want it to be or how much you claim it to be true (feel free to prove me wrong). That logo consists entirely of letters and an arrow which are all explicitly mentioned as something that cannot be copyrighted. It is quite clearly {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademarked}} and I've changed it accordingly. Please stop editing as if your personal desires and opinions are policy. — BQZip01 — talk 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    @Sprmw7, BQZip01 has fixed it up correctly for you.
    @BQZip01, please read WP:AGF. The uploader’s post contained a “Fair use” section, which seemed to be intended as an explanation of why the logo was free. (Although we know that fair use and free use are distinct, the fair use section was inserted in the same edit as an attempt at a free logo tag.) Given that Hammersoft didn’t notice that the logo was uncopyrightable, and given the uploader’s post, Hammersoft’s reply was reasonable. Indeed, if the logo had been copyrightable, his explanation would have been a good one. —teb728 t c 23:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    And that is a problem I have with Hammersoft's edits and views which he treats as if they are policy; he is a veteran editor who actively and repeatedly ignores details (this isn't the first time). — BQZip01 — talk 06:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

copyright photo add

Hello, I am an intern for a company that would like to have a Wikipedia entry created for them, I am trying to figure hou how to add their logo to the info box without making it a public image. They have a copyright on the image but I have their permission to use it on their wiki page. How would I go aobut adding the picture? Mr.Gaebrial (talk)Mr.Gaebrial —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

You can't. We don't accept any kind of Wikipedia-only permission. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
However, it depends on what you mean by "a public image". You can upload an image to Wikipedia without placing it in the public domain. In the case of a corporate logo, the image could be uploaded to Wikipedia under "fair use" guidelines. See Wikipedia:Logos for more details. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I provided a tag and non-free use rationale for File:IDV Solutions logo.jpg.png, assuming you are correct that they have a copyright on it. Other people, however, may think that it is to simple to have a copyright. BTW, I am confused by the filename: Is it a jpg or a png? —teb728 t c 22:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:COI. Because you work for IDV Solutions, you have a conflict of interest with regard to Wikipedia's article about them; you really shouldn't edit it yourself. If you have any suggestions or requests for article content, please feel free to post them at Talk:IDV Solutions, and neutral editors will consider them. —teb728 t c 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you can edit, but you need to be careful about doing so. Make sure it meets our criteria for inclusion and neutrality and you can write it. Please contact me on my talk page if you need assistance. I'll be happy to help. — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

adding copyright

Can't seem to get the copyright added to a picture that has been added to a friends page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leicapic (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not need a copyright notice; we need documentation that the picture, which is already copyrighted under current law, has been licensed for public use under a license which we can accept. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I replaced your attempted tag with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} in File:Aaron Elkins, author.jpg. It still needs evidence of permission. —teb728 t c 23:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload a pic of a book for an article?

The book name is called "Time Bomb," and I need it for an article I'm making for the book. Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are asking about an image of the book cover, yes. When you are ready to publish your draft, upload the image, tagging it with {{non-free book cover}} and using {{book cover fur}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 22:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
K. Thank you. Booyahhayoob (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Upload photos to new Wiki user article

I am a user, working on my first article and I want to upload photo images I took and I own related to my subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraartistmgnt (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for a place to upload, go to WP:Upload Booyahhayoob (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually you need to be an autoconfirmed user before you can make uploads. This happens after you have had an account for four days and have made at least 10 edits. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY(-SA) images on Commons

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but merely out of curiosity, if an image is uploaded to Commons from Flickr and licensed BY or BY-SA, are any professional media outlets allowed to use this image in their articles, including journals, magazines, etc? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If an image is licensed CC-BY, any publisher could reproduce the image as long as they attribute the author. Ditto for CC-BY-SA, as long as they acknowledge the ShareAlike license. I'm not sure what uploading to Commons has to do with it. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right, Commons thing had nothing to do with it; I was thinking merely in terms of using Commons as a means of searching for images. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Text previously self-published elsewhere

There's a copyright question at User talk:John Tewkesbury which I'm not competent to answer.

The text at User:John Tewkesbury is a reworked copy of a piece previously published by the Tewkesbury Historical Society - see the contributor's explanation at EAR. Comparing the email address accidentally posted here and at the bottom of this THS web page, it's clear that John Tewkesbury (talk · contribs) is the president of the THS.

What is the next question to ask him? Could an expert please join in the thread at User talk:John Tewkesbury? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the problem is. Is it licensed under a license compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0? If so, I should think it would be acceptable like any other text (and subject to modification like any other text); for attribution I should think a source note on the talk page would be adequate. If it is not licensed that way, I should think it would be subject to NFCC—particularly NFCC#1; so it would need to be rewritten as free text (assuming the rewritten text would serve the same encyclopedic purpose). You also mentioned there that it has issues of being original research and non-encyclopedic, but those are not copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 18 May 2011
I'll explain the procedures for verifying permission. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Usual caveat: even if the copyright issue is resolved, the tone of the text may still be unsuitable for Wikipedia for a variety of reasons... – ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt

I have used this image in the RAF Northolt article - File:RAF Northolt aerial view 1917.jpg - under the non-free Crown Copyright licencing as it came from a book produced by the Royal Air Force under Crown Copyright. It has been suggested that as it was most likely to have been produced by the British government in 1917, it actually qualifies for {{PD-BritishGov}} instead. Is this correct, or should it remain under Crown Copyright? Harrison49 (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-BritishGov}} is more specific as it let people know that 1) it is UK and 2) copyright has expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Harrison49 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, as the image is freely licenced it does not need a fair-use rationale; I have replaced it. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps

Hello Everyone :)

I was just wondering, would I be allowed to upload a screenshot from Google Maps? The picture is for the Westfield Southland article. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Google maps have too many restrictions on use to be free. But you can use openstreetmap [1] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Does Opensteetmap have sattelite imagery?...if not nevermind, thank you anyway :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me)
I was going to point you at [2] No satellite imagery, but you can use landsat images which come from NASA. It is just that resolution is likely too low for a shopping centre. An aerial photo is also a possibility. But I have only taken photos further to the east and north. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking to Suzuki America B-Roll video redux

