Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/February

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Copyrights in images

I was wondering, can we use images that are copyrighted provided we have the permission of the copyright holder? Thanks.Ingdalevri (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:CONSENT and note that we need permission for all purposes - permission limited to use only on Wikipedia is insufficient.--ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Official White House portraits

Are official US presidential portrait paintings PD-USGov? These are commissioned works but the painters do not in most cases appear to be "employees" of the federal government, so I don't really see how PD-USGov would apply. File:Official White House Portrait of George W. Bush.jpg was recently uploaded, ostensibly as non-free, but with a clearly false FUR, used in at least two articles where non-free use is clearly inappropriate, and with no FUR at all for the one where it just marginally might be. Earlier portraits, such as File:Ghwbush.jpeg and File:Bclinton.jpeg, are on Commons and claimed as PD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg (but other images on Commons haven't followed through on the notice thing, I don't think.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sports logos in other articles

I barely don't understand NFCC so I'm asking a dumb question here. Can an image of a defunct sports team (ex: File:PhiladelphiaStarsCapLogo2.png) be used on the team's page (ex: Philadelphia Stars (baseball)) and a smaller image on a page of a list of teams in that league (ex: list of Negro league baseball teams)? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.220.19 (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

On the team article, yes (since that was the logo used by the organization and thus an appropriate means to represent it), but not on a list or table. It's only being used for identification which is only acceptable on the article on the group, not on a larger list article. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Dang. Thank you for your reply. Rgrds. --64.85.220.19 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

May I post medical images without any identifying information?

Hello-

I am a radiologist and I would like to supply images to the Wiki articles on a number of diseases with CT and MRI images. I have removed any identifying information from the images (all text, any meta information) so that they are anonymized. May I post those images?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinchip (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright on the images? --Jayron32 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As well as the copyright issue, is this in line with your profession's ethical guidelines? Without knowing what the images depict, it seems reasonable to obtain the patients' permission before uploading images of their diseases onto one of the most popular websites. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hikikomori

Can anybody check if I did it rightly to upload that picture to the article hikikomori? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you cannot use copyrighted images in Wikipedia articles except under a very limited number of reasons. The image should be removed and deleted. The only time you should use an image copied from a TV show is in the specific article about that specific TV show, and even then the images should be relevent to specific text within the article, not merely to "decorate" the article with pictures from the show. --Jayron32 02:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know if now the picture that I uploaded to the article is right. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No, just like your previous image there is no evidence this image is freely licenced so we can't use it unless you get the permission of the copyright owner. A free image can be made, so any non-free image is unacceptable per WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

what kind of license do i need?

This may sound like an obvious question but I've never done this before. I have a photo of an actress friend, she gave me to put on her wikipedia page. I'm not sure what type of license it is when a friend just gives you a photo of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmarsh2k (talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The copyright holder of this photo (maybe your friend herself, maybe the photographer or some company representing her) needs to provide this photo under a suitable open license via a recognizable, clear email. See WP:CONSENT for more details about the procedure and information about appropriate licenses. GermanJoe (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Violated my copyright

Hi,
It violated my copyright. Fragment taken from here:

I do not object to use. But, without attribution - it is bad. Please paste the link. // Mammadov JM (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please specify the page(s) within either of these two that contain material improperly appearing within Pronoun#The views of different schools. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I am looking into this. What I found was that 72.21.131.202 removed the reference to the second work, I have restored the reference, and added your first reference. Is that part now satisfactory for your release to CC-BY-SA-3.0 license? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Do not mind. // Mammadov JM (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort Yourselves Out!

When are you people going to get your act together? I create media for an article, tag it as I'm supposed to and a year later someone else comes along and tells me that my own work will be deleted over copyright.

If you don't want people to contribute to Wikipedia just say so, rather than making us try to infer it from your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.22.56 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you tell us specifically what media you are referring to we can tell you why there is/was a problem and how it can be rectified. We are always very happy to accept freely licenced media and welcome those contributions every day. We also have to deal with many problematic media. It may be that you omitted some small details that brought your contribution into question and that may well easily be solved. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

USB Trident logo... a trademark? copyrighted?

Hi, I realise that using it in the way it is being used on this site is considered Fair Use regardless of the answer to my question, but I was wondering whether this logo is an actual trademark (seeing as USB was created by a group of unrelated companies) or is copyrighted, and if so, who owns it? The reason I ask is because on the "licencing" part of the page for it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USB_Icon.svg ), it says that it can't be copyrighted because of genericness of the design (although it looks recognisable and individual enough to me to warrant being copyrightable) and is Public Domain, but it goes on to say it is a Trademark... can anyone explain this to me please?

I can't find reference to it at usb.org except in answer to "can I use the High Speed USB logo on our connectors" they've said "you should use the USB Trident logo". They don't even show a picture of that logo on the site alongside all their other logos.

Sorry if this isn't the place to discuss this. Please don't flame-grill me or whatever it is the younguns say. Musophil (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Trademark laws apply. Unsure whether this passes originality threshold or not, but, I learn from Universal Serial Bus that American companies developed the USB, as well as one Japan and one Canadian. I'm sure that Canada and Japan put threshold at high standards of copyright eligibility. If free from copyright, you can derive it, but do not use it as a true identity of the USB. Doing so violates trademark. --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation of text from other-language Wikipedias?

My edits to Tales of Moonlight and Rain have come under some fire from an IP user who appears to believe that incorporating text translated from Japanese Wikipedia is a copyright violation. I was under the impression that being open about the translation in edit summaries and/or on the talk page was enough to cover the attribution issue, since Japanese Wikipedia is free-to-use the same as English Wikipedia. However, the IP and I appear to have interpreted WP:COPYWITHIN#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects differently. I understand that by not specifically citing the version and date of the Japanese text I had translated within my edit summary may have been a technical violation, and I apologize for this gaffe.

The issue is slightly complicated by the fact that at the time I produced the translation I could only finish half of it. I placed the other half of the original Japanese text in the form of a WP:COMMENT with the intention of coming back later or leaving it for someone else to finish. Since this is obviously not claiming the work of another as my own, and the text does not appear on the Wikipedia article itself (it's hidden in the code), I really don't see how that could violate copyright.

Finally, if any of the above (not properly formatting my citation of ja.wiki, copy-pasting text in the form of a comment) is in fact a CO violation, I must admit to having previously violated these rules on Nijō family ([1]), Satō Tadanobu ([2]), Ochiai Naobumi ([3]), Izumi Shikibu ([4]) and probably a few others. I apologize for this, and if what I have done merits some kind of punishment then I humbly ask for leniency in light of my obvious good faith and my prior ignorance of the rules.

elvenscout742 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Heian literature is also almost entirely translated from Japanese Wiki (I embellished the details a bit with reference to other Wikipedia articles, etc.), and I recently added the rest of the Japanese text in the form of a comment. (Although in that case, the copy-pasted text is not original prose: it's a list of titles and dates.) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This form of derivative is allowed due to the original being released under a cc-by-sa license too. Since you linked to the source this is adequate credit. One other option to use is the Template:Translated page used with {{translated page|source language code|source page title|version=123456789|insertversion=987654321|section=name}} on the article talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Aerial Photography

I came across a Japanese government website with a large amount of aerial photography of Japan. They have put copyright notices on the pages/images. Am I correct that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, those photos taken during and before the war by the Japanese military would be PD under PD-Japan-oldphoto? They also have photos taken by the US military in 1947 and 1948 (during the American occupation). Those would be PD-USGov? Cckerberos (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese photos are in the public domain in Japan as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. In order to be in the public domain in the United States, they must have been published somewhere without full US copyright formalities (such as notices and renewals). If the photos are unpublished, or only published with full formalities, then they are still protected by copyright in the United States. See Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyrights.
The USA photos are in the public domain in the United States as {{PD-USGov}}. Note that ja:Template:PD-USGov redirects to a template stating that the file is unfree, so it seems that Japanese Wikipedia thinks that {{PD-USGov}} isn't valid in Japan, but these photos are free in Japan anyway as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, assuming that they were published when they were taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My copyrights & deletion

Can I nominate my own created and at first freely licensed images for deletion? Or is it really that strict, like said HERE: "I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project."? --Kanakukk (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

I did not manage to find this at the first place: [5]. It says: "You can stop offering your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not affect the rights associated with any copies of your work already in circulation under a Creative Commons license." --Kanakukk (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
Unfortunately not unless there are some extenuating circumstances. Anything you licenced freely stays licenced as such, however if you wish to publish that same material elsewhere, like Flickr, under a more restrictive licence you can do so just as the extract you mention above states. That change would not affect the same material licenced freely to us here at a previous time or even at the same time. According to your history I can't see that you uploaded any files here and most of your contributions are from last year of before, so making a mistake at upload time and wanting to withdraw that licence pretty much at once because you did not understand the implications would not apply either. Can you be more specific with what you are asking about? Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin's BBC interview

Would an expert weigh in here please? --Senra (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  Resolved
 – Though no experts turned up so by that assume what I said was correct :( --Senra (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Journal cover of Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging.gif - No relevant tag for journal covers

Hello, I uploaded File:Journal cover of Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging.gif as the cover of a journal, tried to adhere to the journal writing section, and have uploaded several other journal covers without incident. For some reason this one got picked up by ImageBot, and I was asked to tag it. There are tags for magazines, but not journals. In every other journal I have simply noted the image as the cover of the relevant journal, which this one is too, in the journal template, but have not been asked to tag them. Should I tag it {{Non-free magazine cover}} as there is no

tag? Thanking you Ybidzian (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A journal is a magazine; it's just a specialized form of magazine (I will refrain from any Thersitic sardonicism about pretense and snobbery). Use the magazine template in good health, and thanks for your efforts here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Brandy Norwood performing.jpg

This image looks like a copyright violation. It clearly says the source is Getty Images. — Oz 11:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a commons image and I have nominated it for deletion as a copyvio. ww2censor (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I will note, however, that Getty Images has been known to slap one of their notices on older images which are in fact clearly in the public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Several organisations are guilty, knowingly or not, of such copyfraud though this particular image was rather new so would not fall within that category. ww2censor (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of Scanned book

I would like to use a screen shot taken from an 1889 book in the collection of the Library of Congress that has been scanned by an online *.org for free use.

The broader question is whether there is a distinction between public domain membership and use of a particular image.