Please forgive me for going on and on about this, but one of the respondents above is not experienced in copyright, so I'd like to continue examining this question. Let me come at this question from another angle, and then maybe we can eventually understand that this video is free of copyright and free to use. Therefore, it should be free to link to from a WP article. New tack: Is it permissible to link to a video B-roll without bringing up the copyright question? For the people here, a B-roll refers to footage provided free of charge to broadcast news organizations as a means of gaining free publicity. For example, an automobile maker might shoot a video of its assembly line, hoping that segments will be used in stories about the new model year. B-roll sometimes makes its way into stock footage libraries (and therefore free to pass around from one user to another). This B-roll has been around for at least 15 years, and it's labelled as a "B-roll" at the beginning of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6_1o_FxsNs&feature=related . However, in this question I am asking about the video as a B-roll, not as a "free for commercial use" video. In other words, this video states in different ways that the world can use it for whatever purpose, but this question is just from the B-roll perspective. Thanks! Santamoly (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any legal principle that says that b-roll footage is not subject to copyright law like anything else. Just seeing that this B-roll includes an explicit permission statement ("permission is granted to use excerpt for commercial broadcast or print") is enough to persuade me that the producer does not consider it completely free of copyright. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

PD-Pre1978 and PD-US-no notice

{{PD-Pre1978}} and {{PD-US-no notice}} are currently very similar. I think {{PD-Pre1978}} is not a good name. {{PD-US-no notice}} should cover until March 1, 1989. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they could be combined (or rather just redirect pre1978 to no notice), but I don't think that expanding it to include 1978-1989 is a good idea, because during that time span works could be published without a copyright notice but then registered later, so there's a lot more research required to establish a presumption of PD status. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really so much. The US copyright office has a list of all copyrights since 1978 available online. Simply type in a key word and browse away. That said, I think we need to revamp these tags so they better align with the actual PD exception they fall under. I think it would be best to create a new tag ({{PD-US-1989}}, label {{PD-Pre1978}} as recently considered deprecated, and start replacing all instances of either with the proper tags (this could take a while). Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 02:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
If the two are merged, one should become a redirect, because god help us if we have to swap them out by hand. I suppose we could use a bot or a small army of users with AWB, but still... Sven Manguard Wha? 07:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Pre1978 could simply be redirected to no notice, just as {{PD-Pre1964}} was redirected to {{PD-US-not renewed}} (making sure to also avoid double redirects from {{PD-pre-1978}} and {{PD-pre1978}}). I also think it's good to leave 1989 as a separate template, because the rules are different (which I'm pleased to see are explicitly laid out in the template) and oftentimes it's a matter of picking the appropriate keyword to search for: e.g. was it registered by the author, the publication, the company that owns the publication, or some other party and only findable via the title or in some other manner. Are there any objections to redirecting (and then sorting out documentation and categories, of course)? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to any options and will roll with consensus (provided it doesn't go stupid...then I'll just voice my objections). — BQZip01 — talk 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I like {{PD-US-1989}}, and agree it should remain separate, and agree with Pre1978 being redirected to PD-US-no-notice. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

please help me

I upload logo of vitoria riboque i dont know how to add copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah44 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is logo File:Vitoria_Riboque.jpg photo is property of club today created —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah44 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Being an organisation's logo, and as you confirm above it belongs to the club, so it is a non-free image and needs to be tagged as such with a fully completed fair-use rationale that complies with all 10 non-free content criteria, none of which has been done. The other problem is that you added a creative commons licence without there being any way for us to check that is true; you have not provided any link we can follow and there is no evidence of permission to use that licence. We can add a fair-use rationale for you if you don't know how but we require a proper source. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
For whatever it may be worth, this logo it is clearly derivative of File:Vitória F.C. logo.svg (the logo of the parent Vitória de Setúbal FC), which is non-free. —teb728 t c 09:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Policy on non-US "freedom of panorama" issues

Can somebody update me on our current practices regarding issues of lack of "freedom of panorama" in foreign countries of origin please. If I take a photograph of a modern copyrighted work of architecture, in a country where such photographs, according to local law, would be considered to be derivatives under the copyright of the architect (e.g. France), but in a way that would be free according to the "freedom of panorama" rules of the US, and if I then publish that photograph in the US (e.g. by posting it on Wikipedia): does US law still protect the foreign copyright, or can I validly release it?

I know, of course, that Commons rejects such images, because they insist an image must be free both in the US and in the country of origin (see commons:Commons:FOP).

The issue is that if we take the same stance as Commons and refuse to accept these as free files, we could then accept non-free alternatives (e.g. non-free photographs published by the architect). If we take the stance that free self-made photographs are possible, non-free files are out. Currently an issue here.

{{AutoReplaceable fair use buildings}} does list among possible NFCC reasons "that the building is located in a country where photographs of buildings are considered derivative of the building's copyright", so it would appear we should reject the free files. But I've seen at least one fellow administrator here on en-wiki rejecting a deletion tag in such a case with the argument that only US law counts here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama should cover your issue, but it does not, so if you get an answer it should be included in that essay. On Wikipedia you can have the image with a fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... that essay actually implies that images from countries with more liberal laws than the US might be kept on Commons but not on Enwiki. But that can hardly be true, if Commons requires conformity with both laws and Enwiki only with those in the US. The inverse situation, with images from countries with less liberal laws, is not covered in the essay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The FOP rules apply to where the photograph was taken, not who takes it; otherwise, as implied, photographers from liberal FOP nations can grab all these "free" images of copyrighted buildings/artwork from a more restrictive country, come back and publish them as free, breaking the copyright. This would follow with how we deal with PD images: it is based on the country the image originated from, not US PD laws (unless, of course, we have no idea where the original work was taken). --MASEM (t) 12:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
And to that specific image: if Phillipine law is 25 years from completion, with no FOP, and it was finished in 2000, that means that no one in the world can take a free photo of it until 2025, and thus for NFCC's replacability, it's impossible to replace at this time. The non-free image should stay, the Commons version deleted. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

clarification re usage permission requirements listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Varroa_on_larvae.jpg#filehistory

[:File:Varroa_on_larvae.jpg]

I am confused as to the permission requirements I believe I am to list attibution - yet cannot find a person/organistion to attibute it to. Is this picture a wiki picture? or does in belong to "pollinator" who does not seem to have an info...