Maineshepp (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple scanning of an image which is otherwise in the public domain does not constitute creative effort, and thus there is no copyright in the scan. I would, however, give credit to wherever you got the scan from, just to preserve the chain of evidence, so to speak. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Research photographs

As a researcher, I purchased copy photographs from collections at several libraries. I may have signed agreements not to reuse, but this was 20-30 years ago. As these are all before 1923, am I allowed to upload into Wikipedia? If so, what steps do I take? Maineshepp (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The photos are in the public domain in the United States if they were published before 1923. However, if they are unpublished or first published a long time after they were taken, then they might still be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
What counts as publication? If Maineshepp's library is in the business of copying photographs for paying customers, does that mean it's publishing the photographs? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That's covered in exhaustive detail, oddly enough, in the Wikipedia article publication. Looks to me like they were the publisher, but IANAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The definition in the article Publication is from the Copyright Act of 1976 and should only be used for works published in 1978 or later. The previous law didn't define what "publication" is, leaving this up for US courts to decide. If you are claiming that the photos were published before 1978, then you should see how US courts defined publication at that time and use that definition. See for example Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for some differences between publication before 1978 and publication after 1977. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of Hawker Aircraft photographs taken more than 50 years ago

I am helping a new editor Jonathan Chaplin (talk · contribs) create a biography of his father, Roy Chaplin, an aircraft designer. Jonathan is in procession of Hawker photographs, some taken by Sydney Camm (1893–1966)), that are all over 50-years-old. It is unclear to me whether any or all of these photographs have been previously published, but I would guess they have. Neither am I familiar with copyright as it applies to Wikipedia, nor the copyright law of the United Kingdom. What copyright license tags, if any, can be applied to these photographs? I will notify Jonathan of this thread via the discussion on my talk-page--Senra (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Per Copyright law of the United Kingdom, photos by Camm are still copyrighted for life + 70 years (70 pma); in other words, until the end of 2016, three more years left. I'm unsure about other photos, but ones taken by Chaplin should be okay to share if Jonathan releases it under one of Creative Commons licenses. --George Ho (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I was wrong; 1966 + 70 = 2036. Should be the end of 2036, 23 years from now.
    • Thank you for a quick and mostly informative response. One question: I am unable to divine the relevant meaning of pma from our PMA dab-page, although I do believe I personally own one. What does it mean in this context? --Senra (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • p.m.a. = Post mortem auctoris (after author's peak life). --George Ho (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • On reflection, I am a little confused. You say that "per Copyright law of the United Kingdom, photos by Camm are still copyrighted for life + 70 years". You add "[photos] taken by Chaplin should be okay to share if Jonathan releases it under one of Creative Commons licenses". By Chaplin I take you to mean Roy Chaplin? [A]: If so, could one of Sydney Camm's surviving family release Camm's photos "under one of Creative Commons licenses"? [B]: Still assuming your Chaplin refers to Roy, not Jonathan, an opposite interpretation implies that Roy Chaplin's photos are still under UK copyright which will not expire until 2058; therefore Jonathan cannot release them. Which is correct, A or B? --Senra (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Photos by Roy are inherited to his successor, Jonathan, or any other family member. If not, they are surely inherited to an inheritor. (From what I've heard, Paul McCartney owns songs by Michael Jackson.) Therefore, they should be okay to be released with a Creative Commons license if they allow us to share and use it for free. I'm unsure about ones by Camm; who owns copyright of Camm photos right now? --George Ho (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As for "A", I hope that Camm's surviving family member or inheritor of Camm's photos releases it into Creative Commons. If you put it that way, I hope I'm right about "A" and B. --George Ho (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@George Ho: Thank you --Senra (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

PD-UKGov

I have just noticed that a pre-existing Wikimedia commons image, File:Hawker Hurricane before maiden flight 1935.jpg, is licensed under {{PD-UKGov}}. An owner of images not yet uploaded, Jonathan Chaplin (talk · contribs), says that his "images [are] of both Roy Chaplin and Hawker aircraft" and "the images are all over 50 years old" (see this thread). Can Jonathan's images of Hawker military aircraft be licensed under {{PD-UKGov}}? --Senra (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find prove that either Camm or Chaplin worked for the Government. If the photo was taken while they were on governmental duty, either a photo was published before 1963 or taken before 1957. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Camm (1944): I'm not a copyright expert which is why I am asking here. Isn't the development of the Hurricane by Hawker's, against Air Ministry specification F.7/30, working for the government? If an image of an early type of Harrier, in RAF markings, can be licensed as owned by NASA (File:Hawker P. 1127 - NASA.jpg), why can't images taken by Sydney Camm and Roy Chaplin be licensed under {{PD-UKGov}}? I very much doubt that that Harrier image was taken by NASA. Link to very low resolution version of "Camm (1944).jpg" is temporary and may be deleted at any time--Senra (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(As an opinion, IANAL, etc.) In general, no. While contractors very often produced photos that fall under Crown Copyright, the copyright of these was generally pretty clearly marked as such at the time (and official file numbers are a strong hint). Aircraft photo copyright has generally been a pretty clear area in the UK since the 1920s, because these were commercially valuable photos and so a network of photo libraries sprang up and they were careful about recording their own material. Crown Copyright was no exception. As Chaplin was a civilian employee of Hawker, personal photos that he took would leave copyright with him, not Crown Copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think you're trying to equate a private firm working on a government contract with a government employee taking official photographs in the pursuit of their official duties. Camm and Hawker were not government employees therefore PD-UKGov is not applicable (As an aside the Harrier photo was probably taken by a US official on duty hence it being covered by the licence it has). However there may be a solution; if Jonathan uploads the photos to Commons there is a Commons template PD-heirs which covers Jonathan as Roy's heir releasing the images into the public domain. To do the same for images taken by Camm the release would have to be from an heir of Camm's. NtheP (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  Resolved
 – Thank you. Upload to commons with license PD-heirs --Senra (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Question on a website's terms of use, if they comprise a suitable license

I'm very interested in using the coin images from a website, here are their terms of use. Can I and how if so?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Since that is not a free license, we cannot host them here except under our fair use rules, which are somewhat restrictive. Since I don't know the image and article, I can't give an opinion on whether use would satisfy the fair use rules. Obviously, since Wikipedia doesn't offer legal advice, I can only refer to whether their use would satisfy Wikipedia policies, not whether you would be violating that website's terms of use by using the images. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a chance it would satisfy fair use. But I've emailed them asking for a release under a CC license, we'll see. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with copyright info

I uploaded this new image I made myself (I'm new to uploading images), it's made by me and I'm trying to add this information or else it'll get deleted.

the file is File:East Asia mosaic.jpg PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Assuming you got most of those images from Wiki or Commons, it's quite simple. Check if all images have suitable free licenses and provide links to them in your image summary (for example formats see the collages on top of Boston or Chicago). I'd suggest to leave out images, which have incomplete or otherwise somewhat questionable licenses or summary information and use only clearly licensed images. In short, collage collections need to provide information about every single partial image, atleast with some link to further info. GermanJoe (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne Manford

Jeanne Manford has been awarded the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal. It is a posthumous award as she died earlier this year. In this announcement at the whitehouse.gov site there is a nice face photo of her, which I think would be good for the article. Does the fact that it is on the white house site with no credit mean that it is a work of the US government and thus public domain? I don't want to upload a copyvio (obviously) but I don't see how I tell what is and is not copyrighted on a US government site like whitehouse.gov. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The US Government tends to be really good at identifying who created official photos in their captions, so if they aren't specified as having been created by a government employee, they probably weren't. These photos look like photos which were provided to the White House by the award recipients and/or whoever nominated them. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. A follow-up, if I may: could I reasonably assert a fair-use upload of Manford's picture for her infobox given that File:Jeanne Manford marching with her famous sign in a Pride Parade in 1972.jpg is copyright and already used? EdChem (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Not really because there is already a non-free image that identifies her in the article (yes I know the image is small) and WP:NFCC#3a requires minimal use so the new image you point to will essentially only serve the same purpose of identification. We cannot prove the whitehouse image is freely licenced so it would have to comply with all 10 non-free criteria and it can't unless you can prove otherwise. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Old photos from private family collection, creator unknown

I want to upload photographs portraying the life of my grandfather. He died in 1967 in India. Many pictures have always been in the family collection, having been passed through 2 generations. These pictures were always private and have never been published. The photographer is in all cases unknown, presumably a family friend or visitor. The first picture is of 1914, the last of 1959. I understand that except for the 1914 picture, all the others are not in the Public Domain. But I don't see that anybody else could or will ever claim copyright on these pictures. I am legally the owner of the photos. So - what is there to be done, if the photographer is unknown and highly unlikely to ever become known? Thanks. Example: File:V. A. Sundaram in the late 1930s.jpg Thanjavoor (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on this information you provided above you would probably be best to upload your images to the commons where they have an heirs copyright tag PD-heirs that seems more appropriate. We don't have such a copyright tag here. Just make sue to provide a much information as possible. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
That template is irrelevant here - it's for heirs of the copyright owner, (yes, it said "creator", I just adjusted it), not for heirs of the person depicted. As for the copyright status, ownership of the physical photo is meaningless with respect to copyright, though publication status can make a difference. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You are correct Phil. ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • These can only be uploaded if you are the legal heir to the photographer, and you wrote that the photographer might be an unidentified visitor in some cases. I assume that the photos are unpublished. In the United States, unpublished anonymous photos enter the public domain 120 years after the photos were taken. If you wish to upload the photos to Commons, then you need to verify that the photos also are in the public domain in India, where photos enter the public domain 60 years after the photos were first published with permission from the copyright holder, with the inconvenient consequence that unpublished photos don't enter the public domain in India at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright for news channel

Copyright for news channel with literary work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.108.83.207 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what specifically you are asking about. The general answer is that whoever created the content owns a copyright on it; so that in order to use it you need a license from the copyright owner. Wikipedia policy requires that in order to use it on Wikipedia the license must allow reuse by anyone for anything. Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 07:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing image description page

Hello, I am currently creating an entry for a musical group and uploaded an image in which I did not disclose the copyright status or the source. I know both the source and the copyright status but do not know how to edit the image description page. Where do I include this information? Will I have to re-upload the image under a different file name?

Thanks!

Benjips (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You are asking about File:Lemaitre.png, right? I have provided the basic sections for you. So edit that page, removing the {{di-no source no license}}, filling in the {{information}} parameters, and adding the appropriate license tag to the Licensing section. —teb728 t c 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Desperately need instruction

I find the tagging of pictures to indicate copyright on Wikipedia quite confusing. Currently I have a private picture which illustrates part of an article. I am happy for anyone to use this free of charge.