Many thanks [email protected]

According to the file history, the image was taken by Wikimedia Commons user Pollinator. That is probably how you should credit the image. If you can include a link back to the original file, that would be even better. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons images

Hello, I'd like to upload a couple of images to illustrate the articles Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Sylph (Dungeons & Dragons). I haven't done anything like this before, and need some advice on how to do it properly and avoid getting the images deleted for copyright reasons. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. As you would be uploading images of what we call non free content, it's important that the image meets a few criteria, it needs to be relevant, low resolution, list the source of the image and an appropriate copyright tag, and would help to add to the understanding of the article. There also needs to be no free equivalent of the image. I see you want to upload a few images, would you like to post a link to one of the images so I can upload it for you, to give you an example of how it's done? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've set up a site where you can see the examples here. They're both erotic, but only contain mild nudity - they're not XXX, hard-core porn sort of stuff. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The images themselves look OK, but where did they originally come from? A different website, a book? It's important for when we upload the images, to state where they originally came from. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I scanned them; they're from the original hardback edition of the AD&D Monster Manual. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you able to get more information on the book, author, roughly when it was written? Then we can upload them. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Written by Gary Gygax, published 1977. Members of the D&D Wikiproject should be able to give as much information as needed if asked. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Have done one of them, see File:Lamia Dungeons & Dragons.jpg. As I know very little about the subject, I have left the description blank, you will need to fill that in. Feel free to copy the template for the other image, just make sure you use a descriptive filename. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Website linked to above will now be deleted as having served its purpose. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Query and Request

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am a Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India actively engaged in teaching and research in the area of CAD/CAM and Manufacturing Engg for the past 30 years.

I have been writing a textbook on Computer Graphics and Product Modeling for CAD/CAM for the Senior UG and Graduate students and practicing engineers. I wanted to include a Figure to explain the concept of projections. viz some classical paintings from artist who had used the technique of perspective projection I am listing below the url for the Fig. for your kind reference which I have taken from Wikipaedia.

File:Piazza_San_Marco_with_the_Basilica,_by_Canaletto,_1730._Fogg_Art_Museum,_Cambridge.jpg

May I request you to kindly accord permission for the use of this Fig for the purpose of inclusion in the Textbook. I have included the relevant reference to the Wikipaedia and the url below the Fig. In case you wish that I use some other similar Fig / painting , kindly arrange to send me the same.Any guidance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.

Awaiting your kind reply.

Best regards

Sincerely

Prof. S. S. Pande Mechanical Eng. Dept. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.23.4 (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually because the image is hosted on the Wikimedia Commons you should really read commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Suzuki America v. Consumer Reports

The following link is Part 1 of 6 videos published as one video by Suzuki America during their lawsuit with Consumer Reports:

Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6_1o_FxsNs&feature=related

15 seconds into the video, it states clearly, in print on screen: "Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print". After the lawsuit was settled, Suzuki America took down the video and it's now on YouTube. Part of the lawsuit settlement was that neither party would discuss the issue. Is it permissible to link to the video from a WP article on this subject? Santamoly (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You can link to YouTube videos as long the link is appropriate for the article. For instance, if the article is about graphite pencils, you shouldn't link to a video of someone writing with a pencil. If the article is about a famous video clip, then it is appropriate to link to that clip as long as the clip has not been uploaded in violation of a copyright. For more information, see Wikipedia:YOUTUBE.-RHM22 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there a means of determining whether or not the upload is in violation of a copyright? The question that an answer is needed for is how the notice at the beginning of the video impacts the legality of it being uploaded to YouTube. Can you give an insight on this, or direct us to the correct noticeboard if this not the the correct one? ThatSaved (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As I read the above comments, the copyright issue has been settled by the statement "Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print". That is, you do not need to go beyond the four corners of the release in order to prove that the release is genuine. If the release is wrong, it will be yanked by YouTube promptly, and that will be the end of it. The videos have been sitting out there in one form or another for 15 years, with no reaction. The comment by RHM22 sums it up: It is permissible to link to YouTube videos as long as the link relates to the topic. RHM22 is assuming that if the release is fraudulent, YouTube will yank the videos. YouTube is policing copyright on YouTube. The videos are not being hosted by Wikipedia - they are on YouTube. The consensus, here and elsewhere, appears to be that no other legal verification is required in order to point out (a) that the videos exist, and (b) they can be accessed via a link held within a Wikipedia article. If this is not so, please show me where it says otherwise. Santamoly (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
"the copyright issue has been settled by the statement 'Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print'".
This statement is very different from saying the ENTIRE video, in whole or in divided, can be uploaded to a hosting site. Furthermore, the disclaimer was created before the existence of YouTube, so how it relates to this medium is not obvious.
"If the release is wrong, it will be yanked by YouTube promptly, and that will be the end of it”.
This is blatant nonsense. One only need look at the huge number of copyrighted popular music, movies, TV programs, etc on the site to realize that your statement is false. YouTube will remove a video if the copyright holder has given it notice and YouTube’s investigations concludes that there is a copyright violation. There is nothing prompt about it, there are copyright violataions that have existed on the site for years.
“The videos have been sitting out there in one form or another for 15 years, with no reaction."
Consider the possiblity that the MySpace containing these videos was deleted BECAUSE it was a copyright violation. Also, 'no reaction' does not equal no copyright violation.
“That is, you do not need to go beyond the four corners of the release in order to prove that the release is genuine.”
From WP:VIDEO LINKS "Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source."
“The consensus, here and elsewhere, appears to be that no other legal verification is required in order to point out (a) that the videos exist, and (b) they can be accessed via a link held within a Wikipedia article. If this is not so, please show me where it says otherwise."
In addition to what was mentioned above, WP:VIDEO LINKS says "Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not verifiably uploaded by the copyright holder. Editors should not link to these violations. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Along with potential contributory copyright infringement concerns, it also may be difficult to determine if video hosted by sites such as YouTube are modified from the original. Linking to videos on these sites can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission
From WP:YOUTUBE "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations."
From WP:ELNEVER "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.". Italics were used in the original statement.
From The Perennial Website subpage of External Links: "Videos from "official channels," like the United States' Naval History & Heritage Command, are more likely to be accepted than other links." "Videos must be carefully screened for copyright violations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSaved (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, consider the copyright concern raised when the subject was discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard


I suggest we link to the videos but tag the article until we can determine there is no violation. ThatSaved (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're being overly alarmist. There may be a place for that, but the issue has been exhausted here. A prima facie copyright release is contained in the video, and the release is a blanket release, irrespective of the variety of media possibilities. The release is displayed clearly and it is valid until the end of time. As you say in your remarks above,"Linking to videos on these sites can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." That's the end of it. The release shown in the video qualifies as "permission". Further, you've quoted WP:ELNEVER that "due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright". Everyone involved has taken due care to avoid linking to a copyright violation. With such obvious prima facie evidence within the video, you will need to provide an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence in order to support your thesis that we ought not link to this video. Santamoly (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should and does take copyright issues very seriously. The idea that the objections raised here are in any way excessive is nonsense. You've made several specious claims without offering any evidence. The notice at the beginning of the video granting permission to use excerpts does not permit its ENTIRE contents to be uploaded to a video hosting site any more than a similar notice appearing at the beginning of a book allowing excerpts to be used in reviews would permit a newspaper to serialize the entire book. Furthermore, you've offered nothing to support your contentions that the notice relates to a medium that was little though of, if it even existed, at the time the notice given or that it is valid until the end of time. The fact that this video has already been removed from one hosting site is circumstantial evidence that it is indeed a copyright violation, as is the fact that it is not available on through any news organization including the automotive press. The only entities appearing to take advantage of this 'blanket release' you claim are anonymous users on video sharing and social media sites notorious for containing copyrighted material.
You've ignored all the good practice suggestions and wiki guidelines mentioned above. Instead, you've attempt to reverse the burden of proof and to extrapolate a limited release notice into a free license. This method does not improve the encyclopedia, nor does the use of material obtained from such a method.
I'll repeat my suggestion. Link to the videos, but tag the article until it is determined there is no violation. ThatSaved (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The video appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by someone who isn't the copyright owner. I think it's therefore wise to assume, unless proven otherwise, that it's a copyright violation, and therefore covered by WP:ELNEVER. Wikipedia should not link to it. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the following query which addresses the same issue from another angle. This video identifies itself as a B-roll, which is stock footage donated to the news media with no conditions. News media are encouraged to pass B-roll clips to anybody who might make use of the content. You can read about it at B-roll. Regardless, B-roll clips appear to be free to use just as Public domain clips are free to use. 66.183.222.222 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Mitsubishi Motors has broadcast B-Roll delivery site on iTunes. [3] A notice there reads:
"This footage is for unrestricted broadcast and selected internet journalist use only. Mitsubishi Motors North America retains all rights to this video. Any infringement is punishable by law. Copyright: Mitsubishi Motors North America 2008"
This contradicts several of the claims you have made. ThatSaved (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's public domain law

Regarding the File:Persian Gulf by Gamal Abdel Nasser.jpg there was a discussion in FFD. Egypt's Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002 states that there is no copyright protection for "Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence." Now the question is that isn't a sitting president's sealed/stamped letter, an official document of the state? The term used in that law to describe those items is "such as" which is language used to cite examples, not to set a condition of exclusivity. So my reading is that other official documents like the sitting president's sealed/stamped letter also can be considered as an official document. What is your opinion on this matter? --Wayiran (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I've made my opinion clear that it doesn't count, on the FFD. The common property of the document types described in the law is that they represent authoritative decisions that create and define legal obligations, and need to be able to be cited as such; that's why they are free. A mere letter doesn't have a legal function of that sort. Incidentally, in the present case, your description of the document as a "president's sealed/stamped letter" is wrong. This isn't a letter; it's a telegram. It wasn't physically written and signed by him; it was physically written by an employee of the private cable company at the other end of the cable transmission. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually this is Nasser's own hand-writing which includes his signature, the sources also confirm this. (It's an outgoing copy of the telegram, technically a letter) --Wayiran (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Sources please? I find this unlikely, because it bears the stamp of the "Cable and Wireless" company in Bahrain, the location of the addressee. This appears to be the typical form of a received telegram, with the filled-out boxes for "clerk's name" and "time received" in the header. (You can see a clearer copy of another identical telegram form, from the same time period and cable company, here, for instance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I researched this issue for the last two days. This is not an outgoing telegraph, What misled me was the Nasser signature in Arabic at the bottom, which I still don't understand how it got there, but you're indeed correct. Therefore, I have no objections to the deletion. Thanks for clearing this up. --Wayiran (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Even if the telegram had been a sealed/stamped letter, it would have been totally unlike the enumerated official documents, which all carry the force of law —teb728 t c 09:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not a personal letter or something. A letter written in an official capacity, from a head of state to another diplomat, is by definition an official document. Not all official documents carry the force of law. That's a different concept. --Wayiran (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Irrespective of Egyptian law, the Cable & Wireless form was likely designed and maybe even produced in the UK but is made up of plain text and shapes so that cannot be copyright and the rest of the text was filled in by a clerk upon receipt, so just like an ordinary letter, does not obtain any copyright being just plain text too. Keep, revise information and licence to {{PD-ineligible}}. ww2censor (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

composite picture

Hi, a user has added this picture, I have had a small discussion with them as seen User_talk:Acnaren#Arunachala_Nithya_acnaren_2010.jpg - I have the feeling from the users comments that there is no evidence of permission and that the user can't release the pic under a commons license without it? Off2riorob (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Because this image is a composite of two images, both images that make up the composite would have to have been released under the Creative Commons license. However, I assume if they had two different licenses, either a) The most restrictive license would apply or b) The image would have to be deleted. Most likely the latter. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting and clarifying that Steven. I will tag if for evidence of permission request or seven days deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all. Glad to help. :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Barrells Hall

Hi

I tried to add one of the photographs I took of Barrells Hall, but it says I need to tag it?

Tedzwedz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedzwedz (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You have already uploaded it to the commons as commons:File:Barrells Hall March 2011.jpg, so I have tagged this one File:Barrells Hall - March 2011.jpg for deletion because you have properly tagged the one on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Logo of Hardcore techno

Hi,

This logo represents the Gabber music:

http://static01.dernek.ba/grupe/galerija/412471-795-89493-604390Hardcore_logo.JPG

But the image is probably copyrighted. Has somebody sources about this information? Please, tell me if there is a better place to ask this question. Ftiercel (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That logo is made up of a simple font and, even stylized in that manner, cannot be copyrighted, so as far as I'm aware, the logo is free to use. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo of front page of newspaper

Is this a copyright violation? doomgaze (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly, because the Flickr uploader does not hold the copyright of the newspaper, so any photo he, or anyone else, takes of that front page is a derivative work. Therefore he can only give his permission to use the photo itself but the underlying work is still copyright, so his derivative work must also acknowledge that newspaper's copyright, strictly speaking making the image non-free. Even if it was used under the fair-use claim, it would fail because the prose in the article CTB v News Group Newspapers clearly explains what is on the newspaper, so it would fail WP:NFCC#8. You can always get additional input by bringing it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review.ww2censor (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Painting with original (three-dimensional) frame