What I desperately need is instruction on how to upload and label a picture. I have no idea where the copyright tags go. Help please, with my apology for not undwrstanding what might be obvious to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purge Watcher (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you need is a free license (one that allows anyone to reuse the picture for anything). If you created the picture by yourself without basing it on any other work, you are the copyright owner, so you can grant any of the licenses at WP:ICTIC. Unless you prefer a different license, I recommend Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
If you did not create the picture yourself or you based it on another work, you have to get a free license from the copyright owner. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission.
When you have a license, you put the license tag on the image description page. For example, for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License, you use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}.
Without a free license a picture can be used only under the restrictive Non-free content criteria. (Among the restrictions, non-free content is allowed only if the use significantly increases reader understanding.) For non-free use you use a non-free use tag instead of a license tag; the tag to use depends on what kind of picture you are using. In addition you must provide a Non-free use rationale.
You haven't told which of these categories (own work, licensed work of another, non-free) your picture is in; so I can only answer generally. —teb728 t c 09:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to expand a little on what teb728 has said, while we do prefer the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License, you should be aware that this allows anyone to take your picture, modify it (such as taking a composite and merging it with another photograph as a montage, for examples), and sell those modifications to others. However, it's the easiest licence to run with here, as all you need to do is :
  1. Click on "Upload file" on the left hand menu from here
  2. Select "Click here to start the file upload wizard"
  3. Ensure "This is a free work" followed by "This file is entirely my own work" are checked
  4. Fill out the remainder of the details, which should be self explanatory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots from episodes

Is there any tag for screenshots from television episodes paralell to {{Non-free film screenshot}}? If not, we should either create one, or change the wording in this template to include episodes; otherwise, files like this one will have a tag which looks inappropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

assessment in the classroom

assessment in the classroom by Salvia/ Ysseldyke & Bolt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.196.123 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What is your question about media copyrights? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Lemaitre Photo

Hello,

I have explicit permission from the group Lemaitre to use this image for their Wikipedia page I am creating and permission by the author, Johannes Greve Muskat, to use, change, and attribute this to him (Creative Commons License 3.0). I have the message they have sent me for verification if the need to provide it is required. Please let me know what the problem was.

I downloaded it directly from Lemaitre's Facebook page as they themselves linked it to me. I can find it on a different website if that is the problem. Please let me know what I can do to fix this issue and prevent this or any other issue to happen again. Here are the steps I took when uploading the picture:

1. Name 2. Provided Author's name and link to Author's work 3. Provided Source and Source link 4. Provided License Information

Let me know if the above is insufficient to satisfy the copyright criteria.

I'd like to also know how I can get the image from the copyright owner. Suppose the owner has poor knowledge of Wikipedia and cannot upload the picture? How are they to do this? How can I make sure it comes from the copyright owner? I would like to avoid this issue next time I upload a picture.

Thank you so much!

Benjips (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please review the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Basically, we need to have the copyright holder (not you) send an email message to our OTRS to affirm the Creative Commons license, after which it will be fine. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You should also be aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional facility per WP:NOTPROMOTION and articles about groups must have proven notability. Also of you are doing work for them you will likely have a conflict of interest and should edit appropriately. Currently the image File:Lemaitre.png is not used in any articles and has no source or licence information. As stated above we need the copyright owner's WP:CONSENT to be verified. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for how I may have come across but I want to make clear that I am not doing work for them; I am doing this by myself but have asked several separate sources for an appropriate image to use. I will contact the sources to see if they can provide consent for the picture's use. The article also satisfies the notability criteria but would like to have it verified before hand. Is there a manner through which I verify if my article satisfies notability per Wikipedia standards? Thank you for your help! Benjips (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How does one indicate having copyright permission?

Hello, the photographer Karen Mackenrot has allowed for this file to be used File:darrenentwistle.jpg but it is currently marked for deletion. What are the tags/format needed to indicate its legitimacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamptonpl (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is File:DarrenEntwistle.jpg, not File:darrenentwistle.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The facebook image you have linked to does not show it to be freely licenced so you will have to get the copyright holder to verify the permission your claim that the photographer is giving by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Image tags- Tampa Bay Tritons

For the Tampa Bay Tritons logo image, im not to sure what tag to use. Could i please get some help? Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added an appropriate rationale and licence for you. ww2censor (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

US Poster for A Stranger Came Home (1954)

I wanted to replace the en.wiki-uploaded poster at A Stranger Came Home with a high-resolution copy found at this location (large file). (Note that the film was released as The Unholy Four in the US.) There is no copyright on the poster, except for a phrase that stops me in my tracks: "Property of National Screen Service Corp., licensed for display..." on the very bottom right. Is that a form of a copyright notice? According to Creative Clearance, this lobby card is basically free of copyright and I can go ahead and upload it to Commons. I just wanted to double check before doing so. Thanks so much! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • If it's English make sure the poster art was not the same as the English poster, as the English poster would still be copyrighted. If there is no copyright symbol and explicit copyright notice (Doctor Macro has some which are possibly copyrighted and some which are not), it is fine. Compare the featured picture File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg, also from Dr. Macro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
But if the English poster art is nothing like this, yes it is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I will go searching for the English poster of the movie. (Hopefully I can find it.) But now you have me really worried about two other images—I'll put them in a level-3 header below. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My above comment was related to posters, although film stills also may be copyrighted. I said "possibly copyrighted" as the posters' copyright may not have been extended. I've uploaded something like 20 posters from Dr. Macro, although I downloaded over 100 looking for the free ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A Stranger Came Home publicity photographs

Crisco 1492, thank you for your advice above. If the English poster for this title is still under copyright (is this a URAA thing? I have a difficult time understanding all the rules), then what would be your opinion on these two images of Paulette Godard, #1 and #2? The film was produced by the British Hammer Film Productions, in association with the American company, Lippert Films. So I have no idea what country these photographs were taken in (and I'm only assuming they're even from 1954 because they were labeled as such by the Dr. Macro submitters who scanned them). There's no copyright information on the photographs anywhere... but it sounds like I may be misunderstanding the copyrights for English products here. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • If these pictures were first published in Britain with a copyright notice, then they would have had their copyrights extended by the URAA in the US; in Britain they'd still be copyrighted. If they were published without a copyright notice (you need to see the backs to be sure), they would be PD in the US but not Britain — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So either way, they're PD in the US, then? I had no idea how difficult this would be. The only way to check the backs of the images would be to find out who scanned them and contact them, asking them to check, I suppose. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • This poster is only in the public domain in the United States if it was first published in the United States. If it was first published in the United Kingdom, then it is not in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
      • So presumably the same thing would apply for the publicity photographs of Paulette Goddard? As for the poster, I can't prove the poster was published first in the US, although it's for the US-titled movie (it changed titles), so maybe it was first published in the US. But I have no way of figuring out how to prove it, so I'm dropping the poster for now. But I'm really interested in keeping the images of Paulette Goddard, which I've already uploaded to commons (#1 and #2). I emailed Dr. Macro in hopes of finding out if these images have a copyright notice on the back, but I'm not really hopeful of a reply. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Very simple screenshots in non-articles

I'm writing a user page about my library for accessing the Wikipedia API. I would like to add screenshots from Microsoft Visual Studio showing how autocompletion works with the library, e.g. [6]. The screenshot is quite simple and I belive most of its elements are not copyrightable. Would it be okay if I uploaded it to Wikipedia or Commons? According to Wikipedia:Software screenshots, it probably wouldn't. Does that also apply to screenshots that are this simple and don't contain pretty much any copyrightable design or text? 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley Photo

Hello :)

Jeff Buckley

I wanted to let Wikipedia know that the photo of Jeff Buckley is actually a different photo then the source information gives. - Jeff Buckley Current Photo ------ Photo currently in use - Jeff Buckley Source Photo ------ Source Photo

I must tell you that the photo provided with the source is by far a better picture of Jeff Buckley and I highly suggest someone to change the current photo if possible. Some of my friends agreed that he actually looked like he came from prison and that's so horrible for so beautiful man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannzi3 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Both images you refer to are linked from this website page and we have to assume they are all copyright so we can only use one under our fair-use policy. BTW it is usually best to link to the page images are available from and not deep link directly to the image itself because it is not always possible to find the originating page which may have additional useful information. Perhaps you should discuss which image best represents him on the article's talk page, then upload that one image and get this one deleted as it will then be an orphaned image. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Roch_night.JPG

I would like to know how to obtain the copyright release and high resolution file for the following image: File: Roch_night.JPG Thank you for your time, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photomike24 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are already free to use the image subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. You can see this if you click through to the image and look at the description page on commons. However if you want to use it in other ways or a higher resolution it is best to ask Phthalogreen. You can use email at commons:Special:EmailUser/Phthalogreen or the talk page at commons:User talk:Phthalogreen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Usfbulls newlogo.png

Does this image meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Arguably yes. That's beyond simple text and shapes. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Masem. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know???

Help Me! I want to upload a photo from Taipei EasyCard Corparation website(http://www.easycard.com.tw/english/index.asp) but I saw they have the Copyright@2013 EasyCard Corparation Can I Still Upload It? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoyomousamerican (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you cannot simply upload copyrighted material without permission from the author. And fair use would require that the photograph in question helps the reader significantly to understand the Wikipedia article and it can't be replaced with a free image that was taken by someone else. So I don't see how a photo from their website would meet our criteria for non-free use. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Google images

How would you go by copyrighting a picture you got from Google on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjryb (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Most images you find online, from Google or other searches, are copyright to someone, so for us to use them we have to verify they are freely licenced and most are not. There is an advanced Google search "Advanced Image Search" that allows you to choose the type of licencing. At the bottom left there is a "usage rights" section and the sub-menu selection you need to choose is "free to share, use or modify, even commercially". Even then you need to verify the copyright statement as there are also sometimes false licencing. Then look at the webpage where the image is displayed, not just the image itself, and see if there is a statement indicating the image is freely licenced. Many pages will have a copyright notice, but just because there is no copyright notice does not mean an image is freely licenced. If you are not sure just ask someone here to have a look for you. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An article is using an external link which contains copyrighted material used without authorization