Resolved
 – – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg has a frame that is, according to our article at Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?), a part of the artist's painting. The artist even painted on the frame to make the inscription look carved. I am not an expert on this—I will point one or more knowledgeable users to this discussion should they have anything to add—but I am assuming the frame dates back to 1433, when the painting was created. Is there any special PD tag that needs to be used here? Presumably, the YorckProject PD tag, which specifically states, "art depicted in this image", could cover the licensing for the frame, correct? But the PD-Art tag refers to a two-dimensional artwork, hence my confusion. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 10:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To be more correct, according to Johnbod's note at commons:File_talk:Portrait_of_a_Man_in_a_Turban_(Jan_van_Eyck)_without_frame.jpg, the entire piece of artwork is a solid block of wood and, if I understand correctly, the painting is actually painted on the wood itself. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 11:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Here it is at the National Gallery [4]. Actually I was wrong to say it is all one piece of wood; that is a different painting. But the frame is original and painted by van Eyck; it is the frame that has his signature & date. The NG show an image including the frame, which they don't normally do. I think this makes the whole thing outside Corel-Bridgeman. Whether a cropped version just showing the flat panel can then be PD under Corel-Bridgeman I don't know. If it doesn't work for commons the best image with frame should be kept here. The painting is shown in many articles. The photographic copyright on the Yorck project version may well have expired. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Dcoetzee took care of it. If the entire painting is two-dimensional, then there's no issue. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The whole thing sorted itself out, so I'm tagging as resolved. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for images of living people

For use of images for living people, can Facebook images like these be accepted? Or can pictures from pages like Baidu (which have a creative common license) be used? Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks!--Lionratz (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The images on Facebook are copyrighted; so that's a definite no. As to Baidu: that would depend on exactly which creative common license they are under. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We require evidence of the copyright status of all images uploaded and Baidu pages have a copyright notice on their pages so if you claim the images have a creative commons licence you will have to show where that evidence is. I cannot see it anywhere, even on the image's own page. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote for editors like yourself. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the User rights link (权利声明) at the "© 2011 Baidu 权利声明" section. And on that page, there is this section "百度百科的用户在百度百科上发布的内容引用自CC协议" (All information put up by Baidu users uses the CC license) and even included a link to the CC page in China. And on point 7, they mentioned that you may use the media (without sound) like pictures or logos if you are not using it for commercial purposes, do not change it without Baidu's permission and attribute it back to them. Therefore, it is counted?--Lionratz (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Based on your reply, it appears the Creative Commons licence of the Baidu image is a non-commercial non-derivative licence but unfortunately we don't accept either of those restrictive licences because it is not free enough for us. Here are the list of acceptable CC licences. ww2censor (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

copyright

I created both of the images I uploaded but i think I chose the wrong tag to place within the description...I need some help getting these things write or it will get deleted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceepub (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you have uploaded three images: File:Jae Performing.jpg has no copyright status nor source, author or date of image; nothing. File:Jae E Enters Hyatt.JPG has an attempt at adding a fair-use claim but we don't accept fair-use images of living people and also requires all the missing details mentioned above. File:FASTMONEYARTWORK.jpg is an album cover which we usually only allow in articles about the album itself and not in the article about the performer. Unless you can provide acceptable suitable information about these images they will be deleted. We require images to be freely licenced and there is no evidence of that. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that this user has been blocked, as it was a role account for Jae E's publicity company, Icee Publicity. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

License Question

I have a photo (original) given to my grandfather (Richard Chapman) that was taken aboard a cruse liner (Cunard) in 1951.

Cunard is British-American company.

The back of the photo has a stamp that says:

Cunard Line Photo By W.A. No Charge For

I want to post this photo, which I own, on his Wikipedia profile.

In terms of a licensing "tag", what category would this fall under?

Thanks in advance!! RchapmanIII (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither ownership or possession of a photo confers any right to copyright of the image. That remains with the person/organisation who created it unless they specifically gave up or sold that right. So, while the image was not charged for by the shipping line, they probably still own the copyright. On the basis that we don't know who the WA, noted on the back of the photo is, we can possibly consider it made by an unknown person, in which case UK copyright would, also assuming it is an unpublished work, have a copyright period of 70 years after creation, i.e., 2021, or "if it was never made available to the public" then the copyright expires in 2039, per UK Commons:Commons:Licensing#Ordinary copyright. On the other hand, if US copyright applies then, "works created but not published before January 1, 1978 are protected for 95 years for anonymous or pseudonymous works, per Commons:Commons:Licensing#United States making it still copyright until 2046. Either way it looks like you are out of luck. Because he is family, perhaps you have a family photo that can be freely licenced to use in the article. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we upload an image to the Anamorphosis page, in the "Anamorphosis in Popular Culture" section?

This is our own photograph taken of our own anamorphic art. Lots of instructions are out there, but none seems appropriate for this situation. Please help with clear, concise directions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrna Hoffman (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered here[5]. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and discussion pages by putting ~~~~ at the end of them. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Y2K – World in Crisis Image

I am trying to upload an image to File:Y2K_Hosts_in_digital_sets.jpg for the article Y2K – World in Crisis at: [6]. It is of a screenshot sent me by the creator of the series, Warren Chaney. I believe it qualifies for fair use and is of low resolution. However, if need be - I can obtain permission. I thought I had answered all relevant questions but continue to get "need info" comments. After several attempts, I was afraid I may be making matters worse, hence the request for help. Thank you very much. Sinclairindex Sinclairindex (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

All the information is there but not the picture. Normally the picture is uploaded first and then the info templates are added by filling in the boxes on the screen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It’s strange that the log shows the file was uploaded, but it is not visible. The purpose section of the non-free use rationale does not indicate how the use is supposed to significantly increase reader understanding of the article as required by WP:NFCC#8. Without seeing the screenshot it is difficult to guess what such a purpose would be. —teb728 t c 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I finally figured out the problem and was able to load the image. I suspect that the problem was me, not the system. I appreciate the help. Sinclairindex (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

problems in uploading an image file

I have all the times problems in uploading an image file. Wikipedia is not co-operating me at all. I dont know why?Krantmlverma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

Could you explain the problem a bit more so we can help you?  ajmint  (talk•edits) 19:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your image files are faithful copies of someone else's work; the fact that the originals are in your possession does not give you the right to make copies of them. Your files have no description or source. The original works look old, but since you give us no information about them, we cannot determine if they are in the public domain. So that is the reason they get marked for deletion. —teb728 t c 10:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy of a copy question

A book has a photo of an old painting in it. If I was to scan just the photo of the painting, what sort of copyright issues arise and what tags would be appropriate? I'm assuming that the artist is no longer alive but presumably the author/puiblisher of the book might have some copyright on the image. I presume that "worst case" would under fair use provided a satisfactory fair use claim could be made. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it sounds like the book is not adding to the copyright, so a scan of the picture of the painting is the same as for the painting. You should look for a picture credit, or find out the creator of the original painting so as to work out if it is really public domain or not. We cannot use it just because it may be old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be something like that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

email site (permissions-commonswikimedia.org) not working

I am attempting to have permissions sent of several images used in two articles but the company forward the permissions states that the permission address (permissions-commonswikimedia.org) fails to go through - always returning an "error" message. I tried with an email and also received an error message.

Is there an alternate email site that they may use? If so, I will forward it to them.

Thanks, Sinclairindex (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Email addresses require an @ symbol, so try [email protected] Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Ww2censor,
She (the production company) said that did it.
Many thanks,
Sinclairindex (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright licensing, can you help me with that?

File:Shia-labeouf-mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Um, yeah, Shia LaBeouf's mug shot will be deleted in a matter of days, and I don't know how to get the license, I mean, I got the picture from Google, so if that helps tell me. So contact me as soon as possible about all this and hit me back as soon as you can. Thanks.RoadHouse (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. As I see it, the image looksto be copyrighted by the website it is listed on, or at least, there is no evidence the image has been released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. While in some instances copyrighted images can be used on wikipedia, as this is an article about a living person, copyrighted images of the person , unless being used to demonstrate some of their work (e.g, an image of Daniel Radcliffe portraying Harry Potter) cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. Sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) What makes you think it is a mug shot? (It doesn't look like one.) And what makes you think that Wikipedia has any right to use it? (We have no right to use most stuff you find on the internet.) —teb728 t c 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Smoking Gun attributes the photo to the Chicago Police Department as a "mugshot" but there is no copyright status, so without that it should be deleted. TMZ Credits The Smoking Gun for acquisition of the mugshot from the Chicago PD. ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

School hymn copyright question

The people at help desk pointed me to here. The question is at WP:Help desk#School hymn copyright. Moray An Par (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be getting an answer at WP:Help desk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Personality rights question

An IP user recently removed File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg from the article Point of view pornography and expressed concerns about a) the age of the person depicted, and b) the consent of the person depicted. Regarding the age of the one performing, it seems borderline (although other opinions would be welcome). However, is the person depicted's explicit permission necessary for a use of the file, or should we keep using it (as long as the person depicted is of legal age) per WP:NOTCENSORED? Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I am not sure where to go; User:Fetchcomms suggested I go here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If the person(s) can be identified then consent from them is required if picture is taken in a private place. see commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. commons:Commons:Nudity covers what it suggests, and commons:Commons:What Commons is not describes things that should not be here. The age of the people involved could affect if the image is legal or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't consider it identifiable due to the poor angle, but somebody, somewhere would consider the person "personally identifiable" (at the very least the author could identify her). Okay, I'll keep it out of the article for now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Chandra Shekhar Azad/Daredevil's Death

File:Pistol of Azad2699.jpeg Please let me know under what licensing re-use I can upload this file.Krantmlverma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) The person died in 1931 his pistol in kept in the Allahabad Museum. I have taken it's image from a photo published in some of the book published long ago. It's author Ram Krishna khatri had presented this book to me. That book is in my own library.Krantmlverma (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the pistol is a useful object who owned it or designed it is irrelevant, but the person taking the picture for the book is. THe book should have a picture credit and it may be that Ram Krishna khatri owns the copyright. In any case you owning the book does not grant you any kind of copyright on the book or pictures in it. It will be important to know when and where the book was published to tell when it becomes public domain. But I suspect that copyright will still apply and that we cannot use the picture freely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Copying text from a Wikipedia article to be paste on a fan-based wiki?

I am helping to make a wiki all about "Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective". I am thinking about copying the article about "Sissel (Ghost Trick)" and pasting it into the "Sissel" article on the Ghost Trick Wiki. My question is "Is this action okay for me to do?" Please answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiiGuy999 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You are permitted to use the content subject to the conditions of the cc-by-sa-3.0 or GFDL license. The simplest way is to apply a credit of your quote with a hyperlink back to the article and the license, but the full explanation is at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Haley Reinhart

Hi there! I was just wandering if I can put an image of Haley Reinhart for her profile on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiponi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have one that you took yourself or which is licensed under a free license? —teb728 t c 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My own picture

Hi there, I made a page a few years ago for Mathias Anderle...adding a photograph that I took of him which was removed because I didn't do it right or whatever. I am trying to figure out how to add another photo and it's very confusing to me. I just uploaded a more recent photo to the "commons" but I don't know how to tag it as a picture that I took and am willing to share with the world. I saw something earlier about that but after spending about an hour looking for the instructions I cannot find them again. If someone can help I would appreciate it. I am not computer/internet savvy so please explain it in kindergarten terms if you can.

Thanks,

Martha (gohuskies77) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohuskies77 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your current {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} tagging of File:Mathias1.jpg looks good. But the photo has a lot of white space that should be cropped off. —teb728 t c 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I cropped it for you. —teb728 t c 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

For countries, such as the Philippines, which doesn't have freedom of panorama, does it extend to the interior of the building? Say the facade of the opera house cannot be uploaded here as a free image due to lack of FOP, but can a photo took by myself of a musical performance inside the opera house itself be free? Moray An Par (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the photo show an (architectural or other) creative work? Freedom of panorama is an exeption to copyright protection, but there is no such exception in the Philippines. But do I guess correctly that the musical performance is a performace of an opera? If so, the performance would be copyrighted by the opera company and/or the designers and performers. I would say that such a performance would be protected even in a country with freedom of panorama? —teb728 t c 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That was just hypothetical. Actually, this is the image itself. A prominent Filipino senator speaking before a student body. The auditorium is fairly new (completed in 2006). I was planning to include it to a university article's student life section since the auditorium is the venue of many plays and musical performances. I am still in the process of convincing the uploader to release the image in a CC license. That's why I asked here if this would be covered by copyright protection due to the lack of FOP. Thanks. Moray An Par (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the image only includes a small part of the interior, and it is just incidental to the photo, it would be hard for someone to claim a copyright infringement on that picture. However the picture is unsuitable because of the watermark. It is also not a good photo of Miriam Defensor Santiago as you only see her back. So what educational value does the image bring? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I plan on cropping it to remove the sig. It shows what the auditorium looks like from the inside (since showing it from the outside would be impossible because of FOP). Santiago is not the subject anyways. Moray An Par (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That image is itself copyrighted (look in the bottom right hand corner of the page, where it says "(c) All Rights Reserved". That means that even if you crop the image, Wikipedia still can't use it, as it would be a non-free image of a living person. Sorry, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputing the accuracy of a document's copyright