If an article on Wikipedia is using an external link as a reference which contains copyrighted images used without authorization from the original copyright holder, can I request Wikipedia to remove the reference from the article? 27.251.75.18 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While we cannot give you any legal advise, such an issue may be a legal one between the copyright holder and the person/website hosting the copyright material. We are not hosting anything that is copyright just by having an external link. If they get that taken down then the link will be dead and it will likely be deleted after that fact is noticed. However, if you can find a better link you can always substitute it. Would a link or reference to the original book/website/article really be any different? We have many references to copyright books and newspapers but we don't knowingly host such material and when it is found we delete it. Would you expect the New York Times or any other newspaper would ask us not to link to their stories as references because they hold the copyright? I don't see a problem unless someone else has a better take on this. If you can be more specific we can have a look at it for you. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Arguably a lot of sources we use include images that are presumed fair use for reporting and education but otherwise technically in copyright violation, so assuming that the content on the linked site in question reasonably meets the fair use laws for that country, we shouldn't hesistate to include that. (eg if the site is in the US where fair use is pretty open, and the article uses a few screenshots to discuss a film, for example, that's just fine. On the other hand, I know of fan sites for popular TV shows that have 200+ screengrabs per episode, questionably outside of fair use). But if you know for sure that the site linked is violating copyright (including falsely relicensing images, using obvious press images as their own, excessive images or other media), then yes, it should be removed. A working example of this is YouTube links which per WP:EL we normally avoid as the bulk of the material on YouTube is of questionable legality - But if you can verify that the uploader is also the copyright holder of the work show, then YouTube can be used as a valid link. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I shall write to OTRS or to the responsible people to remove it. 27.251.75.18 (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube...

YouTube is listed under WP:ELNEVER as a site that may contain copyright-violating material. However, it also has lectures, debates, etc. from respected academics who meet WP:RS. I am asking this here because on the article John 21 I cited a debate involving respected biblical scholar Bart Ehrman as the source for a piece of information I included in the article.[7] However, does WP:ELNEVER actually ban us from linking to YouTube even as a citation when it meets WP:RS? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not that Youtube links are never allowed, just that the majority of them do fail copyright - the account uploading the video has no claim to the video rights. If you think you have a video from youtube that you have reasonable assurance that the video was posted by the account holder that also holds the copyright on the video in question, then it can be used as a valid reference. This does appear to be the case here (the project that hosted this series of debates appears to be the owner of the account that uploaded the video, but this should be double checked), so that video source can be used. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The account that uploaded the video is the Ehrman Project, whose main home page is here. They appear to be linked to Bart Ehrman, who is one of the participants in the debate, and specifically the one I am citing. I doubt they own the copyright to the debate itself, but they are almost certainly the ones who created the video, and whoever recorded the video definitely had permission from the debate organizers (two hours of uninterrupted recording on at least two cameras make it near-impossible that this was a pirate operation). The only real copyright concern would be that the Ehrman Project are not actually the ones who own the copyright on the recording.
However, since Ehrman himself meets WP:RS, and I have seen the debate (no one needs to know where), would it be acceptable for me to just include the citation and blank the YouTube link?
elvenscout742 (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Image lacking verifiable publication date

In Mark Peel's biography of Anthony Chenevix-Trench (published in the 1990s), one of the illustrations is a photo of Chenevix-Trench taken in India in 1923.

Presumably this 1923 photo was developed, printed, mailed round the world, pasted into someone's scrapbook or whatever in 1923, then, sixty years later, scanned for the book. (What a kerfuffle!)

However, if there's no evidence of it having been published in any other way earlier than the 1990s, do we have to assume for copyright purposes that it's still in copyright? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In India, the photo enters the public domain 60 years after it was first published with consent from the copyright holder. If it was first published in the 1990s, and this was with consent from the copyright holder (as opposed to fair use or similar), then it enters the public domain in India 60 years after the 1990s. If the publication in the 1990s wasn't with consent from the copyright holder, then the 60-year period hasn't started yet, unless it has also been published elsewhere. In that case, you need to wait until someone eventually publishes it with consent from the copyright holder and after that wait for an additional 60 years.
In the United States, you need to consider whether the photographer is anonymous or not:
  • Anonymous photographer, published with the consent of the copyright holder in the 1990s, never published before the 1990s: Enters the public domain on 1 January 2048.
  • Anonymous photographer, never published with the consent of the copyright holder: Enters the public domain 120 years after it was taken.
  • Not anonymous photographer, published with the consent of the copyright holder in the 1990s, never published before the 1990s: Enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer or on 1 January 2048, whichever is later.
  • Not anonymous photographer, never published with the consent of the copyright holder: Enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer
If it comes from an unknown source and suddenly popped up out of nowhere, then there's a fair chance that it might not have been published with the consent of the copyright holder and that no one has a clue of who the copyright holder is. In that case, the Indian 60 years from publication term hasn't even started yet.
Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Signature of a fiction character

Does signature of a fiction character have copyright?--Lê talk-contributions 04:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Presumably yes, if the work the character's signature is in is still copyright. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If the signature was published as part of the work of fiction (The Saint comes immediately to mind), there is not only copyright but also possibly trademark registration to consider. If it was made up one day by a fan, then the copyright may belong to the fan, but again the original writer might have some sort of claim as far as impeding his or her right over derivative works. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Why would an (uncopyrightable) name in (uncopyrightable, at least in the US) handwriting get copyright?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I was taking the original poster's word for it that there was in some way a copyrightable aspect to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Given that the fictional character signature may specifically be creatively designed - possibly with the name chosen to make that signature look artistic, we have to assume copyright. Names of characters can be copyrighted - "Sherlock Holmes" for example is still a copyrighted character under the Doyle estate, due to the fact that 10 of 60-odd books remain copyright in the US. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In the US, calligraphy is not copyrightable. The US Copyright Office says right in their FAQ "How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo? Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." (Characters can be copyrighted, though Sherlock Holmes isn't since the first books are out of copyright. Things derived from the later works are controlled by the estate, but not stuff from the pre-1923 works.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
They also confirm: "A signature is not protected by copyright." (even of signature of a fiction character (in a copyrighted work)).--Lê talk-contributions 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Right; cf. commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Company sent me photos to use

I'm working on fixing a for-profit company's Wikipedia article. I sent the company's PR department an email asking for some photos of their recent products (products that are discussed in the Wikipedia article), and they sent me back some photos I'd like to use. But, searching around the web, I see that a couple of the ones I want to use have already been published elsewhere (obviously, the company sends these photos out to media as part of a press kit). Can I still use the photos? If so, how do I handle copyright? Thank you. MartinMartin226 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The owner of the copyright, probably the company, would need to contact the Wikimedia foundation via WP:OTRS and confirm that they want to freely release for everybody the copyright on the images. Specific details are located here Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We can probably use them but that really depends on what licence the company is prepared to release the images under. Assuming they are the actual copyright holder, though that is often the photographer but the copyright of work for hire is usually the person paying for the photos, you need to get the copyright holder to verify a free licence to our OTRS Team by getting them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. They also need to understand that, except in special fair-use circumstances, we only accept freely licenced images which means that anyone can use them for anything including commercial use. BTW, you need to edit carefully and with a neutral point of view because it would appear you may have a conflict of interest. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
For clarification, wouldn't these photos that the company sent me be considered publicity photos? Wouldn't that make them eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use? MartinMartin226 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but publicity photos are normally still copyright and as such are used under the fair-use exception by the people publishing them. Here, we have much a stricter fair-use policy and don't accept such photos unless they are freely licenced. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you so much. MartinMartin226 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Justin Jones performing at the ACL Music Festival, October 12, 2012.jpg

I was informed that the photograph on the article I wrote, Justin Jones (American singer-songwriter) has been removed.

Just to clarify, if I get the person who created the file to use the template given on the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries page and grant us persmission to use the file, will the photograph be put back on the page? Please let me know, thank you. NickV930 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Just get the copyright holder to verify their permission per WP:CONSENT as you linked above, for a freely licenced image and it will be handled by the OTRS Team. They will restore the image if it has been deleted so make sure to give the exact image name that you had uploaded. Be patient because they are usually backlogged by anything up to a month. ww2censor (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this disclaimer allow photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia?

I was perusing the WayBack Machine archive of the Buffalo Bills website, and I came across some photographs with a disclaimer reading:

"This photograph is the property of the Buffalo Bills. Permission for normal editorial use is here-with granted. Permission for reproduction in quantity or for commercial or advertising use must be obtained in writing from the Buffalo Bills Public Relations Department."

Would a photograph unter that disclaimer be eligible for upload under Wikipedia policies? Buffalutheran (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, because it places restrictions on commercial reuse (ie that additional permission is required) and that is incompatible with our licensing requirements.--ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Photograph used in publication

I processed the first step of a permission statement for File:Mrs. Lyle D. Goodhue testing aerosol spray.jpg, concentrating on the fact that the person filing the request was the legal heir of the photographer.

However after doing do, I realized I wasn't looking at the original photo, but a copy of the photo used in a publication. It seems quite plausible that the publisher of Aerosol Technicomment may have acquired the copyright. I don't think the publication exists and more, but I don't know that that matters. What do others think?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The same file is also on Commons as Commons:File:Mrs. Lyle D. Goodhue, household aerosol spray, 1942.jpg where it is listed as a work by the US government, so something is fishy. Maybe it's better to add the {{OTRS received}} tag there too until this has been sorted out? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to dump the entire verification work to Commons but wouldn't this be CSD F8 anyway? De728631 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Dandy Restaurant

I did a search in Google images and found a drawing of a Yankee Doodle Dandy restaurant. I saved it to my computer, but don't know if it's copyrighted and if it can be used on the Yankee Doodle Dandy Restaurant Wikipedia page.

Thanks,

Leonard — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItlnGuy99 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

99.99% of the images you find on the internet are copyrighted by someone (even though they may not have a copyright notice), and unlikely to be usable on Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious idol: Sagar karnataka jpg

This picture File:Sagar karnataka.jpg appears to be identical (same reflective dots) to the one on Flickr taken by Ravindra H on 27 February 2011, http://www.flickr.com/photos/14071985@N00/5519004975/, © All Rights Reserved. I'm not sure how this should be addressed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. Deleted (together with another one by the same uploader). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bhuvanaika Bahu - One massa.png

I received a message for the following files that the copyright licensing tag was correct but that there is no proof of permission. However permission is granted for use in wikipedia and other educational links over the internet at the bottom of the main page here. How can I show permission is granted for the use of these files?--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Permission for "use in wikipedia and other educational links" is not sufficient. We need permission for all purposes including commercial reuse, see WP:PERMISSION. If such permission is not forthcoming, then the images will have to be deleted unless they can be used pursuant to the non-free content criteria.--ukexpat (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ill see what I can do.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2013/February&oldid=1138542405"