I've seen the following document spread in many articles in many languages, however, my most concern is that a large number of internet websites refer to this document on Wikipedia as an accurate source. Wikipedia's reputation is all of our first priority, and I don't see any details about the source of the document. Any fatwa always contains examples and references, so I highly consider this document manipulated; as such a large Scholarly university never made such a claim. Can anyone please verify its copyright! ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks dubious to me, unless Orientalist at de.wikipedia is Abdullah al-Mishadd, there would be no right to release it as CC or GFDL. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Totally logical, but what action am I able to take? This is totally not al-Mishadd's fatwa, as this is his normal style: giving explanations and references.
Of course Orientalist is not al-Mishadd for two simple reasons: (1) al-Mishadd is an Arabic scholar living in Egypt while Orientalist is in Germany, only using de.wikipedia; (2) How can a head-of-scholars of the largest Islamic University, Al-Azhr, solely contributes anti-Islamic edits on Wikipedia?!
I'm not sure why has this document been stable since 2005, and online websites everywhere are using it: trusting the credibility of Wikipedia. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
THe next step would be to nominate it for deletion on commons. Explain the reasoning there, it is either a copyright violation or a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The scan was nominated for deletion in 2007 at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rechtsgutachten betr Apostasie im Islam.jpg and kept on the rationale: The original document is PD as an official document of the Egyptian government, and the free licenses apply to the scan, which is copyrightable under German law (though not under US law). If you want to pursue your question of legitimacy, you should contact al-Azhr. (If it were fake, however, I expect it would have been exposed as such long ago.) As for Wikipedia’s reputation—Wikipedia regards itself as not a reliable source. —teb728 t c 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that you should be making personal assumptions, "it would have been exposed"! Arabs aren't really connected with the western media nor articles. So, I can fabricate any fatwa I want and just claim I have the original and add it to Wikipedia? I'm not disputing it's copyright, but the document itself. I did contact someone in their electronic archive and he told me that they have NOOO fatwas without a reference number. Also, you can realize that any fatwa in the world has citations and explanations, not just death. I think that an editor need to prove a document to upload it to Wikipedia, not prove how to disprove it (as you're suggesting)! I showed here an example of the same scholar's fatwa on smokers on who.int, and the writing and style is nothing alike. ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a deletion nomination would be fruitful after the failer of the previous nomination. Any advice :) ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

use of a copyright cast photo

I am thinking that there is not sufficient justification for the use of the copyright cast photo in this cast listing section, correct? Kristine_(TV_series)#Cast_and_Characters Active Banana (bananaphone 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing the licensing of an image (TV logo)

Hi, Hopefully, I'm asking my question in the right section. I'm the author and designer of the TV logo File:Sidewalks-logo.png and I gave permission for the logo to be used on Wiki. When I did it back in 2006, I listed the image as "public domain." I would like to change it to a copyright tag or some other copyright tag that could be used for a TV logo. Can anybody help me with this? I don't want to change the copyright on my own.

Tvdir (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Once you release it to the public domain, it always stays public domain, and cannot be recinded. A TV logo can certainly be public domain, and so this image can be used for that TV logo purpose. Since you created it you are allowed to grant other licenses to others as well under different conditions If it is a trademark as well you can add the {{trademark}} template.. Another option is to attempt a {{speedydelete|delete requested by author}} tagging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

copyright attribution on images I uploaded

Can you check my uploaded images now to be sure they have enough copyright info as to not be deleted? The wikipedia entry I wrote is for Maurice Bebb and I uploaded 3 images there. I received a bot message and went back to add the copyright line "copyright The Estate of MR Bebb" Is this enough info now? thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Printmkr (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your files are listed at Special:ListFiles/Printmkr. There are four, and none of them has a tag indicating what license the Estate of MR Bebb grants for Wikipedia and everyone else to use them. None of them has an information block giving a description, source, date, and artist. I will give them information giving my guess at the information. But the license tags are absolutely essential, and only you would know what the licenses are. —teb728 t c 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you grant a {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} license by adding that text? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be a good choice if he represents (or is) the copyright owner. —teb728 t c 09:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Which licensing tag should be used to claim fair use for an image of a fictional character from a work of prose?

Simply put, I want to upload an image from a 1948 issue of Astounding Stories to illustrate the article on "The Mule", an important character in Asimov's Foundation series. The article is currently illustrated by a 1960s paperback book cover, which bears little similarity to the character as actually described by the author (and probably lacks an appropriate rationale for use in this article). The "non-free character" template does not apply, because that covers only characters from visual media. The character's physical appearance is discussed in the article, and is (in-universe) a significant plot point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is no specialized template, there is always {{non-free fair use in|article}}. Or you might check if the copyright on that issue was renewed in 1976. —teb728 t c 07:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If the prose work was originally published without illustrations, there is no need for a character illustration at all. A fictional character from a prose work exists entirely in the medium of text and has no visual existence beyond that, except in the reader's imagination. It's not supposed to. Any later illustration is only secondary and cannot possibly have any significant relevance for the analysis and interpretation of the original work – and it would be replaceable with any arbitrary self-made illustration too. A prose text can and should be adequately discussed without recourse to such images. If lack of illustration didn't impede understanding the original work of literature, it can't impede our critical discussion of it either. The only exception would be if the later illustrations are historically so important that they become an object of encyclopedic discussion in their own right, for instance in a "reception" section that traces the images of a character through different stages of its publication history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's from the original publication, and has a real-life model, as discussed in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I still think you're pushing the boundaries of fair use pretty strongly there. Campbell may have approved the use of that illustration, but that doesn't mean that Asimov did so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
In terms of fair use, how is it different from the image currently in the article, or the image at Arkady Darell? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the other one, as not fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons: How much "remixing" allowed

CC-BY(-SA) allows for remixing and adapting, two words used by CC in their license ([7]), but I haven't been able to find what kind of remixing is allowed. In fact, the word "remix" kind of confuses me. Is there a point where images can be too altered? Anyway, my question is this: if there is an image of a currently-living celebrity and their eyes are looking in a ridiculous direction, but otherwise the portrait is fine—and were the image licensed as CC-BY and uploaded to Commons—would I be in my right to "move" the eyes and have them looking in a more natural position, like at the camera? I'm curious if this is allowed within CC (and even BLP) jurisdiction. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to make such a derivative under the CC license. Whether it is suitable for Wikipedia will depend on whether the result is realistic, and encyclopedic. Hopefully you are not misrepresenting the important facts in the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I would make sure the result was realistic and non-misrepresenting. The author of the image in question hasn't responded to my email, so it most likely won't ever happen, but I was definitely interested in knowing. It would actually help represent the artist a lot more (one of those moments when someone rolls their eyes and the picture is taken at the worst possible moment.) Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 14:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hashim Khan Life

Hashkjldfafhnjsghksdfbvgkerhtfklsfdhgjsklgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.7.77 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You are probably asking something about Hashim Khan, but I can't tell what coding you are using for your post. I can't even tell if it is in Urdu, Pashto or what. —teb728 t c 06:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Coin" combining two PD elements

When the Eisenhower dollar was under consideration in 1969, Krause Publications (they do hobby newspapers) made a mockup of what it might look like, to be found here. They combined the portrait from the Eisenhower presidential medal struck by the Mint, unquestionably PD, with the lettering from the Franklin half dollar also undoubtedly PD, and tweaked the date slightly (probably used the first three digits from a 1960 to 1963 half's date with a "9" taken from a 1949 or 1959 half). Is the resultant work in the public domain? Keep in mind it is not three dimensional, as this "coin" was never struck, they just did the 1969 version of Photoshop.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe not, because this is a derivative work in which Krause would retain copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It could be under copyright. Public Domain Sherpa notes that derivative works of Public Domain works can still be copyrighted.

"... If the already existing work is in the public domain ... then only the new material that’s been added to it is entitled to copyright protection. The original work remains in the public domain. Just remember that the new material added by the derivative author is not in the public domain."

So, in my humble opinion, the combination of the two as published in the newspaper may be copyrighted. However, if you were to do something similar (i.e. "take inspiration from" the work and create your own, not "copy") it might be acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though the caption could be interesting ... thank you both for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload this?

Can I upload screen captures from the video and PDF from this site: http://www.amisom-au.org/article-84 It says "RESTRICTIONS: NONE" Hamza-nor (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume that is a copyright license release. It should be more clearly stated than "None". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems that AMISOM has copyrighted that work. At the bottom of the page it says (C) AMISOM 2011, and their pictures on Flickr are all copyrighted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use: can a vintage advertisement be used to illustrate historical language usage?

Specifically, File:Nigger and pink cardigan in UK magazine advert circa 1948.jpg in the article Nigger. I added the image to the article to illustrate a British usage of that word which appears to have been considered quite acceptable at the time but obviously would not be nowadays. Another editor reverted and said that the fair use rationale does not cover that use of that image. I would contend that it does because it is the advertisement itself and its use of that word which is the subject of commentary, and for the reasons explained in the fair use rationale, but since this unusual case could be something of a grey area which is not described in current guidelines I would appreciate some additional opinions on the matter. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of the full image would almost certainly not be allowable. A cropped portion showing only what you wish to illustrate might be allowable under "fair use" as not impacting the value of the copyright, where a full image might be a violation. IANAL, but had to deal with copyright issues at CompuServe. Collect (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it falls under fair use I do not believe the image can be copped for the purpose of illustrating the acceptable use of the word nigger. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It is almost certainly not complying with our criteria as a free alternative could easily be found, (copyright expired) and it could be explained in text too. So it would not be needed to aid understanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment. It is rather difficult to make the case here that an image of published text is necessary to explain the meaning or significance of the text. This use appears to be intended more to demonstrate verifiability, which is neither required by WP:V, which is satisfied by a simple citation, or generally allowed under the NFCC. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In the United States, advertisements published in a collective works (magazine, newspaper, etc) are not covered by the collective works copyright and need an explicit copyright notice in the ad. See Commons Image casebook. Most US advertisements before 1989 are public domain. I don't know the UK rules. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. In the UK, a separate copyright notice in the ad itself is not required for it to be copyright: however, if no creator is identified the copyright expires 70 years after publication (as opposed to 70 years after their death if the photographer and/or designer(s) were identified), so it seems I can't use this till 2019. In the meantime I'll put a mention in the article with a citation, though it would work better with the picture so I'll put a note in my diary for 1st January 2019 :-) Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui.jpg

Dear sir I have tried to add the photo to the article 'Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui', but the same has not been added.It is because of copyright. I have personally talked to the economist in this regard and he has no objection to add the photo in the article. If you still have any objection in this regard, the economist (Najatuallah Siddiqui ) told me to contact him on "(email removed fro privacy)". As we do not no HTML well, so it becomes difficult for us to add the photo in right way. Thanking you one again Sana_commerce28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sana commerce28 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You have already made a request to upload this image at the FFU page, actually twice, so let them deal with it there. We don't contact people for you; it is your job to get them to give their WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Film trailers from prior to 1964 and public domain

I recently (boldly) uploaded this picture to the Commons. It is a Photoshopped combination (i.e. derived work) of two screenshots from The Seven Year Itch's trailer, which seems to be in public domain because it was released prior to 1964 and never copyrighted separately; therefore, the chance to register it for copyright has expired (1955 + 28 = 1983). I am basing my reasoning off of a couple other The Seven Year Itch uploads by other editors and this site. Could someone take a look and let me know what they think about the status of the trailer? Should it be on Commons? Thanks. This was copied and pasted here from User:Moonriddengirl's talk page per her suggestion Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps most importantly, is there a case or something definitive that we can use? The file is being considered for use with the article White dress of Marilyn Monroe on DYK, so a quick response would be much appreciated. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
More details of this question are at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Public domain and movie trailers. --Orlady (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Rules

Can an image of a historically important dead person be used in a Wikipedia article specifically about that person if the image is low resolution and cropped? Doesn't this meet Fair Use rules covered by U.S. law and Wikipedia policy for using Fair Use images?--Orygun (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If for example, an existing free image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, the use would fail WP:NFCC#1. An image from a commercial source might fail WP:NFCC#2. Multiple non-free images likely would fail WP:NFCC#3. If it has not been published previously, it would fail WP:NFCC#4. —teb728 t c 19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You need to check out the non-free content criteria, which consist of 9 independent criteria that must all be met. In the case you have been disputing on FFD, the issue is with WP:NFCC#2, commercial opportunities. An image that is being actively marketed for commercial licensing by an image agency such as Reuters or Getty, we can't easily claim fair use. The only justification we'd have in such a case would be if we have a need to actually discuss the image itself as an object of encyclopedic coverage in its own right, but not if we are just using it to illustrate an article about something or someone else (i.e. on the person that the image shows). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you see if these guys can help? The image here [8] probably came from one of their alumni publications, and they may give you enough information about the source to show it might be allowed here. Or they might have one of their own, from a reunion or something. Some of these groups never throw anything away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Using images from an out-of-country thesis

There's a useful, simple diagram that I'd like to use that's from someone's thesis in The University of Melbourne in Australia, but I'm not quite sure about the copyright policy with theses from other countries. Can I upload the picture without contacting the author or university? Is it not enough to give him credit and reference his thesis? Here's a link to his thesis: Interfacial Effects on Aqueous Sonochemistry and Sonoluminescence --Aolzick (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems you must log in to view the file. I can't open it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyright applies to theses just like any other writings, so unless you can see a copyright license grant, it is not free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/May&oldid=1091466444"